City of Highland Park Zoning Board of Appeals met July 9.
Here is the minutes provided by the board:
I. CALL TO ORDER
At 7:32 PM Chair Chaplik called the meeting to order and asked Planner Burhop to call the roll.
Members Present: Bay, Chaplik, Cullather, Hendrick, Henry, Putzel, Zaransky
Members Absent: None
Planner Burhop took the roll and declared a quorum present.
Staff Present: Burhop (physically present at City Hall), Later
Student Rep.: None
Council Liaison: Holleman
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
June 18, 2020
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the June 18, 2020 meeting.
Vice Chair Cullather so motioned, seconded by Member Bay.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Bay, Chaplik, Cullather, Hendrick, Zaransky
Abstain: Henry, Putzel
Nays: None
The Chair declared the Motion passed 5-0.
III. PUBLICATION DATE FOR NEW BUSINESS: 6-24-20
IV. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC: None
V. OLD BUSINESS: None
VI. NEW BUSINESS:
1. #20-07-VAR-009
Property: 1139 Bob-O-Link Rd., Highland Park, IL 60035
Zoning District: R6
Appellant: Allen and Erin Roiser
Address: 1139 Bob-O-Link Rd,. Highland Park, IL 60035
Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including location map, aerial photo, site plan, Compere referral, Council referred to ZBA, photos, proposed fence type, other comments, condition for style of fence and requested relief.
Councilwoman Holleman asked if the visual clearance was at the dead end. Planner Burhop stated it was.
Councilwoman Holleman stated no one at Council expressed concern. Member Hendrick asked if Council could have voted on this if they chose to.
Planner Burhop stated when Council has a Compere referral there are three choices: they cannot refer it, they refer it to the ZBA for final decision, and they can refer it to the ZBA for a public hearing and recommendation back to Council. In this case Council did not deny it and chose to refer it to the ZBA who will be the final decision maker.
Councilwoman Holleman stated there were no objections to this and they prefer to have a public hearing and comment.
Chair Chaplik stated this is not unusual.
Mr. Allen Roiser, Applicant, stated he appreciated the Board evaluating their application and Planner Burhop’s help. Of the 17 homes in their subdivision, there are only three on a side lot and oriented on the same side they are. The area where their children and dog recreate is in the side yard where the proposed fence goes. They want the fence to keep their children and pet safe.
Councilwoman Holleman stated it appeared they are close to Foley’s pond and if that was a concern.
Mr. Roiser stated they would have a concern about a child walking away and there is increased traffic on Bob-O-Link and Sunset by the golf course. He is concerned about all of these.
Councilwoman Holleman these are several factors he was concerned about. Chair Chaplik asked if any one parked in the dead end area.
Mr. Roiser stated no.
Chair Chaplik asked about golfers or backfill if the lot is filled.
Mr. Roiser stated no.
Member Putzel asked if they could share some information about why they need the extra 2’ for the fence and maybe they could address the list of variances and explain how they meet the variances and hardship.
Mr. Roiser stated the along the north side there are electrical lines and it is an eyesore. They wanted a higher fence to have better view in the back yard. The hardship is the increased traffic, young children and a pet. They want a contained yard. The plan is the best way to layout the containment. If they followed the subdivision building line (SBL) that would split one of the largest areas in half and reduce the space and the property value. It would decrease the functional area of the yard.
Ms. Erin Roiser, Applicant, stated when you look at the layout of the property it is unique because their address is Bob-O-Link but the driveway is off the Sunset dead end area. Their backyard is actually a side yard. Without having the fence constructed that way along the driveway it would reduce it. They played around with the plan and this is the best option.
Mr. Roiser stated if they went with a 4’ fence they might contain the children and dog but it would be difficult to do that. Regarding the visual clearance, there is no traffic from the north end and being able to construct the fence in that way and contain the children and pet outweighs any of the traffic or visibility concerns.
Ms. Roiser stated currently there are hedges along the perimeter which they plan to removed as they install the fence. The hedges are a bigger obstruction than the fence would be.
Chair Chaplik asked if a 6’ fence would be permitted if it were a traditional back yard.
Planner Burhop stated yes. Regarding the 6’ variation request located along the north side of the property, functionally it is their side and rear yards. Because it is a corner lot it is considered a rear yard and a 6’ fence would be allowed. In this situation since it is a corner lot the fence goes to the front property line and it would not be permitted.
Chair Chaplik started the applicant submitted a letter explaining how the application met the standards.
