Title/Name/Summary
Davidson Variance #1
History
The purpose of the hearing is to consider an application for two variances. One variance is for a reduction in the rear yard setback of 45 ft. established by Sec. 6-202F(4) of the Land Development Code of the Village of Orland Park, to permit a rear yard setback that will be reduced to 34.5 ft. The petitioner’s general contractor submitted architectural drawings for a home to be built at the above address. The site plan oriented the house facing east. By Land Development Code definition, the front setback is the setback facing the street. With the house facing east, this by definition makes the front of the house facing the side yard setback, not the front yard setback, as assumed by the petitioner and general contractor.
Because of this misunderstanding concerning the front setback, this led to the rear yard setback (presumed to be the side yard by the petitioner and general contractor) being less than the 45 ft. required for R-1 zoning. The house cannot be pushed forward because a conservation easement takes up approximately 35% of the lot at the front.
This lot is unique in that it already has an ingress/egress easement and driveway constructed upon it, as does the lot to the east. It was the original developer’s intention to provide access to these lots via the easement. The petitioner and general contractor decided to mirror the house to the house on Lot 20, which faces it, with both shared private driveways at the front of the residences. The house on Lot 20 was built in 1996, and no variances were obtained for any setbacks. It appears that an interpretation at that time may have been that this was allowed as part of the planned development.
The petitioner has stated that the large house he is proposing to build is necessary due to a related living situation. It was suggested that the petitioner orient the house differently, angle it, or downsize it, in order to meet the 45 ft. rear yard setback, but he does not feel it would be practical or feasible to do so. He has stated that neither he nor the developer nor the general contractor had any reason to believe that the house could not be oriented to the east since the precedent had already been set with the house on Lot 20, which is oriented to the west. He would be willing to move the house forward but is unable to do so because of the conservation easement constraints. It is doubtful that the house orientation would affect any of the surrounding neighbors because of the distance separating the house from neighbors in any direction.
The petitioner has indicated in his answers to the ten variance standards that a hardship exists because his elderly parents will be moving in with the family, and he already has a large family, creating the need for a very large house. The variance requested is within the 25% which can be granted by the hearing officers. Staff has no objection to the variance request given that the variance, if granted, would probably have little impact on surrounding residences, given the distances between them.
I move to adopt/deny as findings the ten variance standard responses submitted for the 23.3% rear yard variance, as set forth in Section 6-202F(4) of the Land Development Code of the Village of Orland Park, to allow a rear yard setback of approximately 34.5 ft., rather than the required 45 ft., for the property located in Crystal Springs subdivision, Lot 19, commonly known as 10817 Crystal Springs Lane.
Recommended Action/Motion
Mr. Fitzgerald moved to adopt as findings the ten variance standard responses submitted for the 23.3% rear yard variance, as set forth in Section 6-202F(4) of the Land Development Code of the Village of Orland Park, to allow a rear yard setback of approximately 34.5 ft., rather than the required 45 ft., for the property located in Crystal Springs subdivision, Lot 19, commonly known as 10817 Crystal Springs Lane. Mr. Villanova seconded the motion. Mr. Morrison and Ms. Kirkwood concurred.