Zoning Board of Appeals

Village of Winnetka Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting June 8, 2026 at 7:00 PM Village Hall Council Chambers 510 Green Bay Road AGENDA 1. Call to Order & Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes a. April 13, 2026, Regular Meeting Minutes b. May 11, 2026, Regular Meeting Minutes 3. Community Development Report 4. Continued Cases a. Case No. 26-07-V2: 286 Ridge Avenue: An application seeking approval of a zoning variation to allow construction of a swimming pool at 286 Ridge Avenue. The requested variation would permit the proposed pool to provide less than the minimum required corner yard setback from the north property line along Mt. Pleasant Street. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request. This item was continued from the April 13, 2026, and May 11, 2026, Zoning Board of Appeals meetings. The Applicant is requesting this item be continued to the July 13, 2026, Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. 5. New Cases a. Case No. 26-12-V: 9 Warwick Road: An application seeking approval of zoning variations to allow construction of an addition and work beyond ordinary repair and maintenance to the existing legally nonconforming residence at 9 Warwick Road. The requested variations would permit the proposed improvements to (i) provide less than the minimum required side yard setback from the north property line; and (ii) perform structural changes necessary to provide a new window opening in the legally nonconforming north side building wall. The Zoning Board of Appeals has final jurisdiction on this request. b. Case No. 26-13-V: 1252 Spruce Street: An application seeking approval of zoning variations to allow construction of an addition and work beyond ordinary repair and maintenance to the existing legally nonconforming residence at 1252 Spruce Street. The requested variations would permit the proposed improvements to (i) provide less than the minimum required side yard setback; (ii) provide less than the minimum required total side yard setback; and (iii) perform structural changes necessary to provide new window openings in the legally nonconforming east and west side building walls. The Zoning Board of Appeals has final jurisdiction on this request. c. Case No. 26-14-V: 705 Oak Street: An application seeking approval of a zoning variation to allow a fence along a portion of the west property line of 705 Oak Page 1 of 134  Street. The requested variation would permit the fence to exceed the maximum permitted height. The Zoning Board of Appeals has final jurisdiction on this request. 6. New Business a. July 13, 2026, Regular Meeting - Quorum Check 7. Public Comments 8. 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 2 of 134  1 WINNETKA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES 2 APRIL 13, 2026 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: Scott Mangum, Director of Community Development 14 Ann Klaassen, Assistant Director of Community 15 Development 16 Christopher Marx, Associate Planner 17 18 Village Attorney: Peter Friedman 19 Caitlin Culbertson 20 21 Call to Order & Roll Call: 22 Chairman Bradley called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Roll call was taken of the Board Members 23 present. 24 25 Public Comment: 26 No comments were made at this time. 27 28 Approval of Minutes: 29 Chairman Bradley asked for a motion to approve the March 9, 2026, regular meeting minutes and the 30 March 16, 2026, special meeting minutes. A motion to approve the March 9, 2026, regular meeting 31 minutes and the March 16, 2026, special meeting minutes was made by Ms. Hanley and seconded by Mr. 32 Ritter. A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 6 to 0: 33 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Hanley, Leister, Nielsen, Ritter 34 NAYS: None 35 36 Community Development Report: 37 Mr. Mangum stated there is no Community Development Report. 38 39 New Cases: 40 a. Case No. 26-07-V2: 286 Ridge Avenue: An application seeking approval of a zoning variation to 41 allow construction of a swimming pool at 286 Ridge Avenue. The requested variation would permit the 42 proposed pool to provide less than the minimum required corner yard setback from the north property 43 line along Mt. Pleasant Street. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request. 44 Mr. Marx summarized the variation request for a swimming pool and identified the property’s location 45 and improvements, zoning classification and size. He also referred to site photos which he described for 46 the Board. Mr. Marx summarized the minimum setback requirements and the major variation being 47 requested for the swimming pool, which he noted is a permitted encroachment in the rear yard. He noted 48 no written comments were received from the public and stated following the applicant's presentation and Page 3 of 134  April 13, 2026 Page 2 1 public comment, the Board may decide to either continue the matter to a date certain to allow the Village 2 staff time to address questions or comments or to make a motion recommending approval or denial of 3 the variation with draft language included on page 24. Mr. Marx then asked if there were any questions. 4 No questions were raised at this time. 5 6 Chairman Bradley swore in those speaking to this matter. James Murphy described the request to add a 7 small swimming pool in the backyard which was originally drawn to be sited in the middle of the backyard 8 but due to a large tree’s location, they decided to move it so as not to affect the tree’s drip line. 9 10 Chairman Bradley asked if there were any questions. Ms. Leister asked if they considered relocating the 11 pool to the west or east of the tree. Mr. Murphy responded there would not be sufficient room in that 12 location and there were no other viable options. He stated the proposed location would be the most 13 favorable and reiterated their attempt to save the tree. Ms. Hanley questioned the tree’s height. Mr. 14 Murphy estimated it to be 40 feet and age to be 30-35 years old. 15 16 Chairman Bradley referred to the standards the Board is to consider, specifically the reasonable return 17 standard which would be difficult to meet as well as the unique circumstances standard. He asked the 18 applicant to address those two standards and any mitigating steps they may have taken. Mr. Murphy 19 informed the Board they originally considered a larger pool and summarized their reasoning to request a 20 major vs. a minor variation. Mr. Marx provided additional information to the Board that was given to the 21 applicant with regard to the pool size. He also provided information from the Village Forester. No 22 additional questions were raised at this time. 23 24 Chairman Bradley asked for public comment. No comments were made at this time. He then called the 25 matter in for discussion. 26 27 Mr. Ritter stated that he is concerned with the first standard and that he had no issues with the remaining 28 standards. He stated there would be no problems for the neighbors and there would be no ramifications 29 for granting the variation and it would be punitive to not allow the variation. Mr. Ritter concluded he 30 would be in favor. Ms. Leister stated she would not be in favor of the request in connection with standard 31 no. 2. She suggested alternative locations for the pool or remove the tree. Mr. Haller agreed with Ms. 32 Leister’s comments and stated there was not sufficient consideration for the south side of the property. 33 He then stated he had difficulty with the first two standards. 34 35 Mr. Nielsen described pool issues as difficult in terms of meeting the first two standards. He stated he 36 would not be in favor of the request. Ms. Hanley stated that the tree is not very large and would not 37 overcome the need for the variation with regard to the standards. She then stated she would rather 38 sacrifice the tree. Chairman Bradley inclined he would have been in favor of finding an option which would 39 work. He agreed with Ms. Leister’s comments and stated the tree did not represent a unique hardship. 40 Chairman Bradley then stated he would lean toward voting against a positive recommendation since the 41 first two standards have not been met. 42 43 Chairman Bradley offered the applicant the opportunity to proceed to a vote with a negative 44 recommendation or continue the request to allow them the opportunity to revise their plans in order to 45 receive a favorable recommendation from the Board. Mr. Murphy stated they would consider taking the 46 tree down. Chairman Bradley suggested the matter be continued to a date certain. Mr. Murphy agreed. 47 Page 4 of 134  April 13, 2026 Page 3 1 Chairman Bradley asked for a motion to continue the item to the May 11, 2026, meeting. A motion to 2 continue the matter to the May 11, 2026, meeting was made by Ms. Hanley and seconded by Mr. Nielsen. 3 A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 6 to 0: 4 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Hanley, Leister, Nielsen, Ritter 5 NAYS: None 6 7 Old Business: 8 a. Case No. 25-09-APL: 314 Walnut Street: Consideration of approval of amended written findings 9 and determination to affirm the Zoning Administrator's determination that 314 Walnut Street has a 10 front lot line along Wilson Street. 11 Peter Friedman referred to new information recently submitted by the applicant and summarized the 12 application’s history in detail. He stated because of the timeline set by the court, he informed the Board 13 their office prepared Proposed Amended Findings and Determination along with a memo for 14 consideration by the Board. Mr. Friedman then advised the Board of their role in considering the matter. 15 He noted in response to the case; the Village Council has taken separate action to adopt a zoning text 16 amendment which made relatively minor text changes to the ordinance which he summarized for the 17 Board. He provided information on what the court’s decision was based on and asked if there were any 18 questions. 19 20 Chairman Bradley asked the Board Members to confirm what they are tasked to consider. The Board 21 Members confirmed they understood. Ms. Hanley questioned the applicant’s material, which is being 22 considered as part of the re-review of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Friedman confirmed that the Board is to 23 reconsider the decision and make a new decision based on the Zoning Ordinance text as it existed at the 24 time of the decision. No additional questions were raised at this time. 25 26 Chairman Bradley asked for the applicant’s presentation. Mark Daniel introduced himself as a 30-year 27 land use attorney along with Nicole and Tyler Steel, the property owners and attorney Danielle Cassel. He 28 referred to the document identified by Mr. Friedman and specific language indicating that it is a final order 29 and modified the ruling which he outlined for the Board. He then summarized the language and their 30 position from the transcript in detail. Mr. Friedman refuted a statement made by Mr. Daniel and referred 31 to specific language on page 7, paragraph 29, which he read into the record. 32 33 Mr. Daniel then referred to the opinion and Exhibit B along with additional documentation and further 34 summarized their position in significant detail. Chairman Bradley and Mr. Daniel debated item no. 5 with 35 regard to the singular corner lot. Mr. Daniel continued on to state that the issue that was argued was how 36 do you determine the front lot line on a corner lot which he explained in detail. He then referred to finding 37 nos. 6 and 7 which are uncontested. Mr. Daniel then stated with regard to finding no. 8, he referred to 38 paragraph 8 which he described as an issue. He then stated finding nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 are not contested. 39 40 Mr. Daniel referred to the Board’s authorization and specific language on which he expounded and 41 described as not accurate in that evidence was not provided. Chairman Bradley asked Mr. Daniel for 42 clarification that they found finding nos. 14, 15 and 16 are not correct. Mr. Friedman asked for clarification 43 as to what language is relevant with regard to the decision. The Board determined that they would come 44 back to further discuss finding no. 14. Mr. Daniel confirmed finding nos. 17, 18 are not contested. He 45 noted with regard to finding no. 19, the final order incorporated the transcript they included as Exhibit B. 46 Mr. Friedman disputed Mr. Daniel’s statement to which Mr. Daniel referred to specific language which he 47 summarized in detail. Several Board Members disagreed with the interpretation. Chairman Bradley 48 clarified that they are not in agreement with finding no. 19. Page 5 of 134  April 13, 2026 Page 4 1 Mr. Daniel referred to finding no. 20 which is in dispute. Chairman Bradley confirmed they are in 2 agreement with finding no. 21. Mr. Daniel referred to finding no. 22 and explained their position which 3 they contest. He then referred to finding no. 24. Mr. Friedman asked Mr. Daniel to not misinterpret the 4 ruling. Mr. Daniel further summarized their position with regard to the front, rear and side lot lines. Mr. 5 Daniel identified his specific dispute in connection with finding no. 25. He then stated Exhibits A, B, G, H 6 and I should definitely be part of the record. Chairman Bradley confirmed Exhibit B is not part of the 7 Board’s packet. Mr. Friedman then read specific language from the Order into the record. Chairman 8 Bradley confirmed finding no. 26 is called into question with finding no. 27 being disputed. 9 10 Chairman Bradley asked for a five-minute recess. 11 12 Chairman Bradley called the meeting back to order and noted for the record the Board Members were 13 conversing but were not discussing the matter before the Board. He then referred to finding no. 28 which 14 he described as substantive and outlined certain definitions which guided the Board’s independent review 15 of the property. Mr. Daniel referred to line 1 in finding no. 28 which they dispute and confirmed there is 16 no contest with regard to item nos. (a), (b), (d), (f), (g), (h) and (i). 17 18 Danielle Cassel referred to her 2025 testimony and provision of the ordinance that stated, “through lots 19 can have two front lot lines” and explained her position in detail. Ms. Hanley stated that nowhere in the 20 ordinance did it state that every lot can only have one front lot line. Mr. Daniel explained the applicant’s 21 position again in detail. 22 23 Chairman Bradley then referred to item (l) and clarified the language construed as ambiguous. He then 24 referred to item (m) which Mr. Daniel stated is contested and identified the specific language. Mr. Daniel 25 stated items (n) and (o) are disputed and specific language in item (p) which did not apply to the property. 26 He confirmed item (q) is disputed. 27 28 Mr. Daniel then referred to paragraph 30 and the statement that the Board would not apply the 29 “confirming ordinance.” Chairman Bradley confirmed it would not be a factor in the Board’s deliberations. 30 Mr. Friedman clarified what the Board would consider and that the Board would rely on the pre- 31 amendment zoning code. Mr. Daniel elaborated on their position in detail. 32 33 Ms. Cassel referred back to the initial principle of the applicants wanting to establish the Wilson side as 34 their rear yard and also referred to two definitions from the code which she read into the record. She also 35 referred to other aspects of the code which did not apply. Mr. Daniel then asked if there were any 36 questions. 37 38 Chairman Bradley also asked if there were any questions. No questions were raised at this time. He 39 confirmed there is no one in the audience to comment and called the matter in for discussion. 40 41 Chairman Bradley stated the purpose of the meeting is for the Board to review the relevant ordinances to 42 make the determination on 314 Walnut and described the materials provided today by the applicant as a 43 curveball. He stated they are considering those materials on the appellant’s remarks in terms of its 44 veracity and persuasiveness. Chairman Bradley asked the Board Members if they felt comfortable 45 proceeding on the Findings of Fact as an output of tonight’s deliberations without having read the 46 materials in depth. He also stated they are to discuss the matter in the context of the judge’s order. 47 Page 6 of 134  April 13, 2026 Page 5 1 Ms. Hanley stated they have been ordered to redo their review of Mr. Schoon’s assessment based on the 2 testimony and evidence they had prior but to leave out any historical references to the 2005 ordinance. 3 She stated they should not consider anything else, and the materials provided by the applicant are not 4 relevant to the discussion. 5 6 Mr. Friedman stated the transcript should be part of the record and is only relevant due to the ordinance 7 amending it. He noted the final order made clear that the “ruling” made as reflected in that transcript is 8 modified by this order. The Board Members confirmed they had no issue with regard to the materials 9 presented today. 10 11 Chairman Bradley asked Ms. Culbertson to summarize certain Findings of Fact called into question or 12 disputed by the appellants as instructed by the order which Ms. Culbertson provided to the Board. 