McHenry County hearing recommends forwarding variance to county board to let homeowner build taller accessory structure

Kristen Brand asked McHenry County officials to allow a detached accessory structure up to 25 feet tall on her 2.103-acre property at 7225 Barnard Mill Road in Wonder Lake, saying the space would "give my kids some space" for indoor soccer and winter practice.

At the hearing, presiding hearing officer Michael McNerney outlined the request (application Z25Dash0090) and described the property’s location and parcel identification (PIN 0906227017). Brand said the building interior would use AstroTurf, her children play for NUFC (United Football Club), and she currently has no plans for commercial use but might permit others if allowed. McNerney summarized that "if this request were granted, that would allow the applicant to apply for the building permit for the proposed structure." Brand also said her immediate neighbors had no objections and "are all for it for the kids."

County staff and the hearing officer reviewed zoning and site conditions. The property was described as a two-story residence with a detached garage and a rear shed; wetlands and a flood plain were identified on the far western portion of the parcel. A staff member corrected an earlier report notation and stated the parcel is "R-1 single family residential" (no conditional use or prior variance on the property) and said she otherwise had no objections to the request. The hearing officer and staff noted that, aside from the requested height increase, setbacks and other zoning regulations appear to be met.

McNerney reviewed the legal standards for a variance, including that any hardship must be unique to the property, not created by the owner, and not based solely on monetary gain. On the record, Brand acknowledged the conditions and testified about the well and septic locations and the wetland at the west edge of the lot. When asked whether granting the variance would harm neighbors' access to light, air, safety, or property values, Brand said it would not.

The hearing officer indicated he would favor the application and said the recommendation would be forwarded to the county board for final action; staff advised Brand to contact the county the next business day to confirm whether the item will appear on the consent agenda for a late-January county board meeting. The hearing concluded with procedural instructions about how Brand would be notified of the county board outcome.

The record shows no formal vote at the hearing; the decision will be made by the county board at a subsequent meeting.