City of Highland Park Zoning Board of Appeals met February 1.
Here is the minutes provided by the Board:
I. Call To Order
At 7:30 pm Chair Henry called the meeting to order and asked Planner Burhop to call the roll.
Members Present: Bay, Bina, Chaplik, Cullather, Fettner, Henry, Putzel
Members Absent: None
Planner Burhop took the roll and declared a quorum present.
Staff Present: Burhop
Student Reps.: Hoyt
Council Liaison: Stolberg
II. Approval Of Minutes
Chair Henry entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the 1-18-18 meeting. Vice Chair Chaplik so motioned, seconded by Member Fettner. On a voice vote the Chair declared the motion carried unanimously.
III. Publication Date For New Business: 1-17-18
IV. Business From The Public: None
V. Old Business:
1. #17-11-VAR-050
Property: 867 Broadview Ave.
Zoning District: R6
Appellant: Heather Curtis
Address: 867 Broadview Ave., Highland Park, IL 60035
Planner Burhop stated he received an email from the applicant at 11:00 am on February 1, 2018 asking for a continuance to March 1, 2018.
Chair Henry stated they had granted a continuance on this matter a couple of times and unless there was an objection from the Board, he would propose they continue until March 1, 2018, recognizing there are members of the community present.
Member Bay stated he noticed last time this was continued there were members of the public present who left irritated and he wondered why the continuance was not requested until today and if there were any guidelines and how many times applicants can give last minute notice.
Chair Henry stated there are no guidelines and it is subject to the discretion of the Board. He stated they are judges in a sense and serve at the discretion of the City and try to strike a balance between meeting the appellant’s needs and those of the other citizens.
Member Bay stated this could be used as a strategy to wear people out.
Chair Henry stated he did not disagree with that. Another case had been continued a number of times because fewer than seven members were present. It could be considered forum shopping in a sense of waiting until there was a more favorable group as you need four affirmative votes to pass on an application.
Member Bay asked if there was a way to work with City Council and figure out a way to implement rules or procedures as to they type of notice, reasons, how many times, etc.
Vice Chair Chaplik stated he agreed with Member Bay.
Member Fettner stated the last minute requests are justified and he would support a continuance. If it came up again as a last minute continuance he did not think he could support it.
Chair Henry stated the only difference between continuing and denying is that they could come back and pay another fee and file another application.
Member Cullather asked if there were any rules on the number of continuances an applicant could request.
Chair Henry stated there were not.
Councilman Stolberg stated when he was Chair of the Plan Commission once an application is denied, unless it is a significant application, the applicant has to wait a year. He asked if the Board followed a similar procedure.
Chair Henry stated he was not aware of such a rule.
Mr. John Stein, 859 Broadview, Highland Park, IL, stated since there are no guidelines could they send a letter to the applicant stating this would be the last continuance. The Board stated if they presented a new plan they would not be charged.
Chair Henry stated he did not recall it had been an issue as long as he had been on the Board, in terms of repeated continuances.
Member Fettner stated regarding a denial order, he recalled it was six months to a year before they re-apply.
Chair Henry stated it would require a certain waiting period and then they would have to make a new application and pay a new fee. He stated they had been fairly lenient in continuing matters.
Mr. Stein stated he could not believe the applicant did not know there was a meeting tonight and maybe the City could send a letter saying the applicant had to appear on March 1, 2018.
Member Bay asked if they had the discretion to not grant the continuance.
Chair Henry stated they did. If they denied the continuance then they would take the staff presentation and packet and if no one was here and they would go on the report and make a ruling.
Student Rep. Hoyt asked how many times the applicant had requested a continuance vs. a continuance due to lack of Board members.
Chair Henry stated the first time the Board invited a continuance because the comments made by the Board indicated a lack of support.
Member Cullather stated the applicant had submitted final drawings with the fence inside or outside the bushes and the Board needed to know where the fence would be.
Chair Henry stated it had been common practice that after they have the heard the Board’s comments they can glean which way the Board is leaning. So they offer the appellants the opportunity to heed the comments made and revise the application or not and come back. That is their option. They could send a letter summarizing the conversation tonight.
Planner Burhop stated he always provides the applicant a link to the video of the meeting the day after, to let them know what happened.
Member Cullather stated it was a courtesy this time and once the minutes were approved they could send them to her so she could read the discussion.
Vice Chair Chaplik stated given that they had heard from the appellant regarding her situation Karl has the information on the modified plans. He asked if there was support among the Board to rule on this either way. He asked if this was appropriate.
Member Bina stated he had no interest in supporting the application, but he was hesitant to make a ruling and was inclined to continue to March 1, 2018 and notify the appellant if she sought a continuance he would vote to deny.
