Lake County Gazette

Lake County Gazette

Thursday, November 14, 2019

City of Highland Park Zoning Board of Appeals met June 20

By Angelica Saylo Pilo | Aug 2, 2019

Shutterstock 112445855

City of Highland Park Zoning Board of Appeals met June 20.

Here is the minutes provided by the board:

I. CALL TO ORDER

At 7:30 PM Chair Chaplik called the meeting to order and asked Planner Burhop to call the roll.

Members Present: Bay, Bina, Chaplik, Cullather, Henry

Members Absent: Fettner, Putzel

Planner Burhop took the roll and declared a quorum present.

Staff Present: Burhop

Student Rep.: None

Council Liaison: None

II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

1. May 16, 2019

Chair Chaplik entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the May 16, 2019 meeting. Member Henry so motioned, seconded by Member Bay. Member Bina and Vice Chair Cullather abstained. On a voice vote, the Chair declared the motion carried unanimously.

PUBLICATION DATE FOR NEW BUSINESS: 6-5-19 BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC: None

V. OLD BUSINESS:

#19-04-VAR-010

Property: 244 Pierce Rd., Highland Park, IL 60035

Zoning District R5

Appellant: Genevieve M. Daniels

Address: 244 Pierce Rd., Highland Park, IL

Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including project background, original plan, revised plan, photos, aerial image, existing survey, revised elevations and request.

Ms. Daniels, Applicant, stated she took the Board’s feedback after the last meeting, 12’ single car garage, close to having resolution, question of trash and recycle bins, with revised 21’ they have lost a lot of space, does not have a basement, not possible to put receptacles and bins in revised space, need space for equipment, if they went with plan would have to remove glass in back for more space, could do front door, has impacted ability to have storage, cannot put receptacles in garage, enclosure for bins would be 4’- 6’, placing it on the side would be closer to neighbor’s property, if they had 2’ extra it all would fit in, wants to continue dialog, enclosing receptacles outside, have already given 2’ up from side yard, open to further dialog, would have to speak with architect, original plan would have been tidier situation, there could be hedges at property line, dialogue is still going on, garage spaces are next to each other.

Mr. Monte Mann, Neighbor Representative, stated they have had dialogue and made a request the garage be reduced to 12’. They are prepared to withdraw their objections if they can reach an agreement on where to put the trash bins. They are interested in the architect’s ideas and think that is the best solution.

Chair Chaplik asked Ms. Daniels if they were amenable to a continuance.

Ms. Daniels stated she would be amenable to a continuance because her architect was not here and these are preliminary discussions on the receptacles. This is an expensive revision of the front façade and garage. To give up the 2’ only to have to deal with this receptacle issue could have been not an issue. It is hard to figure the receptacle issue and why did they give up the 2’ which is critical for the home. They have storage that is moist and they do not have a basement. The need to maximize this through the garage.

Chair Chaplik stated they appreciate them working together to try and work this out. The Board is prepared to act on an application irrespective of agreement between neighbors.

Ms. Daniels stated asked if there was a way to get a sense of the Board’s feeling on the receptacle issue.

Member Henry stated they are the Zoning Board of appeal, not design and review and they are not the appearance committee for the City. With respect to where you put the garbage bins that is not within their jurisdiction. He thought the application met the standards. He thought it admirable that they have gotten together with the neighbor to try to resolve something that works for both. He found this frustrating because even if they approve this application it is not going to have a provision that says you have to keep your garbage bins inside. That is not within their jurisdiction and they do not have the authority to do that. She could ask for a continuance. What they have asked for is to encroach on a side yard and that is what the Board has authority over. Where they put the garbage bins is between you and the neighbor and the Board has no jurisdiction to pass on that aspect.

Ms. Daniels asked if a structure that goes further into the side yard is not something that is part of the application.

Member Henry stated the garbage bins are not a structure.

Ms. Daniels stated the enclosure they would build would be going to the neighbor’s property.

Member Henry stated she might have to amend the application.

Member Bina stated they appreciated the neighbor’s objection, but she could have a vote now. Whether you resolve it with the neighbor or not, that is not a standard they are bound by. He was prepared to approve it now and appreciated the reduction. In order to vote he needs to know what he is voting on.

Member Bay stated he would echo Member Bina and was one of the ones who was on the fence last time as well. He thought the applicant had gone above and beyond. He thought it was a reasonable reduction and ask. If she informally agreed with the neighbor about the landscaping and receptacles is not something in their jurisdiction. He stated what they had done swayed him to support the application.