13 Chairman Bradley asked if 314 Walnut met the definition of (c)(3) such that “the buildable area shall be 14 situated on the lot so that equal setbacks shall be required from the opposite street lines.” Ms. Culbertson 15 confirmed that is correct and clarified the distinct criteria that needed to be met and expanded on the 16 meaning of “or” in the language. 17 18 Ms. Hanley stated this section was created specifically for properties like this and it assumed that a 19 property with three street frontages would be missing a side or rear yard. Ms. Culbertson confirmed that 20 is correct. Mr. Friedman stated there is no need to hypothesize whether this applied to other properties 21 and the focus is only on this property. 22 23 Chairman Bradley referred to the facts of the Village Council’s adoption of an ordinance amending the 24 code began with Nos. 22, 23, 24 and 25 and recommended no. 30 be stricken. He then referred to item 25 (m) which should be included. The Board Members confirmed it should be included. Chairman Bradley 26 asked if the Board Members accepted no. 14 which was called into question. He also referred to the May 27 8, 2025, appeal for which the appellants want to be expanded to include comments made by the 28 appellants at that meeting. Chairman Bradley noted that is already included as part of the record and 29 asked the Board Members if there was any objection to no. 8. Mr. Friedman suggested language to read 30 as follows: “The appellants filed an appeal challenging the Zoning Administrator’s determination with 31 regard to, among other things, …” The Board Members confirmed the language change is fine. 32 33 Chairman Bradley then referred to item no. 16 which represented the same concerns. The Board Members 34 confirmed no. 16 is fine as drafted. Chairman Bradley stated the parties agreed with the final orders 35 instruction as provided in item nos. 26 and 19. Mr. Friedman confirmed the final order is in the record as 36 well as the transcript. Chairman Bradley stated item no. 20 is also included. The Board Members agreed 37 with item nos. 19 and 20 as written. Mr. Friedman confirmed no language changes to those items need 38 to be made. Ms. Hanley referred to item no. 28(p) to include the full definition of 50(c)(3). Chairman 39 Bradley identified that item as being an abbreviation of Section (c)(3) which is part of the record and also 40 in the Findings of Fact 17(L), as well as item no. 28(q). Chairman Bradley then referred to item no. 5 and 41 the Board Members agreed with the item as drafted. Mr. Friedman clarified under the Subject at the 42 beginning of page 1, the wording should be clarified to indicate “…as amended as of the date of the Zoning 43 Administrator’s decision…” to confirm it did not include the text amendment. Mr. Daniel referred to the 44 language in Paragraph 19 of the Findings and noted the briefs are part of what the appellants submitted 45 tonight and explained their position. Ms. Culbertson responded that the various code sections are listed. 46 47 Chairman Bradley asked if there were any other aspects of the Findings or record that needed to be 48 discussed. No additional comments were made at this time. He then asked the Board Members for their Page 7 of 134  April 13, 2026 Page 6 1 comments with regard to whether the Findings of Fact should be accepted or if there is further discussion 2 on the code (c)(3) as to whether Wilson should be treated as a front lot line for 314 Wilson. Ms. Hanley 3 commented that Ms. Culbertson did an excellent job identifying the different code sections in the 4 ordinance and explaining how they work together to arrive at the conclusion to define the side, front and 5 corner lot lines and the various yards based on the definitions of the Zoning Ordinance. She also stated 6 she agreed with the findings that the Zoning Administrator’s decision was the appropriate decision based 7 on what they have and a comprehensive understanding of the Zoning Ordinance that his determination 8 was correct and the Findings as amended. 9 10 Mr. Ritter, Mr. Nielsen and Mr. Haller agreed with Ms. Hanley’s comments. Ms. Leister added (c)(3) is very 11 applicable to the lot and referred to the definition of a rear lot line with (c)(3) addressing that. She agreed 12 with the Board Members’ position. Chairman Bradley agreed that as they considered the zoning code at 13 the time and the definitions therein, the Zoning Administrator at that time properly found 314 Walnut to 14 fit the code Section (c)(3) as the necessary relief on such a unique property. He stated he did not find in 15 the code that their application of the code to be anything other than the outcome reached. Chairman 16 Bradley stated he had no issue with the Findings of Fact presented with all of the edits they discussed 17 recognizing there is a different opinion noted by the appellants. 18 19 Chairman Bradley confirmed there are enough votes to proceed with the motion to approve the amended 20 Findings of Determination of the Board as included in the packet modified to include the changes 21 discussed. Mr. Friedman clarified for the record the appellants’ Appearance, the appellants’ the 22 Statement on Remand Following Reversal and Administrative Review and its attachment would be in the 23 record, as well as the March 19, 2026, Final Order, the March 13, 2026, Transcript of Proceedings, the 24 Ordinances in effect, Resolution R-35-2026 and Ordinance MC-01-2026 would be in the record but the 25 Complaint and Briefs would not be in the record. 26 27 Chairman Bradley asked for a motion to approve the amended Findings of Determination of the Board as 28 included in the packet modified to include the changes discussed. A motion as stated by Chairman Bradley 29 was made by Ms. Hanley and seconded by Mr. Nielsen. A vote was taken and the motion unanimously 30 passed, 6 to 0: 31 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Hanley, Leister, Nielsen, Ritter 32 NAYS: None 33 34 New Business: 35 a. May 11, 2026, Meeting - Quorum Check. 36 The Board Members discussed their availability. 37 38 Public Comment. 39 Mr. Daniel thanked the Board for their consideration and advised the Board Members they would petition 40 the Circuit Court for a Rule to Show Cause which may include a discussion of the nature of the amendment 41 and these proceedings. He stated they strongly disagreed that the Board complied with the order and 42 encouraged the Village Council to consider aspects in the Athenian Oath. Mr. Daniel also stated they 43 disagreed with Ms. Culbertson’s analysis and apologized for the process they have to pursue. 44 45 Adjournment: 46 Chairman Bradley asked for a motion to adjourn. A motion to adjourn was made by Ms. Hanley and 47 seconded by Ms. Leister. A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 6 to 0: 48 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Hanley, Leister, Nielsen, Ritter Page 8 of 134  April 13, 2026 Page 7 1 NAYS: None 2 The meeting adjourned at 10:28 p.m. 3 4 Respectfully submitted, 5 6 Antionette Johnson 7 Recording Secretary 8 Page 9 of 134  1 WINNETKA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES 2 MAY 11, 2026 3 4 Zoning Board Members Present: Matt Bradley, Chairman 5 Mark Haller 6 Lynn Hanley 7 Kathryn Leister 8 Mike Nielsen 9 Todd Vender 10 11 Zoning Board Members Absent: Michael Ritter 12 13 Village Staff: Scott Mangum, Director of Community Development 14 Christopher Marx, Associate Planner 15 16 Call to Order & Roll Call: 17 Chairman Bradley called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Roll call was taken of the Board Members 18 present. 19 20 Community Development Report. 21 Mr. Mangum provided an update on the 829-833 Foxdale lot consolidation application. 22 23 Continued Cases: 24 a. Case No. 26-07-V2: 286 Ridge Avenue: An application seeking approval of a zoning variation to 25 allow construction of a swimming pool at 286 Ridge Avenue. The requested variation would permit 26 the proposed pool to provide less than the minimum required corner yard setback from the north 27 property line along Mt. Pleasant Street. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request. This 28 item was continued from the April 13, 2026, Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. The Applicant is 29 requesting this item be continued to the June 8, 2026 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. 30 Jim Murphy informed the Board after reviewing the zoning ordinances, he could not find where a pool 31 would cause any setback issues which primarily related to buildings and site lines. Chairman Bradley 32 stated the Board did not have the applicant’s materials in front of them and the Village officials would 33 help him understand why setback standards are being applied to the pool. 34 35 Chairman Bradley then asked for a motion to continue the 286 Ridge Avenue matter to the June 8, 2026 36 meeting. A motion as stated by Chairman Bradley was made by Mr. Haller and seconded by Ms. Hanley. 37 A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 6 to 0: 38 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Hanley, Leister, Nielsen, Vender 39 NAYS: None 40 41 New Cases: 42 a. Case No. 26-10-V2: 1412 Scott Avenue: An application seeking approval of a zoning variation 43 to allow expansion of the driveway at 1412 Scott Avenue. The requested variation would permit the 44 driveway to exceed the maximum permitted front yard lot coverage. The Village Council has final 45 jurisdiction on this request. 46 Mr. Marx summarized the application for the driveway expansion and variation for maximum front yard 47 lot coverage. He identified the property’s location, existing improvements, zoning classification as well 48 as site photos of the property. Mr. Marx noted the home was constructed in 1997 with a legally Page 10 of 134  May 11, 2026 Page 2 1 nonconforming front-facing garage that would not be permitted under the current zoning code. He 2 summarized the front yard lot coverage variation being requested and the existing driveway easement 3 for the neighboring property in detail. 4 5 Mr. Marx stated no comments were received regarding the application and following the applicant’s 6 presentation, public comment and Board discussion, the Board may decide to either continue the 7 matter to a date certain to allow time to address questions or comments or make a motion to 8 recommend approval or denial of the requested variation with draft language included on page nos. 8 9 and 9. He asked if there were any questions. 10 11 Mr. Haller asked for the calculation covered by the easement for the west neighbor. Mr. Marx 12 responded it was measured to be 153.06 square feet. No additional questions were raised at this time. 13 14 Chairman Bradley swore in those speaking to this matter. Adam Rothschild, the applicant and 15 homeowner, stated that the home was purchased in July, 2024, after which time they realized there 16 were driveway issues. He described the three front facing garage doors and stated that due to the 17 driveway’s narrowness, it is difficult to maneuver into the outer garage bays which also created 18 landscaping issues. Mr. Rothschild stated the issue created major safety concerns for the motorist and 19 pedestrians which he described to the Board. He also described his background in terms of evaluating 20 property safety issues and referred to a 2007 photo from Google Maps Streetview which depicted a 21 larger driveway. Mr. Rothschild stated the request would serve to restore the previously existing 22 functionality of the driveway which is smaller than the previous condition. He added that the neighbors 23 have no concerns with the request and asked the Board to recommend approval of the request. Mr. 24 Rothschild then provided photos to the Board for their review. 25 26 Ms. Hanley referred to the east side of the driveway and asked if consideration was given to installing 27 less pervious material to offset the amount of impervious being requested. Mr. Rothschild responded 28 that area related to the first 30 feet. Mr. Marx noted any surface material which would allow for walking 29 access or a vehicle to be driven over is counted toward impervious lot coverage and front yard lot 30 coverage, even if the material was capable of being pervious. Mr. Nielsen asked if the applicant had 31 three vehicles and Mr. Rothschild responded they have two vehicles. No additional questions were 32 raised at this time. 33 34 Chairman Bradley asked for public comment. No comments were made at this time. He then called the 35 matter in for discussion. 36 37 Ms. Hanley stated she had no problem with the request since it represented a safety issue as opposed to 38 an aesthetic issue. She also stated there is a hardship with regard to the west easement. Mr. Haller 39 stated after viewing the property and the amount of overage, he referred to the easement offset 40 compared to what is allowed. Mr. Haller then stated in considering the difficulty in terms of access, he 41 would recommend approval. Mr. Nielsen stated he is against the request and referred to the fact that 42 the house was constructed with a three-car garage. He also referred to the reasonable return standard 43 and described a three-car garage as a luxury item which did not meet that standard. Mr. Nielsen 44 concluded he would be against the request. Ms. Leister stated she leaned toward approval and viewed 45 the easement as a hardship. She agreed with the difficulty in maneuvering and stated the safety 46 concerns raised were a legitimate concern. Mr. Vender agreed with Mr. Nielsen with regard to the three 47 car garage concerns. He also referred to the safety concerns raised. Chairman Bradley agreed with the 48 safety concerns and stated easements did not make a property unique. He also described the existing Page 11 of 134  May 11, 2026 Page 3 1 driveway as nonfunctional. Chairman Bradley stated the first two standards are difficult to meet and for 2 the easement and the ability to use the garage in the manner expected, he suggested the Board 3 recognize the opportunity to correct what was designed. He concluded the standards have largely been 4 met. 5 6 Chairman Bradley then asked for a motion to recommend approval as noted on page nos. 8 and 9. A 7 motion to recommend approval of the variation request was made by Ms. Hanley and seconded by Mr. 8 Haller. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 5 to 1: 9 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Hanley, Leister, Vender 10 NAYS: Nielsen 11 12 b. Case No. 26-11-V: 1287 Scott Avenue: An application seeking approval of a zoning variation to 13 allow construction of a second-floor addition to the existing residence at 1287 Scott Avenue. The 14 requested variation would permit the addition to exceed the maximum permitted gross floor area. 15 The Zoning Board of Appeals has final jurisdiction on this request. 16 Mr. Marx summarized the variations requested and identified the property’s location, zoning 17 classification and site photos. He stated the request is to add a second-floor addition which he described 18 for the Board along with the existing and proposed floor plan elevations. Mr. Marx noted while the 19 home is existing nonconforming, the proposed addition would otherwise comply with zoning 20 requirements. He stated no written comments were received and following the applicant’s presentation, 21 public comment and Board discussion, the Board may decide to either continue the matter to a date 22 certain to allow time to address questions or comments or make a motion to adopt the resolution to 23 approve or deny the requested variations with draft language included on page nos. 41 and 56. He asked 24 if there were any questions. 25 26 Chairman Bradley stated since the property is existing nonconforming, he questioned the Roofed Lot 27 Coverage and Gross Floor Area measurements and how they were calculated. Mr. Marx explained that 28 they are ultimately proportional to the size and dimensions of the subject property. He explained to the 29 Board the manner in which the property is compliant and where it is nonconforming. No additional 30 questions were raised at this time. 31 32 Chairman Bradley swore in those speaking to this matter. Theresa Rose, the applicant and homeowner, 33 and Rob Friedman, the architect, introduced themselves to the Board. Mrs. Rose stated that the home 34 was purchased in September 2025 at which time they were presented plans by the seller’s agent in 35 terms of what the home could become with the intention of adding a bedroom to make the home more 36 functional for the family. 37 38 Mr. Nielsen referred to the small amount of deviation in the variation request and asked the applicant if 39 they considered making the addition smaller. Mr. Friedman confirmed that it was considered and 40 explained the alternatives they considered, noting that the proposed addition best matched the shape 41 and aesthetics of the existing house. Mr. Haller asked if they considered articulating the rear roof. Mr. 42 Friedman stated they want to maintain the home’s architectural integrity. Chairman Bradley asked if the 43 new bathroom would the master bath. Mrs. Rose stated it would be an on-suite bathroom. Ms. Leister 44 referred to the amount of similar homes on 50-foot lots and asked if they considered converting the 45 garage into a first-floor master bedroom and building a detached garage, which is more feasible because 46 of zoning code requirements. Mrs. Rose confirmed they looked into it and explained why that would 47 create awkward and mismatched floorplans and would not be practical for the layout of the house. No 48 additional questions were raised at this time. Page 12 of 134  May 11, 2026 Page 4 1 Chairman Bradley asked for public comment. No comments were made at this time. He then called the 2 matter in for discussion. 