Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cary ZPA recommends variance to restore historic porch at 109 Cary Street
Summary
The Village of Cary Board of Zoning, Planning and Appeals voted to recommend that the Village Board approve a variance to reduce an exterior side-yard setback from 30 feet to about 9 feet so the owner can rebuild an enclosed porch that appeared on the building historically.
The Village of Cary Board of Zoning, Planning and Appeals on Oct. 9 recommended that the Village Board of Trustees approve a variance reducing the exterior side-yard setback for an enclosed porch at 109 Cary Street from 30 feet to roughly 9 feet.
The recommendation followed a staff overview from Brian Simmons, the village’s director of community development, who described the property as one of the oldest in the village, built in 1852 and rezoned to B1 (central business district) in 1998. Simmons said the existing multi‑family building is nonconforming along its Spring Street frontage, where the current setback is about 15 feet; the petitioner is seeking to restore a porch that historically existed on the structure.
"It's recommended that ZPA recommend approval of variance to reduce the exterior side yard setback for an enclosed porch from 30 feet to 9 feet," Simmons said. He explained the 30‑foot requirement applies because properties across Spring Street are zoned R2 (single‑family), creating a transition setback; the B1 district generally requires a 0‑foot setback unless adjacent to residential zoning.
Petitioner Jim Prager (identified in the hearing) confirmed he had notified adjacent property owners; Simmons said staff received only a few questions about the zoning sign and "there was no concerns that were expressed." The ZPA opened the meeting for public comment; a member of the public, identified as Miss Hedberg, spoke but did not register opposition in the record.
After limited discussion, the chair asked for a motion to recommend approval "subject to the conditions listed in the staff report." A motion and a second were made; a roll call produced yes votes from members Laughlin, Kretschmer, Rosiano and Corey. The motion carried by a 4‑0 roll call vote, yielding a favorable recommendation to the Village Board.
The chair told the petitioner the favorable recommendation "may get put on the consent agenda" for the Village Board meeting scheduled Oct. 21 and advised the petitioner to stay in touch with Simmons about final placement on that agenda.
The ZPA chair also announced there were no pending applications for the next meeting and that a November meeting was unlikely. The variance recommendation is advisory; any final approval will be made by the Village Board of Trustees and will be subject to the conditions listed in the staff report.
Details recorded in the ZPA staff presentation noted the applicant proposes porch setback reductions along the north and east facades: along Cary Avenue the proposal would comply with the 0‑foot standard (existing ~6 feet to ~2.67 feet with the porch), while along Spring Street the exterior side setback would be reduced from the existing ~15 feet to roughly 9 feet (transcribed as "9 and 2/3 feet" in staff remarks). The petitioner said the work aims to restore the building's historical character.