Member Bay stated where are planning to locate the proposed fence it does not obscure the view of any merging traffic.
Mr. Roiser stated this was correct.
Member Bay stated the only view that would be obscured would be someone leaving their driveway directly onto Sunset.
Ms. Roiser stated not by the fence.
Member Bay stated the vision is already obscured by thick shrubbery.
Ms. Roiser stated there is a fence on the median.
Member Bay asked if the pond was on Sunset golf course.
Ms. Roiser stated it was a different pond.
Mr. Roiser stated it is directly south.
Ms. Roiser stated there are two ponds.
Member Bay stated what is directly north of their yard is the eastern potion of the Sunset parking lot.
Member Zaransky asked if where the 6’ fence is north.
Mr. Roiser confirmed this.
Member Zaransky asked what was on the other side of the fence.
Mr. Roiser stated there is a 4’ fence on the neighbor’s property and when you meet the property line going west there is another fence going west across the dead end.
Member Zaransky asked if this was the neighbor’s side yard. Mr. Roiser stated it is a side yard.
Vice Chair Cullather asked if the Park District was served with notice of the hearing and was there any feedback.
Mr. Roiser stated they did not receive any.
Member Zaransky stated it is a strange lot with the dead end and the golf course across the street which brings a certain amount of traffic. He would support the variance.
Member Hendrick agreed and he was a little concerned about the visual variance and making sure it was safe. After seeing the photos it was clear that if you back out the driveway you are in the dead end. In order to make the children safer it makes a lot of sense. He was a little less sure on the 6’ but had no objections.
Member Bay stated he thought it met the standards and would approve the variance.
Member Putzel agreed with everything and they see many cases when lots with a side yard that is a back yard. She thought they were increasing the value of the property because they blocking the view of the parking lot. She would support the variance.
Member Henry agreed but did not see the necessity of a 6’ fence on north end of the property. He was not convinced the standard was met. It was kind of a no harm, no foul situation which is not a standard but he could be convinced.
Vice Chair Cullather stated he was in favor of the variance.
Chair Chaplik agreed and thought it met the fence standards as well as the general zoning variation standards. The 6’ fence is functionally their back yard. They are careful in looking at the visual clearance which is a life safety issue. There is no traffic coming from there and it is a complete dead end. He would support the variance.
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion. Member Hendrick motioned to adopt the order as drafted which includes the fence condition stipulation in the packet. Member Putzel seconded.
Planner Burhop stated this was a motion to adopt the draft order.
Member Hendrick concurred.
Planner Burhop stated there was a condition of approval.
Member Hendrick concurred that his motion included the condition as drafted. Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Zaransky, Hendrick, Bay, Putzel, Henry, Cullather, Chaplik
Nays: None
The Chair declared the Motion passed 7-0.
2. #20-07-V AR-010
Property: 1755 Sunnyside Ave., Highland Park, IL 60035
Zoning District: R3
Appellant: Ed Kemp (Sport Court Midwest) on behalf of Property Owner, Dawn Arkin Address: 747 N. Church Rd., #610, Elmhurst, IL 60126
Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including site location, project background, proposed site plan, aerial view, other comments, requested relief and photos.
Mr. Ed Kemp, Sport Court Midwest, Applicant, stated they are planning to build a court in Ms. Arkin’s back yard which is 60’ x 44’. For a larger court it is important to have containment netting around the court. 10’ is the standard because the ball activity can go into neighboring vegetation and property and they want to avoid this. There is a safety factor in keeping the activity on the court and for basketball and volleyball there are often balls in the air above 10’ and 6’ is not enough.
Chair Chaplik asked the height of the fence currently in the back yard. Mr. Kemp stated the fence is 6’ around the perimeter.
Councilwoman Holleman asked about the physical makeup of the fence.
Mr. Kemp stated their fencing material is 1-5/8” steel tube framing spacing less than 10’ apart throughout the perimeter. There will be a bottom and top rail at 10’ and everything in between will be #36 black nylon netting, 13⁄4” squares.
Councilwoman Holleman asked if the were putting up a net around the sport court. She asked if you can see through this.
Mr. Kemp stated you can see through it and it does not obstruct the view.
Member Hendrick asked why the net is needed and how it will fit in with the neighborhood.
Mr. Kemp stated their experience has been very favorable and the sport court environment in someone’s back yard is very inviting and is a place where lot of activity and friends and neighbors come in and enjoy it. It is aesthetically pleasing with no negative effect in terms of the overall effect the neighborhood. There is not a lot of visibility into the property overall. It is not obstructive to vision or sight lines.