Vice Chair Cullather stated he agreed and appreciated the dialogue and the fact that they have reduced the garage and internal space by a significant amount. The all have issues with recycling bins and if she went with Lake Shore they could have the potential for three bins. They do not want it to be ugly from the street. He thought they could work it out with the neighbors.

Chair Chaplik agreed with the other members and looked favorably on the current proposal. He stated they could address it now or they could seek a continuance.

Member Henry stated a continuance would be until July 18, 2019.

Planner Burhop stated if the motion to approve fails it does not mean it is denied. The application is still ripe for consideration and another motion.

Ms. Daniels stated they feel comfortable asking the Board to approve the revised plan they submitted today and would remain committed to working with the neighbor.

Member Bina motioned to adopt the draft approval order approving the variance consistent with the revised plan. Vice Chair Cullather seconded.

Planner Burhop called the roll:

Ayes: Bay, Bina, Henry, Cullather, Chaplik

Nays: None

The Chair declared the Motion passed 5-0.

VI. NEW BUSINESS:

#19-03-VAR-009

Property: 1388 Forest Ave., Highland Park, IL 60035 Zoning District R5

Appellant: Maximillian Vitek

Address: 1388 Forest Ave., Highland Park, IL

Planner Burhop stated he received an email from the applicant at 9:30 AM requesting a continuance. They are waiting for the Forestry report.

Member Henry motioned to continue to the July 18, 2019 meeting. Member Bina seconded. On a voice vote, the Chair declared the motion carried unanimously.

2. #19-05-VAR-012

Property: 183 S. Deere Park Dr.

Zoning District R5

Appellant: Harvey Marcus

Address: 183 S. Deere Park Dr., Highland Park, IL 60035

Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including site location, through lot, aerial image, project background, photos, plat of survey and zoning review, site plan, relief review, additional notes and request.

Chair Chaplik asked about the gate on either side of the fence that was entering into the neighbor’s yard and if it still existed.

Planner Burhop stated the gates are still there. This is the plan that was submitted and is before the Board. It does not necessarily reflect what is there now.

Member Henry asked what is there now and is this a different footprint.

Planner Burhop stated there is a gate on the corner and one next to the shed. They are proposing to have a fence so the gate does not open on neighbor’s property. They want the gate on the south side so it opens onto the ROW. They want to remove the gate and fence the gap.

Member Henry asked if there were fences on both sides of the gap. Planner Burhop stated yes.

Member Henry stated it appeared the fences were taller than the current fence on the property.

Planner Burhop stated they are both are 6’ high.

Member Bay asked if the existing fence is conforming or was it subject to a variance.

Planner Burhop stated they were issued a permit in 2007 and did not know if they obtained relief.

Member Bay stated they did not want to do something unless it was approved.

Planner Burhop stated the structures are already there but that is not the plan before the Board.

Vice Chair Cullather asked if the property on the right on the slide was mismarked. Planner Burhop stated it was a typo.

Mr. Morgan Marcus, Applicant Representative, stated his parents are out of town, the fence blew over in the winter, they contacted a fence contractor who indicated they did not need approval for the fence he was proposing, he assured them they could have gates without a permit which was not correct, fence was constructed by contractor at that time, image is what is currently proposed, met with Planning and Building Depts., have contacted fence companies, met with neighbors, intends to make changes, on west side of property there is a gate that opens to the west side to the Freidlich property, that will be turned into a fence, the new gate will open inward onto his parent’s property, on the Locasio side of the property there is a gap in the fence and a gate attached to the Locasio fence, that gate would be removed and the fence will be extended to the east to the property line, neither fence on either side of the property will touch either neighbors fences.

Chair Chaplik asked if this was visible on the image.

Mr. Marcus stated yes. The contemplated gate would be removed and the fence will be extended to the property line. There will still be a gap between the Locasio fence and the gate will no longer be there which was requested by the Locasios.

Vice Chair Cullather asked if the tree would be inside the fence.

Mr. Marcus stated yes. The fence was put up in time of need and his parents intent to comply with all provisions of the zoning requirements. His father has met with both neighbors to resolve their concerns. They believe the plan meets the standards, the setback and the height is at same level with the neighbors’. The construction will be the same as it is now.

Member Bay asked about the prior fence knocked over in the storm and did it differ from what is there now.

Mr. Marcus stated no.

