Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variances topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board approves two variances for 707 Gear Street to allow larger garage
Summary
The Galena Zoning Board of Appeals approved two related variances June 10 allowing a homeowner at 707 Gear Street to reduce front and southwest setbacks and to exceed the 90% accessory-structure coverage limit so a single-car garage can be built despite the small lot and house size.
The Galena Zoning Board of Appeals on June 10 approved two variances for 707 Gear Street that will allow the owner to build a single-car garage closer to property lines and let the accessory structure exceed 90% of the principal structure’s footprint.
Jonathan Miller, the city’s zoning administrator, told the board he was speaking on behalf of owner-applicant Christine Ellinger and said the property had been rezoned previously to allow further development. Miller said the lot and the small size of the house make it infeasible to build a garage that complies with the code’s setback and accessory-coverage limits: “I’ll speak on behalf of Miss Alinger,” he said, and described the proposed garage as being roughly the same size as the house.
The two variances approved were: a reduction of the north setback from 40 feet to 20 feet and a reduction of the southwest setback from 40 feet to 30 feet (case 26B-01), and a variance to permit a majority accessory structure to exceed 90% of the principal structure’s coverage (case 26B-02). A board member noted that, given the house’s size, “there’s no way you could meet that requirement based on the size of that house,” and the board proceeded to consider the formal approval criteria.
Board members read the standard variance criteria on the record — hardship not self-inflicted, no special privilege, literal interpretation would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by similar properties, reasonable use, minimum necessary relief, compatibility with adjacent properties, conformance with the zoning code’s purposes, and consistency with the comprehensive plan — and determined the facts presented met those standards. Each motion to approve was seconded, the board voted by voice/roll call, and the chair declared each variance approved. The transcript records no public opposition or additional testimony beyond Miller’s explanation; the board noted that conditions may be imposed when granting variances to protect neighboring properties.
The board also approved the minutes of its Feb. 11, 2026 meeting earlier in the session and adjourned after roughly nine minutes. No further conditions, permit timelines, or recorded vote tallies were specified in the hearing record.