Member Hendrick asked if they had a photo. Mr. Kemp stated he can provide one.
Planner Burhop stated the description was detailed but there was no photo. On the page before the site plan there was a one-page document from the applicant but no photo.
Councilwoman Holleman asked if someone came and said they have a sports court and they wanted a solid 6’ fence, would that be allowable.
Planner Burhop stated yes in this location.
Councilwoman Holleman stated she thought you could go above a 6’ fence with lattice work.
Planner Burhop stated that was correct. The way fence is defined any fence or barrier is limited to 6’ in height.
Councilwoman Holleman stated they could have come for a solid fence but they are getting a higher see through mesh fence. From a visual point of view solid is more intrusive than a mesh see through.
Vice Chair Cullather stated the difference is if there is already a perimeter fence around the yard that is 6’. An interior 6’ fence would not be visible from the neighbors. The 10’ fence regardless if it is mesh or not, will be visible. He asked if there anything with netting regarding birds or animals.
Mr. Kemp stated they have not experienced that and have seen birds flying into glass. He had not heard of any instances with birds with netting.
Councilwoman Holleman mentioned the bird friendly glass recommendation is to put netting around buildings that have glass to catch the birds.
Member Putzel stated she understood they have a fence around the yard and asked how high is the fence. It seems like you would be able to see the 10’ poles over the fence. She asked if any neighbors expressed any objections.
Ms. Dawn Arkin, Owner, stated they would see it and it is nice looking. It is not negative to look at. She did not know of any objections.
Member Putzel asked if she had asked the neighbors if they had any issues. Ms. Arkin stated the sign has been up for over a week.
Chair Chaplik asked if letters had been sent.
Planner Burhop stated letters were sent and this is a public meeting and not a public hearing. They have to send regular US mail letters to the neighbors, not certified letters. The sign went up and two or three people called and he explained what it was. They chose not to follow up or attend the meeting.
Member Zaransky asked about the quality of the nylon fence. They just approved a cedar fence and in several years it will still look fine. He was nervous that in two to three years neighbors will be looking at an eyesore. He asked about a warranty from the manufacturer.
Mr. Kemp stated all netting manufacturers have a one-year warranty that does not speak to the quality of the type of netting. They service their courts on an annual basis and their nets have lasted into the eight or nine year range before they see any wear. They can replace them and it is not a problem. If a tree falls he would get a call the next day that repairs need to be made. The property is extremely well kept and he would expect a call immediately if there is an issue. The steel poles are not like chain link fence and these are 1-5/8” and incredibly durable and withstand the weather in Chicago. They are black coated steel and maintain that appearance. If they have to come out and do touch-ups they do. It is a long lasting product.
Member Zaransky stated sport courts are a new phenomena and there are a number of tennis courts in Highland Park. He asked if the Board had seen a variation for tennis court fence.
Member Henry stated he had not seen one.
Chair Chaplik stated surrounding the sport court there is another 20’ between the edge of the court and the property line. He asked what kind of activities a 6’ fence 20’ away from the sport court would not contain.
Ms. Arkin stated the court can be used for tennis, volleyball or basketball. When you are shooting basketball the height of the net is 10’. It would keep it contained from ever going into anyone’s property. It is a beautiful fence and the applicant keeps her property and landscape meticulous. If it became worn she would replace it. It would not be an eyesore.
Member Putzel stated they have a list of standards for variations to make sure they have met the standards. She asked if Ms. Arkin could walk them through it so they can determine if they have met the hardships.
Chair Chaplik stated the standards for a fence above 6’ have to meet three requirements. One that the variation will contribute to the favorable environment of the City, is suitable and compatible with the neighboring buildings and the character of the neighborhood. Second is that the variance will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City. Third is that the variance will not cause depreciation of property values in the neighborhood.
Ms. Arkin stated it would add to the value of the property. It is nice looking and there is no negative to it. Balls will not bounce into other yards and it will increase the value of the property and neighboring properties. She thought it met all three requirements.
Member Zaransky stated he was on the fence and did not quite see the need for a 10’ nylon net. He wanted to hear what the other members had to say.
Member Hendrick stated he would vote no and did not think the standards had been met. He thought it was a unique structure and did not think it was within the character of the neighborhood.
