Zoning Board of Appeals

1 APPROVED 2 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 3 VILLAGE OF NORTHBROOK 4 COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS 5 September 23, 2013 6 7 1. Call to Order 8 Chairman Decker called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. in the Board Room of Village Hall. Members 9 Craig, Geslicki, Pick, & Chairman Decker were present. Members Lown & Schofield were absent. A 10 quorum was present. 11 12 Village Staff present included J. Maisch, Zoning Administrator & Code Enforcement Official; & 13 G. Cerabona, Recorder. 14 15 3. Review of Minutes 16 Member Pick, seconded by Member Geslicki, motioned to approve the minutes of the August 26, 2013, 17 meeting as presented. On a voice vote, the minutes carried unanimously. 18 19 2. General Public Comments 20 There were no comments from the public. 21 22 4. Public Hearing & Consideration of the following Petitions: 23 Chairman Decker announced that the dockets would first be heard in the public hearing portion of the 24 meeting. ZBA deliberation and decision regarding the dockets would occur immediately following the 25 hearing, during the regular meeting. If members of the audience are not able to stay for the regular 26 meeting, they can contact the Zoning Administrator for results. Petitioners will be sworn in and should 27 address the Board. Neighbors within 250 ft. were notified of each petition. As required by state statute, 28 the hearing notice for all dockets was published 9/5/13. 29 30 1. DOCKET NO. 13-Z-11 – Petition by Telly Heotis for an exception to increase height of a fence 31 from 3’ to 6’ in the required corner side yard on the R-4 Single Family Residential property 32 commonly known as 2005 Clover Road (04-17-411-011). The purpose of the exception is to 33 construct a wood privacy fence. 34 35 Petitioner Telly Heotis was sworn in. He was asked if notice to the neighbors was provided. 36 Petitioner advised – yes. 37 38 Chairman Decker advised the Petitioner that there are only four ZBA Members present 39 tonight and asked if he would like to reschedule for next month on October 28 th as four ZBA 40 Members must vote in the affirmative for this petition to pass. Petitioner advised he wishes 41 to proceed, and noted that the fence is dilapidated so he is seeking a variance from 3’ to 6’. 42 He stated it is covered by a maple tree and doubts it would be visible. 43 44 Chairman Decker asked what landscaping is intended. Petitioner advised – front yard is 45 cleaned but not yet landscaped; once the fence is erected, ivy, etc. is intended. 46 47 Chairman Decker advised that a see-through fence is preferable and asked if Petitioner is 48 continuing with the solid fence. Petitioner advised – yes, in cedar. Photos in the packet were  Page 2 Minutes of the September 23, 2013 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 1 referenced. Petitioner stated the Ash & Maple trees would be trimmed, and a driveway 2 extension is slated. Petitioner stated the yard is being cleaned up slowly. 3 4 Chairman Decker stated that any motions are contingent on lowering the log pile in the rear 5 yard. Petitioner concurred, stating the large stumps were there before he purchased this 6 home. 7 8 Member Pick asked if the fence would be all around the yard and if it will touch the house. 9 Petitioner advised – yes, it will start 4 ft. behind the garage; other side of house will start 15 10 ft. back from corner of the house. 11 12 Chairman Decker referenced a previous application regarding PVC. Petitioner advised – 13 durability is key; that is the reason for cedar (4x4 posts; steel posts were considered). 14 Chairman Decker asked how pricing compared. Petitioner advised – he didn’t price it out; 15 however, the cost is $1,000 for steel posts. Petitioner stated cedar will not rust. 16 17 Member Geslicki asked Petitioner if he is opposed to pushing the fence further east to open 18 up the corner. Petitioner advised – it will go back 6 ft., and he could increase it a few more 19 ft., commenting that security is key due to the full-glass door on the north side of the house. 20 Chairman Decker asked if a re-notice is necessary. J. Maisch advised – no. Petitioner advised 21 he would move it 5-8 ft. further east. Member Geslicki & Petitioner agreed this would look 22 more attractive. Petitioner advised he would keep the waste cans behind the fence. 23 Member Geslicki suggested moving the north-south side yard fence 10 ft. toward the east. 24 25 Chairman Decker again asked if the log pile would be reduced. Petitioner advised – yes. 26 27 Connie Fuller, 3025 Oxford, was sworn in. She asked ZBA Members why the Petitioner is 28 present tonight as she wishes to know the process. Member Geslicki advised her that an 29 exception is needed before proceeding with the increase of the fence height. 30 31 Member Craig, seconded by Member Geslicki, motioned to close the public portion of this 32 meeting and go into the regular meeting. On a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously. 33 34 Member Pick referenced fences that the ZBA has recently approved that look great. 