Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Structures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Village planners propose larger limits for pergolas and rules for 'lake access' lots
Summary
Staff proposed raising the allowed maximum for detached gazebos from 144 sq ft to 200 sq ft and for attached pergolas to 250 sq ft, and adding a new 'lake access parcel' rule allowing limited accessory uses on unimproved shoreline lots under common ownership within 500 feet of a principal structure.
Colleen Malick, senior planner, told trustees the village has seen a surge in backyard pergolas and gazebos—many sold as kits from national retailers—that commonly exceed the current 144-square-foot maximum.
"So what we're proposing to do is to split it into two different maximum sizes," Malick said, explaining staff recommends a 200-square-foot cap for detached structures and 250 square feet for structures attached to a house.
Staff also proposed two changes to ease long-standing permit problems: a pair of exceptions to the nonconforming-structure rules that would grandfather existing fences and driveways if they were originally constructed with a permit (or, if no permit record exists, if they were built before 2008) and a requirement that replaced features be rebuilt 'as is' or in a way that decreases the nonconformity.
On shoreline lots, staff proposed a new 'lake access parcel' definition and standards to allow limited accessory development on otherwise unbuildable parcels that front Diamond Lake or Loch Lomond and are under common ownership with a nearby lot that has a principal structure. Proposed limits include a 25% lot coverage cap (half the normal 50%), a prohibition on parking or vehicle storage (boats stored on piers excepted), and a restricted list of permitted accessory items (piers, sheds, patios, decks, pergolas, gazebos, fire pits and certain recreational equipment).
Trustees asked whether the lake-access rules would apply only to the narrow stretch of parcels staff identified along Diamond Lake; Malick said Loch Lomond was included in the draft text for completeness but staff could not find a comparable existing example there. Trustees generally praised the proposed nonconforming exceptions as a way to reduce repeated variance hearings and staff time.
