Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Garage Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planner recommends approval of garage setback variance at South Emerald Drive; neighbors warn of flooding and parking impacts
Summary
An applicant seeking a variance to extend a residential garage closer to South Emerald Drive was recommended for approval by the hearing officer, who said the request met legal standards; neighbors raised concerns about drainage, septic field impacts and on‑street parking. The county board will consider final approval June 16.
Matthew Yegge (spelled for the record) applied for a variance in McHenry County to allow a 19‑foot setback from the street where 30 feet is otherwise required at a property on South Emerald Drive in the township of Nunda. The petition would add a third garage bay and extend the building toward the roadway.
Yegge said the proposed garage footprint meets the zoning ordinance’s side‑setback rules and that several neighbors already have garages close to the roadway. He said the work is primarily to provide storage and allow current household vehicles to be parked inside.
Several neighbors opposed the request. Tina Katta, the next‑door neighbor, said she was worried that moving the garage closer to the lot line (a proposed seven‑foot side clearance) would reduce her property distance and increase runoff toward her septic and yard. Jason Franklin and other residents raised concerns about lost driveway parking, increased on‑street congestion on the dead‑end street and recent heavy rains that leave standing water in front yards.
County staff told the hearing that the proposed building footprint meets code and that stormwater division will review any impervious‑area changes during the building‑permit review. The soil and water conservation district had flagged a flood hazard only near the water; staff said there appeared to be no new development impact at the garage site but that stormwater and septic protections would be addressed at permit review.
After hearing testimony, the hearing officer said he would be in favor of the setback variance, noting that the request is a common one and that the petitioner met the legal standards required by the county. He explained that his approval recommendation will be forwarded to the county board, which will decide at its June 16 meeting.
The county’s building‑permit and stormwater reviews remain separate and will apply to any construction if the variance is approved.