Member Henry stated one of the neighbors mentioned a gate opening onto their property and you would be using their property with this gate. He asked if that was this plan or a prior situation.

Mr. Marcus stated that is the fence as it exists now. With the current plan, there will no longer be a gate and turned into a fence. The gate will be moved over to south side of the fence and will only be ingress/egress onto his parents’ property.

Mr. Paul Locasio, neighbor to the east, stated when the fence blew down they put a gate between their fence and his fence to cover the space. When they put up their fence they put it inside their property line. So when they built the gate they actually built partially on his property. It was unintentional and it is probably a 1’ onto his property.

Chair Chaplik asked where the big tree is. Mr. Locasio stated it is towards Sheridan.

Member Henry asked Mr. Locasio if it was his understanding that this plan will remove whatever of their fence may be on their property.

Mr. Locasio stated he almost was going to say they could leave it and removed it at some other time but that could get sticky. It is their property and technically there should not be something on it. They did agreed to remove it.

Mr. William Freidlich, neighbor, stated part of the fence blew down in a storm, it was towards the middle, there was an opening between his fence and their fence, when he came for his fence there was a letter from Mrs. Marcus that stated under no circumstances could his fence touch their fence, there was a survey marker taken out and wood nailed on his fence by the contractor and there is a post cemented in the ground which is most likely where the survey was, there is a gate no one could use without entering his property, he talked to Mr. Marcus and they had to go to him, their house is on the market and he had clean a survey and he needs the post taken care of, he was told it is his responsibility to get new survey, he did not pull the pipe and did not know why he had to pay for a new survey, when he applied for his fence he provided a survey to the City and they should have it, they are OK with what Marcus’ want to do and the gate should be turned 90o facing Sheridan Rd., he wanted to make sure he had a clean line with the survey, the wood has been taken down, he does not want problems but it was put up without anyone knowing, does not want a gate opening to his land where no one can get in or out without walking through it.

Chair Chaplik stated he may need a new survey is he is selling his home.

Mr. Freidlich stated he did not know if he should have to have one for this particular reason.

Chair Chaplik stated the application does not approve what has been built, it requests a fence on or inside the property line. Nothing they might be asked to approve permits a fence outside of the neighbor’s property line. This does not remove any rights he may have if he finds someone has built on his land.

Mr. Freidlich stated if wanted to build fence he has to come here, going through the Zoning Board and they tell him exactly where the fence has to be and no one told them that.

Vice Chair Cullather stated they acknowledged that.

Mr. Freidlich stated what they put in was never there, it was all open land. This is not repairs, it is all addition.

Member Bay stated his recourse would lie with the Building Dept. if he believed something has been built that should have not been.

Mr. Freidlich stated he want to make sure he was protected.

Member Bay stated Mr. Freidlich’s point is well taken and he would be in favor of approving the variance and they will not permit anything to be built anywhere other than the applicant’s land. They need to follow any building code requirements and proof it remains on that land.

Member Bina agreed and that this a petition that is trying to cure a problem. The standards are different with the fence elements and are more flexible. Does it contribute to a favorable environment for the City, is it not detrimental to the growth of the City, does it not cause a depreciation in property values. He thought it met the standards and he would support it.

Member Henry agreed and they have had situations where the City approved things that did not necessarily meet the standards because they did not understand what they were at the time and that is not their role. It would not be their role to approve something that would encroach upon someone’s property. They do not have the jurisdiction nor the inclination to do that. The plan seeks to correct this situation that there will not be any encroachment on the property of neighbors nor will gates open up onto the property of neighbors. Any order they approve assumes and requires that the boundaries be observed. They cannot approve something that would encroach on someone’s property. He thought the application meets the standards to correct something that is an encroachment on both neighbors.

Vice Chair Cullather agreed and believed they have different standards they need to observe and thought the request meets the requirements. He would support the request.

Chair Chaplik stated he thought it met the traditional standards for variance as well as the Chapter 173 standards for the fence.

Chair Chaplik entertained a motion. Member Bina motioned to direct staff to prepare findings of fact approving the request. Member Cullather seconded. On a voice vote, the Chair declared the motion passed unanimously.

Chair Chaplik stated the plan attached to the order does not show the gate intended to be removed north of the east side of fence.

Member Henry asked if the draft order encompasses the latest of what is being requested.

Chair Chaplik stated it had the new fence on the left side replacing what was a gate, anew gate on the south side, the extension in the southeast corner. They thought the one item missing was the gate that currently exists near a shed.