Member Putzel asked if it was appropriate to say you can have a continuance, but know that if you appear or request a continuance it will be voted upon at that meeting.
Chair Henry stated he did not know if they can say that. He thought they could send a letter that if appellant does not appear at the March 1, 2018 meeting and does not seek a continuance with adequate notice, it will be heard on March 1, 2018 unless good cause is shown prior to the agenda being posted. He was uncomfortable saying it was going to be heard March 1, 2018 no matter what and there could be extenuating circumstances. He did not want to paint the Board into a corner. The appellant should know that unless it was something very unusual, the case would be heard March 1, 2018.
Member Putzel stated if they had been notified the Board 48 hours in advance the Agenda could have been amended before final posting.
Mr. Stein stated he had looked at the website at 6:00 PM and there was no mention the applicant had asked for a continuance.
Chair Henry stated the agenda could not be changed once they are in that statutory period.
Member Bay asked if there had been any other communication than the email.
Planner Burhop stated the applicant called on January 30, 2018 to discuss a continuance. He sent an email with future dates.
Commissioner Stolberg said he sent an email to Steve Elrod, Corporation Counsel, to clarify continuances.
Chair Henry stated he spoke to Hart Passman, also with Corporation Counsel.
Ms. Nancy Rosenbaum, 859 Broadview Ave., Highland Park, IL, asked if the bushes die or are removed they are left with the fence which is far forward of what the variance allows. If they move and whoever moves in removes the landscaping they are in the same position. She felt it important to consider not changing the variance to make it different from what it has been.
Chair Henry stated her letter was greatly appreciated.
Ms. Rosenbaum stated if people impose upon their property or the aesthetics it devalues their property and they have to live with it. They are not thinking about everyone else’s values and concerns. They are here because they care about the neighborhood. She was disappointed to be here when the appellant was a no show. Bushes do not last forever.
She thought the appellant should find another way without changing the face of the neighborhood.
Member Bay was not sure of the propriety of going into the substance of the matter when the issue is whether to grant a continuance.
Member Cullather stated it was a continuation of the same hearing.
Member Fettner motioned to continue to March 1, 2018, seconded by Member Bina.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Bay, Bina, Fettner, Henry
Nays: Putzel, Cullather, Chaplik
The Chair declared the Motion passed 4-3. The application is continued to the March 1st, 2018 ZBA meeting.
Chair Henry stated he thought it was a discussion they should have and they need to exercise the proper discretion.
Vice Chair Chaplik stated if they were to rule without the appellant being present, it is a better ruling with all the parties present.
Chair Henry stated they have had applications with no one present and they have talked about denying, but it was always continued with advice going to the appellant they need to be present or it will go to a vote.
Member Putzel stated the continuations two meetings in a row and this being the only item that evening was unfortunate. There were 15 people present for this meeting.
Chair Henry stated he did not disagree.
Member Bay asked how to proceed in order to discuss this further.
Chair Henry stated they can put it on the agenda.
Member Cullather asked if they needed a motion to have staff draft a letter for the Chair to sign.
Chair Henry stated in whatever communication they have with the appellant the vote was 4-3 and they need to explain to the appellant the sense of the Board with respect to the lateness of the request for continuance.
Ms. Rosenbaum stated when they were here previously they told the petitioner they were doing her a favor to come back because there were no changes and they would waive the fee.
Chair Henry stated they cannot waive the fee. What they can do if the matter is continued then the hearing is continued.
Ms. Rosenbaum asked if the appellant has a time period to cancel the meeting and if they do not do it in that period is there a penalty.
Chair Henry stated the only penalty would be the Board could vote up or down. They are not in the business of penalizing people even to encourage courtesy to the Board and members of the public. They grant continuances in consideration of the community. They do not do anything behind closed doors.
Member Bay asked if they had not granted the continuance they would have had to vote on the matter.
Chair Henry confirmed this.
Mr. Paul Silverman, 870 Broadview, Highland Park, IL, stated the applicant is a difficult neighbor and is trying to game the system, hoping neighbors will not show up and encouraged the Board to consider this, they should take a hard line, has to show hardship, change will go with the property, should be forced to pay another fee, applicant is inconsiderate.
Chair Henry stated they did not know if she could or could not be here. As long as the application is not acted on she cannot do anything so the status quo is maintained. The Board is getting inpatient with this and she would be advised to be present next time.
Mr. Silverman stated he appreciated the Board’s efforts.
VI. New Business: None
VII. Staff Report: None
VIII. Miscellaneous: None
IX. Adjournment
Chair Henry entertained a motioned to adjourn. Member Bina so motioned, seconded by Member Fettner. On a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously.
The Zoning Board of Appeals adjourned at 8:10 pm.
http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=1977&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up