Zoning board tables North Street variance amid drainage, easement and hillside concerns

The Board of Zoning Appeals on Jan. 27 tabled a variance request from applicant Jane Li‑Conrad for Permanent Parcel No. 931-22-029 on North Street after neighbors and board members raised concerns about a shared driveway easement, existing stormwater flows and the hillside buildability.

Jamieson, speaking for staff, described the proposal as a variance to Section 1125.03(f) for the R-100 zoning district. The code requires a 50-foot minimum front-yard setback; the proposed dwelling would be sited with a 30-foot front setback, a 20-foot reduction from the standard.

Mr. Kyle Abbey, representing Li‑Conrad, and his father, Mr. Steve Abbey, said a conforming siting at 50 feet would create an awkward rear elevation and a large retaining condition. Steve Abbey said the Architectural Board of Review previously denied a plan placed at 50 feet because the back of the house “looked like a hotel.” The applicants’ revised plan would place the main house at a 38-foot setback and a garage at 30 feet.

Neighbor Rick Watt, whose property uses the same driveway, opposed the request and submitted documents showing the lot was part of Saw Hill subdivision No. 1 (1984). He warned that reconfiguring the driveway could disrupt the recorded easement and create safety problems near a curve on North Street. Several Northwoods residents, including Aaron Pewitz, Dave Powers and Megan Collohan, asked the Board to ensure that development would not worsen stormwater or retention-pond flooding that currently affects homes downhill. Dave Wallace of 483 North Street said the new siting would obstruct his view and could devalue his property.

Board members questioned whether a house could be built at the required 50-foot setback without creating a large wall or foundation issues and said they needed geotechnical or engineering analysis to determine slope stability and drainage impacts. Mr. Andrew Rockey moved to table the application until the property owner provides additional technical information and the Village Engineer has reviewed buildability and drainage; Ms. Rachel Freshman-Johnson seconded. The roll call vote was unanimous in favor of tabling the matter.

Next steps: the board’s motion directs the applicant to provide further technical documentation and requests a review by the Village Engineer before the Board will reconsider the variance.