3 4 Chairman Bradley described the request as straightforward. Ms. Hanley referred to the small lot with a 5 small ratio of permitted bulk and coverage, and noted the applicant’s family makeup and the zoning 6 requirements in place. She stated she would lean toward denying the request and stated the request did 7 not warrant a variation with there being room in the remaining available GFA ratio to work with. Ms. 8 Hanley stated the first two standards have not been met. Ms. Leister stated she also leaned toward 9 voting against the request and referred to the standards not being met although the variation 10 percentage seemed de minimis. She then stated there may be ways to trim down the request. Ms. 11 Hanley agreed the request could be reduced to affect the variation amount requested. Mr. Marx 12 clarified the amount of GFA counted with a pitched roof of the house and how upper-floor GFA is 13 determined. 14 15 Mr. Vender stated with regard to reasonable return, the request is a de minimis ask and referred to 16 ways in which the request can be reduced. He commented the proposed design is better and would be 17 more functional. Mr. Vender stated he would vote in favor of the request. Mr. Nielsen stated while the 18 variation amount requested is small, the standards are being picked apart in that they are not met. He 19 stated he is torn in terms of his vote and is leaning toward voting against the request. Mr. Haller agreed 20 with Ms. Leister’s comments and asked if the proposed addition is reduced 5 feet in the rear, would that 21 area relieve the amount counted toward GFA. He then stated he struggled with regard to finding a way 22 to give the applicant 100 square feet with his vote leaning toward no. Chairman Bradley stated the first 23 standard has definitely not been met although the property is unique in ways he outlined. He stated for 24 a project this small and the applicant has 315 square feet to use, the home would not look right if they 25 were required to strictly adhere to the standards and a denial would become punitive. Chairman Bradley 26 referred to the applicant’s proposal for a modest amount of GFA. Mr. Haller added due to the number of 27 small nonconforming lots in the Village, to deny a modest request of this type could result in more lot 28 consolidations. The Board Members discussed their positions in detail. 29 30 Chairman Bradley took a straw poll of the Board Members’ positions. He then asked for a motion to 31 approve the request as included on page 41. A motion to approve the request as presented was made 32 by Mr. Nielsen and seconded by Mr. Vender. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 5 to 1: 33 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Leister, Nielsen, Vender 34 NAYS: Hanley 35 36 New Business: 37 a. June 8, 2026 Meeting - Quorum Check. 38 Chairman Bradley thanked Mr. Vender for his service on the Board. The Board Members discussed their 39 availability. 40 41 Public Comment: 42 No comments were made at this time. 43 44 Adjournment: 45 Chairman Bradley asked for a motion to adjourn. A motion to adjourn was made by Ms. Hanley and 46 seconded by Mr. Nielsen. A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 6 to 0: 47 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Hanley, Leister, Nielsen, Vender 48 NAYS: None Page 13 of 134  May 11, 2026 Page 5 1 The meeting adjourned at 8:18 pm. 2 3 Respectfully submitted, 4 5 Antionette Johnson 6 Recording Secretary 7 Page 14 of 134  MEMORANDUM VILLAGE OF WINNETKA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM: CHRISTOPHER MARX, ACIP – ASSOCIATE PLANNER DATE: JUNE 4, 2026 SUBJECT: 9 WARWICK AVENUE – VARIATIONS (CASE NO. 26-12-V) INTRODUCTION On June 8, 2026, the Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”) is scheduled to hold a public hearing on an application submitted by Nick and Jaclyn Mancuso (collectively, the “Applicant”), as the owners of the property located at 9 Warwick Road (the “Subject Property”). The Applicant requests approval of the following zoning variations to allow construction of an addition to the existing residence on the Subject Property: 1. Side Yard Setback of 6.08 feet from the north property line, whereas a minimum of 9.1 feet is required, a variation of 3.02 feet (33.19%) [Section 17.30.060 – Side Yard Setback] [Note: The residence currently provides a north side yard setback of 6.08 feet]; and 2. Structural changes necessary to provide new window openings in the legally nonconforming north side building wall of the existing residence that provides a side yard setback of 6.08 feet, whereas a minimum of 9.1 feet is required. [Section 17.64.060 – Nonconformities]. 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 May 21, 2026. As of the date of this memo, staff has not received any written comments from the public regarding this application. The ZBA has final jurisdiction on this request as the ZBA has the authority to grant variations to reduce required side yard setbacks for any principal building by no more than 50%. Typically, the Zoning Administrator has final jurisdiction on requests to allow structural changes necessary to provide new window and door openings in a legally nonconforming side building wall; however, since this request includes additional zoning relief for which the Zoning Administrator does not have jurisdiction, the ZBA also has final jurisdiction on the request to allow structural changes to provide new window openings in the legally nonconforming north side building walls. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Subject Property, which is approximately 0.32 acres, is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Warwick and Essex Roads and contains an existing two-story residence and a detached garage (see Figure 1). The property is zoned R-4 Single Family Residential and is bordered by the same to the north, west, and south, while bordering the Village of Kenilworth to the east (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 land use designation. Page 1 Page 15 of 134  Abbotsford Road Subject Essex Road Property Warwick Road Figure 1 – GIS Aerial Map Essex Road Abbotsford Road Subject Property Warwick Road Figure 2 – Zoning Map PROPERTY HISTORY AND PREVIOUS ZONING APPLICATIONS The residence was constructed in approximately 1915 with improvements that included a detached garage in 1923, building addition in 1970, new detached garage in 1993, building addition in 2001, and patio fireplace installation in 2021. In 1993, the property was granted a zoning variation to allow the rear yard setback for the new detached garage to be reduced from 6 feet to 3.3 feet. The Applicant acquired the property in 2020. Figures 3 through 6 on the following pages are current photos of the Subject Property. Page 2 Page 16 of 134 Figure 3 – Subject Property – Corner Yard (South) Elevation – Warwick Road Figure 4 – Subject Property – Corner Yard (South) Elevation – Warwick Road Page 3 Page 17 of 134 Figure 5 – Subject Property – Front Yard (East) Elevation – Essex Road Figure 6 – Subject Property – Front Yard (East) Elevation – Essex Road Page 4 Page 18 of 134 PROPOSED PLAN The variations are requested to construct first-floor and second-floor additions as part of an overall renovation of the existing residence. The proposed first-floor changes would consist of an additional 186.7 square feet of gross floor area (“GFA”) for a relocated kitchen and new mudroom, pantry, half-bathroom, along with an expanded covered front porch near the south entrance. The proposed second-floor changes consist of an additional 770.7 square feet of GFA for a new primary suite. New windows would be installed in the existing nonconforming north side building wall for the breakfast room and kitchen on the first floor and for the primary bedroom on the second floor. The detached garage would receive dormer additions to allow for work space in the upper area of the structure, which would comply with all zoning requirements, including height and setbacks. Excerpts of the proposed site plan, floor plans, and building elevations are provided below and on the following pages as Figures 7 through 12. The complete set of plans is provided in the application materials (Attachment C). Proposed Dormer Additions to Detached Garage Proposed Additions Red Line Represents Buildable Area (required setbacks) Blue Line Represents Required 6-Foot Rear Yard Setback Figure 7 – Proposed Site Plan for Detached Garage Page 5 Page 19 of 134  Proposed First-Floor Window Openings in Nonconforming Side Building Wall Proposed Additions Figure 8 – Proposed First-Floor Plan Proposed Second-Floor Proposed Window Openings in Addition Nonconforming Side Building Wall Figure 9 – Proposed Second-Floor Plan Page 6 Page 20 of 134  Proposed Addition Proposed Expanded Window Openings in Nonconforming Side Building Wall Figure 10 – Proposed Side (North) Elevation Proposed Addition Figure 11 – Proposed Front (East) Elevation Page 7 Page 21 of 134  Proposed Addition Figure 12 – Proposed Rear (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). Based on the proposed plans, it appears additional stormwater detention would be required. However, a final determination will be made by Village Engineering staff upon submittal of the permits necessary for the proposed improvements, which are required to comply with the Village stormwater regulations. Figure 13 below represents the Subject Property’s proximity to the floodplain; the cyan represents the 100-year floodplain; the orange represents the 500-year floodplain. Village of Kenilworth Figure 13 - GIS Floodplain Map REQUESTED ZONING RELIEF The attached Zoning Matrix highlights the existing lot and the proposed improvement’s compliance with the R-4 zoning district (Attachment A). Two variations are being requested: (1) side yard setback; and (2) structural changes necessary to provide new window openings. Page 8 Page 22 of 134 Minimum Side Yard Setback (North). The existing residence is legally nonconforming with respect to the minimum required side yard setback as it currently provides a north side yard setback of 6.08 feet. The proposed addition would continue the existing north side yard setback of 6.08 feet, requiring a variation of 33.19%. Structural Changes Necessary For New Window Openings. Zoning relief is necessary to allow the proposed window openings in the legally nonconforming north side building wall of the existing residence. As noted previously, the north building wall provides a setback 6.08 feet, whereas the minimum required side yard setback is 9.1 feet. Existing doors and windows may be replaced in the same location and size; however, enlarged or relocated doors and windows in a nonconforming side building wall require approval of a zoning variation. FINDINGS In the attached application materials submitted by the Applicant, the Applicant has provided a statement of justification regarding how the requested variations meet the standards for granting the requested zoning variations. Does the ZBA find that the requested variations meet the standards for granting such variations; and if so, is the ZBA prepared to approve the requested variations? Staff has prepared the attached draft resolutions for the ZBA’s consideration (Attachment D). One resolution approves the request, while the other denies the request. A ZBA member may wish to make a motion to: (i) adopt the resolution to approve the requested variations; (ii) adopt the resolution to deny the requested variations; or (iii) continue the case to a specific date. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Zoning Matrix Attachment B: Stormwater Matrix Attachment C: Application Materials Attachment D: Draft Resolutions Page 9 Page 23 of 134  ATTACHMENT A ZONING MATRIX ADDRESS: 9 WARWICK ROAD CASE NO: 26-12-V ZONING: R-4 MIN/MAX DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ITEM REQUIREMENT EXISTING PROPOSED PROPOSED & EXISTING ZONING CODE COMPLIANCE (2) Min. Lot Size 13,300 SF 13,939 SF N/A N/A OK Min. Average Lot Width 70 FT 91 ft N/A N/A OK Min. Lot Depth 120 FT 153.18 FT N/A N/A OK Max. Roofed Lot Coverage 3,763.5 SF (1) 2,545.02 2,731.72 SF 186.7 SF OK Max. Gross Floor Area 4,602.8 SF 3,413.07 SF 4,326.43 SF 913.36 SF OK Max. Impermeable Lot Coverage 6,969.5 SF (1) 3,584.24 SF 5,412.89 SF 1,828.65 SF OK Min. Front Yard (Essex Road) 30 FT 67.02 FT 67.02 FT 0 FT OK Min. Corner Yard (Warwick Road) 27.3 FT 29 FT 27.98 FT -1.02 FT OK Min. Side Yard (North) 9.1 FT 6.08 FT 6.08 FT (3) 0 FT 3.02 FT (33.19%) VARIATION Min. Rear Yard (West) 22.98 FT 36.1 FT 30.16 FT -5.94 FT OK NOTES: (1) Based on lot area of 13,939 square feet (2) Variation amount is the difference between proposed and requirement. (3) Proposed first and second floor building additions would continue, but not increase, existing nonconforming side yard setback along north building wall. Page 24 of 134  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 onsite. They are required to meet all other Village stormwater system design requirements. Storm Water Detention Volume Requirements Applicable Requirement A. New Home Construction The amount of additional required storm water Previously Developed Lot 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 detention Previously Undeveloped Site 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 detention Different Use (e.g. single family volume is based upon the maximum to multifamily, or commercial) impermeable lot coverage, using the run-off coefficient for 100-year storm event. D. Improvements to Existing The amount of additional required storm water Applies to 9 Warwick Home and/or Lot, causing an detention volume is based upon the difference Road. Based upon increase in impermeable lot between the proposed and existing preliminary review of coverage greater or equal to impermeable lot coverage, using the run-off information to date, it 25%. coefficient for 100 year storm event. (Note: If appears that 9 Warwick the increase in impermeable lot coverage is Road would have to less than 25%, additional storm water provide additional storm detention volume is not required.) water detention volume. However, a final determination will not occur until engineering plans are submitted with a building permit application. E. Improvements to existing lots, The amount of additional required storm who currently exceed water detention volume is based upon: maximum impermeable lot a) The amount of the impermeable lot coverage (e.g., School sites, coverage (ILC) currently in excess of the single family and multifamily maximum permitted amount of ILC sites) 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. The amount of required detention volume is then determined using the runoff coefficient for 100-year storm event. Page 25 of 134  ATTACHMENT C Village of Winnetka ZONING VARIATION APPLICATION V I L L A G E O F W I N N E T K A, I L L I N O I S DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ZONING VARIATION APPLICATION Case No. Property Information 9 Warwick Road, Winnetka, IL Site Address:__________________________________________________________________________________ Owner Information Nick and Jaclyn Mancuso Name: _______________________________________ Jaclyn or Nick Mancuso Primary Contact:__________________________ Address: Phone N City, State, ZIP:_________________________________ 11/10/2020 Em Date property acquired by owner:____________ Architect Information Attorney Information Charles Hackley, Jr. Name:_______________________________________ Name:__________________________________ Tom DeCoste Primary Contact:________________________________ Primary Contact:_________________________ Addres Address:_________________________________ City, State ZIP: City, State, Zip:___________________________ Pho Phone No._______________________________ Emai Email:___________________________________ Existing home is beyond side yard setback on North side of property Nature of any restrictions on property:_____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ We are Brief explanation of variation(s) requested (attach separate sheet providing additional details):_______________ requesting relief beyond the north side yard setback to build a second story ____________________________________________________________________________________________ addition. Our addition will align with the existing first floor that is beyond ___________________________________________________________________________________________ the setback line. _____________________ ______________________________ Property Owner Signatur 04-29-2026 Date:____________________ Page 3 of 5 Page 26 of 134 Page 27 of 134 Page 28 of 134 Page 29 of 134 Page 30 of 134 Page 31 of 134 Page 32 of 134 Page 33 of 134 Page 34 of 134 Page 35 of 134 Page 36 of 134 Page 37 of 134 Page 38 of 134 Page 39 of 134 Page 40 of 134 Page 41 of 134 Page 42 of 134 Page 43 of 134 Page 44 of 134 Page 45 of 134 Page 46 of 134 Page 47 of 134  ATTACHMENT D RESOLUTION NO. ZBA-03-2026 VILLAGE OF WINNETKA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPROVAL OF ZBA CASE NO. 26-12-V – 9 WARWICK