Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kirkland homeowner’s request to place garage 6 inches from right-of-way denied by Clinton County BZA
Summary
The Clinton County Board of Zoning Appeals denied a variance requested by Garrett Owens to build a 1,152 sq ft garage 0.5 ft from the Illinois Street right-of-way, finding no practical difficulty and citing neighborhood consistency and an existing illegal front-yard fence. The board voted 4-0 to deny.
Garrett Owens was denied a zoning variance Thursday after the Clinton County Board of Zoning Appeals concluded he had not shown a practical difficulty for siting a permanent accessory building 0.5 feet from the Illinois Street right-of-way.
Staff presented the case and recommended denial, saying the town’s 15-foot front setback can be met on the property and noting an existing illegal 6-foot fence in the front setback and an analysis of neighboring properties that found many structures comply with the 15-foot rule. The staff report said the requested variance would “change this property from being almost conforming … to being the most non-conforming structure” on the nine-block stretch of Illinois Street and recommended denial.
Owens, who said he bought the double lot and wants to build a 1,152-square-foot garage, told the board his site-planning choices and numerous mature trees on his property amount to a practical difficulty. “The practical difficulty that I had is the use of my property is with my trees,” he said during his presentation. He disputed staff measurements and objected to what he called the report’s characterizations, saying, “I never used the term ‘pole barn’ … this is a garage.”
Board members pressed Owens on alternatives and the potential impacts of placing a permanent structure so close to the right-of-way, including future sidewalk installation and sightline concerns. Staff noted that structures within 3 feet of property lines trigger additional building-code and fire-safety requirements. Commissioners discussed partial variances as a compromise—6 to 8 feet was floated—but no alternative gained a second.
A board member moved to deny the variance “according to the findings and staff report,” the motion was seconded, and a roll-call vote recorded four votes to deny and none in favor. Following the vote, staff told Owens he could redesign and reapply; the board may consider a revised application or a smaller variance at a future meeting.
Outcome and next steps: the application (CC-2026-00350 / 21-26-VA) was denied. Staff will enforce building-code requirements and advised Owens to coordinate any redesign with area planning and to consider moving the structure farther from the right-of-way or proposing a smaller variance.
