Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variances topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trustees split on variance requests for 210 West Comanche after attorney warns ZBA findings inconsistent
Summary
The village attorney told trustees the zoning-board findings were legally inconsistent with their recommendations; trustees debated whether to adopt ZBA findings or make new findings before voting on several use/variance requests for 210 West Comanche, and multiple motions failed on roll call.
Shabbona’s village attorney advised trustees that the Zoning Board of Appeals’ written findings of fact did not align with its recommendation to approve several proposed use variations at 210 West Comanche, making the board’s legal footing unclear if it approved them without drafting its own findings. The board then debated and took roll-call votes on multiple discrete items: a confectionery/use variation, first-floor hotel rooms, second-floor rooms, and basement/other use variations.
The attorney explained the three statutory factors that underpin a findings-of-fact analysis: whether the property can yield a reasonable return under existing rules, whether the owner’s plight is unique, and whether granting a variation would alter the essential character of the locality. "If you are inclined to grant a variation, I would suggest you make your own findings of fact," the village attorney said, advising trustees that adopting the ZBA’s inconsistent boxes could leave a decision open to legal challenge. Trustees proceeded to take separate roll-call votes on the items; several motions to grant variations failed (the record shows multiple 3–2 or 3–1 no-majority outcomes and at least one abstention noted). The board did not approve the confectionery variation and declined other first-floor requests where roll-call votes recorded a majority in opposition.