Planner Burhop stated when he drafts the approval order they are based on the standard template which does not offer much flexibility. The approval order could use some updating to reflect the recent plans submitted and be very specific about the gate and fence locations. The plan does state that but should it be incorporated in the draft approval order. In the building and zoning code there is no distinction between a fence and a gate. The approval order could use that to protect the Board’s approval.

Member Henry stated they directed staff to prepare an order.

Chair Chaplik stated they would take up the revised order at the next meeting.

Planner Burhop stated the Board has directed an approval order to make sure it meets the Board’s approval and this will be at the July 18, 2019 ZBA Meeting.

Chair Chaplik stated they wanted to make sure they get all the detail in the order.

Mr. Marcus asked if his parents can have the fence contractor start before July 18th or do they have to wait until the entry of the order.

Planner Burhop asked Mr. Marcus to follow-up with him during work hours at the Planning Division and they can discuss this then.

3. #19-05-VAR-013

Property: 1895 Clavey Rd.

Zoning District: R4

Appellant: Sean and Catheriya Curran

Address: 1895 Clavey Rd., Highland Park, IL 60035

Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including site location, aerial image, project background, existing survey, proposed site plan, existing encroachments, proposed site plan, photos, floor plan, elevations, additional notes and request.

Chair Chaplik asked for how far could they build a patio.

Planner Burhop stated if it was on the ground and not more than 12” in height they could go up to 2’ from the property line.

Member Henry asked to see where they currently are at and what they are proposing.

Planner Burhop illustrated the slide. Member Henry asked about the dotted line.

Planner Burhop stated the dark red is buildable and the dashed lines were approved with the subdivision in 1986.

Member Henry asked if the were exceeding that as well on the proposed site.

Planner Burhop stated it would be a 3’ encroachment into the 15’ subdivision building line and they need the 12’ relief into the 24’ side yard setback.

Member Bina asked about the gray and brown structures.

Planner Burhop stated it was a deck and patio.

Mr. Sean Curran, Applicant, made a presentation including the existing deck is old and rotted through, it is becoming a danger, other deck and patio are in the same condition, they not in a position to address all of them at one time, primary patio leads out of the kitchen and there is a third exit out of the mud room, the other two are not used, they are trying to replace the existing deck, clean up the lines and have a straight line, want to put in an outdoor kitchen, have young children and want to avoid any burns situations which requires a 10‘ setback from the property, this is the only place to do so.

Vice Chair Cullather asked if he could explain the 10’ piece.

Mr. Curran stated the fire code requires that any built-in grill is 10’ from the building structure. There needs to be 10’ between the building structure and the grill.

Vice Chair Chaplik stated he could do this in the back part of the yard without a variance.

Mr. Curran stated it is a lot in depth and there are some challenges in doing that. The side door is the exit from the kitchen. By doing that any food preparation would have to go through rest of the house to get to that. Under the building codes they need to be able to build some kind of replacement deck. Given the lay of the land, they have no choice but to build something there.

Member Bay asked how they determined the size of the deck and is it possible to have it a little smaller.

Mr. Curran stated the size is the same length of existing deck. In terms of the actual dimensions they are held by the 10’ depth and that is where they are being driven from the deck. They are trying to reduce the length and it is more around what is useable land. All of it dips down significantly and become unusable. There is a stormwater drain pipe behind there and it clears out the stormwater.

Chair Chaplik asked if they had any flooding back there.

Mr. Curran stated it drains pretty well. There is standing water at the moment with the rains but it is pretty clear. If this is approved they would put in river rock to improve the drainage.

Member Bina stated they had not received comments from neighbors. He asked if he had advised them what he was planning to do.

Mr. Curran stated he had advised the neighbors and they had no concerns. There was one neighbor who decided they did not want to give written confirmation they had served notice. No one asked any questions or put forth any objections.

Member Henry stated the home goes in and out and could they put the grill there.

Mr. Curran stated there are two exit doors and you have to be 10’ away from the property.

Member Henry asked if they would be 10’ away from the apex.

Mr. Curran stated there is a small gap and they had tried measuring it out but there is not enough room to put the grill.

Member Bina stated when reviewed the materials he was not inclined to support it. He was struggling to find how something this significant could justify a hardship. He thought he could support this and understands if this porch is removed and the necessity of putting something back there. He understood the notion of the grill and the fire code which is almost like a secondary hardship not imposed by the petitioner. He was not completely on board to support and wanted to hear what the other members thought.