ROAD WHEREAS, Nick and Jaclyn Mancuso (collectively, the “Applicant”) are the owners of the property commonly known as 9 Warwick Road, Winnetka, Illinois, and legally described in Exhibit A attached to and, by this reference, made part of this Resolution (“Subject Property”); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is located in the R-4 Single Family Residential District; and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is improved with a single-family residence with a detached garage that is nonconforming with respect to the minimum required side yard setback from the north property line (“Building”); and WHEREAS, the Applicant desires to construct additions on the first and second floors of the Building and create new window openings in the legally nonconforming north side building wall of the Building on the Subject Property that would (i) provide less than the minimum required side yard setback from the north property line; and (ii) require structural changes necessary to provide new window openings in the legally nonconforming north side building wall of the existing Building that provides less than the minimum required side yard setback (“Proposed Improvement”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.30.060 of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance (“Zoning Ordinance”), the Subject Property is required to provide a minimum side yard setback of 9.1 feet; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.64.060 of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance, zoning relief is necessary to allow enlarged or relocated windows in nonconforming side buildings walls; and WHEREAS, the Applicant desires to construct the Proposed Improvement on the Subject Property with (i) a minimum side yard setback that is less than the required 9.1 feet, a violation of Section 17.30.060 of the Zoning Ordinance; and (ii) construct new window openings in the legally nonconforming north side building wall that provides less than the minimum required side yard setback of 9.1 feet, a violation of Section 17.64.060 of the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Applicant filed an application for variations from Section 17.30.060 and Section 17.64.060 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the Proposed Improvement on the Subject Property with (i) a north side yard setback of 6.08 feet; and (ii) new window openings in the existing north side building wall that provides a setback of 6.08 feet (“Requested Variations”); and WHEREAS, a public notice for the Requested Variations was duly published on May 21, 2026, in the Winnetka Talk and notice was mailed to the owners of record of all properties within 250 feet of the Subject Property as required by the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Winnetka Zoning Board of Appeals during a meeting held on June 8, 2026, for the purpose of considering the Requested Variations with the final decision being rendered at the Zoning Board of Appeal’s Regular Meeting on June 8, 2026; and Page 48 of 134  WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has considered the evidence presented, as follows: 1. Application for the Requested Variations submitted by the Applicant, dated April 29, 2026, including all attachments as well as all subsequent additions and revisions to these application materials and attachments; and 2. All written and oral testimony concerning the Requested Variations. WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has determined that the Requested Variations satisfy the standards for a variation provided in Sections 17.60.040 and 17.60.050 of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has determined that it will serve and be in the best interest of the Village and its residents to grant the application for the (i) minimum side yard setback variation, and (ii) the structural changes necessary to provide new window openings in the legally nonconforming building wall variation in accordance with, and subject to, the conditions, restrictions, and provisions of this Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Winnetka, Cook County, Illinois, that: SECTION 1. RECITALS. The foregoing recitals are incorporated into, and made part of, this Resolution as the findings of the Zoning Board of Appeals. SECTION 2. APPROVAL OF VARIATIONS. Subject to and contingent upon the conditions, restrictions, and provisions set forth in Section Three of this Resolution, the requested (i) minimum side yard setback variation from Section 17.30.060 of the Zoning Ordinance, and (ii) structural changes to allow new window openings in the legally nonconforming side building wall variation from Section 17.64.060 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the Proposed Improvement on the Subject Property is hereby granted, in accordance with and pursuant to Chapter 17.60 of the Zoning Ordinance and the home rule powers of the Village. SECTION 3. CONDITIONS. Notwithstanding any use or development right that may be applicable or available pursuant to the provisions of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance or any other rights the Applicant may have, the approval granted in Section Two of this Resolution is hereby expressly subject to and contingent upon compliance with each and all of the following conditions: A. Compliance with Plans. Except for minor changes and site work approved by the Director of Community Development in accordance with all applicable Village standards, the development, use, operation, and maintenance of the Subject Property, shall comply with those certain plans attached hereto as Exhibit B. B. Compliance with Regulations. The construction, development, use, operation, and maintenance of the Proposed Improvement and the Subject Property must comply with all applicable Village codes and ordinances, as the same may be amended from time to time, except to the extent specifically provided otherwise in this Resolution. SECTION 4. RECORDING; BINDING EFFECT. A copy of this Resolution will be recorded in the office of the Cook County Clerk Recording Division. This Resolution and the privileges, obligations, and Page 49 of 134 provisions contained herein will inure solely to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the Applicant and its respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns. SECTION 5. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS. Upon the failure or refusal of the Applicant to comply with any or all of the conditions, restrictions, or provisions of this Resolution, the approval granted in Section Two of this Resolution will, at the sole discretion of the Zoning Board of Appeals, by Resolution duly adopted, be revoked and become null and void; provided, however, that the Zoning Board of Appeals may not so revoke the approval granted in Section Two of this Resolution unless it first provides the Applicant with two months advance written notice of the reasons for revocation and an opportunity to be heard at a regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. In the event of revocation, the development and use of the Subject Property will be governed solely by the applicable regulations of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance, including, without limitation, (i) the side yard setback requirements set forth in Section 17.30.060 of the Zoning Ordinance and (ii) the structural changes to provide a new window opening in a legally nonconforming side building wall requirement set forth in Section 17.64.060 of the Zoning Ordinance. Further, in the event of such revocation, the Village Manager and Village Attorney are hereby authorized and directed to bring such zoning enforcement action as may be appropriate under the circumstances. SECTION 6. AMENDMENTS. Any amendments to the Requested Variations granted in Section Two of this Resolution may be granted only pursuant to the procedures, and subject to the standards and limitations, provided in the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance. SECTION 7. EFFECTIVE DATE. A. This Resolution will be effective only upon the occurrence of all of the following events: B. Passage by the Zoning Board of Appeals in the manner required by law; and C. The filing by the Applicant with the Village Clerk of an Unconditional Agreement and Consent, in the form of Exhibit C attached to and, by this reference, made a part of this Resolution, to accept and abide by each and all of the terms, conditions, and limitations set forth in this Resolution and to indemnify the Village for any claims that may arise in connection with the approval of this Resolution. D. In the event that the Applicant does not file fully executed copies of the Unconditional Agreement and Consent, as required by Section 7.C of this Resolution, within 60 days after the date of final passage of this Resolution by the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Zoning Board of Appeals will have the right, in its sole discretion, to declare this Resolution null and void and of no force or effect. [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS] Page 50 of 134  ADOPTED this 8th day of June, 2026, pursuant to the following roll call vote: AYES: ________________________________ ______________________________________ NAYS: ______________________________________________________________________ ABSENT: ____________________________________________________________________ ABSTAIN: ___________________________________________________________________ Signed: ____________________________________ Matthew Bradley, Chairperson Countersigned: ____________________________________ Village Clerk Page 51 of 134  EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY THE SOUTH 91 FEET OF LOT 13 IN BLOCK 1 IN TEMPEL'S RESUBDIVISION OF THAT PART OF THE WEST ½ OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 13, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, LYING EAST OF THE CHICAGO MILWAUKEE RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY AND THE NORTH OF VILLAGE LIMITS OF KENILWORTH, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COMMONLY KNOWN AS 9 WARWICK ROAD, WINNETKA, ILLINOIS. PARCEL INDEX NUMBER: 05-28-202-017-0000 Page 52 of 134  EXHIBIT B PLANS (SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT B) Page 53 of 134  EXHIBIT B Page 54 of 134 Page 55 of 134 Page 56 of 134 Page 57 of 134 Page 58 of 134 Page 59 of 134 Page 60 of 134 Page 61 of 134 Page 62 of 134  EXHIBIT C UNCONDITIONAL AGREEMENT AND CONSENT TO: The Village of Winnetka, Illinois (“Village”): WHEREAS, Nick and Jaclyn Mancuso (collectively, the “Owner”) are the owners of record of that certain real property located at 9 Warwick Road, Winnetka, Illinois (“Property”); and WHEREAS, Resolution No. ZBA-03-2026, adopted by the Winnetka Zoning Board of Appeals on June 8, 2026 (“Resolution”), grants variations to construct additions to the existing single-family residence on the Subject Property; and WHEREAS, Section 7.A.2 of the Resolution provides, among other things, that the Resolution will be of no force or effect unless and until the Owner has filed, within 60 days following the passage of the Resolution, its unconditional agreement and consent to accept and abide by each and all of the terms, conditions, and limitations set forth in the Resolution; NOW, THEREFORE, the Owner does hereby agree and covenant as follows: 1. The Owner hereby unconditionally agrees to accept, consent to, and abide by each and all of the terms, conditions, limitations, restrictions, and provisions of the Resolution. 2. The Owner acknowledges that public notices and public hearings have been properly given and held with respect to the adoption of the Resolution, have considered the possibility of the revocation provided for in the Resolution, and agree not to challenge any such revocation on the grounds of any procedural infirmity or a denial of any procedural right. 3. The Owner acknowledges and agrees that the Village is not and will not be, in any way, liable for any damages or injuries that may be sustained as a result of the Village’s granting of the variations, and that the Village’s approval of the variations does not, and will not, in any way, be deemed to insure the Owner against damage or injury of any kind and at any time. 4. The Owner hereby agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the Village, the Village’s corporate authorities, and all Village elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, representatives, and attorneys, from any and all claims that may, at any time, be asserted against any of such parties in connection with the Village’s adoption of the Resolution granting the variations for the Property. [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS] Page 63 of 134 Dated: _____________________, 2026. ATTEST OWNER By: __________________________ By: _________________________________ Nick Mancuso Name: _______________________ By: _________________________________ Jaclyn Mancuso Page 64 of 134  RESOLUTION NO. ZBA-03-2026 VILLAGE OF WINNETKA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DENIAL OF ZBA CASE NO. 26-12-V – 9 WARWICK ROAD WHEREAS, Nick and Jaclyn Mancuso (collectively, the “Applicant”) are the owners of the property commonly known as 9 Warwick Road, Winnetka, Illinois, and legally described in Exhibit A attached to and, by this reference, made part of this Resolution (“Subject Property”); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is located in the R-4 Single Family Residential District; and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is improved with a single-family residence with a detached garage that is nonconforming with respect to the minimum required side yard setback from the north property line (“Building”); and WHEREAS, the Applicant desires to construct additions on the first and second floors of the Building and create new window openings in the legally nonconforming north side building wall of the Building on the Subject Property that would (i) provide less than the minimum required side yard setback from the north property line; and (ii) require structural changes necessary to provide new window openings in the legally nonconforming north side building wall of the existing Building that provides less than the minimum required side yard setback (“Proposed Improvement”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.30.060 of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance (“Zoning Ordinance”), the Subject Property is required to provide a minimum side yard setback of 9.1 feet; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.64.060 of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance, zoning relief is necessary to allow enlarged or relocated windows in nonconforming side buildings walls; and WHEREAS, the Applicant desires to construct the Proposed Improvement on the Subject Property with (i) a minimum side yard setback that is less than the required 9.1 feet, a violation of Section 17.30.060 of the Zoning Ordinance; and (ii) construct new window openings in the legally nonconforming north side building wall that provides less than the minimum required side yard setback of 9.1 feet, a violation of Section 17.64.060 of the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Applicant filed an application for variations from Section 17.30.060 and Section 17.64.060 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the Proposed Improvement on the Subject Property with (i) a north side yard setback of 6.08 feet; and (ii) new window openings in the existing north side building wall that provides a setback of 6.08 feet (“Requested Variations”); and WHEREAS, a public notice for the Requested Variations was duly published on May 21, 2026, in the Winnetka Talk and notice was mailed to the owners of record of all properties within 250 feet of the Subject Property as required by the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Winnetka Zoning Board of Appeals during a meeting held on June 8, 2026, for the purpose of considering the Requested Variations with the final decision being rendered at the Zoning Board of Appeal’s Regular Meeting on June 8, 2026; and Page 65 of 134  WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has considered the evidence presented, as follows: 1. Application for the Requested Variations submitted by the Applicant, dated April 29, 2026, including all attachments as well as all subsequent additions and revisions to these application materials and attachments; and 2. All written and oral testimony concerning the Requested Variations. WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has determined that the Requested Variations do not satisfy the standards for a variation provided in Sections 17.60.040 and 17.60.050 of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance because (i) the Requested Variations are not in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance; (ii) the Subject Property can yield a reasonable return if it is permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed for the R-4 Single Family Residential District; and (iii) the plight of the Applicant is not due to unique circumstances; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has determined that it will not serve and be in the best interest of the Village and its residents to approve the Requested Variations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Winnetka, Cook County, Illinois, that: SECTION 1. RECITALS. The foregoing recitals are incorporated into, and made part of, this Resolution as the findings of the Zoning Board of Appeals. SECTION 2. DENIAL OF VARIATIONS. In accordance with and pursuant to Chapter 17.60 of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance and the home rule powers of the Village, the Zoning Board of Appeals denies the Requested Variations for the Subject Property. SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution will be effective upon passage by the Zoning Board of Appeals in the manner required by law. ADOPTED this 8th day of June, 2026, pursuant to the following roll call vote: AYES: ________________________________ ______________________________________ NAYS: ______________________________________________________________________ ABSENT: ____________________________________________________________________ ABSTAIN: ___________________________________________________________________ Signed: ____________________________________ Matthew Bradley, Chairperson Countersigned: ____________________________________ Village Clerk Page 66 of 134  EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY THE SOUTH 91 FEET OF LOT 13 IN BLOCK 1 IN TEMPEL'S RESUBDIVISION OF THAT PART OF THE WEST ½ OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 13, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, LYING EAST OF THE CHICAGO MILWAUKEE RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY AND THE NORTH OF VILLAGE LIMITS OF KENILWORTH, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COMMONLY KNOWN AS 9 WARWICK ROAD, WINNETKA, ILLINOIS. PARCEL INDEX NUMBER: 05-28-202-017-0000 Page 67 of 134  MEMORANDUM VILLAGE OF WINNETKA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM: CHRISTOPHER MARX, ACIP – ASSOCIATE PLANNER DATE: JUNE 4, 2026 SUBJECT: 1252 SPRUCE STREET – VARIATIONS (CASE NO. 26-13-V) INTRODUCTION On June 8, 2026, the Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”) is scheduled to hold a public hearing on an application submitted by Lawrence and Loraine Yolles (collectively, the “Applicant”), as the owners of the property located at 1252 Spruce Street (the “Subject Property”). The Applicant requests approval of the following zoning variations to allow construction of a second-floor addition to the existing residence on the Subject Property: 1. Side Yard Setback of 5.69 feet from the east property line, whereas a minimum of 7.5 feet is required, a variation of 1.81 feet (24.13%) [Section 17.30.060 – Side Yard Setback] [Note: The residence currently provides an east side yard setback of 5.69 feet]; 2. Total Side Yard Setback of 13.13 feet, whereas a minimum of 18.75 feet is required, a variation of 5.62 feet (29.97%) [Section 17.30.060 – Side Yard Setback] [Note: The residence currently provides a total side yard setback of 13.13 feet]; and 3. Structural changes necessary to provide new window openings in the legally nonconforming west side and east side building walls of the existing residence that provide side yard setbacks of 7.44 feet (west) and 5.69 (east), whereas a minimum of 7.5 feet is required. [Section 17.64.060 – Nonconformities]. 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 May 21, 2026. As of the date of this memo, staff has not received any written comments from the public regarding this application. The ZBA has final jurisdiction on this request as the ZBA has the authority to grant variations to reduce required side yard setbacks for any principal building by no more than 50%. Typically, the Zoning Administrator has final jurisdiction on requests to allow structural changes necessary to provide new window and door openings in a legally nonconforming side building wall; however, since this request includes additional zoning relief for which the Zoning Administrator does not have jurisdiction, the ZBA also has final jurisdiction on the request to allow structural changes to provide new window openings in the legally nonconforming east and west side building walls. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Subject Property, which is approximately 0.34 acres in size, is located on the south side of Spruce Street between Hibbard Road and Berkeley Avenue and contains an existing two-story residence with an attached garage (see Figure 1). The property is zoned R-4 Single Family Residential and is bordered by the same to the west, south, and east, while properties to the north are zoned R-2 Single Family Page 1 Page 68 of 134 Residential (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 land use designation. Hibbard Road Subject Spruce Street Property Figure 1 – GIS Aerial Map Subject Property Figure 2 – Zoning Map PROPERTY HISTORY AND PREVIOUS ZONING APPLICATIONS The residence was constructed in approximately 1947 with no major improvements or alterations after its construction. There are no previous zoning cases on file for the Subject Property. The Applicant acquired the property in 2015. Figure 3 on the following page is a current photo of the Subject Property. Page 2 Page 69 of 134  Figure 3 – Subject Property - Front (North) Elevation - Spruce Street PROPOSED PLAN The variations are requested to construct a second-floor addition as part of an overall renovation of the existing residence. The building addition above the attached garage would include an expanded primary bathroom, new bedroom, and walk-in closet. While the proposed improvements above the main portion of the residence would involve pushing out existing dormers on the front and rear facades for additional space in three existing bedrooms and an existing bathroom. The proposed addition would increase the gross floor area (“GFA”) on the second floor by 599.26 feet and increase the overall building height by 3.79 feet. While the proposed addition is confined to the second floor, a small portion of the addition would cantilever over the front of the garage, constituting calculable GFA for the first-floor level below. The proposed addition would continue the nonconforming east side yard setback of 5.69 feet on the first and second floors while complying with the required west side yard setback of 7.5 feet with the second-floor addition 7.65 feet from the west side property line. The proposed addition and renovation also involve expanding window openings on the second floor of the nonconforming east side building wall and the first floor of the nonconforming west side building wall. Excerpts of the proposed site plan, floor plans, and building elevations are provided on the following pages as Figures 4 through 10. The complete set of plans is provided in the application materials (Attachment B). Page 3 Page 70 of 134  Location of Proposed Addition Figure 4 – Proposed Site Plan Proposed Expanded Location First-Floor of Window Proposed Openings in Expanded First- Nonconforming Side Floor Window Building Wall Openings in Nonconforming Building Wall Location of First-Floor Space Below Proposed Second-Floor Addition Counting Towards GFA Figure 5 – Proposed First Floor Plan Page 4 Page 71 of 134  Proposed Second-Floor Addition Proposed Expanded Second-Floor Window Opening in Nonconforming Side Building Wall Figure 6 – Proposed Second Floor Plan Proposed Second-Floor Addition Figure 7 – Proposed Front (North) Elevation Page 5 Page 72 of 134  Proposed Second-Floor Addition Figure 8 – Proposed Rear (South) Elevation Proposed Expanded Second-Floor Window Opening in Proposed Nonconforming Side Second-Floor Building Wall Addition Figure 9 – Proposed Side (East) Elevation Location ProposedofExpanded Proposed Expanded First-Floor First-Floor Window Proposed Window Openings in Openings Second-Floor Nonconforming Nonconforming Side Addition Building Building Wall Wall Figure 10 – Proposed Side (West) Elevation Page 6 Page 73 of 134 The proposed improvement does not include any additional impermeable lot coverage. However, upon submittal of the building permit for the proposed addition, Village Engineering staff will review the permit for compliance with the Village stormwater regulations to verify stormwater is being managed on-site. Figure 11 below represents the Subject Property’s location in the floodplain with the cyan representing the 100-year floodplain. Portions of the Subject Property are located in the 100-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). Compliance with these ordinances will be verified by Village Engineering staff upon submittal of the necessary permits to construct the proposed improvement. Subject Property Figure 11 - GIS Floodplain Map REQUESTED ZONING RELIEF The attached Zoning Matrix highlights the existing lot and the proposed improvement’s compliance with the R-4 zoning district (Attachment A). Three variations are being requested: (1) side yard setback; (2) total side yard setback; and (3) structural changes necessary to provide new window openings. Minimum Side Yard Setback (East). The existing residence is legally nonconforming with respect to the minimum required side yard setback as it currently provides a west side yard setback of 7.44 feet and an east side yard setback of 5.69 feet. The proposed addition would continue the existing east side yard setback of 5.69 feet, requiring a variation of 24.13%. Total Side Yard Setback. The existing residence is also legally nonconforming with respect to minimum required total side yard setback of 18.75 feet as the residence currently provides a total side yard setback of 13.13 feet; encroaching into the required total side yard setback by 5.62 feet (29.97%). The proposed addition would maintain the existing side yard setbacks of 7.44 feet from the west property line and 5.69 feet from the east property line for a total side yard setback of 13.13 feet; therefore, not increasing the encroachment or deviation from the requirement of 18.75 feet. Page 7 Page 74 of 134 Structural Changes Necessary For New Window Openings. Zoning relief is necessary to allow the proposed window openings in the legally nonconforming east and west side building walls of the existing residence. More specifically, for new windows on the first floor on the west elevation and the second floor on the east elevation. As noted previously, the west and east side building walls provide setbacks of 7.44 and 5.69 feet, respectively, whereas the minimum required side yard setback is 7.5 feet. Existing doors and windows may be replaced in the same location and size; however, enlarged or relocated doors and windows in a nonconforming side building wall require approval of a zoning variation. FINDINGS In the attached application materials submitted by the Applicant, the Applicant has provided a statement of justification regarding how the requested variations meet the standards for granting the requested zoning variation. Does the ZBA find that the requested variations meet the standards for granting such variations; and if so, is the ZBA prepared to approve the requested variations? Staff has prepared the attached draft resolutions for the ZBA’s consideration (Attachment C). One resolution approves the request, while the other denies the request. A ZBA member may wish to make a motion to: (i) adopt the resolution to approve the requested variations; (ii) adopt the resolution to deny the requested variations; or (iii) continue the case to a specific date. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Zoning Matrix Attachment B: Application Materials Attachment C: Draft Resolutions Page 8 Page 75 of 134  ATTACHMENT A ZONING MATRIX ADDRESS: 1252 SPRUCE STREET CASE NO: 26-13-V ZONING: R-4 MIN/MAX DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ITEM REQUIREMENT EXISTING PROPOSED PROPOSED & EXISTING ZONING CODE COMPLIANCE (2) Min. Lot Size 12,600 SF 15,008 SF N/A N/A OK Min. Average Lot Width 60 FT 75 FT N/A N/A OK Min. Lot Depth 120 FT 200.13 FT N/A N/A OK Max. Roofed Lot Coverage 4,052.16 SF (1) 2,009.06 SF 2,062.95 sf 53.89 SF OK Max. Gross Floor Area 4,816.6 SF 3,055.86 SF 3,689.54 SF 633.68 SF OK Max. Impermeable Lot Coverage 7,504 SF (1) 3,344.21 SF 3,344.21 SF 0 SF OK Min. Front Yard (Spruce Street) 49.17 FT 50.46 FT 50.46 FT 0 FT OK Min. Side Yard (East) 7.5 FT 5.69 FT 5.69 FT 0 FT 1.81 FT (24.13%) VARIATION Min. Total Side Yard 18.75 FT 13.13 FT 13.13 FT 0 FT 5.62 FT (29.97%) VARIATION Min. Rear Yard (South) 25 FT 106.64 FT 106.64 FT 0 FT OK NOTES: (1) Based on lot area of 15,008 square feet (2) Variation amount is the difference between proposed and requirement. (3) Proposed second-floor addition would provide a west building wall side yard setback of 7.65 feet, in compliance with the minimum required side yard setback of 7.5 feet Page 76 of 134 ATTACHMENT B Page 77 of 134 Page 78 of 134 Page 79 of 134  PLAT of SURVEY with TOPOGRAPHY 1252 SPRUCE ST., WILMETTE, ILLINOIS. SPRUCE ST. 75.00' HIBBARD RD. N89° 05' 24"W HIBBARD RD. 2 STORY BRICK & FRAME RESIDENCE #1252 200.13' S00° 01' 20"W N00° 01' 20"E 200.13' S89° 05' 24"E 75.00' 15 Page 80 of 134 Page 81 of 134 Page 82 of 134 Page 83 of 134 Page 84 of 134 Page 85 of 134 Page 86 of 134 Page 87 of 134 Page 88 of 134  ATTACHMENT C RESOLUTION NO. ZBA-04-2026 VILLAGE OF WINNETKA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPROVAL OF ZBA CASE NO. 26-13-V – 1252 SPRUCE STREET WHEREAS, Lawrence and Loraine Yolles (collectively, the “Applicant”) are the owners of the property commonly known as 1252 Spruce Street, Winnetka, Illinois, and legally described in Exhibit A attached to and, by this reference, made part of this Resolution (“Subject Property”); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is located in the R-4 Single Family Residential District; and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is improved with a single-family residence with an attached garage that is nonconforming with respect to (i) the minimum required side yard setback from the east and west property lines, and (ii) the minimum required total side yard setback (“Building”); and WHEREAS, the Applicant desires to construct a second-floor addition to the Building and create new window openings in the legally nonconforming west and east side building walls of the Building on the Subject Property that would (i) provide less than the minimum required side yard setback from the east property line; (ii) provide less than the minimum required total side yard setback; and (iii) require structural changes necessary to provide new window openings in the legally nonconforming west and east side building walls of the existing Building that provide less than the minimum required side yard setback (“Proposed Improvement”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.30.060 of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance (“Zoning Ordinance”), the Subject Property is required to provide a minimum side yard setback of 7.5 feet; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.30.060 of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance, the Subject Property is required to provide a minimum total side setback of 18.75 feet; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.64.060 of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance, zoning relief is necessary to allow enlarged or relocated windows in nonconforming side buildings walls; and WHEREAS, the Applicant desires to construct the Proposed Improvement on the Subject Property with (i) a minimum side yard setback that is less than the required 7.5 feet, a violation of Section 17.30.060 of the Zoning Ordinance; (ii) a minimum total side yard setback that is less than the required 18.75 feet, a violation of Section 17.30.060 of the Zoning Ordinance; and (iii) construct new window openings in the legally nonconforming west and east side building walls that provide less than the minimum required side yard setback of 7.5 feet, a violation of Section 17.64.060 of the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Applicant filed an application for variations from Section 17.30.060 and Section 17.64.060 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the Proposed Improvement on the Subject Property with (i) an east side yard setback of 5.69 feet; (ii) a total side yard setback of 13.13 feet; and (iii) new window openings in the existing west side building wall that provides a setback of 7.44 feet and the existing east side building wall that provides a setback of 5.69 feet (“Requested Variations”); and Page 89 of 134  WHEREAS, a public notice for the Requested Variations was duly published on May 21, 2026, in the Winnetka Talk and notice was mailed to the owners of record of all properties within 250 feet of the Subject Property as required by the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Winnetka Zoning Board of Appeals during a meeting held on June 8, 2026, for the purpose of considering the Requested Variations with the final decision being rendered at the Zoning Board of Appeal’s Regular Meeting on June 8, 2026; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has considered the evidence presented, as follows: 1. Application for the Requested Variations submitted by the Applicant, dated April 30, 2026, including all attachments as well as all subsequent additions and revisions to these application materials and attachments; and 2. All written and oral testimony concerning the Requested Variations. WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has determined that the Requested Variations satisfy the standards for a variation provided in Sections 17.60.040 and 17.60.050 