Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variances Accessory Structure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission splits 3–2, does not recommend large garage on vacant lot
Summary
By a 3–2 vote the P&Z Commission declined to recommend approval of a variance to allow an accessory garage on a vacant lot without a principal residence and likewise did not forward a positive recommendation for the proposed oversized, taller garage.
The Machesney Park Planning & Zoning Commission on Sept. 22 voted 3–2 not to recommend a variance that would allow an accessory garage on a lot without a principal residence and also did not forward a positive recommendation for a companion size variance to permit a garage larger and taller than village code allows.
Planning staff described the application as two linked requests: one to allow an accessory structure where no principal structure exists and a second to exceed accessory size and height limits. Staff noted village code caps an accessory structure at the smaller of a principal structure footprint, 1,000 square feet, or 10% of the lot area. For the subject 7,220‑square‑foot lot, that 10% calculation yields a 722‑square‑foot maximum, while staff said the applicant proposed a garage of about "1016 80 square feet" and a height of roughly 21.5 feet; staff did not recommend approval of the first variance (no principal structure) and said the size variance would be moot if the first were denied.
Applicant Dalton Myers, sworn for the record, said he bought the lot and lives nearby, stressing the garage would be for personal use and to keep property from being overgrown. "I can see the property from my front door," Myers said, arguing the structure would not be an off‑site business use.
Several commissioners raised concerns about size, height and precedent in the neighborhood; one commissioner said the proposed structure "looks kinda... right on the property line" and others said it is larger than some adjacent homes. On voice and roll‑call votes the commission decided not to recommend the first variance by a 3–2 split; staff noted the P&Z is a recommending body and the items will still be discussed at the Oct. 6 PED meeting but without the commission's positive recommendation.
Vote/Action summary: Ordinance 35‑25 (variance to allow accessory structure without principal structure) did not receive a positive recommendation (3–2). Ordinance 36‑25 (size variance for an accessory structure) likewise moves to PED without the commission's positive recommendation.
Next steps: The Planning & Economic Development committee will consider the variances on Oct. 6.
