In 2022, building plans were submitted to the County for approval of a proposed
reconstruction of a boathouse. According to the relevant County ordinances, in
order for a structure to qualify as a boathouse, it must be used to store
boats, may not contain other rooms, must be built over an earthen floor or
water slip, and may not be used for human habitation. If a structure does not
qualify as a boathouse under the regulations, it must be built at least 30 feet
from the shoreline, unless it is granted a variance.
The building plans that were submitted to the County depicted a structure with two stories, an enclosed wooden floor that was
heated, windows, recessed lighting, cabinetry, sky lights, ceiling fans, and a
door – all of which indicated atypical features and activities for boathouses.
The building plans also depicted people congregating inside the structure,
indicating that it was intended to be used for human habitation. For these
reasons, the County Zoning Board decided that the structure was not a boathouse under
the County’s regulations and was, therefore, subject to the 30-foot setback requirement.
The builders also sought a variance for their structure to avoid
the 30-foot setback requirement. The builders argued that because the area 30
feet from the shoreline was particularly steep, exceptional circumstances and
practical difficulties existed in adhering to the setback requirement to justify a variance. The
builders also argued that their plan was harmonious with the purpose of the
regulations because the structure would not be used for habitation and because
the large floor plan was justified by their extensive storage needs.
The Zoning Board denied the variance, finding that there was nothing so
unique about the builders’ property that would not allow them to either build
the structure 30 feet from the shoreline or modify their plans so that the
structure would qualify as a boathouse. On appeal, the Appellate Court upheld the Zoning Board’s decision, finding, among other things, that a builder’s dissatisfaction with the County’s zoning regulations and personal preferences do
not “manufacture a practical hardship justifying a variance.” Atwater v. Lake Cnty. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2025 IL App (2d) 240276-U.
Post Authored by Rachel Defries & Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink