Zoning Board of Appeals

Village of Winnetka Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting November 10, 2025 at 7:00 PM Police Department 410 Green Bay Road AGENDA 1. Call to Order & Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes a. October 13, 2025, Regular Meeting Minutes 3. Community Development Report 4. New Cases a. Case No. 25-22-V2: 20 Fox Lane: An application seeking approval of a zoning variation to allow construction of an addition to the existing detached garage at 20 Fox Lane. The requested variation would permit the proposed improvement to provide less than the minimum required side yard setback from the east property line. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request. 5. New Business a. December 8, 2025, Regular Meeting - Quorum Check 6. Public Comments 7. Adjournment NOTICE Public comment is permitted on all agenda items at the meeting. If you wish to provide testimony or comments prior to the meeting, you may provide them one of two ways: (1) by sending an email to planning@winnetka.org; or by sending a letter to Community Development, Village of Winnetka, 510 Green Bay Road, Winnetka, IL 60093. All agenda materials are available at www.villageofwinnetka.org/agendacenter. The Village of Winnetka, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, requests that persons with disabilities, who require certain accommodations to allow them to observe and/or participate in this meeting or have questions about the accessibility of the meeting or facilities contact the Village ADA Coordinator at 510 Green Bay Road, Winnetka, Illinois 60093, (Telephone (847) 716-3543; T.D.D. (847) 501-6041). Page 1 of 32  1 WINNETKA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES 2 OCTOBER 13, 2025 3 4 Zoning Board Members Present: Matt Bradley, Chairman 5 Mark Haller 6 Lynn Hanley 7 Kathryn Leister 8 Mike Nielsen 9 Michael Ritter 10 11 Zoning Board Members Absent: Todd Vender 12 13 Village Staff: Steve Mangum, Director of Community Development 14 Ann Klaassen, Assistant Director of Community 15 Development 16 17 Call to Order & Roll Call: 18 Chairman Bradley called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Roll call was taken of the Board Members 19 present. 20 21 Public Comment: 22 No comments were made at this time. 23 24 Approval of Meeting Minutes. 25 Chairman Bradley asked for a motion to approve the September 8, 2025, meeting minutes. A motion to 26 approve the September 8, 2025, meeting minutes was made by Mr. Nielsen and seconded by Ms. Hanley. 27 A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 6 to 0: 28 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Hanley, Leister, Nielsen, Ritter 29 NAYS: None 30 31 Community Development Report. 32 Mr. Mangum provided an update on the 314 Walnut appeal with the appellant having filed a case in Circuit 33 Court. 34 35 Continued Cases: 36 a. Case No. 25-14-V2: 175 DeWindt Road: An application seeking approval of zoning variations to 37 allow construction of a second-floor addition to the existing residence at 175 DeWindt Road. The 38 requested variations would permit the proposed improvements to (i) exceed the maximum permitted 39 gross floor area; and (ii) provide less than the minimum required front yard setback from the west 40 property line. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request. At the August 11, 2025, Zoning 41 Board of Appeals meeting, at the request of the Applicant, the Zoning Board of Appeals continued this 42 item to the October 13, 2025, meeting. 43 Ms. Klaassen noted although the request had been continued, discussion has not been opened until this 44 meeting. She identified the property location, zoning classification and size along with site photos 45 containing the proposed addition. Ms. Klaassen summarized the two variations for front yard setback and 46 GFA requested by the applicant in connection with the proposed addition. She then identified the 47 proposed building elevations and noted public correspondence was received regarding the request and 48 provided to the ZBA. Ms. Klaassen stated following the applicant’s presentation, public comment and Page 2 of 32  October 13, 2025 Page 2 1 Board discussion, a Board Member may make a motion to either continue the matter to a date specific to 2 address any questions or concerns or consider a motion recommending approval or denial with a draft 3 motion included on page 13 of the agenda packet. She then asked if there were any questions. 4 5 Ms. Hanley stated the packet of materials indicate for the 1997 addition, the applicant was denied the 6 front yard setback and asked if the proposed addition would be in the same location. Ms. Klaassen 7 responded it must have been and identified the 50-foot front yard setback. No additional questions were 8 raised at this time. 9 10 Chairman Bradley swore in those speaking to this matter. Christopher Canning, 1000 Skokie Blvd., 11 Wilmette, introduced himself along with the property owners, Emily and John Thomas, Scott Walker, the 12 builder, and Healy Rice, the architect. He stated the GFA and front yard setback variations are being 13 requested for the flag lot which originally contained a ranch home and described the subsequent additions 14 which conformed to GFA requirements in 1997. Mr. Canning stated the applicants purchased the home in 15 2021 and noticed the garage was being used for storage and a gym. He stated the home had inadequate 16 storage and described the alternatives they discussed with Mr. Walker and Ms. Rice to obtain more 17 storage and which would require variations. Mr. Canning stated the proposed plan represented the best 18 alternative and would not increase impervious coverage. He referred to the concerns raised by the 19 neighbors and explained that the proposed addition would not be built into the front yard. Mr. Canning 20 then stated with regard to GFA, there was no GFA request made for the 1997 addition with the home now 21 being out of compliance by no action of the applicants. He stated the flag lot penalized them in terms of 22 the amount of GFA available for use and a GFA variation would not have otherwise been necessary. 23 24 Mr. Canning stated in response to the standards, he referred to reasonable return and several price 25 reductions in the price of the home due to the lack of a basement. He then summarized their responses 26 to the remaining standards and asked for the Board to make a positive recommendation to the Village 27 Council. Mr. Canning then asked if there were any questions. 28 29 Chairman Bradley asked if the existing nonconformity with regard to lot size and questioned the math 30 calculations. Mr. Canning referred to the worksheets prepared and explained the method for the lot area 31 calculations. Chairman Bradley then questioned the difference between the existing and proposed GFA 32 when the flagpole area is taken out. The Board Members discussed how the figures were calculated. Ms. 33 Klaassen provided further information with regard to the GFA calculation. Chairman Bradley questioned 34 the amount of storage the applicants need to allow reasonable return. 35 36 Scott Walker, general contractor, explained how the size of the proposed addition was balanced by 37 loading the second floor on the perimeter walls with the second-floor addition to blend in with the 38 remaining home’s architecture. He stated to make it 100 square feet less would make it less architecturally 39 appealing and would be more difficult to build. Chairman Bradley asked if the applicants are justifying the 40 need for the zoning variation as being due to the fact that the property is located in the flood plain which 41 did not allow them to have a basement which would have been used for storage. Mr. Walker responded 42 yes. 43 44 Mr. Haller referred to the plat of survey which referenced a basement. Mr. Walker confirmed there is no 45 basement and there is an error on the plat of survey. Mr. Haller referred to the area to be built over the 46 garage. Mr. Walker responded it would remain as a garage for use by the applicants. No additional 47 questions were raised at this time. 48 Page 3 of 32  October 13, 2025 Page 3 1 Chairman Bradley asked for public comment. He then swore in those speaking to this matter. Amy Burke, 2 181 DeWindt, introduced herself as president of the DeWindt Homeowners Association representing the 3 neighbors. She stated after receiving the public notice, she met with the applicants with regard to their 4 plans. Ms. Burke stated they are still concerned with regard to the wording vagueness and future 5 implications for those requesting similar projects with similar setbacks and GFA. 6 7 David Nelson, 130 Evergreen Lane, provided information with regard to the property’s history and stated 8 with regard to the hardship claim, the applicants purchased the home knowing what they were getting. 9 He also referred to the number of price reductions due to the prior owners’ contentious situation and the 10 fact that it is a flag lot. Mr. Nelson stated those reasons are not justifiable to claim hardship and the price 11 of the older, deteriorated home reflected its market value. He also stated the area is in the 100-year flood 12 plain and referred to the applicants’ plan to build a pool in connection with their claim regarding hardship. 13 Mr. Nelson also informed the Board of the landscaping permit approval process they went through as well 14 as a lack of privacy concern relating to his house and pool. He added the home has a third floor and an 15 area above the garage which is currently used for storage. No additional comments were made at this 16 time. 17 18 Mr. Haller asked if consideration was given to creating a basement area underneath the home. Mr. 19 Canning confirmed they considered it but it would have been cost prohibitive due to engineering 20 concerns. He noted the pool installation is not a part of this application. Mr. Walker also stated there 21 would not have been access to the basement other than through the garage which would have made it a 22 1.5 garage. 23 24 Chairman Bradley asked if there was any other public comment. No additional comments were made at 25 this time. He then called the matter in for discussion and summarized the relief being requested by the 26 applicants and the items the Board is to consider. Ms. Klaassen also provided additional information with 27 regard to a GFA text amendment. 28 29 Ms. Hanley stated she had trouble with the first three standards and is leaning toward voting against the 30 request and explained her reasoning in detail. Ms. Leister agreed with Ms. Hanley’s comments noting a 31 lack of a basement in this area as typical. She agreed that a flag lot is not an unusual condition and referred 32 to the denial of the second-floor addition in 1997 as well as the neighbors’ comments. Ms. Leister 33 concluded she would vote against the request. Mr. Ritter stated while he appreciated the attempt to not 34 change the nonconforming setback and the potential height addition, he agreed with the comments made 35 that the first three standards were not met. He stated he would vote against the request. Mr. Nielsen 36 agreed with the comments made and referred to the reduced purchase price comments. He also agreed 37 with the statements relating to flag lots and how that is addressed with zoning. Mr. Nielsen concluded he 38 would vote against the request. Mr. Haller agreed with the comments made and stated he would lean 39 toward voting against the request and the garage would become two stories which would potentially 40 impinge on the neighborhood character. Chairman Bradley stated the front yard setback is not an issue 41 for him and referred to the sensitivities of homeowners in the flood plain where he stated homes have 42 been adequately priced. He referred to the discussion of properties having pools and creating a basement 43 in the flood plain. Chairman Bradley also referred to the flag lot and the smaller lot size. He then stated 44 he was leaning toward recommending approval and the fact that the situations can be mitigated. 45 46 Chairman Bradley offered the applicant the opportunity to either move forward with the Village Council 47 or modify their plans to evaluate the Board’s comments. The applicants’ team discussed their options and 48 decided to request that the item be continued to the January 12, 2026, meeting. Page 4 of 32  October 13, 2025 Page 4 1 Chairman Bradley asked for a motion to continue the application to the January 12, 2026, meeting. A 2 motion as stated by Chairman Bradley was made by Mr. Haller and seconded by Ms. Hanley. A vote was 3 taken and the motion unanimously passed, 6 to 0: 4 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Hanley, Leister, Nielsen, Ritter 5 NAYS: None 6 7 New Cases: 8 a. Case No. 25-12-SD: 881 Private Road and 883 Private Road: Applications seeking approval of a 9 Final Plat of Subdivision to relocate the lot line dividing the two properties, which requires variations 10 to allow: (i) Proposed Lot 1 (883 Private Road) to provide less than the minimum required front street 11 line for an interior lot; (ii) Proposed Lot 2 (881 Private Road) to provide less than the minimum required 12 lot depth; and (iii) the existing residence at 881 Private Road to observe less than the minimum required 13 total side yard setback, which is due to an increase in the minimum required total side yard setback as 14 a result of the proposed increase in total lot area and increase in average lot width. The Village Council 15 has final jurisdiction on this request. 16 Ms. Klaassen summarized the proposed lot line relocation dividing the two properties and noted the 17 request is limited to the proposed subdivision and zoning variations required with no proposed 18 improvements being presented at this time. She then identified the property’s location, zoning 19 classification, size and improvements and noted both lots are flag lots. Ms. Klaassen stated both lots are 20 legally nonconforming which she identified for the Board. She stated there is a contingent sales contract 21 entered into between the property owners and identified the triangular area to be subdivided which 22 represented approximately 5% of existing lot area for 883 Private Road. Ms. Klaassen also summarized 23 the two variations required by the proposed subdivision. She then informed the Board of the Plan 24 Commission’s findings after their consideration of the application at its September 24, 2025, meeting as 25 well as the ZBA’s standards they are to consider. Ms. Klaassen stated no public comment was received 26 and following the applicant’s presentation, Board discussion and public comment, a Board Member may 27 follow the two options identified in the packet of materials and asked if there were any questions. 28 29 Chairman Bradley also asked if there were any questions. Ms. Hanley asked if moving the lot line would 30 do nothing for the variations created when the lot was originally subdivided. Ms. Klaassen confirmed that 31 is correct and provided additional information with regard to the increase in average lot width creating 32 the nonconforming total side yard setback. Mr. Haller asked if the length of the flagpole nonconformity is 33 being extended in connection with the triangular area. Ms. Klaassen confirmed that is correct and 34 provided further clarification. No additional questions were raised at this time. 35 36 Chairman Bradley swore in those speaking to this matter. Christopher Canning, 1000 Skokie Blvd., 37 introduced himself as representing the owner, Jesse Van Dyke, along with Dan Creaney, the project 38 engineer. He explained the detachment of a triangular portion from 883 Private Road and confirmed 39 nothing would change with regard to two existing variations with the third variation representing an 40 unintended consequence. Mr. Canning identified the existing noncompliant aspects of the lot and noted 41 those would not change. He noted the two lots were conforming at the time they were created and 42 became nonconforming when the code changed. Mr. Canning also identified five other homes on Private 43 Road which have similar conditions in terms of the front lot line, and he submitted FOIA requests for 44 information relating to the surveys of those homes and related easements. 45 46 Mr. Canning described the unintended consequences by the addition of the triangular portion to 881 47 Private Road noting the purchase and sale is contingent upon zoning approval. He also summarized their 48 responses to the standards including reasonable return. Mr. Canning informed the Board that the Page 5 of 32  October 13, 2025 Page 5 1 applicants realized after the property purchase that the north garage bay was being used for storage due 2 to the inability to access it. He referred to a photo which was shown to the Plan Commission on page nos. 3 73 and 74 which showed the property conveyance. Mr. Canning concluded by asking for a positive 4 recommendation to the Village Council and if there were any questions. 5 6 Chairman Bradley asked if there were any public comments. No comments were made at this time. 7 8 Chairman Bradley called the matter in for discussion. Mr. Haller stated he had no problem with the request 9 and described the request as a modest ask which would improve the property’s utility. He also stated he 10 had no problems with regard to the standards and would recommend approval of the request. Mr. Nielsen 11 stated he would also recommend approval with all of the standards being met. He stated a new 12 nonconformity would not be created over the existing nonconformities. Ms. Hanley stated she would also 13 be in favor of the request and that it would not be so much a resubdivision but would return the lot line 14 to a better design which would reduce the lot’s irregular shape. She also stated it would be a small 15 adjustment and that the variations would not be altered or increased. Ms. Hanley concluded she would 16 be in favor of the request. 17 18 Ms. Leister stated she is also in favor of the request and granting the 10-inch exception would be de 19 minimus with regard to the value being added. She concluded she would be in favor of the request. Mr. 20 Ritter agreed the standards have been met and he would also be in favor of the request with there being 21 no change to the front street line, lot depth, and side yard setback. He concluded he would also be in 22 favor of the request. Chairman Bradley agreed with the comments made and stated the standards have 23 been met, particularly with regard to reasonable return which is being applied to the zoning relief of an 24 existing nonconforming street line, lot depth and a total side yard setback resulting in less than 1 foot. He 25 concluded the standards have been met and would perfect the lot’s design and allow for the 881 parcel 26 to have a wider turn to gain access to the garage’s second parking bay. He also noted there have been no 27 comments from the public. 28 29 Chairman Bradley then asked for a motion to recommend approval as indicated on page 10 of the memo. 30 A motion as stated by Chairman Bradley was made by Ms. Hanley and seconded by Mr. Haller. A vote was 31 taken and the motion unanimously passed, 6 to 0: 32 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Hanley, Leister, Nielsen, Ritter 33 NAYS: None 34 35 b. Case No. 25-16-SD: 936 Sunset Road: Applications seeking approval of a Final Plat of Subdivision 36 to allow a two-lot subdivision of 936 Sunset Road, which requires variations to allow Proposed Lot 2 to 37 (i) provide less than the minimum required lot area for an interior lot; and (ii) provide less than the 38 minimum required rectangular buildable area. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request. 39 Ms. Klaassen noted the request being presented is limited to the proposed subdivision and existing site 40 improvements with no proposed improvements being presented by the applicant. She then identified the 41 property’s location, existing improvements, zoning classification and size. Ms. Klaassen described the two 42 buildable lots created by the proposed subdivision and how the original lot was platted as well as provided 43 an explanation of the areas of compliance and noncompliance with the lot area and rectangular area 44 requirements in detail. She also summarized the MWRD and Village requirements with regard to flood 45 plain regulations, storm water detention, compensatory storage and requirements in detail. Ms. Klaassen 46 then described the future improvements to the Skokie Ditch and reiterated any future development 47 would be required to comply with flood plain and storm water regulations upon submittal of permits in 48 connection with any site improvements. Page 6 of 32  October 13, 2025 Page 6 1 Ms. Klaassen informed the Board the Plan Commission considered the final plat, zoning variations and 2 subdivision code variation to allow a rear lot line to abut a side lot as well as a finding of no material 3 increased adverse impact for the existing nonconforming front yard and corner yard setbacks as well as 4 the front-facing attached garage door width. She advised the Board of the Plan Commission’s 5 consideration of the request and vote to recommend approval with the condition that the existing 6 nonconforming playhouse be relocated to comply with zoning regulations or be removed. Ms. Klaassen 7 stated the Board is to consider whether the two variations are in harmony with the general purpose and 8 intent of the Zoning Ordinance and whether the eight standards for granting the variations have been 9 met. She noted all public correspondence was provided to the Board and asked if there were any 10 questions. 11 12 Chairman Bradley also asked if there were any questions. No questions were raised at this time. He then 13 swore in those speaking to this matter. 14 15 Christopher Canning, 1000 Skokie Blvd., Wilmette, introduced himself, the property owners, Bob and 16 Susan Marren, and Dan Creaney, the project engineer and author of the Exhibit presented to the Board 17 and who is available to answer questions. He provided a summary of the Plan Commission’s discussion 18 including the history of the property and subdivision noting the existing conditions were not created by 19 the applicants and they are attempting to undo the lot consolidation. Mr. Canning stated the request is 20 similar to 860 Lamson that was approved by the Village Council. 21 22 Mr. Canning stated the Plan Commission made a positive recommendation with conditions to be 23 addressed including variations for minimum lot area and referred to the discussion regarding moving the 24 lot lines which would result in two conforming lots but would still require variations. Ms. Klaassen 25 provided additional clarification for the Board following questions from the Board regarding a lot depth 26 variation that would be required for proposed Lot 1 if the lot line between the two lots were to be shifted 27 north. Mr. Canning agreed Lot 2 could be made conforming but they decided it was better to return the 28 lot to its original condition. He referred to eight other lots of similar sizes in the area. Mr. Canning then 29 referred to the Exhibit, which addressed the spirit of meeting the minimum rectangular area requirement 30 and reiterated no new home is being proposed with the Exhibit being done in response to the Village 31 Engineer’s concerns. 32 33 Mr. Canning then stated with regard to the flood plain and storm water concerns raised by the neighbors, 34 he summarized the Plan Commission’s discussion relating to their prior application submitted in 2014 35 which addressed the compensatory story and storm water detention issues. He confirmed any future 36 potential construction would have to meet the Village’s engineering and storm water requirements. Mr. 37 Canning then summarized their response to the eight standards and first referred to John Satter’s 38 appraisal and response in that the parcels were more valuable separately as opposed to the combined 39 parcel in connection with the reasonable return standard. He stated they are available to answer any 40 questions relating to storm water or zoning. 41 42 Chairman Bradley asked if there were any questions. Mr. Ritter asked if subdivision approval was granted, 43 would the tennis court be removed. Mr. Canning confirmed that is correct and referred to the condition 44 of removing the playhouse. Ms. Leister asked what the cost of engineering the potential home would be 45 and its impact to the value of selling this parcel of land. Mr. Canning responded they did not consider that 46 and stated their focus was on the land subdivision. Mr. Haller asked if there would be overall height 47 restrictions for any new potential building due to it being raised to be out of the flood plain. Mr. Canning 48 responded this engineering technique has been used on other homes in the neighborhood. Page 7 of 32  October 13, 2025 Page 7 1 Dan Creaney, the civil engineer, stated with regard to the flood plain, he explained the standard flow 2 through crawl space construction which is used and how roof angles could be modified to comply with 3 potential height. Mr. Canning confirmed the height limit is 33 feet. No additional questions were raised at 4 this time. 5 6 Chairman Bradley asked for public comment and swore in those speaking to this matter. James Langer, 7 956 Sunset, stated his concerns relate to the view of proposed Lot 2. He stated the request did not meet 8 the standards and failed to specifically comply with Section 16.12.010 since a side lot abutting a rear lot 9 line would be created. He noted they never received notification with regard to the neighborhood meeting 10 held by the Marrens and described the water issues they experience on their property. Mr. Langer stated 11 the proposal would definitely lower their property value with regard to reasonable return with flooding 12 concerns representing their main issue. He then stated with regard to the 2014 findings; the exact same 13 case was presented and rejected as not meeting the standards. 14 15 Githesh Ramamurphy,916 Higginson, identified his home for the Board and stated he has lived in his home 16 since 2006 and described the substantial flooding issues they experienced. He stated in his line of 17 business; he is very familiar with flooding issues and any potential new home would exacerbate the 18 flooding issues even more and referred to the amount of water they currently experience. Mr. 19 Ramamurphy stated the second issue is that the compliance standards are not being met as well as the 20 amount of water in the Skokie Ditch which is located next to his home. He stated two neighboring homes 21 would also be affected by them having severe property damage. Mr. Ramamurphy stated the only way 22 the applicants would be able to realize reasonable return would be if a home is built on the subdivided 23 lot. No additional comments were made at this time. 24 25 Chairman Bradley asked the applicants if they would like to respond. Mr. Canning identified the square 26 footage of several surrounding lots which he outlined in his letter that are smaller or similarly sized to 27 proposed Lot 2. He confirmed no decision was made on the 2014 application and the matter was 28 continued and ultimately withdrawn. Mr. Canning then stated with regard to the neighbors’ comments, 29 the home’s views are raised since they are located in the flood plain. He stated the Langers’ home 30 immediately to the west submitted photos which included compensatory storage which is being proposed 31 for Lot 2. Mr. Creaney then described the Skokie Ditch improvements in detail and referred to the MWRD 32 and Village engineering requirements. He also stated they have built several homes in the Village which 33 he identified for the Board and which comply with MWRD and Village engineering standards. Chairman 34 Bradley confirmed the Board is not voting on any potential new build for the proposed lot. 35 36 Chairman Bradley closed public comment and called the matter in for discussion. He reminded the Board 37 of the items the Board is to consider. Ms. Klaassen confirmed the zoning variations the Board is to 38 consider. 39 40 Mr. Ritter stated the standards for granting the variance have arguably been met and described the lot 41 area variance as de minimus as well as the fact that the rectangular area variance did not seem significant 42 either. He stated while he understood the neighbors’ concerns with regard to flooding, if there is a 43 residence built on the lot, there are lot of stringent requirements which would need to be met. Mr. Ritter 44 then stated the tennis court removal would result in a significant impervious surface area being removed 45 which would help both lots and concluded by stating he would be in favor of the request. Ms. Leister 46 stated with regard to 1(a), she is fine with regard to where the lot line would be drawn with there being 47 precedent for it. She also stated it would trigger the least amount of variances but she struggled with (b) Page 8 of 32  October 13, 2025 Page 8 1 and that there would be constraints in terms of building a home. Ms. Leister stated she would prefer for 2 it to meet the rectangular requirements. 3 4 Ms. Hanley agreed with Ms. Leister’s comments in that she is not sure it would be an ideal buildable lot 5 as well as standard nos. 2 and 3 which would make Lot 2 more unique. She stated with regard to the 6 essential character of the locality; there would be a ditch that ran through a significant portion of the lot 7 and into the buildable area. Ms. Hanley stated it would ultimately require a variation for a home to be 8 built on Lot 2. Chairman Bradley stated he would be in favor of the request and although he sympathized 9 with the neighbors’ concerns and if this request was not located in the flood plain, it would not have been 10 an issue. He stated there are storm water regulations in place for new development to adhere to and the 11 lots would be returned to their original condition. Chairman Bradley then stated if the applicants’ home 12 is sold, the home could be torn down with a new home conforming to the requirements of the 13 consolidated lot. He stated the Board should not consider what is possible for the lot and also commented 14 in detail the consideration of any new potential construction on the proposed irregularly shaped and 15 undersized lot with new construction being considered a clean slate which would be extremely difficult in 16 terms of obtaining zoning relief. 17 18 Ms. Hanley clarified her comment in that the issue before the Board is that the code stated if a lot is 19 subdivided, it had to result in two, clean lots without variances. She stated they have to apply the current 20 zoning code in that the ditch created a unique circumstance which would alter the essential character of 21 the locality and would create a unique circumstance which should prohibit the subdivision. Mr. Nielsen 22 summarized Chairman Bradley’s and Ms. Hanley’s comments and referred to the 2014 previous review of 23 the Board. He stated with the tennis court removal, the applicants could consider installing compensatory 24 storage where the courts are currently to help mitigate everyone’s concerns. He then stated he would 25 recommend approval. 26 27 Mr. Haller shared Ms. Hanley’s and Ms. Leister’s concerns and stated he is less persuaded by what the lot 28 would have been had it stayed the way it was. He stated they are being asked to create an irregular lot 29 and he had difficulty with the idea of giving the applicants a pass on some elements of the lot. Mr. Nielsen 30 stated he could be persuaded and reiterated he had difficulty with standard nos. 2 and 3 being 31 troublesome to him. The Board Members discussed their positions at length. 32 33 Ms. Hanley suggested the matter be continued to allow the applicants time to resubmit the application 34 with a conforming, buildable Lot 2 being perfected to be a buildable lot with the variation to be requested 35 on Lot 1. Ms. Klaassen informed the Board that Lot 1 measured 165 feet in width and referred to an 36 illustration. The Board Members discussed alternatives with regard to various lot line measurements. 37 38 Chairman Bradley stated in ordered to sway the undecided Board Members, he offered the applicants the 39 opportunity to continue the matter to a date certain to come back before the Board with a nonconforming 40 Lot 1 or proceed with a vote at this time. Ms. Leister and Mr. Haller stated they would like to see the 41 alternative presented to the Board or the applicants can proceed at this time. 42 43 Chairman Bradley then presented the options to the applicants to either continue the request to a future 44 meeting to consider the variances or proceed with a vote on the request with a negative recommendation 45 to the Village Council. Mr. Canning stated it would be up to the Village staff and stated it may be a 46 worthwhile exercise with the December 8, 2025, meeting date being a possibility. While the Board was 47 discussing their availably for December 8, Mr. Mangum noted there is one Board Member absent from 48 this meeting. Page 9 of 32  October 13, 2025 Page 9 1 Mr. Canning asked for the request to be continued to the December 8, 2025, meeting. A motion was made 2 by Ms. Hanley to continue the request to December 8, 2025, and seconded by Mr. Ritter. A vote was taken 3 and the motion unanimously passed, 6 to 0: 4 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Hanley, Leister, Nielsen, Ritter 5 NAYS: None 6 7 New Business: 8 a. November 10, 2025, Meeting - Quorum Check. 9 The Board Members discussed their availability. 10 11 Public Comment: 12 No comments were made at this time. 13 14 Adjournment: 15 Chairman Bradley asked for a motion to adjourn. A motion to adjourn was made by Ms. Hanley and 16 seconded by Ms. Leister. A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 6 to 0: 17 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Hanley, Leister, Nielsen, Ritter 18 NAYS: None 19 The meeting adjourned at 9:51 p.m. 20 21 Respectfully submitted, 22 23 Antionette Johnson 24 Recording Secretary Page 10 of 32  MEMORANDUM VILLAGE OF WINNETKA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM: CHRISTOPHER MARX, AICP – ASSOCIATE PLANNER DATE: NOVEMBER 5, 2025 SUBJECT: 20 FOX LANE – VARIATION (CASE NO. 25-22-V2) INTRODUCTION On November 10, 2025, the Zoning Board of Appeals is scheduled to hold a public hearing on an application submitted by Brendan and Colleen Carroll (collectively, the “Applicant”), as the owners of the property located at 20 Fox Lane (the “Subject Property”). The Applicant requests approval of the following zoning variation to allow construction of an addition to the existing detached garage on the Subject Property: 1. Side Yard Setback of 5.96 feet, whereas a minimum of 12 feet is required, a variation of 6.04 feet (50.33%) [Section 17.30.060 – Side Yard Setback] A mail notice was sent to property owners within 250 feet of the Subject Property in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. The hearing was properly noticed in the Winnetka Talk on October 23, 2025. As of the date of this memo, staff have not received any written comments from the public regarding this application. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request as only the Council has the authority to grant a variation that reduces the required side yard setback for a detached residential garage by more than 50%. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Subject Property, which is approximately 1.65 acres in size, is located on the south end of Fox Lane between Locust and Indian Hill Roads and contains an existing two-story residence and detached garage (see Figure 1). The Subject Property is zoned R-1 Single Family Residential, and it is surrounded by the same (see Figure 2). The Comprehensive Plan designates the Subject Property as appropriate for single family residential development. The zoning of the property is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The existing lot is a legally nonconforming interior lot that has a lot depth of 282.84 feet, while the minimum required lot depth in the R-1 District is 300 feet. Page 1 Page 11 of 32  Fox Lane Locust Road Subject Property Figure 1 – Aerial Map Subject Property Figure 2 – Zoning Map PROPERTY HISTORY AND PREVIOUS ZONING APPLICATIONS The existing residence was constructed in 1937. Subsequent building permits were issued in: 1. 2001 - Building addition and interior remodeling; 2. 2016 – Interior basement renovation; and 3. 2018 – Construction of pergola, patio, and outdoor kitchen; Page 2 Page 12 of 32 Other minor permits have been issued over the last several years. The Applicant acquired the property in 2014. There are no previous zoning cases on file for the Subject Property. On August 21, 2001, the Village Council adopted Ordinance M-17-2001 establishing the Subject Property as a locally designated landmark. On November 3, 2025, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) conducted an advisory review of the proposed addition, as required for any exterior alteration to a local landmark. The HPC determined that the proposed alterations are appropriate to the preservation of the Subject Property and it would continue to meet the criteria for designation as a locally designated landmark. Figures 3 through 5, below and on the following page, are current photos of the Subject Property. Figure 3 – Subject Property – Front (North) and Side (East) Elevations Figure 4 – Subject Property – Side (West) Elevation Page 3 Page 13 of 32  Figure 5 – Subject Property – Detached Garage Front (West) Elevation PROPOSED PLAN The Applicant is requesting a variation to construct an addition to the existing detached garage located in the northeast portion of the property. The existing storage shed on the south side of the garage would be removed and an addition of approximately 286 square feet would be constructed in its place. The proposed addition would have a matching roof pitch with an additional door and window along the front face of the garage with added aesthetics intended to give the structure a uniform look. The addition is intended to provide extra storage space, in addition to the existing vehicle capacity of the garage. While the proposed addition would maintain the same plane as the east side of the existing garage, which is legally nonconforming with its encroachment into the required side yard setback of 12 feet, the addition would encroach further because the width of the lot narrows from the front to rear property lines. Excerpts of the proposed site plan, floor plan, and building elevations are provided below and on the following pages as Figures 6 through 9. The complete set of plans is provided in the application materials (Attachment C). Proposed Addition Figure 6 – Site Plan Page 4 Page 14 of 32 Proposed Addition Figure 7 – Enlarged Site Plan Proposed Addition Figure 8 – Floor Plan Page 5 Page 15 of 32  Proposed Addition Figure 9 – Proposed Front (West) Elevation Given the ZBA often receives questions regarding the stormwater regulations applicable to a specific request being considered by the ZBA, attached is a Stormwater Matrix (Attachment B). While the proposed improvement with this variation does include additional impermeable lot coverage, based on the plans it appears additional stormwater detention would not be required. However, a final determination will be made by Village Engineering staff upon submission of the necessary permits for the proposed improvements, which are required to comply with the Village stormwater regulations. Figure 10 below represents the Subject Property’s proximity to the floodplain; the cyan represents the 100-year floodplain and the orange represents the 500-year floodplain. Any improvements within the 100-year floodplain are subject to the Village’s Flood Hazard Protection Ordinance and the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District (MWRD) Water Management Ordinance (WMO) Subject Property Figure 10 - GIS Floodplain Map Page 6 Page 16 of 32 REQUESTED ZONING RELIEF The attached Zoning Matrix highlights the existing lot and the proposed improvement’s compliance with the R-1 zoning district (Attachment A). One variation is being requested to allow the proposed detached garage addition to provide a side yard setback of 5.96 feet from the east property line, whereas a minimum of 12 feet is required, a variation of 6.04 feet (50.33%). The existing detached garage is legally nonconforming with respect to the side yard setback as it currently provides a side yard setback of 6.9 feet from the east property line, encroaching into the minimum required setback of 12 feet by 5.1 feet (42.5%). FINDINGS Section 17.60.040 of the Zoning Ordinance lists eight variation standards that the Board must find a variation application meets. The Applicant has supplied as part of their application materials a narrative addressing how this proposal meets these standards. After hearing from the Applicant, and the public, the ZBA may decide to act on one of two options: 1. Continue the public hearing to a specific date to provide the Applicant and/or staff with additional time to address questions and comments from the ZBA; or 2. Consider a motion recommending approval or denial of the variation. If the ZBA is prepared to make a recommendation to the Village Council regarding the request, a ZBA member may wish to make a motion recommending approval or recommending denial based upon the following: Move to recommend approval [denial] of the following variation granting: 1. Side Yard Setback of 5.96 feet, whereas a minimum of 12 feet is required, a variation of 6.04 feet (50.33%) [Section 17.30.060 – Side Yard Setback] The Zoning Board of Appeals finds, based on evidence in the record or a public document, that the variation requested is in harmony [not in harmony] with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and that each of the following eight standards on which evidence is required pursuant to Section 17.60.050 of this Code have been met [have not been met] in connection with this variation application [subject to the following conditions…] The eight standards to consider when granting a variation are as follows: 1. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulations in that zone. 2. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. Such circumstances must be associated with the characteristics of the property in question, rather than being related to the occupants. 3. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. 4. An adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property will not be impaired. 5. The hazard from fire and other damages to the property will not be increased. 6. The taxable value of the land and buildings throughout the Village will not diminish. 7. The congestion in the public street will not increase. Page 7 Page 17 of 32  8. The public health, safety, comfort, morals, and welfare of the inhabitants of the Village will not otherwise be impaired. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Zoning Matrix Attachment B: Stormwater Matrix Attachment C: Application Materials Page 8 Page 18 of 32  ATTACHMENT A ZONING MATRIX ADDRESS: 20 Fox Lane CASE NO: 25-22-V2 ZONING: R-1 MIN/MAX DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ITEM REQUIREMENT EXISTING PROPOSED PROPOSED & EXISTING ZONING CODE COMPLIANCE (2) Min. Lot Size 48,000 SF 71,997 SF N/A N/A OK Min. Average Lot Width 150 FT 254.55 FT N/A N/A OK Min. Lot Depth 300 FT 282.84 FT N/A N/A EXISTING NONCONFORMING Max. Roofed Lot Coverage 17,999.25 SF (1) 5,664.22 SF 5,909.39 SF 245.17 SF OK Max. Gross Floor Area 18,374.41 SF (1) 9,179.97 SF 9,425.14 SF 245.17 SF OK Max. Impermeable Lot Coverage 35,998 SF (1) 28,108.15 SF 28,353.32 SF 245.17 SF OK Min. Front Yard (North) 50 FT 67.2 FT 67.2 FT 0 FT OK Min.Side Yard (East) 12 FT 6.9 FT (3) 5.96 FT -0.94 FT 6.04 FEET (50.33%) VARIATION Min.Total Side Yards 76.36 FT 84.43 FT 83.49 FT -0.94 FT OK Min. Rear Yard (South) 50 FT 147.3 FT 147.3 FT 0 FT OK NOTES: (1) Based on lot area of 71,997 square feet (2) Variation amount is the difference between proposed and requirement. (3) Setback of existing detached garage Page 19 of 32  ATTACHMENT B Stormwater Volume Requirements for Development Sites In addition to meeting the following storm water volume detention requirements, development sites must meet all other Village storm water management requirements such as drainage and grading, storm water release rates, storage system design requirements, etc. An exception is for lots along the lakefront that directly discharge into Lake Michigan; those lots are not required to provide stormwater volume detention on- site. They are required to meet all other Village stormwater system design requirements. Storm Water Detention Volume Applicable Requirement Requirements A. New Home Construction - The amount of additional required storm Previously Developed Lot water detention volume is based upon the difference between maximum impermeable lot coverage, per Zoning Code, and existing lot coverage, using the run-off coefficient for a 100-year storm event for both. B. New Home Construction - The amount of required storm water Previously Undeveloped Site detention volume is based upon the maximum impermeable lot coverage, using the run-off coefficient for 100-year storm event. C. Redevelopment of Site for The amount of required storm water Different Use detention volume is based upon the (e.g. single family to multi- maximum impermeable lot coverage, family, or commercial) using the run-off coefficient for 100-year storm event. D. Improvements to Existing The amount of additional required storm Applies to 20 Fox Lane. Based Home and/or Lot, causing an water detention volume is based upon upon preliminary review of increase in impermeable lot the difference between the proposed information to date, it appears coverage greater or equal to and existing impermeable lot coverage, that 20 Fox Lane would not 25%. using the run-off coefficient for 100 year have to provide additional storm event. (Note: If the increase in storm water detention volume. impermeable lot coverage is less than However, a final 25%, additional storm water detention determination will not occur volume is not required.) until engineering plans are submitted with a building permit application. E. Improvements to existing The amount of additional required storm lots, who currently exceed water detention volume is based upon: maximum impermeable lot a) The amount of the impermeable coverage (e.g., School sites, lot coverage (ILC) currently in single family and multi- excess of the maximum family sites) permitted amount of ILC allowed by zoning that will be removed and replaced, and/or b) The amount of ILC in addition to what currently exists on the lot. Page 20 of 32 Stormwater Volume Requirements for Development Sites The amount of required detention volume is then determined using the run- off coefficient for 100-year storm event. Page 21 of 32 Page 22 of 32 Page 23 of 32 Page 24 of 32 Page 25 of 32 Page 26 of 32 Page 27 of 32 PROPERTY ADDRESS: GENERAL SURVEYORS NOTES: SURVEYORS LEGEND: 20 FOX LANE, WINNETKA, ILLINOIS 60093 1. The Legal Description used to perform this survey was supplied by others. This survey does not determine ABBREVIATIONS FIP - Found Iron Pipe Surveyor LINETYPES SURVEY NUMBER: 2508.4428 nor imply ownership of the lands or any fences shown hereon. Unless the Title Commitment Number and (C) - Calculated FIPC - Found Iron Pipe & Cap PLT - Planter Date is referenced on this survey, an examination of the abstract of title was NOT performed by the signing Boundary Line (D) - Deed FIR - Found Iron Rod POB - Point of Beginning CERTIFIED TO: BRENDAN CARROLL surveyor to determine which instruments, if any, are affecting this property. Center Line (F) - Field FIRC - Found Iron Rod & Cap POC - Point of Chain Link or Wire (M) - Measured FN - Found Nail Commencement 2. The purpose of this survey is to establish the boundary of the lands described by the legal description Fence (P) - Plat FN&D - Found Nail & Disc PRC - Point of Reverse provided and to depict the visible improvements thereon for a pending financial transaction. Underground Curvature footings, utilities, or other service lines, including roof eave overhangs were not located as part of this survey. Easement (R) - Record FRRSPK - Found Rail Road Spike PRM - Permanent Reference Unless specifically stated otherwise the purpose and intent of this survey is not for any construction activities Edge of Water (S) - Survey Monument or future planning. A/C - Air Conditioning GAR - Garage Iron Fence PSM - Professional Surveyor & AE - Access Easement GM - Gas Meter DATE OF SURVEY: 09/08/25 3. If there is a septic tank or drain field shown on this survey, the location depicted hereon was either shown to Mapper Overhead Lines ANE - Anchor Easement ID - Identification the surveyor by a third party or it was estimated by visual above ground inspection. No excavation was PT - Point of Tangency BUYER: Brendan Carroll ASBL - Accessory Setback Line IE/EE - Ingress/Egress performed to determine its location. Structure PUE - Public Utility Easement Easement B/W - Bay/Box Window R - Radius or Radial LENDER: 4. This survey is exclusively for a pending financial transaction and only to be used by the parties to whom it is Survey Tie Line ILL - Illegible BC - Block Corner R/W - Right of Way certified. Vinyl Fence BFP - Backflow Preventer INST - Instrument TITLE COMPANY: RES - Residential INT - Intersection 5. Alterations to this survey map and report by other than the signing surveyor are prohibited. Wall or Party Wall BLDG - Building RGE - Range IRRE - Irrigation Easement COMMITMENT DATE: CLIENT FILE NO: 6. Dimensions are in feet and decimals thereof. Wood Fence BLK - Block ROE - Roof Overhang L - Length BM - Benchmark Easement LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 7. Any FEMA flood zone data contained on this survey is for informational purposes only. Research to obtain SURFACE TYPES LAE - Limited Access Easement BR - Bearing Reference RP - Radius Point PARCEL 1: A TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE said data was performed at www.fema.gov and may not reflect the most recent information. Asphalt BRL - Building Restriction Line LB# - License No. (Business) S/W - Sidewalk POINT IN THE WEST LINE OF LOT 49 IN INDIAN HILL SUBDIVISION NO. 5, A SUBDIVISION IN THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 29, LBE - Limited Buffer Easement TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 13 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, (SAID 8. Unless otherwise noted “SIR” indicates a set iron rebar, 5/8 inch in diameter and twenty-four inches long. Brick or Tile BSMT - Basement SBL - Setback Line LE - Landscape Easement WEST LINE OF LOT 49 BEING ALSO THE EASTLINE OF VACATED WASHINGTON C - Curve SCL - Survey Closure Line STREET) 19.18 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHWEST CORNEROF SAIDLOT 49 (SAID 9. The symbols reflected in the legend and on this survey may have been enlarged or reduced for clarity. The Concrete LME - Lake/Landscape POINT BEING ALSO ON THE SOUTH LINE OF PORTER AVENUE EXTENDEDEAST); symbols have been plotted at the approximate center of the field location and may not represent the actual C/L - Center Line SCR - Screen Covered Area Maintenance Easement THENCESOUTH ALONG THE WESTLINE OF SAID LOT 49 (BEING THE EAST LINE OF shape or size of the feature. C/P - Covered Porch SEC - Section VACATED WASHINGTONSTREET) 124.75 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 5 LS# - License No. (Surveyor) (EXTENDED EAST) IN BLOCK 2 OF BRADFORD AND PORTER'S ADDITION