35 Chairman Decker added that the 6 ft. plastic fence also looks good. 36 37 Member Geslicki, seconded by Member Craig, motioned to approve: 38 DOCKET NO. 13-Z-11 – Petition by Telly Heotis to accept the site plan to increase height of a 39 fence from 3’ to 6’ in the required corner side yard on the R-4 Single Family Residential 40 property commonly known as 2005 Clover Road (04-17-411-011). The purpose of the 41 exception is to construct a wood privacy fence and is subject to the following conditions: 42 *move the north side yard fence 10 ft. east of the proposed location 43 *reduce the log pile to less than 6 ft. high and move it at least 9’ away from the property 44 line 45 46 Roll was called. The motion passed unanimously. Ayes (4) Craig, Geslicki, Pick, & Decker.  Page 3 Minutes of the September 23, 2013 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 1 2. DOCKET NO. 13-Z-12 – Petition by Lawrence Freedman, Ash, Anos, Freedman & Logan, L.L.C 2 on behalf of David Ash & Linda Ring, with permission from the Trustee, David Thomas, for 3 the property owner, Howard Ring 2005 Trust, for a variation to reduce the required rear 4 yard setback from 40’ to 33.44’ on the R-4 Single Family Residential property commonly 5 known as 3445 Dauphine Avenue (04-05-302-028). The purpose of the exception is to 6 construct a one-story addition. 7 8 Applicants Linda Ring & David Ash were sworn in along with Attorney, Lawrence Freedman. 9 10 Attorney Freedman advised Ms. Ring has lived in this residence since 1997 when a 30-foot 11 rear yard setback was the code. One year later, the code changed to a 40-ft. setback. He 12 stated that both Applicants are in a second marriage, and the intention is to modify and 13 enjoy an expansion with their larger new family. 14 15 Site plan was displayed. Attorney Freedman noted the proposed addition is intended for a 16 33.44’ setback and slated as a kitchen area stating there is no other logical location. 17 Chairman Decker inquired if there is no other logical location. Petitioner advised – yes (that 18 is correct). Member Pick asked why it cannot be on the other side of the house. Petitioner 19 Ash advised a variance would still be needed (due to side yard setback requirements); the 20 garage blocks the proposed area so it cannot be seen from the street. 21 22 Chairman Decker asked if there would be any negative impact. Attorney Freedman advised 23 – there would be no impact; the existing house already protrudes more than the proposed 24 addition; the rear does not affect any other residence as the Fire Station sits to the south. 25 Attorney Freedman continued that this is a hardship. The neighbors have been contacted 26 and the western neighbor has no opposition. It was reminded that the setback code was 27 changed. 28 29 Chairman Decker agreed that this is well-shielded; however, he wonders if this sets 30 precedence. Attorney Freedman reminded this property is unique (based on lot and size); it 31 does not back up to any residences. 32 33 Member Geslicki asked if other layouts were considered. Petitioner advised – yes, however 34 this was prime due to a door giving access (no major damage would be done to the house). 35 Member Geslicki asked if it is economical. Attorney Freedman advised it is also functional, 36 and stated the purpose is to adjoin the kitchen. 37 38 Member Geslicki reminded that the drawings are not complete so one has to rely on the 39 word of the Applicant. The interior is not illustrated. 40 41 Member Craig’s concern is granting a variation when the proposal is non-conforming. 42 Petitioner Ash described the layout, stated this seems to have the least amount of 43 impairment, and reminded the ZBA that the other part of the building already juts out. 44 45 Member Geslicki stated he isn’t convinced by the substance presented. Chairman Decker 46 concurred there is no detail of the interior. 47  Page 4 Minutes of the September 23, 2013 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 1 Chairman Decker stated he went to the location and noticed there wouldn’t be any visibility 2 and believes the Applicants when they discuss logistics. Member Pick concurs as the setback 3 was changed since the house was first built. Member Geslicki sees no reason not to grant. 4 5 Member Pick, seconded by Member Geslicki, motioned to accept the plans dated 6/11/13 6 at this ZBA meeting on 9/23/13 for: 7 DOCKET NO. 13-Z-12 – Petition by Lawrence Freedman, Ash, Anos, Freedman & Logan, L.L.C 8 on behalf of David Ash & Linda Ring to accept the variation to reduce the required rear yard 9 setback from 40’ to 33.44’ on the R-4 Single Family Residential property commonly known 10 as 3445 Dauphine Avenue (04-05-302-028). The purpose of the exception is to construct a 11 one-story addition and is subject to the following condition: 12 *Applicant must make repairs to the driveway 13 14 Roll was called. The motion passed unanimously. Ayes (4) Craig, Geslicki, Pick, & Decker. 15 16 5. Old Business 17 There was no old business. 18 19 6. New Business 20 There was no new business. 21 22 11. Adjournment 23 There being no further business, Member Pick moved, seconded by Member Geslicki, to adjourn the 24 meeting at 8:28 p.m. On a voice vote, the motion unanimously carried. 25 26 Respectfully submitted, 27 28 29 Gale Cerabona 30 Recorder