City of Highland Park Zoning Board of Appeals met July 19.
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, Cullather, Henry, Putzel
Members Absent: Chaplik, Fettner
Planner Burhop took the roll and declared a quorum present.
Staff Present: Burhop
Student Rep.: None
Council Liaison: Stolberg
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chair Henry entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the 6-21-18 meeting. Member Bina so motioned, seconded by Member Cullather. On a voice vote the Chair declared the motion carried unanimously. Chair Henry and Member Bay voted present.
III. PUBLICATION DATE FOR NEW BUSINESS: 7-3-18
IV. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC: None
V. OLD BUSINESS:
1. #018-05-VAR-012
Property: 40 Roger Williams Ave., Highland Park, IL 60035 Zoning District: R4 Appellant: Natasha Rumas Address: 40 Roger Williams Ave., Highland Park, IL 60035
Planner Burhop reported the applicant’s request for continuance and their intention to remove the deck and her architect needs more time to revise the drawings. A copy of the applicant’s request for continuance was in the packet.
Chair Henry entertained a motion to continue to August 2, 2018. Member Cullather so motioned, seconded by Member Bay. On a voice vote, the Chair declared the motion carried unanimously.
Planner Burhop stated the City will ask for the revised information before Friday, July 29, or Monday, August 2, if possible.
VI. NEW BUSINESS:
1. #18-05-VAR-017
Property: 142 Central Ave., Highland Park, IL 60035 Zoning District: R4 Appellant: Samara & Maxwell Strycker Address: 142 Central Ave., Highland Park, IL 60035
Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including project location, project background, aerial view, photos, proposed site plan, existing and proposed front façade, established building setbacks on Central and requested variation.
Member Cullather asked if the stoop measurement was to the bottom of the lowest step.
Planner Burhop stated it would not count as a step. The code is very strict on stoops.
Ms. Samara Strycker, 142 Central, Highland Park, IL, Applicant, stated this will add value to the home, they are working to improve the home, it is in character with the neighborhood, and are already into established setback.
Chair Henry asked if they had heard from the neighbors.
Ms. Strycker stated they had sent letters and had no feedback. They have good relations with their neighbors.
Member Bina stated they have certain elements to meet before they can approve and one of them is a demonstrable hardship. He asked the applicant to speak to the preexisting hardship and the new portico with water coming in.
Ms. Strycker stated it is a hardship and that is why they focused on the bay window and they have had water in the basement. The have started to re-landscape to keep the water away and this will direct it away from the home.
Member Bay stated almost anything they do will require a variance and asked if they had explored anything that would not require a variance.
Ms. Strycker stated they had looked at options and tried to have one that was the least intrusive with the most benefits. They want to have some lights to be able to provide a safety element. The roofs over the bay windows are critical.
Member Putzel asked about the lights.
Ms. Strycker stated they only have one light in the front of the house. They will be adding one on each side.
Member Bay stated he was not 100% sure and this is a tough case. He was on the fence because he was not sure all the standards have been met. However, he thought to deny this deminimus request would be overly strict and he would support the application and could make an argument for each standard.
Member Bina stated he struggled with this but the presentation was helpful. Seeing the setback numbers, preexisting conditions, and hearing from the petitioner and supplemental information regarding water damage and also been helpful. He would support the application.
Member Cullather stated he came in with similar thoughts as Member Bina regarding the hardship. The water drainage illustrates it is not just trying to beautify the house, but there is a structural reason behind the improvement. He would support the application.
Member Putzel stated she thought it met the standards, is in harmony with the neighborhood and is not detrimental to the neighborhood. She did not think they could get a reasonable return if they did not do the work. She thought they were taking the appropriate measure with the landscaping and would support the application.
Chair Henry stated he agreed with Member Bina who has a knack for drawing out some of the information the Board needs. The presentation was helpful and he thought it met the standards and would support the application.
Chair Henry entertained a motion to approve the application. Member Bina motioned to grant the petition as presented, seconded by Member Putzel.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Bay, Putzel, Cullather, Bina, Henry
Nays: None
The Chair declared the Motion passed 5-0.
Chair Henry entertained a motion to approve the approval order. Member Cullather so motioned, seconded by Member Bay.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Bay, Putzel, Cullather, Bina, Henry
Nays: None
The Chair declared the motion passed 5-0.
2. Consideration and Adoption of Draft FY2019 ZBA Work Plan
Chair Henry stated they have a draft work plan submittal for 2019. He stated this covers board member training, conducting the public hearings and expenses. They have changed from having a court reporter which has reduced expenses.
Chair Henry entertained a motion to approve the fiscal year 2019 work plan submittal. Member Bay so motioned, seconded by Member Cullather. On a voice vote, the Chair declared the motion passed unanimously.
VII. STAFF REPORT: None
VIII. MISCELLANEOUS:
1. Discussion on Curfew and Application Limit for Board Meetings
Member Putzel stated they keep coming up with the same answer and it is difficult. She thought on the late nights they could entertain the concept of bringing in food.
Member Bay asked if they adopted a curfew and reached that curfew what happens to the remaining business.
Chair Henry it would be continued to the next meeting. The continuance is based on a case by case basis based on the merits of what is being presented. Regarding tonight’s case, it is has been here three times but each time the applicant has worked with the neighbors to get it right. Other times there are reasons that are less compelling, though not without merit.
Member Bay asked if they wanted to have any specific criteria.
Chair Henry stated maybe there should be something that says continuances are not granted automatically. He knew Planner Burhop tells applicants continuances not automatically granted by the Board. He did not know if it was a policy they need to adopt.