Member Bay agreed with Member Bina and he was vacillating with the hardship standard and the reasonable return standard. He thought it was a reasonable thing to ask since they have to rebuild the deck anyway, to do so in a manner where they can better utilize the property. An argument could be made because of the lot-in-depth situation, the increased requirements and the side yard setbacks that could create enough of a hardship. He thought he could support the variation.

Member Henry stated he was on the fence and wondered about the hardship standard.

Vice Chair Cullather stated it comes down to the hardship. It is a lot-in-depth and a unique property. The tightness with which the building lines constrict the ability to do anything as far as replacing the deck is obvious. There is also the slope issue and he wished the code dealt with other slopes where you measure the height. When they deal with roof height and a slope going down they measure from the midpoint.

Planner Burhop stated for patios and decks the code talks about not being more than 12” from grade. This is not applied to the buildable area corners for structures like that. It is wherever the grade is there.

Vice Chair Cullather stated because of the slope issue he was not as concerned about it exceeding the 12” height. The question becomes you could make this smaller if not for the grill. He was having difficulty as to the hardship. He understood the fire code and was not sure about hardship as far as needing additional feet.

Chair Chaplik stated he was on the fence. It is clear they need to have a step as a way to get to the ground from the doors. He would be in favor of some kind of deck but thought this was a much larger patio with the built-in grill. He was challenged to approve this when there is buildable area in the back of house where no variance would be required and they could put in a built-in grill. He understood it was not conducive to travelling back and forth from the kitchen and that it is that a want or a have to have. He was not convinced that the hardship has been proven with the respect to the extent of the requested relief.

Ms. Catheriya Curran, Applicant, stated they were trying to square off the deck and adding square feet, the corners go out to same distance, they are not trying to ask for too much more, the back is unusable space, main reason is to provide safe environment for children, scared the children run into the grill, that is reason the want it built-in, looked at doing in the corner area but there is not enough room, if they used the back they would have to rework house and it would not make sense, have thought out what they could do and are not trying to impact neighbors, have done dye test with drainage, talked with the neighbors, height of patio is not changing.

Chair Chaplik entertained a motion. This does not mean the case has failed, but no one has made a motion to approve. They may want to re-think this and right now there are no motions from any of the members to approve the variance.

Member Cullather stated they are down two members tonight who may or may not be here at the next meeting.

Chair Chaplik stated normally there is a board of seven and it take four to approve a variance.

Mr. Curran asked about the next steps.

Chair Chaplik stated they could amend the proposal and have additional arguments to convince the Board they meet the standards for a variance.

Mr. Curran asked about the primary concerns with the current plans so he can address those concerns.

Chair Chaplik stated other than what he has heard he cannot tell him what to do.

Member Bay stated the standards are set out as part of the zoning code for granting a variation. He may want to structure his response in terms of meeting each of the standards.

Planner Burhop stated if the application is continued to July 18, 2019 he sends the applicants a recording of the meeting. This would give him the opportunity to listen to the Board’s comments.

Vice Chair Cullather motioned to continue to July 18, 2019. Member Henry seconded. On a voice vote, the Chair declared the motion carried unanimously.

4. #19-05-VAR-014

Property: 1210 Sherwood Rd.

Zoning District: R6

Appellant: Maureen and John Muench

Address: 1210 Sherwood Rd., Highland Park, IL 60035

Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including site location, aerial image, neighborhood, project background, photos, existing survey, proposed site plan, proposed elevations, additional notes and request.

Chair Chaplik asked if it was a variance for the neighbor to the west.

Planner Burhop stated it was front yard and floor area.

Member Bay asked about the existing concrete walk and if it leads up to the front door.

Planner Burhop stated the applicant could address this.

Member Bay stated they are at an encroachment onto the side yard.

Planner Burhop stated the Highland Park zoning has the stipulation if you are on the street you have a required front yard.

Chair Chaplik asked if there was an FAR issue. Planner Burhop stated no.

Member Henry asked other than the proposed option chimney, without it that line would be straight.

Planner Burhop stated they proposed to continue an existing non-conformity.

Mr. John Muench, Applicant, made a presentation including he lived in Evanston for 35 years and wanted a single level home, they have a four-bedroom single level home, have children who come back to town, did not know existing structure was non-conforming when they bought, want to expand just enough to accommodate four sets of children at once for major events, it is a tiny space.

