Metro East Sun

City of Edwardsville Zoning Board of Appeals met Aug. 25

Here are the minutes provided by the board:

I. ROLL CALL:

Present Absent

B. Hotz, Chairman L. McOlgan

A. Robertson, Vice Chair

D. Gerber

D. Seay

T. Dalla Riva

B. Buncher, Staff

E. Sutter, Staff

S. Rushing

G. Hendricks

J. Sly

E. Sly

C. Rushing

M. Rushing

J. Falcone

T. May

P. May

E. Krause

W. Krause

V. Barber

II. PUBLIC COMMENT:

None.

III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Motion made by David Gerber and seconded by Denver Seay to approve the minutes of the regular meeting for May 27, 2025.

IV. ZONING CASES

A. Case 2025-23 – Variance

Gretchen Hendricks and Scott Rushing petitioned the City of Edwardsville to request a Variance in order to construct an accessory structure that will be 0.2 feet from the west property line and 1.1 feet from the north property line instead of the required 5 feet in an “R1” Single-Family Residential District located at 409 Franklin Avenue. The property is more specifically identified as PID 14-2-15-14-12-202-029

Staff presented their report as outlined in the Zoning Administrator’s Report.

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS STANDARDS FOR VARIANCE:

1. The particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved would result in a particular hardship upon the owner, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience or loss of revenue, if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out.

There is an existing accessory use structure that currently has the proposed setbacks of 0.2 feet and 1.1 from the west and north property lines. The applicants would like to use these existing walls and make improvements to the accessory use structure.

2. The condition upon which the requested variance is based would not be applicable, generally to other property within the same zoning classification.

The requested variance would not be applicable to other property within the same zoning classification.

3. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property.

The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property.

4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located.

Granting this variance may have a negative effect on the public welfare, or be injurious to other property or improvements in the area by permitting a structure closer to the side property line than permitted by code.

5. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase congestion in the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood.

The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, will not increase congestion, nor will it impact public safety or diminish property values in the neighborhood.

6. The proposed variance complies with the spirit and intent of the restrictions imposed by this code.

The request does not comply with the spirit and intent of the restrictions imposed by the Zoning Code.

7. There is no self-imposed hardship.

The hardship would be considered self-imposed.

Several letters were received with the application in support of the Variance request. Gretchen Hendricks and Scott Rushing were present and stated that they have lived in the house for three years. They stated that they understand the concept of setbacks and this variance would help with the current shared driveway and garage. The garage currently shares a driveway with the neighboring property and it is a tight entrance getting into it. The property is close to the school and park, which causes a lot of traffic. They stated that they are committed to investing in their property, and would like to make this change to promote safety and invest in the neighborhood. They were originally looking at keeping the walls, but would like to remove them if possible.

David Gerber asked if there was the possibility of an easement along the shared driveway. Scott Rushing stated that there is no documentation of a shared driveway. Terri Dalla Riva asked if there was a single garage door. Bob Hotz asked if the garage was going to be expanding towards Lake Avenue. Scott stated that they are looking at changing the driveway to come off of Lake Avenue, but do not have a design yet. They are waiting to go through the Historic Preservation Commission. David Gerber asked about the current overhang on the garage. Scott stated that it currently overhangs over the neighbor’s property line, and would be changed to follow the roofline of the house. Terri Dalla Riva asked about a fence along the alley. Scott stated that they were looking at two different options, a fence on the south side of the new driveway or along the alley and add a gate to enter the property. Denver Seay asked if the garage will be completely torn down. Scott stated that he would like to go that route, but if the walls needed to remain then they would maintain those. 

John Falcone was present and stated that he is in support of homeowners making improvements to their properties. Will Krause was present and stated that there are over four hundred structures within the Leclaire Historic District. Most of these structures were built with single car garages usually on the property line. The lots within this district are typically smaller in general. David Gerber stated that if there was a significate storm, a lot of people would be coming to the Zoning Board. A long-term solution would be to look at the problems and address them. Will Krause stated that the code works well for new construction houses, but not older homes.

Tom May was present and stated that he submitted a letter in support of the variance. He stated that he had gone through the same variance process to allow for a garage and addition at his own property. Allowing this variance would enhance the property value along with updating to meet modern standards. David Gerber asked if the Historical Preservation Commission would allow for the roof line to be altered. Tom stated that he did the same thing with his, and that the committee actually recommended the change. Visually, the change is almost identical to the previous garage.

Jane and Ed Sly were present and stated that they own the neighboring property that shares the current driveway. They are in opposition of the proposed variance, as they are worried about possible liability during work on the garage. Moving the garage makes it difficult for them.

Denver Seay questioned whether or not they could keep the north and west walls intact. Ann Robertson stated that she struggles with how close this garage would be to the property line. She questioned what would happen if the driveway was to get hit. Scott Rushing stated that there was a utility pole next to where the proposed driveway would be. David Gerber questioned what would happen if the Historic Preservation Commission denied their request and if they would have to come back to the Zoning Board. He agrees with Denver, but also understands the neighbors concerns regarding this request. The board discussed possibly moving the garage to a different location, but had concerns about not having enough clearance to get into the driveway. Ed Sly expressed concerns about whether a fire truck was able to get into the alley if needed.

Terri Dalla Riva likes the variance that was submitted and thinks it is an excellent investment in the property. Bob Hotz stated that he does not love the idea of building on the property line, but believes changing the roofline is an excellent start. The board discussed possibly moving the garage door or having a decorative door visible from the road, but not functional. David Gerber stated that the Historic Preservation Commission would dictate that.

Ann Robertson made a motion to approve the variance provided that there was a 1.1 foot setback and that the driveway have a 2.1 foot setback on the north property line. David Gerber seconded the motion. Denver Seay questioned the 1.1 foot setback. Ann stated that it gives the owner what they want. The board discussed having a 2.5 foot setback and questioned whether or not the owner would need to come back if the Historical Preservation Commission would deny their request. Ann Robertson amended her motion to allow for the setback to 1 foot, rather than 1.1 feet. David Gerber seconded the motion. Bob Hotz stated that he would like to see 2.5 feet. Ann Robertson withdrew her motion. The board discussed a 12 inch setback on the west property line giving them more room and eliminate the overhang. David Gerber suggested that the motion should include that no portion of the structure should overhang the property line. Ann Robertson made a motion to approve the variance to allow for the structure to be 1.1 feet from the north property line and the driveway to be 2.1 feet from the property line instead of the required 5 feet, along with allowing the structure to be 12 inches from the west property line instead of the required 5 feet. David Gerber seconded the motion.

STAFF DISCUSSION & RECOMENDATION:

Based on the analysis above, staff recommends denial of the requested variance.

MOTION: Miss Robertson made a motion to approve the Variance request and seconded by Mr. Gerber.

VOICE ROLL CALL: 5 Ayes, 0 Nay, 0 Abstain

V. OLD BUSINESS:

VI. NEW BUSINESS:

VII. ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn by Miss Robertson, seconded by Mr. Seay.

https://www.cityofedwardsville.com/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_09222025-3846