Member Cullather stated he thought they had been handling it appropriately and for the most part they have leaned on the side of the applicant. They have given them plenty of courtesy and have been generous in handling it the way the applicant would like.
Chair Henry stated it goes to the balance the Board has tried to maintain. They try to work with the applicants and neighbors when there is a dispute and try not to be authoritarian in the way they conduct business. He thought this is the way they should operate.
Member Putzel asked if there was any language on the website.
Chair Henry stated maybe they put could put this on the website. They could work with Member Bay on this.
Planner Burhop stated it was something that could be added to the application packet.
Chair Henry stated when he receives the language from Member Bay and circulates it to the Board they can put it on the application and the website.
Member Bay stated they may want to add how every effort should be made to provide as much notice as possible if you are requesting a continuance.
Chair Henry stated they could come to an informal agreement and add it to the website and application. He thought curfew was easy in a certain way.
Member Putzel stated it was subjective.
Chair Henry stated they do not have control over the number of items on the docket. That is dictated by who gets there first. It could be one, two or three. You never know how long an application will take.
Member Putzel asked if they could give fair warning that if they go over to a certain time they will held over to the next meeting so people are not sitting for hours and then are not heard.
Chair Henry stated people show up at 7:30 PM even if they look at the agenda not knowing. He was in favor of some kind of curfew not because of it getting late, but it also impacts the quality of the work. It is a disservice to the applicants and the City.
Member Bay asked if they have the authority to not hear something that is properly noticed.
Chair Henry stated yes from what Corporation Counsel Passman and Elrod have stated about curfews.
Member Bina asked if it is a function of time curfews or docket management.
Chair Henry stated he was not sure and they could look at the ordinance.
Councilman Stolberg stated he did not know but they had similar discussions at the Plan Commission and had meetings until 1:00 AM. There were times Planner Cross would let them know a meeting or two in advance that the schedule was relatively full and he would take a poll to see if it was feasible to start at 6:30 PM. He agreed in giving the applicant a fair shake and did want the applicant to feel they were not heard properly.
Chair Henry asked about the notice requirement.
Planner Burhop stated it was 15 days before the public hearing.
Member Putzel asked what happens if they can start earlier but the applicant cannot.
Planner Burhop stated in the past there may have been four new apps per meeting.
Chair Henry stated he did not recall the Board having a limit.
Planner Burhop stated they could adopt something like this if they were interested.
Chair Henry stated four could take a half an hour or four hours.
Member Bina stated without a limit you could be faced with old business and then new matters. He thought maybe there was some value in having a guideline.
Member Putzel asked if at a certain hour you said to the applicants they could continue or a continuance to the next meeting.
Chair Henry stated they do want people sitting here for hours and then say we are finished.
Member Putzel stated maybe at 9: 45 PM or 10:00 PM they could say they have this option.
Councilman Stolberg stated they are paying for this with architects, etc. and they may say they are staying.
Chair Henry stated if they limit the number of matters it is only arbitrary to the extent that they really have no idea how long each matter will take.
Member Bay asked if there was an average amount of time.
Chair Henry stated some of the cases you think will be short are not and some of the ones you think will be long end up being really long. There was a matter to do with a patio that allegedly was a skating rink. The Board heard the case over several meetings and did not hear any other cases. It was not fair to the other applicants. Curfew is more nuanced decision.
Member Cullather asked if they had the ability to limit presentations.
Chair Henry stated they have the ability to control the meetings any way they want as long as they allow due process to take place.
Member Cullather stated it would be what the board decided.
Member Putzel stated when there is contention between neighbors often presentations are redundant. She thought there could be a time limit or old business is taken up after new business.
Planner Burhop stated the Board can change the order.
Member Putzel stated they could say they have heard this before and they have to present new information.
Chair Henry stated that would fall on the chair and it is difficult to do.
Member Bay stated maybe they could post this on the website that they can limit the amount of presentations and length of sessions.
Chair Henry stated if they limit the amount of presentations and redundancy that would have to be on the website.
Member Bina stated maybe they needed a standing order to make it very clear. The Chair has the discretion and there are certain expectations as people appear before the Board regarding presentations and redundancy. They need to have the data to review beforehand.
Chair Henry stated it is frustrating when applicants or objectors come to meetings with new material.
Member Bay asked if someone comes with new material would that necessitate a continuance.
Member Putzel stated that was dependent on the case because they may have information they did not have until the last minute.
Chair Henry stated they do not want to turn the Board into a contentious tribunal. He was hesitant to say if they come into meeting with new information they are not going to allow it. They have the discretion to continue if needed.
Member Bina stated a standing order is not binding and there are extenuating circumstances. This gives the Board discretion and puts the public on notice.
Chair Henry stated Member Bay will work with Planner Burhop on the continuances and he and Member Bina can work on the other issues.
Councilman Stolberg stated they have always been fair and procedurally oriented and willing to err on the side of making sure the applicant feels they have had a fair hearing. They do this on a case by case basis and he has yet to have heard a complaint. They set a three minute limit at Council meetings and there is a beep after three minutes. He thought the Board does a great job and they are very regimented in allowing people to speak. He thought there was nothing wrong with adding to the packet things to be aware of. He thought they could deal with it as it comes so no applicant feels they have not been treated fairly.
Chair Henry stated maybe they are over thinking this but it does not hurt to set expectations.
Member Bay stated they should publish the guidelines.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Henry entertained a motioned to adjourn. Member Bina so motioned, seconded by Member Bay. On a voice vote, the Chair declared the motion passed unanimously.
The Zoning Board of Appeals adjourned at 8:25 PM.
http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2066&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up