Member Henry asked if, for health reasons, he bought the house. He was familiar with COPD and his background is prosecuting black lung disease cases. He understood the need not to be walking up and down stairs. The applicant sought a home that was on one level and had enough room.

Member Bay stated there was a lot of buildable area elsewhere on the lot and was there a reason why he could not accomplish this elsewhere.

Mr. Muench stated it is the only place to expand the living room into a living/family room. The rest of the house is bedrooms and kitchen. This is the one location you can move a little and get room.

Member Bay asked if they did it elsewhere would they have to restructure.

Mr. Muench stated yes, they would have to restructure and they would not do that.

Member Henry asked about the optional chimney and if it was for an optional HVAC or for a fireplace.

Mr. Muench stated it was for a fireplace and is not an essential design element.

Member Bay stated he was on the fence and it is such a reasonable request on a large lot. He did not think the neighbors are opposing it. It seems reasonable, however he was concerned about the hardship and reasonable return.

Member Bina stated this was easier and he struggled a little with it. He would be inclined to support this. This is a pre-existing condition and that is compelling. They cannot do any work to this home without getting relief. It seems that the relief is just following the existing building line and is not an extravagant expansion. He found it persuasive that the Board twenty or thirty years ago gave similar relief to a neighbor of approximately the same dimension. It goes to the character of the neighborhood that this is something that is reasonable. Moving up or out would require significant modifications which would be outrageously expensive. He was inclined to support and thought it met the standards.

Member Henry agreed with Member Bina and had the same thoughts about building in different areas where there is really room. That would require reconfiguring the entire house which makes no sense. This is the most logical place to out it. It is in line with the currently existing lines of the house. It is driven by health and family concerns both of which are compelling. He would not support the fireplace and chimney. To him that is not a hardship but a design element. He would not support the encroachment for a chimney, but would support the rest of the application.

Vice Chair Cullather stated he agreed with the other members and thought the applicant had looked at other options which would require shuffling the layout of the house. There is a pre-existing non-conformity and setback requirements on two sides. He thought there were hardships that were identified. He thought what they have asked for is reasonable for a four-bedroom house. It will not affect the physical surroundings or light. He would support this and would give them the fireplace.

Chair Chaplik stated he similarly struggled with the fireplace and it increases the request and increases a non-conformity. He would support the application and the chimney as well. He understood Member Henry’s concerns.

Chair Chaplik entertained a motion. Member Bina motioned to direct staff to prepare findings of fact and an order approving the request as submitted. Vice Chair Cullather seconded. Upon a voice vote, the Chair declared the motion passed with four ayes and one nay; Member Henry voted nay.

Member Henry stated he saw the fireplace and chimney as being different and being included for a different reason. He did not see it as being necessary. He was in favor of the application with the exception of the chimney.

Chair Chaplik stated there was an order in packet and entertained a motion. Vice Chair Cullather motioned to adopt the order as drafted by staff. Member Bina seconded.

Planner Burhop called the roll:

Ayes: Bay, Bina, Cullather, Chaplik

Nays: Henry

The Chair declared the Motion passed 4-1.

VII. STAFF REPORT:

Planner Burhop stated Member Henry asked to be kept up to date on the proposed changes related to the SAG group and there is no update.

Chair Chaplik asked if he knew when it would be addressed by Council. Planner Burhop stated not until it is on the agenda.

Member Henry asked if he could let them know. This was something he had some definite ideas about as expressed at the last meeting.

Planner Burhop stated right now it is on track for a committee of the whole meeting at Council.

Member Bay asked if Councilman Stolberg was still liaison for the Board. Planner Burhop stated he is and had advised he was not able to attend tonight.

Member Henry stated when he first came on the Board he does not recall the Council person attending before Councilwoman Kim Stone became liaison and she was diligent about attending.

VIII. MISCELLANEOUS: None.

IX. ADJOURNMENT:

Chair Chaplik entertained a motioned to adjourn. Member Henry so motioned, seconded by Member Bina. On a voice vote, the Chair declared the motion passed unanimously.

The Zoning Board of Appeals adjourned at 9:35 PM.

http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2238&Inline=True

Want to get notified whenever we write about City of Highland City Council ?

Sign-up Next time we write about City of Highland City Council, we'll email you a link to the story. You may edit your settings or unsubscribe at any time.

Organizations in this Story

City of Highland City Council