Member Bay stated he thought the think fence standards for variance are open to interpretation and could be massaged either way. He was not sure if a strict application would allow for it. He did see the incongruity by allowing someone to build a sports court and then not make it as functional as possible by equipping it properly. The rim is 10’ and the backboard even higher. Tennis balls bounce higher than that. If they are going to have a sports court they should be able to surround it with the proper material to make it functional and safe. He would support the application.
Member Putzel agreed with Member Bay and while she would have appreciated a photo, based on other things in the neighborhood and none of the neighbors having an issue, she would support the application.
Member Henry agreed Members Putzel and Bay. He had not heard anything suggesting that putting up a 10’ fence is not aligned with character of the neighborhood and will impact the neighborhood. He thought it met the three standards and is somewhat of a safety issue and keeps them from encroaching on the neighbors’ property. It was significant that none of the neighbors weighed in on this particularly the two or three who called Planner Burhop and requested further information. He would support the application.
Vice Chair Cullather agreed with Members Putzel, Bay and Henry. If they were trying to put it along the property line he would have a different conclusion. The fact it is set inside the existing fence makes it not as intrusive as being close to the property line. It will not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood and will be beneficial in keeping the game on the court. He would support the application.
Chair Chaplik agreed with Member Hendrick and did not think it met the standards. He would not want to see it if he were a neighbor. There is 15’-25’ to the edge and he thought whatever activities require a 10’ fence, they are turning it into a nuisance activity as opposed to shooting baskets in the back yard. There are hundreds of homes in Highland Park where you can shoot a ball back and forth without a fence. He would not support the application.
Vice Chair Cullather motioned to draft findings of fact in support of the variation for a 10’ net fence as described by Mr. Kemp. Seconded by Member Bay.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Bay, Putzel, Cullather, Henry
Nays: Zaransky, Hendrick, Chaplik
The Chair stated the Motion passed 4-3.
Member Bay motioned to approve the approval order as written provided it specifies the type of fencing material is the black weather treated nylon fencing as presented. Seconded by Member Henry.
Planner Burhop stated it was a motion to adopt the order as drafted conditioned on using the black nylon netting as presented in the packet. He can write a condition in the order specific to that which is in the site plan. If the order is adopted it does not have to come back to the Board and the Chair can sign it at his discretion.
Vice Chair Cullather asked if in 10 years the net needs to be replaced, by doing so are we specifying a 10-year old technology if netting improves by then.
Member Henry asked what if fences improve by then. He did not see it as being different than a lots of things they approve assuming it will be constructed in accordance with the plans presented and maintained. This was not their problem.
Vice Chair Cullather stated the poles are the same and the netting might have to be replaced if they are specifying 5” x 5” squares of netting and the new standard is 4” x 4”.
Member Henry stated they would be grandfathered in. Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Zaransky, Hendrick, Bay, Putzel, Cullather, Henry
Nays: Chaplik
The Chair declared the Motion passed 6-1.
3. #20-07-VAR-011
Property: 1980 Bertram Lane, Highland Park, IL 60035 Zoning District: R4
Appellant: Richard Gawenda
Address: 1980 Bertram Lane, Highland Park, IL 60035
Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including site location, project background, aerial view, proposed site plan, subdivision - 1986, other comments, no neighbor comments and requested relief.
Chair Chaplik asked if the pool was in the ground.
Planner Burhop stated yes.
Member Hendrick asked what is the purpose of the subdivision building line.
Planner Burhop stated building lines originally started pre-zoning and they are in almost all plats pre-1920 because there was no zoning back then and that is how they did setbacks. They started as zoning before zoning. It is almost like a private restriction. From there they morphed into when a developer develops property they state they do not know what the zoning will be in 10-40 years, but they want their neighborhood to forever to be like this and they want to memorialize these setbacks through these restrictions forever. Sometimes there may be properties that are developed with variances and to get those approved the developer may propose building lines.
Member Bay asked to see the proposed site plan and stated they are looking at a situation where SBLs add restrictions to the existing zoning. In this case part of the house is not conforming and the SBL on the right allowed for more generous coverage than the existing zoning allows for.
Planner Burhop stated this was correct. The hard red lines are the building lines. The house was constructed to meet the 12’ SBL on the west and east. In the current zoning you have a combined side yard requirement. If you add that on that becomes the dashed line. The house conforms to the SBL but it is non-confirming to the current R4 side yard requirement.
Member Bay stated it looked as though the setback required by zoning is a larger setback on the side of the house that is non-conforming.
