Board of Zoning Appeals

Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of Public Hearing January 20, 2015 The Deerfield Board of Zoning Appeals held a Public Hearing on Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 7:30 p.m. at the Village Hall Conference Room, 850 Waukegan Road, Deerfield, Illinois. Chairman Robert Speckmann called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Present were: Chairman Bob Speckmann Len Adams Jeff Auerbach Karen Bezman Karen Scott Absent was: Herb Kessel Ted Kuczek Also present: Clint Case, Code Enforcement Officer Ch. Speckmann confirmed the mailings were in order for the petition and the Public Hearing was properly advertised and listed. Ch. Speckmann swore in the petitioners and opened the Public Hearing to consider the request of Marck Mojsa for the property located at 1109 Central Avenue, Deerfield, Illinois. Attorney Larry Freedmen, 77 West Washington Street, Chicago represented the petitioner. The meeting was continued from December 16, 2014 at the petitioner’s request. The petitioner is seeking a side yard variation in order to reduce the east side yard from the required 8 feet to 5.02’, in order to conform to the setback of the pre-existing home for the property legally described as follows: Lot 22 in the William F. Plagge’s second subdivision in the northeast ¼ of Section 32, Township 43 north, Range 12, east of the third principal meridian, according to the plat thereof recorded July 31, 1924 as Document 243746, in Book “N” of plats, page 24, in Lake County, Illinois.. Said property is commonly known as 1109 Central Avenue, Deerfield, Illinois, 60015. The approval if granted, would permit the demolition of a non-conforming structure beyond 50% of the replacement value. Mr. Freedman explained the petitioner acquired the property about a year ago with the intention to remodel the property and occupy it as his personal residence. Mr. Mojsa and his architect were aware that the existing side yard on the east side was grandfathered. A proposed addition or alteration requires there not be a change to Board of Zoning Appeals January 20, 2015 Page 2 of 5 more than 50% of the value of the structure in order to retain the grandfathered status. They arrived at a demolition plan where they would retain certain walls which would allow them to meet the grandfathered status. Mr. Freedman showed the demolition plan which highlighted which walls needed to remain in order to keep the 50% status. Plans were prepared, but during the early portion of the work, the subcontractors removed some of the walls that were not to be removed. Staff advised the petitioner of the violation. Some of the error may have been caused by field condition where the walls became unstable and could not have been retained. Mr. Freedman presented letters from four neighbors, in support of the petition. If the requested variation were not granted, the house would have to be narrowed which would result in losing the office in the house. It would create a poor and unusable combination of the foyer and dining room as well as diminish some room sizes on the second floor. The petitioner is trying to keep the house the same width as the original house. There would be serious negative impact if the variation were not granted; there is nothing to be gained by denying the variation. Mr. Freedman explained the issue was not caused by the Village, but was a miscommunication or field condition error with the contractors. Mr. Freedman addressed the seven standards for variation. As a single family house, the variation is not a use variation. Given the 60’ width of the house, it would be difficult to build a functional house without utilizing the full width they are seeking. The variation is not self-imposed. The petitioner attempted to comply and retained an architect to meet with the Village and received clear direction. The result was a miscommunication with the contractor or an unanticipated field condition that was outside the petitioner’s control. The variation is not solely monetary. If they had to meet the letter of the Ordinance, the home would not be functional. The petitioner believes a narrower house would unreasonably affect function ability so this is the minimum necessary variation. The proposed variation is not detrimental to the neighborhood or public welfare. George Hardin, 1115 Central Avenue, has been a resident of Deerfield for 37 years and lives just to the west of the petitioner’s property. He has walked through the property with six neighbors and they are all in favor of getting the house to completion. Anna Pamula, 1230 Central, is in favor of the variation. She explained that unfortunately some contractors do not follow all of the rules. Ms. Pamula does not believe the petitioner did anything intentionally wrong, but had to leave the country while the work was being completed. The petitioner’s architect explained one of the goals was to add a two car garage. She met twice with Assistant Code Enforcement Officer Jeff Hansen. There were a number of challenges with what she wanted to complete, but she left notes for the contractors. Unfortunately, when the accident occurred, she was not present. The concrete contractor made an error and removed part of the wall that was supposed to remain. Mr. Adams requested assurance the home would be constructed strictly in accordance to the plans. The architect ensured it would be constructed exactly to the plans. Ch. Board of Zoning Appeals January 20, 2015 Page 3 of 5 Speckmann expressed concern that the seven standards for variations are not quite being complied with. He questioned the standard of the issue not being self-imposed. Ch. Speckmann indicated neither the Village nor the Zoning Ordinance caused the issue. Although there were meeting with the Village and the sub-contractors stating that more than 50% of the value could not be removed. There should have been someone present that was able to make decisions on the owner’s behalf. Ch. Speckmann closed the information gathering portion of the Public Hearing. Mr. Adams believes that something went wrong with the oversight process; however, the home that could be built is the same as what was approved. Ms. Bezman believes the other standards have been met. Ms. Bezman moved to make a recommendation in favor of granting the variation to the Board. Mr. Adams seconded the motion. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Adams, Auerbach, Bezman, Scott (4) NAYS: Speckmann (1) Ch. Speckmann confirmed the mailings were in order for the petition and the Public Hearing was properly advertised and listed. Ch. Speckmann swore in the petitioners and opened the Public Hearing to consider the request of Daniel Rangelov for the property located at 501 Longfellow Avenue, Deerfield, Illinois. The petitioner is seeking Board of Zoning Appeals approval to proceed with a planned improvement in accordance with Article 10.01-D Exceptions, Section 5, Subsection b, required for lots governed by Ordinance O-94-04 amendment of the Deerfield Zoning Ordinance for the property legally described as follows: the west ½ of lot 36 and 34 (except the west 65 feet thereof) in Goldman’s North Shore Golf Links subdivision in the north ½ of the northwest ¼ of Section 33, Township 43 north, Range 12, east of the third principal meridian, according to the plat thereof recorded June 7, 1924 in book “N” of plats, page 7, as document 241049, in Lake County, Illinois.. Said property is commonly known as 501 Longfellow Avenue, Deerfield, Illinois, 60015. The approval, if granted, would permit construction of a two-story addition and renovation located over and behind the existing home, located on an 85 foot wide lot, not increasing the encroachments not decreasing the existing side yard setbacks, which are a combined total side yard of 13.66 feet in lieu of the minimum 20 feet, with a minimum setback of 4.916 feet in lieu of the minimum 8 feet as specified in the Village of Deerfield Zoning Ordinance. Chiro Ivanov, project architect, 8507 Catalpa, Chicago, Illinois and Daniel Rangelov, property owner were present. Mr. Ivanov explained they propose adding an addition to the existing house. Due to the unique nature of the lot, they propose altering more than 50% of the existing house. The existing house is non-conforming making both the Board of Zoning Appeals January 20, 2015 Page 4 of 5 addition and the entire project non-conforming. Mr. Case explained the property is within a section of the Village where the property was illegally subdivided from the original configuration in the 1940s – 1950s. In order for the lots to be recognized as lots of record, a special Ordinance of O-94-04 was drafted which recognized the houses as lots of records. Because they were illegally subdivided, they do not have the necessary side yards. Any house in this area that is governed by O-94-04 has different side yard requirements for the existing homes. If the home is torn down, the new standards must be met. Before anything can be done to any of the houses governed by O-94-04, it requires approval and recognition of the Board of Zoning Approvals that this is a sub- standard area. The petitioner’s lot is 85 feet wide. Ch. Speckmann indicated the petitioner is asking for something that would be in conformance with the Ordinance. Mr. Rangelov explained they tried to comply with the Zoning regulations, but they need to appear before the Board of Zoning Appeals because of Ordinance O-94-04. Mr. Duggan, 531 Longfellow, believes any improvement in the neighborhood is a good thing. He expressed concern because the property is a double lot and adding a second story could cast shadows on other properties. Ch. Speckmann closed the information gathering portion of the Public Hearing. Mr. Adams explained the house is on a larger lot. It seems to be out of scale with the other houses on the street. Mr. Rangelov explained there is another two-story house next to the property. Mr. Adams explained that house does not have the one-story element. Ms. Adams moved to make a recommendation in favor of granting the variation to the Board. Mr. Auerbach seconded the motion. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Auerbach, Bezman, Scott, Speckmann (4) NAYS: Adams (1) Ch. Speckmann confirmed the mailings were in order for the petition and the Public Hearing was properly advertised and listed. Ch. Speckmann swore in the petitioners and opened the Public Hearing to consider the request of Steven and Elizabeth Perlman for the property located at 1346 Stratford Road, Deerfield, Illinois. The petitioners are seeking relief from Article 2.02-D, Paragraph 1, of the Deerfield Zoning Ordinance for the property legally described as follows: Lot 2 in block 9 in Branigar Brothers’ Woodland Park, a subdivision of parts of the north ½ of Section 29, Township 43 north, east of the third principal meridian, according to the plat thereof recorded August 5, 1924 as document 243980 in book “M” of plats, pages 84 and 85 in Lake County, Illinois.. Said property is commonly known as 1346 Stratford Road, Deerfield, Illinois, 60015. Board of Zoning Appeals January 20, 2015 Page 5 of 5 The variation, if granted, would permit construction of a new home with a 50 foot front yard setback in lieu of the 58 foot front yard setback required by Article 2.02-D, Paragraph 1 Established Setbacks section of the Deerfield Zoning Ordinance. Cal Bernstein, attorney, 491 Laurel Avenue, Highland Park, Illinois explained the property is located on a four lot block with 1232 Elmwood sited toward Elmwood and 1233 Linden sited toward Linden. The primary house at 1233 Linden is set back 70 feet from Stratford; however, the detached garage is 40 feet from Stratford. The established front yard setback is calculated from the primary structure causing setback to be corrupt. Mr. Bernstein explained the property owners would like to build a new home sited 10 feet back from the existing home, which is currently set back 40 feet. They are looking to set the home back 50 feet, which would be the average setback if the detached garage structure on Linden was used in the calculation rather than the primary structure. Mr. Bernstein noted there is a mature sugar maple tree in the backyard that they are looking to preserve. By shifting the location of the house, the tree will be able to be preserved. Mr. Bernstein addressed the seven standards for variations. The situation is unique because 50% of the lots are sited toward a different lot. The existence of the tree and the garage corrupting the average are not caused by the petitioner. This is the minimum necessary adjustment to save the tree. The variation would not be detrimental to the neighborhood and the petitioners have the neighbor’s support. Joe Sanger, 1340 Stratford, reviewed the plan and fully supports the petition. Adam Simon, 1479 Berkman Court, reviewed the plan and believes it will keep with the character of the other homes in the area. Ch. Speckmann closed the information gathering portion of the Public Hearing. Ms. Adams moved to make a recommendation in favor of granting the variation to the Board. Mr. Auerbach seconded the motion. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Adams, Auerbach, Bezman, Scott, Speckmann (5) NAYS: None (0) There being no further business or discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 8:47 pm. Respectfully submitted, Jeri Cotton Secretary