of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has determined that it will serve and be in the best interest of the Village and its residents to grant the application for the (i) minimum side yard setback variation, (ii) total side yard setback variation, and (iii) the structural changes necessary to provide new window openings in legally nonconforming building walls variation in accordance with, and subject to, the conditions, restrictions, and provisions of this Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Winnetka, Cook County, Illinois, that: SECTION 1. RECITALS. The foregoing recitals are incorporated into, and made part of, this Resolution as the findings of the Zoning Board of Appeals. SECTION 2. APPROVAL OF VARIATIONS. Subject to and contingent upon the conditions, restrictions, and provisions set forth in Section Three of this Resolution, the requested (i) minimum side yard setback variation from Section 17.30.060 of the Zoning Ordinance, (ii) total side yard setback variation from Section 17.30.060 of the Zoning Ordinance, (iii) structural changes to allow new window openings in legally nonconforming side building walls from Section 17.64.060 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the Proposed Improvement on the Subject Property is hereby granted, in accordance with and pursuant to Chapter 17.60 of the Zoning Ordinance and the home rule powers of the Village. SECTION 3. CONDITIONS. Notwithstanding any use or development right that may be applicable or available pursuant to the provisions of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance or any other rights the Applicant may have, the approval granted in Section Two of this Resolution is hereby expressly subject to and contingent upon compliance with each and all of the following conditions: A. Compliance with Plans. Except for minor changes and site work approved by the Director of Community Development in accordance with all applicable Village standards, the development, use, operation, and maintenance of the Subject Property, Page 90 of 134  shall comply with those certain plans attached hereto as Exhibit B. B. Compliance with Regulations. The construction, development, use, operation, and maintenance of the Proposed Improvement and the Subject Property must comply with all applicable Village codes and ordinances, as the same may be amended from time to time, except to the extent specifically provided otherwise in this Resolution. SECTION 4. RECORDING; BINDING EFFECT. A copy of this Resolution will be recorded in the office of the Cook County Clerk Recording Division. This Resolution and the privileges, obligations, and provisions contained herein will inure solely to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the Applicant and its respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns. SECTION 5. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS. Upon the failure or refusal of the Applicant to comply with any or all of the conditions, restrictions, or provisions of this Resolution, the approval granted in Section Two of this Resolution will, at the sole discretion of the Zoning Board of Appeals, by Resolution duly adopted, be revoked and become null and void; provided, however, that the Zoning Board of Appeals may not so revoke the approval granted in Section Two of this Resolution unless it first provides the Applicant with two months advance written notice of the reasons for revocation and an opportunity to be heard at a regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. In the event of revocation, the development and use of the Subject Property will be governed solely by the applicable regulations of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance, including, without limitation, (i) the side yard setback requirements set forth in Section 17.30.060 of the Zoning Ordinance and (ii) structural changes to provide new window openings in legally nonconforming side building walls requirement set forth in Section 17.64.060 of the Zoning Ordinance. Further, in the event of such revocation, the Village Manager and Village Attorney are hereby authorized and directed to bring such zoning enforcement action as may be appropriate under the circumstances. SECTION 6. AMENDMENTS. Any amendments to the Requested Variations granted in Section Two of this Resolution may be granted only pursuant to the procedures, and subject to the standards and limitations, provided in the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance. SECTION 7. EFFECTIVE DATE. A. This Resolution will be effective only upon the occurrence of all of the following events: B. Passage by the Zoning Board of Appeals in the manner required by law; and C. The filing by the Applicant with the Village Clerk of an Unconditional Agreement and Consent, in the form of Exhibit C attached to and, by this reference, made a part of this Resolution, to accept and abide by each and all of the terms, conditions, and limitations set forth in this Resolution and to indemnify the Village for any claims that may arise in connection with the approval of this Resolution. D. In the event that the Applicant does not file fully executed copies of the Unconditional Agreement and Consent, as required by Section 7.C of this Resolution, within 60 days after the date of final passage of this Resolution by the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Zoning Board of Appeals will have the right, in its sole discretion, to declare this Resolution null and void and of no force or effect. [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS] Page 91 of 134  ADOPTED this 8th day of June, 2026, pursuant to the following roll call vote: AYES: ________________________________ ______________________________________ NAYS: ______________________________________________________________________ ABSENT: ____________________________________________________________________ ABSTAIN: ___________________________________________________________________ Signed: ____________________________________ Matthew Bradley, Chairperson Countersigned: ____________________________________ Village Clerk Page 92 of 134  EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY LOT 1 (EXCEPT THE WEST 77 FEET AND EXCEPT THE EAST 75 FEET) IN MID-PARK, A SUBDIVISION OF BLOCK 2 IN EDGEWOOD, A SUBDIVISION OF BLOCKS 1,2,3,6,7, AND 8 AND CERTAIN VACATED STREETS AND ALLEYS IN THE WINNETKA LAND ASSOCIATION SUBDIVISION OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE WEST 90 ACRES OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 13, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1252 SPRUCE STREET, WINNETKA, ILLINOIS. PARCEL INDEX NUMBER: 05-20-104-024-0000 Page 93 of 134  EXHIBIT B PLANS (SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT B) Page 94 of 134  EXHBIT B ABBREVIATIONS: SPRUCE STREET SPRUCE STREET BM BEAM OSB ORIENTED STRAND BOARD BTM/ BOTTOM OF PKT. POCKET I I 75.00' 75.00' C.H. CEILING HEIGHT P.R. PO\\llER ROOM CJ CEILING JOIST PSF POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT c.o. CASED OPENING P.T. PRESERVATIVE-TREATED C\11' CLEAR WHITE PINE REF. REFRIGERATOR DH DOUBLE HUNG R.O. ROUGH OPENING <.O <.O ...- N DISP. DISPOSAL RR ROOF RAFTER 0 r--­ LO LO DW DISHWASHER SHT. SHEET Dl'IR DRAWER SQ. FT. SQUARE FOOT EX. EXISTING T.B.D. TO BE DETERMINED -- FJ FLOOR JOIST VERT. VERTICAL 'co CRETE WALK 7 ASPHALT DRIVEWAY 'NEW ROOFED EX. CONC ETE 7 NEW SECOND FT. FOOT V.I.F. VERIFY IN FIELD I I (857.82± SQ. FT.) IOPEN PORCH WALK I FLOOR ADDITION HORZ. HORIZONTAL W/D WASHER DRYER REMOVE PORTI N (31.5 SQ. FT.) (87± SQ. FT.) (452± SQ. FT.) CONCRETE APRON 0 MDF MEDIUM DENSITY FIBERBOARD \\ll. WOOD I OF CONCRETE WALK I I (168.B± SQ. FT.) I - I o.c. ON CENTER I 0 ROOF OVERHANG I I 7.54' I I 5.69' DIMENSION TO EXISTING 7.54' 17.5' 7.0' -"c <O L R�OFED OPEN .69 DIMENSIONS TO EXISTING FIRST FLOOR WALL PORCH FIRST FLOOR WALL C> DIMENSION TO NEW DIMENSION TO NEW APPLICABLE CODES: A/cD t<) ci 2-STORY BRICK & FRAME GARAGE : SECOND FLOOR WALL □ DIMENSION TO NEW SECOND FLOOR WALL w .. RESIDENCE SIDE YARD SIDE YARD <( _J 0 7.6 u-� 1. INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE, 2021 EDITION; SECOND FLOOR WALL ENCROACHMENT I ENCROACHMENT 2. ILLINOIS STATE PLUMBING CODE, 2014 EDITION OR CURRENT; VARIANCE REQUEST DIMENSION TO EXISTING VARIANCE REQUEST FIRST FLOOR WALL 3. NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE (NEC), 2020 EDITION (NFPA 70); 7.44' ---- 1-STORY 5.75 DIMENSION TO EXISTING 7.44' □ 5.75 DIMENSION TO EXISTING FIRST FLOOR WALL 4. INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE, 2021 EDITION; SUNROOM FIRST FILOOR WALL A/C � �NDOW WELL 5. INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE, 2024 EDITION; C REMOVE WOOD STEP 6. VILLAGE OF WINNElKA CODE AMENDMENTS. Cl:'. t<) WOOD STEP t<) (5± SQ. FT.) - ,..., ci ci - ,..., 0 Cl:'. u w N CONCRETE BLOCK PATIO N N N L,_ ci ci (102± SQ. FT.) I 0 0 C> C> I- I 0 I- u DESIGN CRITERIA: Cl:'. u I. MAXIMUM UNIFORMLY DISTRIBUTED LIVE LOADS: ""u ""u u u "' "' DWEWNG UNITS {NOT SLEEPING ROOMS) = 40 PSF � � <( <( I- Vl I- Vl 0 <( m <( m Vl Vl w w SLEEPING ROOMS = 30 PSF 0 0 ct:: ct:: w w 0 0 0 0 ROOF = 30 PSF 0:: <( >- 0:: � ATTC WITHOUT STORAGE = ID PSF 0 0 <( <( >- >- 0 Vl 0 Vl w w Vl Vl 0 w w 0 ATTC WITH STORAGE = 20 PSF >--' >--' 0 GROUND SNOW LOAD = 30 PSF >--' "',-..: u... N"' u... >--' "',-..: u... "' u... N 2. SEISMIC DESIGN CATAGORY = A en -� 3. WIND SPEED = 90 MPH " v 0 4. ALL CONCRETE SHALL BE MINIMUM 3,500 PSI STRENGTH AT 28 DAYS. ., MINIMUM SOIL BEARING CAPACITY TO BE 3,000 PSF. .:a STANDARD LUMBER JOISTS AND RAFTERS SHALL BE HEM FIR #2 AND BETTER (MIN. Iv = 75 psi, fb = 850 psi AND E = 1,300,000). STUDS AND 5. L_ 25 FT. REAR YARD SETBACK - _J L_ 25 FT. REAR YARD SETBACK - _J PRESERVATIVE-TREATED LUMBER SHALL BE SPF #2 AND BETTER (MIN. Iv = 70 psi, fb = 750 psi AND E= 1,100,000). MAXIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT LESS L THAN 19% AT TIME OF SURFACING AND GRADE MARKED "DRV". 0 0 L,_ " L L 0 (I} C (/) _J _J u L .:a DRAWING INDEX: 0 0 L,_ 75.00' 75.00' A0-0 SITE PLAN - EXISTING & NEW WORK/ ZONING NOTES � E Al-0 BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN - EXISTING & NEW WORK [;: NORTH NORTH ".,V, Al-I FIRST FLOOR PLAN - EXISTING & NEW WORK SITE PLAN - EXISTING SITE PLAN - NEW WORK 0 � � c.. Al-2 SECOND FLOOR PLAN - EXISTING & NEW WORK SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-o· (SC\l£ "'"ES TO,..,". ,.EET •ZEJ SCALE: I/16" = 1'-0" (SC\l£ APPLIES TO 24',J&" !liEET SIZE) A2-D NORTH ELEVATION - EXISTING & NEW WORK 0 8' 16' 3 2' 48' 64' 0 8' 16' 32' 48' 64' A2-1 WEST & EAST ELEVATIONS - EXISTING & NEW WORK A2-2 SOUTH ELEVATION - EXISTING & NEW WORK A3-D BUILDING SECTION THRU HOUSE - EXISTING AND NEW WORK REV.: ISSUE: DATE: ZONING VARIANCE 04/30/2026 ZONING VARIANCE 05/21/2026 ZONING NOTES: ZI PROJECT LOCATED IN ZONING DISTRICT R4, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Z2 HOUSE BUilT 1948, PRE-FAR. Z3 MINIMUM LOT SIZE = 12,600 SQ. FT. ACTUAL LOT SIZE = 15,008± SQ. FT. Z4 MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT = 31 FT., 2 1/2 STORIES. Z5 MINIMUM EACH SIDE YARD SETBACK = 6 FT. PLUS (10% OF THE LOT \\1DTH IN RI. DRAIINGS AIII llmEN IIIADAL HBH cacsTITUTE llE Cl!IQNAL AND Ull'UBIJSIED 'MlRK CF EXCESS OF 60 FT. = 15 FT. x 10% = ) 1.5 FT. = 7.5 FT. BARBARA L IICCI.RlHY, All! llE SAIIE IIAY NOT BE lll'I..ICAlID, IJS8l, OR DISWl5ED DKllT lt£ IRIT1EN DRAWN: McCARTHY CCNSENT OF 8MWR,I, L IIICCARlHY. Z6 MINIMUM TOTAL SIDE YARD SETBACK = GREATER OF 14 FT. OR 25% LOT 'MDTH = 18.75 FT. SCALE: AS NOTED Z7 MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK = 15il: OF THE LOT DEPTH = 30 FT., DATE: 04/30/2026 MAXIMUM = 25 FT. ZONING NOTES/ SITE ZB MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK = 30 FT., OR AVERAGE OF 3 HOMES ON THE PLAN - EXISTING & NEW BLOCK, 50% OF WHICH ARE MORE THAN 30 FT. SETBACK. WORK Z9 MAXIMUM BUILDING SIZE = PRE-FAR, 3,630 + ((LA.-9025) x .2) = 4,816.6 SQ. FT. ZID MAXIMUM ROOFED LOT COVERAGE = 27% OF THE LOT AREA = 4,052.16 SQ. FT. Z11 MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS LOT COVERAGE = 50% OF THE LOT AREA = 7,504 SQ. FT. A0-0 Page 95 of 134 Page 96 of 134 Page 97 of 134 Page 98 of 134 Page 99 of 134 Page 100 of 134 Page 101 of 134 Page 102 of 134  EXHIBIT C UNCONDITIONAL AGREEMENT AND CONSENT TO: The Village of Winnetka, Illinois (“Village”): WHEREAS, Lawrence and Loraine Yolles (collectively, the “Owner”) are the owners of record of that certain real property located at 1252 Spruce Street, Winnetka, Illinois (“Property”); and WHEREAS, Resolution No. ZBA-04-2026, adopted by the Winnetka Zoning Board of Appeals on June 8, 2026 (“Resolution”), grants variations to construct a second-floor addition to the existing single-family residence on the Subject Property; and WHEREAS, Section 7.A.2 of the Resolution provides, among other things, that the Resolution will be of no force or effect unless and until the Owner has filed, within 60 days following the passage of the Resolution, its unconditional agreement and consent to accept and abide by each and all of the terms, conditions, and limitations set forth in the Resolution; NOW, THEREFORE, the Owner does hereby agree and covenant as follows: 1. The Owner hereby unconditionally agrees to accept, consent to, and abide by each and all of the terms, conditions, limitations, restrictions, and provisions of the Resolution. 2. The Owner acknowledges that public notices and public hearings have been properly given and held with respect to the adoption of the Resolution, have considered the possibility of the revocation provided for in the Resolution, and agree not to challenge any such revocation on the grounds of any procedural infirmity or a denial of any procedural right. 3. The Owner acknowledges and agrees that the Village is not and will not be, in any way, liable for any damages or injuries that may be sustained as a result of the Village’s granting of the variations, and that the Village’s approval of the variations does not, and will not, in any way, be deemed to insure the Owner against damage or injury of any kind and at any time. 4. The Owner hereby agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the Village, the Village’s corporate authorities, and all Village elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, representatives, and attorneys, from any and all claims that may, at any time, be asserted against any of such parties in connection with the Village’s adoption of the Resolution granting the variations for the Property. [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS] Page 103 of 134 Dated: _____________________, 2026. ATTEST OWNER By: __________________________ By: _________________________________ Lawrence Yolles Name: _______________________ By: _________________________________ Loraine Yolles Page 104 of 134  RESOLUTION NO. ZBA-04-2026 VILLAGE OF WINNETKA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DENIAL OF ZBA CASE NO. 26-13-V – 1252 SPRUCE STREET WHEREAS, Lawrence and Loraine Yolles (collectively, the “Applicant”) are the owners of the property commonly known as 1252 Spruce Street, Winnetka, Illinois, and legally described in Exhibit A attached to and, by this reference, made part of this Resolution (“Subject Property”); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is located in the R-4 Single Family Residential District; and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is improved with a single-family residence with an attached garage that is nonconforming with respect to (i) the minimum required side yard setback from the east and west property lines, and (ii) the minimum required total side yard setback (“Building”); and WHEREAS, the Applicant desires to construct a second-floor addition to the Building and create new window openings in the legally nonconforming west and east side building walls of the Building on the Subject Property that would (i) provide less than the minimum required side yard setback from the east property line; (ii) provide less than the minimum required total side yard setback; and (iii) require structural changes necessary to provide new window openings in the legally nonconforming west and east side building walls of the existing Building that provide less than the minimum required side yard setback (“Proposed Improvement”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.30.060 of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance (“Zoning Ordinance”), the Subject Property is required to provide a minimum side yard setback of 7.5 feet; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.30.060 of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance, the Subject Property is required to provide a minimum total side setback of 18.75 feet; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.64.060 of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance, zoning relief is necessary to allow enlarged or relocated windows in nonconforming side buildings walls; and WHEREAS, the Applicant desires to construct the Proposed Improvement on the Subject Property with (i) a minimum side yard setback that is less than the required 7.5 feet, a violation of Section 17.30.060 of the Zoning Ordinance; (ii) a minimum total side yard setback that is less than the required 18.75 feet, a violation of Section 17.30.060 of the Zoning Ordinance; and (iii) construct new window openings in the legally nonconforming west and east side building walls that provide less than the minimum required side yard setback of 7.5 feet, a violation of Section 17.64.060 of the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Applicant filed an application for variations from Section 17.30.060 and Section 17.64.060 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the Proposed Improvement on the Subject Property with (i) an east side yard setback of 5.69 feet; (ii) a total side yard setback of 13.13 feet; and (iii) new window openings in the existing west side building wall that provides a setback of 7.44 feet and the existing east side building wall that provides a setback of 5.69 feet (“Requested Variations”); and Page 105 of 134  WHEREAS, a public notice for the Requested Variations was duly published on May 21, 2026, in the Winnetka Talk and notice was mailed to the owners of record of all properties within 250 feet of the Subject Property as required by the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Winnetka Zoning Board of Appeals during a meeting held on June 8, 2026, for the purpose of considering the Requested Variations with the final decision being rendered at the Zoning Board of Appeal’s Regular Meeting on June 8, 2026; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has considered the evidence presented, as follows: 1. Application for the Requested Variations submitted by the Applicant, dated April 30, 2026, including all attachments as well as all subsequent additions and revisions to these application materials and attachments; and 2. All written and oral testimony concerning the Requested Variations. WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has determined that the Requested Variations do not satisfy the standards for a variation provided in Sections 17.60.040 and 17.60.050 of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance because (i) the Requested Variations are not in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance; (ii) the Subject Property can yield a reasonable return if it is permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed for the R-4 Single Family Residential District; and (iii) the plight of the Applicant is not due to unique circumstances; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has determined that it will not serve and be in the best interest of the Village and its residents to approve the Requested Variations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Winnetka, Cook County, Illinois, that: SECTION 1. RECITALS. The foregoing recitals are incorporated into, and made part of, this Resolution as the findings of the Zoning Board of Appeals. SECTION 2. DENIAL OF VARIATIONS. In accordance with and pursuant to Chapter 17.60 of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance and the home rule powers of the Village, the Zoning Board of Appeals denies the Requested Variations for the Subject Property. SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution will be effective upon passage by the Zoning Board of Appeals in the manner required by law. [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS] Page 106 of 134  ADOPTED this 8th day of June, 2026, pursuant to the following roll call vote: AYES: ______________________________________________________________________ NAYS: ______________________________________________________________________ ABSENT: ____________________________________________________________________ ABSTAIN: ___________________________________________________________________ Countersigned: Signed: ________________________________ __________________________________ Village Clerk Matthew Bradley, Chairperson Page 107 of 134  EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY LOT 1 (EXCEPT THE WEST 77 FEET AND EXCEPT THE EAST 75 FEET) IN MID-PARK, A SUBDIVISION OF BLOCK 2 IN EDGEWOOD, A SUBDIVISION OF BLOCKS 1,2,3,6,7, AND 8 AND CERTAIN VACATED STREETS AND ALLEYS IN THE WINNETKA LAND ASSOCIATION SUBDIVISION OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE WEST 90 ACRES OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 13, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1252 SPRUCE STREET, WINNETKA, ILLINOIS. PARCEL INDEX NUMBER: 05-20-104-024-0000 Page 108 of 134  MEMORANDUM VILLAGE OF WINNETKA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM: CHRISTOPHER MARX, ACIP – ASSOCIATE PLANNER DATE: JUNE 4, 2026 SUBJECT: 705 OAK STREET – VARIATIONS (CASE NO. 26-14-V) INTRODUCTION On June 8, 2026, the Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”) is scheduled to hold a public hearing on an application submitted by Jeffrey and Amy Bucklew (collectively, the “Applicant”), as Trustees of The Bucklew Joint Trust dated May 10, 2018, of 705 Oak Street, Winnetka, IL 60093, the owner of the property located at 705 Oak Street (the “Subject Property”). The Applicant requests approval of the following zoning variation to allow the installation of a fence along a portion of the west property line of the Subject Property: 1. Fence Height of 8 feet, whereas a maximum height of 6.5 feet above natural grade is permitted, a variation of 1.5 feet (23.08%) [Section 17.30.130 – Obstructions in Required Yards or Courts]. 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 May 21, 2026. As of the date of this memo, staff has not received any written comments from the public regarding this application. The ZBA has final jurisdiction on this request as the ZBA has the authority to allow a fence to exceed the maximum permitted height, provided that the maximum permitted height allowed pursuant to the variation shall be no more than 10 feet. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Subject Property, which is approximately 0.26 acres in size, is located on the north side of Oak Street between Lincoln Avenue and Maple Street and contains an existing two-story residence and a detached garage (see Figure 1). The property is zoned R-5 Single Family Residential and is bordered by B-2 Multi-Family Residential to the west, B-1 Multi-Family Residential to the north and south, R-4 Single Family Residential to the east, and C-2 General Retail Commercial to the south (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 land use designation. Page 1 Page 109 of 134  Subject Property Lincoln Avenue Oak Street Green Bay Road Maple Street Figure 1 – GIS Aerial Map Subject Property Lincoln Oak Street Avenue Maple Street Figure 2 – Zoning Map PROPERTY HISTORY AND PREVIOUS ZONING APPLICATIONS The residence was constructed in 2002 after adoption of Ordinance MC-1-2002 by the Village Council on February 5, 2002, amending the Official Zoning Map of the Village of Winnetka to Rezone the Property at 705 Oak Street from B-1 Multi-Family Residential to R-5 Single Family Residential. Subsequent building permits were issued in 2020 and 2025 for fence installations, and in 2026 for an outdoor kitchen. Other minor permits have been issued over the last several years. The Applicant acquired the property in 2025. Figures 3 through 6 on the following page are current photos of the Subject Property. Page 2 Page 110 of 134  Figure 3 – Subject Property - Front (South) Elevation - Oak Street Figure 4 and Figure 5– Subject Property - Front (South) and Side (West) Elevations - Oak Street Figure 6 – Subject Property - Front (South) Elevation Facing Northwest - Oak Street Page 3 Page 111 of 134 PROPOSED PLAN The requested variation would allow installation of a new fence that is taller than the existing fence along a portion of the west property line of the Subject Property. The existing fence is a solid cedar cap-and- trim fence that is approximately 6 feet in height and was installed in 2025 as part of an overall perimeter fencing enclosure for the property. The Applicant, who was also the issuant for the 2025 fence permit, has indicated that the existing fence is insufficient for screening of the driveway, vehicular traffic, refuse receptacles, and mounted utility equipment of the neighboring multi-family residential building to the west. The proposed replacement fence would be the same material and style as the existing solid cedar fence on the Subject Property. The height of the proposed fence would start at 6.5 feet on the southernmost installation point and escalate with slightly taller panels at different sections to a crest of 8 feet, while descending back down to a height of 6.5 feet at the installation endpoint towards the center of the property. The Applicant indicates that the varying heights are intended to compensate for the grade changes of the driveway and provide a more gradual and stepped transition of fence height. The proposed fence would comply with the 10-foot setback requirement of fences from the intersecting points of driveways and sidewalks, as it would be located 17 feet north of the south (front) property line. A photo of the existing fence on the west property line is provided below as Figure 7, and the proposed site plan is provided on the following page as Figure 8. The complete set of plans, including the site plan, fence specifications, and site photos are provided in the application materials as Attachment A. Existing fence to be replaced Figure 7 – Subject Property – West Elevation Page 4 Page 112 of 134  Location of Proposed Fence Installation Figure 8 – Proposed Site Plan REQUESTED ZONING RELIEF One variation is being requested to allow a fence that reaches a maximum height of 8 feet along a portion of the west property line, whereas the maximum permitted height 6.5 feet above natural grade, a variation of 1.5 feet (23.08%). Page 5 Page 113 of 134 FINDINGS In the attached application materials submitted by the Applicant, the Applicant has provided a statement of justification regarding how the requested variation meets the standards for granting the requested zoning variation. Does the ZBA find that the requested variation meets the standards for granting such a variation; and if so, is the ZBA prepared to approve the requested variation? Staff has prepared the attached draft resolutions for the ZBA’s consideration (Attachment B). One resolution approves the request, while the other denies the request. A ZBA member may wish to make a motion to: (i) adopt the resolution to approve the requested variation; (ii) adopt the resolution to deny the requested variation; or (iii) continue the case to a specific date. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Application Materials Attachment B: Draft Resolutions Page 6 Page 114 of 134 Page 115 of 134  Narrative for Zoning Variation Request Property: 705 Oak Street, Winnetka, Illinois Request: Variation to permit portions of a revised side/rear yard fence to exceed the otherwise permitted fence height and reach a maximum of eight (8) feet. Description of Request The subject property has an unusual adjacency condition that is not typical of a standard residential side-yard relationship. Rather than bordering another single-family home with a landscaped side yard, 705 Oak Street is directly adjacent to a three-story multi-family residential building. Although the neighboring property is residential in zoning and use, the portion of that building facing the subject property functions primarily as the service and utility side of the development rather than an attractive residential façade. While other sides of the neighboring building are landscaped and residential in character, the side facing 705 Oak Street includes the entrance drive to the underground garage, dumpsters and garbage cans, daily refuse collection activity at approximately 7:00 a.m. (including reverse warning beeping from the collection truck), a line of bright fluorescent utility lights mounted along the building, and two large electrical/utility structures mounted on concrete pads that are visible from the rear patio and backyard living area. The garage door also opens and closes frequently throughout the day, creating a level of ongoing activity more consistent with a service access area than the side yard of a typical residence. Because of this unique condition, effective screening along the shared property line is particularly important. At the same time, the existing hedge along the property line has become overgrown, inconsistent, and no longer a viable long-term solution for attractive screening. What was likely once a more uniform planting has evolved into multiple plant varieties with irregular growth patterns, varying heights, invasive vine overgrowth, and an uneven appearance that is difficult to maintain or restore cohesively. We therefore propose a coordinated replacement plan consisting of updated fencing in selected areas and new hedge landscaping in the front portion of the property. The proposed fence will create a cleaner, more attractive, and more consistent screen than the existing condition while remaining lower than portions of the current hedge. The proposed fence will match the existing cedar privacy fence style currently installed on the property, including natural cedar material, cap-and-trim top detail, horizontal mid-rail, and stepped panel transitions. Four existing fence sections on the rear portion of the side yard would be replaced to create a gradual stepped transition from six (6) feet to eight (8) feet. This creates a more intentional and visually balanced appearance while providing needed screening from electrical/mechanical equipment and related service-area elements currently visible from the rear patio and backyard living area. The requested maximum height of eight (8) feet is limited only to the portions where additional height is necessary for effective screening. As the fence progresses toward the front of the property, the height begins stepping down at the end of the house and continues to decrease in height as it approaches the front yard. There is no fence for approximately seventeen (17) feet before the sidewalk, with approximately nine (9) additional feet between the sidewalk and the street. The stepped transition and early termination of the fence are intentionally designed to preserve open sight lines near the driveway approach, sidewalk, and street frontage. In the front portion of the property, the existing hedge would be removed and replaced with new hedge landscaping, maintaining a softer landscaped condition near the street frontage. 1. The property cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted only under the strict application of the ordinance. Strict application of the standard fence height does not provide an effective buffering solution due to the unusually intense adjacent conditions, including lighting, mechanical equipment, and service activity. Page 116 of 134 2. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances of the property and not the occupants. The hardship arises from the physical characteristics and surrounding context of the property itself, including adjacency to a three-story neighboring residential structure, garage drive, dumpster activity, lighting, and exposed equipment. 3. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The neighborhood will remain residential in character. The proposal improves an aging hedge condition with an orderly fencing and landscaping plan. 4. Adequate light and air to adjacent property will not be impaired. The proposed fence is a narrow screening improvement along the property line and will not materially impair light or air. 5. The hazard from fire or other damage will not be increased. The fence will be constructed using standard code-compliant materials and accepted installation methods. 6. The taxable value of land and buildings throughout the Village will not diminish. The requested improvement is expected to maintain or enhance value by improving privacy, appearance, and long-term maintainability. 7. Congestion in the public street will not increase. The proposed fence creates no additional traffic, parking demand, occupancy, or congestion. 