Tazewell zoning board approves variance to allow up to four lots, OKs special use for dwelling sites after negotiated conditions

Tazewell County zoning officials voted to allow the Sauder Family Trust to split a single parcel into no more than four dwelling sites and approved a special-use request to permit those sites, following several hours of testimony, negotiations among neighbors, and lengthy debate about setbacks, farm-productivity standards and possible restrictions.

Why it matters: The decisions change how an approximately 25-acre irregular tract along Lake Windermere Road can be used and set a local precedent for how the board weighs the county's soil-productivity standard, neighborhood agreements and conditions negotiated between petitioners and objectors.

The board first voted to vary the code provision that normally limits a single split from one new parcel to allow up to four new parcels. After extended argument over whether the tract meets the zoning code's agricultural productivity threshold (the planner's report cited the site as below the 75%/PI-125 benchmark), the board approved findings that emphasized the property's irregular shape, mixed soil types and the presence of existing lots across the road as factors supporting a variance. The recorded vote on the variance included recorded yes votes from Coopy, McClanahan, Miller, Chairman Hessick and others; Vaughn voted no.

Board members then considered a special-use request to allow the creation of up to four dwelling sites on the newly allowed parcels. Much of the public and board discussion addressed negotiated restrictions objectors sought from the petitioner, including a 600-foot setback measured from the edge of a field to the back of a proposed house (the parties described that as measuring from the field edge, not the centerline of the road), a proposed 75-foot side setback on the east side abutting the Vandenberg property (code minimum is 30 feet), and a proposed 200-foot front setback for the lots facing property on the south side of the road. The board heard that the 600-foot measure was intended to address hunting concerns and to position houses forward on the lots, and that the IDNR funding cited in testimony applies to dwellings rather than outbuildings.

Several neighbors objected to the development, citing concerns about shooting ranges/hunting safety, future unregulated uses, property values and the potential for subsequent owners to place non-residential structures on the lots. Petition representatives and some neighbors negotiated a set of limits: a cap of four dwelling sites (the petitioner's maximum), and the 600-foot rear setback; other proposed setbacks did not achieve unanimous agreement.

The board made a point of distinguishing the two actions: the variance (a zoning-code exception allowing the larger split) and the special-use approval (permission for dwelling sites). Board members discussed that the 75%/PI-125 agriculture-productivity metric in the code can be interpreted in light of irregular parcel shape and topography; testimony included competing soil-productivity measurements and an acknowledgment that the county comprehensive plan has not been updated on its target schedule (last noted update referenced as 02/2011 in staff remarks).

On record votes, the variance was approved (majority yes; Vaughn recorded a no). The subsequent special-use motion also passed by recorded vote (Vaughn No; Miller, Bomb/Ball, Coopy, McManning and others Yes). The board noted that any enforcement or future disputes could be litigated in circuit court, and that the zoning decision is a recommendation/enforcement under county procedures. Staff (Jackie) indicated she would draft the agreed restrictions and record them if the county board and permitting authorities require them before building permits could be issued; building permits will still be contingent on health department, fire and life-safety reviews, septic permits, and other agency approvals cited in testimony.

The board concluded by noting procedural points: the variance decision was limited to allowing up to four parcels, and the special-use vote authorized dwelling sites as described in the application record. The petitioner and objectors were urged to finalize precise restriction language for staff to include with the record going to the county board.

The board adjourned following the vote.