TO Water C/S - Concrete Slab SEP - Septic Tank KENILWORTH, A SUBDIVISION OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE 10. Points of Interest (POI’s) are select above-ground improvements, which may appear in conflict with MB - Map Book Wood CATV - Cable TV Riser SEW - Sewer NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/% OF SECTION 29 AFORESAID; THENCE boundary, building setback or easement lines, as defined by the parameters of this survey. These POI’s may ME - Maintenance Easement WEST ALONG THE SAID SOUTH LINE AND SAID LINE EXTENDED OF SAID LOT 5, CB - Concrete Block SIRC - Set Iron Rod & Cap 38 FEET TO A POINT IN THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 5, 8 FEET WEST OF THE not represent all items of interest to the viewer. There may be additional POI’s which are not shown or called- SYMBOLS MES - Mitered End Section SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 5; THENCE NORTH ALONG A LINE 8 FEET CH - Chord Bearing SMWE - Storm Water WESTOF AND PARALLEL WITH THE EAST LINE OF LOTS 5, 4, 3, 2 AND 1 OF SAID out as POI’s, or which are otherwise unknown to the surveyor. Benchmark MF - Metal Fence Management Easement CHIM - Chimney BLOCK 2, 124.75 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT (BEING ALSO THE MH - Manhole SOUTHLINE OF PORTER AVENUE); THENCE EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF 11. Utilities shown on the subject property may or may not indicate the existence of recorded or unrecorded Center Line CLF - Chain Link Fence SN&D - Set Nail and Disc MHWL - Mean High Water Line SAID LOT 1 (BEING ALSO THE SOUTH LINE OF PORTER AVENUE) AND SAID LINE utility easements. Central Angle or CME - Canal Maintenance SQFT - Square Feet EXTENDED,38 FEET TO POINT OF BEGINNING; SAID PROPERTY BEING THE EAST NR - Non-Radial & FEET OF LOTS 1 TO 5 INCLUSIVE IN BLOCK 2 OF BRADFORD AND PORTER'S 12. The information contained on this survey has been performed exclusively by and is the sole responsibility of Delta Easement STL - Survey Tie Line ADDITION AFORESAID, TOGETHER WITH THE VACATED WASHINGTONSTREET NTS - Not to Scale ADJOINING, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. PARCEL 2: A TRACT OF LAND DESCRIE Exacta Land Surveyors, LLC. Additional logos or references to third party firms are for informational purposes Common Ownership CO - Clean Out STY - Story NAVD88 - North American EDAS FOLLOWS: BEGINNINGAT A POINT IN THE WEST LINE OF LOT 49 IN INDIAN only. CONC - Concrete SV - Sewer Valve HILL SUBDIVISIONNO. 5 AFORESAID, (BEING ALSO THE EAST LINE OF VACATED Control Point Vertical Datum 1988 WASHINGTONSTREET) 143.93 FEET SOUTH OF TEE NORTHWEST CORNER OF COR - Corner SWE - Sidewalk Easement 13. Due to varying construction standards, building dimensions are approximate and are not intended to be NGVD29 - National Geodetic SAID LOT 49 (SAID POINT BEING ALSO ON THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 6 EXTENDED Catch Basin CS/W - Concrete Sidewalk TBM - Temporary Bench Mark EAST IN BLOCK 2 OF BRADFORD AND PORTER'S ADDITION AFORESAID); THENCE used for new construction or planning. Vertical Datum 1929 SOUTH ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 49 (BEING THE EAST LINE OF Elevation CUE - Control Utility Easement OG - On Ground TEL - Telephone Facilities VACATED WASHINGTONSTREET) 124.75 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 10 IN 14. Surveyor bearings are used for angular reference and are used to show angular relationships of lines only and CVG - Concrete Valley Gutter ORB - Official Records Book TOB - Top of Bank SAID BLOCK 2 EXTENDED EAST; THENCE WEST ALONG THE SAID SOUTH LINE Fire Hydrant AND SAID SOUTH LINE EXTENDED OF SAID LOT 10, 38 FEET TO A POINT IN THE are not related or orientated to true or magnetic north. Bearings are shown as surveyor bearings, D/W - Driveway ORV - Official Record Volume TUE - Technological Utility SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 10, 8 FEET WEST OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID and when shown as matching those on the subdivision plats on which this survey is based, they are to Find or Set Easement LOT 10; THENCE NCRTFALONG A LINE 8 FEET WEST OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE Monument DE - Drainage Easement O/A - Overall EAST LINE OF LOTS 10, 9, 8,7 AND 6 OF SAID BLOCK 2, 124.75 FEET TO THE be deemed no more accurate as the determination of a north orientation made on and for those original DF - Drain Field TWP - Township NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 6; THENCE EAST ALONG THE NORTLINE OF SAID LOT 6 Guywire or Anchor O/S - Offset AND SAID LINE EXTENDED 38 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; SAID subdivision plats. North 00 degrees East is assumed and upon preparation of this plat, the resulting bearing DH - Drill Hole TX - Transformer OFF - Outside Subject PROPERTY BEING THE EAST 8 FEET OF LOTS 6 TO 10 INCLUSIVE IN BLOCK 2 OF between found points as shown on this survey is the basis of said surveyor bearings as defined and required Manhole DUE - Drainage & Utility Property TYP - Typical BRADFORD AND PORTER'S ADDITION AFORESAID, TOGETHER WITH VACATED to be noted by Illinois Administrative Code Title 68, Chapter VII, Sub-Chapter B, Part 1270, Section 1270.56, Easement UE - Utility Easement WASHINGTON STREET ADJOINING; Tree OH - Overhang Paragraph B, Sub-Paragraph 6, Item k. ELEV - Elevation UG - Underground PARCEL 3: ALL THAT PART OF LOT 49 IN INDIAN HILL SUBDIVISION NO.5, BEING A Utility or Light Pole OHL - Overhead Utility Lines SUBDIVISIONIN THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH RANGE 13, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, 15. THIS SURVEY IS A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE MINIMUM STANDARDS OF THE STATE EM - Electric Meter OHWL - Ordinary High Water UP - Utility Pole OF ILLINOIS. NO IMPROVEMENTS SHOULD BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF THIS PLAT ALONE. PLEASE REFER ALSO Well ENCL - Enclosure Line UR - Utility Riser LYING NORTH OF A LINE BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 49, 282.84 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 49 AND RUNNING THENCE EAST PARALLEL TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 49, 212.17 TO YOUR DEED, TITLE POLICY AND LOCAL ORDINANCES. THIS DOCUMENT MAY ONLY BE USED BY THE ENT - Entrance ON - Inside Subject Property VF - Vinyl Fence FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 49, ALL IN COOK PARTIES TO WHICH IT IS CERTIFIED. EOP - Edge of Pavement P/E - Pool Equipment W/C - Witness Corner COUNTY, ILLINOIS. EOW - Edge of Water PB - Plat Book W/F - Water Filter FLOOD ZONE INFORMATION: ESMT - Easement PC - Point of Curvature WF - Wood Fence EUB - Electric Utility Box PCC - Point of Compound WM - Water Meter/Valve Box F/DH - Found Drill Hole Curvature WV - Water valve FCM - Found Concrete PCP - Permanent Control Point Monument PI - Point of Intersection FF - Finished Floor PLS - Professional Land JOB SPECIFIC SURVEYOR NOTES: THE ASSUMED BEARING REFERENCE OF SOUTH 3 DEGREES 50 MINUTES 47 SECONDS WEST IS BASED ON THE EASTERLY PROPERTY LINE OF , LOCATED WITHIN ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK , PAGE OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. SEE PAGE 1 OF 2 FOR MAP OF PROPERTY PAGE 2 OF 2 - NOT VALID WITHOUT ALL PAGES Page 28 of 32 Page 29 of 32 Page 30 of 32 Page 31 of 32 Page 32 of 32