8. Public health, safety, comfort, morals, and welfare will not otherwise be impaired. The request improves residential comfort and welfare while preserving sight lines near the adjacent garage drive through stepped heights and early termination before the sidewalk. Conclusion This application seeks a modest and carefully designed variation that responds to the unique utility-oriented conditions of the neighboring property, replaces an aging, overgrown, and inconsistent hedge condition with a more attractive and durable long-term screening solution, improves screening of visible mechanical and service elements, and preserves an appropriate streetscape by tapering downward and ending well before the sidewalk. For these reasons, we respectfully request approval of the proposed fence height variation up to eight (8) feet. Page 117 of 134 Page 118 of 134 Page 119 of 134 Page 120 of 134 Front Yard – old, overgrown hedge with invasive vines – New proposed fence would stop at end of hardscape on left side of driveway – new hedge, plantings would be in front. Backyard View – fence steps up and stops at 6’ height – mechanicals visable Page 121 of 134 Two large industrial mechanical/electrical boxes visible from our patio Drive to underground garage, dumpsters and garbage cans – industrial lights along building Page 122 of 134  ATTACHMENT B RESOLUTION NO. ZBA-05-2026 VILLAGE OF WINNETKA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPROVAL OF ZBA CASE NO. 26-14-V – 705 OAK STREET WHEREAS, Jeffrey and Amy Bucklew (collectively, the “Applicant”), as Trustees of The Bucklew Joint Trust dated May 10, 2018, of 705 Oak Street, Winnetka, IL 60093, are the owners of the property commonly known as 705 Oak Street, Winnetka, Illinois, and legally described in Exhibit A attached to and, by this reference, made part of this Resolution (“Subject Property”); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is located in the R-5 Single Family Residential District; and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is improved with a single-family residence, a detached garage, and a fence; and WHEREAS, the Applicant desires to replace the existing fence along a portion of the west property line of the Subject Property (“Proposed Improvement”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.30.130 of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance (“Zoning Ordinance”), the maximum permitted height for a fence within a required yard is 6.5 feet above natural grade; and WHEREAS, the Applicant desires to replace the existing fence along a portion of the west property line with a new fence on the Subject Property measuring up to 8 feet in height above natural grade, a violation of Section 17.30.130 of the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Applicant filed an application for a variation from Section 17.30.130 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the Proposed Improvement with a height of 8 feet above natural grade (“Requested Variation”); and WHEREAS, a public notice for the Requested Variation was duly published on May 21, 2026, in the Winnetka Talk and notice was mailed to the owners of record of all properties within 250 feet of the Subject Property as required by the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Winnetka Zoning Board of Appeals during a meeting held on June 8, 2026, for the purpose of considering the Requested Variation with the final decision being rendered at the Zoning Board of Appeal’s Regular Meeting on June 8, 2026; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has considered the evidence presented, as follows: 1. Application for the Requested Variation submitted by the Applicant, dated April 28, 2026, including all attachments as well as all subsequent additions and revisions to these application materials and attachments; and 2. All written and oral testimony concerning the Requested Variation. Page 123 of 134  WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has determined that the Requested Variation satisfies the standards for a variation provided in Sections 17.60.040 and 17.60.050 of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has determined that it will serve and be in the best interest of the Village and its residents to grant the application for the fence height variation in accordance with, and subject to, the conditions, restrictions, and provisions of this Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Winnetka, Cook County, Illinois, that: SECTION 1. RECITALS. The foregoing recitals are incorporated into, and made part of, this Resolution as the findings of the Zoning Board of Appeals. SECTION 2. APPROVAL OF VARIATION. Subject to and contingent upon the conditions, restrictions, and provisions set forth in Section Three of this Resolution, the requested maximum fence height variation from Section 17.30.130 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the installation of a fence along a portion of the west property line of the Subject Property is hereby granted, in accordance with and pursuant to Chapter 17.60 of the Zoning Ordinance and the home rule powers of the Village. SECTION 3. CONDITIONS. Notwithstanding any use or development right that may be applicable or available pursuant to the provisions of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance or any other rights the Applicant may have, the approval granted in Section Two of this Resolution is hereby expressly subject to and contingent upon compliance with each and all of the following conditions: A. Compliance with Plans. Except for minor changes and site work approved by the Director of Community Development in accordance with all applicable Village standards, the development, use, operation, and maintenance of the Subject Property, shall comply with those certain plans attached hereto as Exhibit B. B. Compliance with Regulations. The construction, development, use, operation, and maintenance of the Proposed Improvement and the Subject Property must comply with all applicable Village codes and ordinances, as the same may be amended from time to time, except to the extent specifically provided otherwise in this Resolution. SECTION 4. RECORDING; BINDING EFFECT. A copy of this Resolution will be recorded in the office of the Cook County Clerk Recording Division. This Resolution and the privileges, obligations, and provisions contained herein will inure solely to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the Applicant and its respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns. SECTION 5. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS. Upon the failure or refusal of the Applicant to comply with any or all of the conditions, restrictions, or provisions of this Resolution, the approval granted in Section Two of this Resolution will, at the sole discretion of the Zoning Board of Appeals, by Resolution duly adopted, be revoked and become null and void; provided, however, that the Zoning Board of Appeals may not so revoke the approval granted in Section Two of this Resolution unless it first provides the Applicant with two months advance written notice of the reasons for revocation and an opportunity to be heard at a regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. In the event of revocation, the development and use of the Subject Property will be governed solely by the applicable regulations of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance, including, without limitation, the fence height requirement set forth in Section 17.30.130 of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance. Further, in the Page 124 of 134 event of such revocation, the Village Manager and Village Attorney are hereby authorized and directed to bring such zoning enforcement action as may be appropriate under the circumstances. SECTION 6. AMENDMENTS. Any amendments to the Requested Variation granted in Section Two of this Resolution may be granted only pursuant to the procedures, and subject to the standards and limitations, provided in the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance. SECTION 7. EFFECTIVE DATE. A. This Resolution will be effective only upon the occurrence of all of the following events: B. Passage by the Zoning Board of Appeals in the manner required by law; and C. The filing by the Applicant with the Village Clerk of an Unconditional Agreement and Consent, in the form of Exhibit C attached to and, by this reference, made a part of this Resolution, to accept and abide by each and all of the terms, conditions, and limitations set forth in this Resolution and to indemnify the Village for any claims that may arise in connection with the approval of this Resolution. D. In the event that the Applicant does not file fully executed copies of the Unconditional Agreement and Consent, as required by Section 7.C of this Resolution, within 60 days after the date of final passage of this Resolution by the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Zoning Board of Appeals will have the right, in its sole discretion, to declare this Resolution null and void and of no force or effect. ADOPTED this 8th day of June, 2026, pursuant to the following roll call vote: AYES: ________________________________ ______________________________________ NAYS: ______________________________________________________________________ ABSENT: ____________________________________________________________________ ABSTAIN: ___________________________________________________________________ Signed: ____________________________________ Matthew Bradley, Chairperson Countersigned: ____________________________________ Village Clerk Page 125 of 134  EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY THE EAST 25 FEET OF LOT FOUR (4), LOT FIVE (5) (EXCEPT THE EAST 160 FEET THEREOF), AND LOT SIX (6) (EXCEPT THE EAST 160 FEET THEREOF) IN PROUTY HOMESTEAD SUBDIVISION OF ALL OF BLOCKS TWENTY FOUR (24) AND TWENTY FIVE (25) LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF THE RIGHT OF WAY OF THE CHICAGO AND MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC RAILROAD (EXCEPT THE NORTH 211 FEET OF BLOCK TWENTY FOUR (24) ALSO THE WEST 3 FEET OF THE NORTH 221 FEET OF SAID BLOCK TWENTY FOUR (24) ALL IN WINNETKA, A SUBDIVISION BY CHARLES E. PECK, OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (¼) OF SECTION 20, AND THE FRACTIONAL NORTH HALF (½) OF FRACTIONAL SECTION 21, ALL IN TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 13, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. COMMONLY KNOWN AS 705 OAK STREET, WINNETKA, ILLINOIS. PARCEL INDEX NUMBER: 05-21-109-008-0000 Page 126 of 134  EXHIBIT B PLANS (SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT B) Page 127 of 134 Page 128 of 134 Page 129 of 134  EXHIBIT C UNCONDITIONAL AGREEMENT AND CONSENT TO: The Village of Winnetka, Illinois (“Village”): WHEREAS, Jeffrey and Amy Bucklew, as Trustees of The Bucklew Joint Trust dated May 10, 2018, of 705 Oak Street, Winnetka, IL 60093, (the “Owner”) are the owner of record of that certain real property located at 705 Oak Street, Winnetka, Illinois (“Property”); and WHEREAS, Resolution No. ZBA-05-2026, adopted by the Winnetka Zoning Board of Appeals on June 8, 2026 (“Resolution”), grants a variation to construct a fence on the Subject Property; and WHEREAS, Section 7.A.2 of the Resolution provides, among other things, that the Resolution will be of no force or effect unless and until the Owner has filed, within 60 days following the passage of the Resolution, its unconditional agreement and consent to accept and abide by each and all of the terms, conditions, and limitations set forth in the Resolution; NOW, THEREFORE, the Owner does hereby agree and covenant as follows: 1. The Owner hereby unconditionally agrees to accept, consent to, and abide by each and all of the terms, conditions, limitations, restrictions, and provisions of the Resolution. 2. The Owner acknowledges that public notices and public hearings have been properly given and held with respect to the adoption of the Resolution, have considered the possibility of the revocation provided for in the Resolution, and agree not to challenge any such revocation on the grounds of any procedural infirmity or a denial of any procedural right. 3. The Owner acknowledges and agrees that the Village is not and will not be, in any way, liable for any damages or injuries that may be sustained as a result of the Village’s granting of the variation, and that the Village’s approval of the variation does not, and will not, in any way, be deemed to insure the Owner against damage or injury of any kind and at any time. 4. The Owner hereby agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the Village, the Village’s corporate authorities, and all Village elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, representatives, and attorneys, from any and all claims that may, at any time, be asserted against any of such parties in connection with the Village’s adoption of the Resolution granting the variation for the Property. [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS] Page 130 of 134 Dated: _____________________, 2026. ATTEST OWNER By: __________________________ By: _________________________________ Jeffrey Bucklew, as Trustee of The Bucklew Joint Trust dated May 10, 2018, of 705 Oak Street, Winnetka IL 60093 Name: _______________________ By: ______________________________ Amy Bucklew, as Trustee of The Bucklew Joint Trust dated May 10, 2018, of 705 Oak Street, Winnetka, IL 60093 Page 131 of 134  RESOLUTION NO. ZBA-05-2026 VILLAGE OF WINNETKA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DENIAL OF ZBA CASE NO. 26-14-V – 705 OAK STREET WHEREAS, Jeffrey Bucklew and Amy Bucklew (collectively, the “Applicant”), as Trustees of The Bucklew Joint Trust dated May 10, 2018, of 705 Oak Street, Winnetka IL 60093, are the owners of the property commonly known as 705 Oak Street, Winnetka, Illinois, and legally described in Exhibit A attached to and, by this reference, made part of this Resolution (“Subject Property”); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is located in the R-5 Single Family Residential District; and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is improved with a single-family residence, a detached garage and a fence; and WHEREAS, the Applicant desires to replace the existing fence along a portion of the west property line of the Subject Property (“Proposed Improvement”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.30.130 of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance (“Zoning Ordinance”), the maximum permitted height for a fence within a required yard is 6.5 feet above natural grade; and WHEREAS, the Applicant desires to replace the existing fence along a portion of the west property line with a new fence on the Subject Property measuring up to 8 feet in height above natural grade, a violation of Section 17.30.130 of the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Applicant filed an application for a variation from Section 17.30.130 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the Proposed Improvement with a height of 8 feet above natural grade (“Requested Variation”); and WHEREAS, a public notice for the Requested Variation was duly published on May 21, 2026, in the Winnetka Talk and notice was mailed to the owners of record of all properties within 250 feet of the Subject Property as required by the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Winnetka Zoning Board of Appeals during a meeting held on June 8, 2026, for the purpose of considering the Requested Variation with the final decision being rendered at the Zoning Board of Appeal’s Regular Meeting on June 8, 2026; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has considered the evidence presented, as follows: 1. Application for the Requested Variation submitted by the Applicant, dated April 28, 2026, including all attachments as well as all subsequent additions and revisions to these application materials and attachments; and 2. All written and oral testimony concerning the Requested Variation. Page 132 of 134  WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has determined that the Requested Variation does not satisfy the standards for a variation provided in Sections 17.60.040 and 17.60.050 of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance because (i) the Requested Variation is not in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance; (ii) the Subject Property can yield a reasonable return if it is permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed for the R-5 Single Family Residential District; and (iii) the plight of the Applicant is not due to unique circumstances; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has determined that it will not serve and be in the best interest of the Village and its residents to approve the Requested Variation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Winnetka, Cook County, Illinois, that: SECTION 1. RECITALS. The foregoing recitals are incorporated into, and made part of, this Resolution as the findings of the Zoning Board of Appeals. SECTION 2. DENIAL OF VARIATION. In accordance with and pursuant to Chapter 17.60 of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance and the home rule powers of the Village, the Zoning Board of Appeals denies the Requested Variation for the Subject Property. SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution will be effective upon passage by the Zoning Board of Appeals in the manner required by law. ADOPTED this 8th day of June, 2026, pursuant to the following roll call vote: AYES: ______________________________________________________________________ NAYS: ______________________________________________________________________ ABSENT: ____________________________________________________________________ ABSTAIN: ___________________________________________________________________ Signed: ____________________________________ Matthew Bradley, Chairperson Countersigned: _______________________________________ Village Clerk Page 133 of 134  EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY THE EAST 25 FEET OF LOT FOUR (4), LOT FIVE (5) (EXCEPT THE EAST 160 FEET THEREOF), AND LOT SIX (6) (EXCEPT THE EAST 160 FEET THEREOF) IN PROUTY HOMESTEAD SUBDIVISION OF ALL OF BLOCKS TWENTY FOUR (24) AND TWENTY FIVE (25) LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF THE RIGHT OF WAY OF THE CHICAGO AND MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC RAILROAD (EXCEPT THE NORTH 211 FEET OF BLOCK TWENTY FOUR (24) ALSO THE WEST 3 FEET OF THE NORTH 221 FEET OF SAID BLOCK TWENTY FOUR (24) ALL IN WINNETKA, A SUBDIVISION BY CHARLES E. PECK, OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (¼) OF SECTION 20, AND THE FRACTIONAL NORTH HALF (½) OF FRACTIONAL SECTION 21, ALL IN TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 13, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. COMMONLY KNOWN AS 705 OAK STREET, WINNETKA, ILLINOIS. PARCEL INDEX NUMBER: 05-21-109-008-0000 Page 134 of 134