Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbor opposition and safety concerns block Sherwood addition variance
Summary
Architects proposed an addition and attached garage for the Sherwood home that would reduce a 30-foot rear-yard setback to six feet; a nearby property owner opposed the variance citing an '80% deviation' and concerns about light, drainage and fire safety. A motion to grant relief did not carry.
The Vermilion Board & Commissions heard a contested variance request on Feb. 24 for an addition to an older home in the city’s historic neighborhood; the board did not approve the requested relief.
Architect Thomas W. Bode said the Sherwoods’ narrow, irregular lot in the RS district leaves no practicable way to meet a 30-foot rear-yard setback while adding a first-floor bedroom, bathroom and single-car garage. Bode described stepping the second floor and shifting the accessory cottage to reduce impacts and said the proposal would increase the separation between the Sherwood dwelling and the neighboring Chris residence from about 4 feet 8 inches to over 8 feet in most locations.
David Firestein (who identified himself as an attorney and neighbor at 5720 Lake Street) urged denial. Firestein walked the board through the Duncan v. Middlefield practical-difficulty factors, telling commissioners the application seeks ‘‘an 80% deviation’’ from the code-required 30-foot rear setback and that granting such relief would eliminate open space designed to provide light, airflow and fire-resistance protections for adjoining properties. He also raised drainage and emergency-response concerns.
Board members discussed alternatives, including preserving and converting the existing garage/cottage and infilling between structures, and questioned measurements, overhangs and fire-code implications. One member asked whether attaching the existing cottage to the house and then adding between them would require the same relief; the architect said it would likely still require variances given the lot geometry.
A motion to grant the variances under the cited RS district sections was introduced and called for a vote; roll-call responses recorded in the transcript were negative and the motion did not carry. The record does not show an alternative approval being adopted at that time.
Because the board did not grant the requested relief, the Sherwoods may revise their design and return, or pursue other options (including reusing the existing cottage as part of a revised plan). The board’s recorded discussion emphasized neighborhood character, fire-safety standards triggered by setbacks and the practical-difficulty factors considered in variance decisions.
