Board of Zoning Appeals

Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of Public Hearing March 21, 2017 The Deerfield Board of Zoning Appeals held a Public Hearing on Tuesday, March 21, 2017 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 Karen Bezman Herb Kessel Absent was: Jeff Auerbach Ted Kuczek Karen Scott Also present: Clint Case, Code Enforcement Supervisor Jeff Hansen, Asst. Code Enforcement Supervisor Patrick Saccente, Building Inspector Ch. Speckmann confirmed the mailings were in order for the petition and the Public Hearing was properly advertised and listed. Liviu B. Nistor, owner of Alumni Homes, LLC was present. Ch. Speckmann swore in the petitioner and opened the Public Hearing to consider the request for the property located at 1024 Oakley Avenue, Deerfield, Illinois. The petitioners are seeking relief from Article 4.03-F, 6 (O-3-32) of the Deerfield Zoning Ordinance for the property legally described as follows: Lot 5 in Fred Schwab’s Hillside Subdivision, being a subdivision of that part of the West 15 acres of the Northwest ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of section 29, Township 43 North, Range 12 East of the Third Principal Meridian in the County of Lake and State of Illinois. Said property is commonly known as 1024 Oakley Avenue, Deerfield, Illinois, 60015. The variation, if granted, would permit the constructed additional previously exempt attic space of 158 square feet over the garage to remain bringing the total Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) calculable square footage to 4188 producing an F.A.R. of 0.415 in lieu of the maximum 0.40 specified in the Deerfield Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Nistor requested a variation from the F.A.R. requirements to keep the garage as built for storage by future homeowners. He does not believe by allowing the garage at its current size and shape this would affect the natural light for adjacent homeowners. Mr. Nistor noted the existing structure would neither encroach upon the front, rear or side Board of Zoning Appeals March 21, 2017 Page 2 of 3 setbacks nor exceed the maximum property height allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. The variation will determine the interior distribution of space between garage and attic. It would not have any loss or gain for the Village, neighborhood or street lighting. Mr. Kessel noted one of the standards for granting a variation is that it is not self-imposed. It seems as if construction proceeded and the issue came up in an inspection. There were some issues with safety and when the inspection happened. Mr. Nistor believes there were special circumstances as the F.A.R. issue was brought to his attention in an inspection report late in the construction process. It was not referenced in the previous inspection reports during the framing stages, where other issues were addressed. Mr. Nistor explained he addressed the Village’s other concerns, but had already installed plumbing, electrical conduit, drywall, garage door lighting, etc. before he could properly address the issue without substantial destruction and rebuilding of the property and cost. He does not believe this was self-imposed. Mr. Kessel questioned the cost to bring the property back to code. Mr. Nistor believes the cost would be between $8000 and $10,000. He stated it would have been much easier to address the issue during the framing stage. Mr. Nistor may have requested a variation at that point, as garage storage is an asset to the homeowner and would not have a negative impact on the neighbors. Mr. Adams questioned whether the petitioner was made aware of an F.A.R. issue prior to the issuance of the building permit. Mr. Nistor explained there was reminder note on the permit set of drawings to look out for the F.A.R. requirement. He does not believe a building permit would have been issued if there was an issue. Mr. Adams summarized that the petitioner was made aware that the F.A.R. needed to be addressed. He believes that any contention that this was the Village’s responsibility is not legitimate. Mr. Adams believes the petitioner had a duty to be careful about the F.A.R. requirement and does not believe it is appropriate to hold the Village responsible for continual monitoring the petitioner’s construction. Mr. Adams believes the issue is self-imposed. The Village cannot be put into a situation where the building inspector needs to do the work of the general contractor. Mr. Nistor noted he was not aware of the limitation of height in the attic. He thought the way he limited the height to 7 feet was acceptable. Mr. Nistor indicated the F.A.R. was not considered an issue during the raw framing portion of the inspection; therefore, he believes there is joint responsibility. Ch. Speckmann questioned why a 2x4 could not be laminated to the bottom of the collar tie to reduce the dimension from 7’ to 6’11. Mr. Nistor explained they had a set of collar ties that did not limit the space to 7’. They added another set of collar ties that were not in the upper third of the attic space as required by the building code. He believes the Village considered the second set of collar ties added to circumvent the Ordinance. Mr. Case indicated the Village is looking at the required framing. Ch. Speckmann asked if the petitioner could add something like solid bridging to reduce the dimension and the F.A.R. Mr. Case indicated the approved drawings by Design Professionals indicated the height at 6’11”. The actual space is currently about 1.5’ too high. Board of Zoning Appeals March 21, 2017 Page 3 of 3 Daniel Krudop, 1100 Hazel Avenue, looked at a F.A.R. of 0.415 or a lot size of 9711 square feet. He went to West Deerfield Township and found the lot is actually 72’x140’ or 10,080 square feet making the allowable F.A.R. 4032 square feet (2’ over the petitioner’s request.) Ch. Speckmann noted the actual square footage of the home is 4030 square feet with a F.A.R. of 0.45 and a lot size of 9711 square feet. Mr. Krudop questioned what happened to the 370 square feet of the lot. Mr. Case explained the 4030 square feet does not include the added garage storage area in the F.A.R. Ch. Speckmann indicated the additional F.A.R. of 158 square feet is due to the error in framing the garage area. Ch. Speckmann closed the information gathering portion of the Public Hearing. Mr. Kessel believes there is an issue regarding Village responsibility and he cannot get past the precedent this would set. He thinks it would cause the Village to be liable for inspections and it would be a bad thing for the BZA to recommend approval of something that could be used against them in the future. Mr. Kessel is also sympathetic to the petitioner and questioned if there is a way to recommend a renegotiation resulting in an adjustment on the inside of the frame as the issue may be a technical requirement. Ch. Speckmann noted the BZA can only address the petition based on the seven standards. He believes this is self-imposed, so the BZA cannot make a favorable recommendation. The Mayor and Board of Trustees can choose to reject the non-recommendation and grant a variance. Mr. Kessel questioned whether the BZA could allow a calculation to be reduced based on the addition of a non-required structural element. Ch. Speckmann indicated that would require a modification of the Ordinance. Ch. Speckmann explained the Building Code requires a living space to be at least 7’ in height and must be counted in the F.A.R. If the height is 7’, a future realtor could market the area as living space. Ch. Speckmann questioned whether the floor could be built up, which would allow the framing to be in compliance. Mr. Nistor made that proposal but was told the space would not meet Village Code. Mr. Case indicated attic measurements shall be taken from the underside of the roof framing to the top of the ceiling framing of the area below per Village Ordinance. Mr. Kessel moved to recommend the Mayor and Board of Trustees grant the F.A.R. variation for the property at 1024 Oakley Avenue as presented. Mr. Adams seconded the motion. The motion did not pass by the following vote: AYES: None (0) NAYS: Adams, Bezman, Kessel, Speckmann (4) Ch. Speckmann indicated the petition would be considered at the April 17, 2017 Board of Trustees meeting and that the petitioner should be present at that meeting.