Board approves variance for accessory building near Bethalto property over neighbor objections

The Madison County Board on Sept. 16 approved Zoning Resolution Z20-0032, allowing property owners Garrett and Laura Gerdes to construct an accessory building 8 feet from the south property line and 10 feet from the west line rather than the 15-foot setback normally required in agricultural districts.

Several written public comments against the variance were read into the record by County Clerk Debra Ming-Mendoza. Neighbors submitted estimates of roof runoff and expressed concerns about erosion and fire risk. In a written comment read to the board, Norman Crane warned that local water tables and slopes would increase runoff from a 30-by-32-foot roof; Gloria Crane and Nannette Morgan similarly objected to the reduction from 15 feet to 8 feet, citing safety, runoff and aesthetic concerns.

During discussion, Planning & Development Committee chair Mick Madison — who represents the district — said he had visited the property and noted the parcel’s constraints, including sewer laterals that limited where the accessory structure could be sited. Madison said he believed relocation farther east was not feasible and that the proposed reduced setback was acceptable in this particular, rural context. "I have a little knowledge there," Madison said, describing his view that the change would not necessarily worsen runoff given local conditions.

Opponents on the board pointed to neighbors' written objections and urged caution. "If the people, if the neighbors wouldn't have been so against it, I would also be for this," County Board member Mike Walters said, and he ultimately voted no. The motion to approve the variance carried on a roll call vote: 25 ayes, 3 nays (Kuhn, Moore and Petrillo).

What the record shows Public comments opposing the variance were filed and read into the record and included specific claims about potential runoff volumes and fire risks. The file and public comments indicate the petitioners had explored moving or resizing the structure; the Planning & Development Committee recommended approval as amended.

The board’s approval is limited to the variance request described (the reduced setback) and includes whatever site-specific conditions were recorded by the zoning board and committee; any physical impacts such as runoff or fire risk remain subject to county building codes and, where applicable, later permitting or enforcement action.

Next steps The variance takes effect immediately upon board adoption; any neighbor concerns about construction practices, drainage or fire safety will be addressed through implementation (building permits, drainage requirements) and standard code enforcement channels.