Planner Burhop stated the property has home on it and if it were a vacant property they could play with it and put the side yards however they wanted. The side yard requirement for the R4 is 30% of the lot width with a minimum of 12’.
Member Bay stated it could be a result of the combined side yard. Planner Burhop confirmed this.
Member Henry stated it appears the two properties to the west are both subject to same SBLs. He asked if they had ever requested relief from the SBLs.
Planner Burhop stated he did not know.
Member Henry stated from the GIS map it does not appear there is anything back there.
Member Henry mentioned the hold harmless agreement was executed in the packet and it appears the City needs to update this form because Steve Elrod is no longer with Holland & Knight.
Planner Burhop agreed, stating they did update the form when the code changed and the address needs to be updated.
Mr. Rick Gawenda, Applicant, thanked the Board for their time. This is a detailed situation and hardship letter and he believed they have met all eight requirements. They are looking to put in a new ground pool and are new homeowners in Highland Park. They are looking for balance between green space and trees and a yard to entertain. They want to make sure they provided this new amenity and orient it to provide as much as green space as possible. They want to make sure they do not have a significant impact and have a balance of green space and areas to play. The are requesting a small footprint in the southwest corner inside the easement so they can put in the equipment pad. This location prevents cutting down trees.
Chair Chaplik stated they have a roomy yard and had they thought about the possibility of placing the pool on an east-west direction as opposed to north-south.
Mr. Gawenda stated they had evaluated both orientations and in the east-west they have large shade trees that they would have to cut down. They want to maintain the trees. They are very large and they do not want to build near them. The southwest corner pitches down and is not usable now. That is why they have the retaining wall in that corner. They will be adding drainage on the south and west sides. They want to put the retaining wall in to level off that side of property.
Vice Chair Cullather stated there are currently 6’ fences running along the property line. He asked if variations were required for these or was that part of the development when this was done.
Planner Burhop stated he checked and did not find any variations.
Member Henry asked if they could address responses to the standards they are required to apply. He was interested in Items 1 and 2 because he was not seeing the hardship and did not see the property is subject to a demonstrable and unusual hardship. He stated both neighbors are subject to same SBL.
Mr. Gawenda stated the other options that would put the equipment elsewhere would be in the red boxes which meet the electrical safety requirement. There is a 20’ ring around the pool. They could place it closer to theirs and the neighbor’s house which would be detrimental to the value of the property. If they placed it in the second area trees 20 and 22 would have to be removed. Tree 21 would be subject to digging around the root system. Finally they would have to move it into their green space. Area 1 would push it towards residences, area 2 would force them to cut down shrubbery and area 3 would push it into the pool area.
Member Henry stated they are starting with the assumption that building a pool or not being able creates a hardship because of the property. The zoning code balances property owners’ rights with the needs of the City or the people who developed the property to determine where things can be built. He did not understand the premise that because you cannot build a pool the way you want to build it because of the SBL is a hardship created by the property. The property was subject to this before they bought it. This is what the area required to balance when applying the standards.
Ms. Gawenda stated they were not aware of 12” rule.
Member Putzel stated she wanted to revisit why they cannot orient the pool the other way.
Mr. Dennis Plauck, Designer, stated he understood the only issue was with the 12” out of grade within the 35’ feet. It is not the pool, deck or spa and all those meet the requirement of not being 12” out of grade. They can look at the engineering plans which are part of the packet and you will see that the poll and deck is within the 12” limitation. The only thing of concern is not placement of the pool because it meets the height requirement for the pool. The only thing in question is the retaining wall and the equipment pad because of the height of the equipment. Is not the location or orientation of the pool that is at question. The only thing they are talking about is the equipment pad and retaining wall.
Chair Chaplik asked if this was accurate.
Planner Burhop stated the legal notices cover the pool as well. If the pool itself is 12” or less it is not part of the relief consideration. The primary driver of this variation is the equipment pad because the equipment is over 12”. Planner Burhop stated that minor items attached to the pool, such as the pool rails, require relief. However, the pool itself, if 12” (inches) or less in height does not need relief. Only those structure higher than 12” need relief.
Member Hendrick stated he was confused about the discussion concerning the SBL.
Mr. Plauck stated pool and deck in the rear 35’ line are not more than 12” out of grade so that is not the issue. The issue is the pool equipment which is the rectangle and the L- shape that holds the pool equipment. Because of the slope in the rear of the yard there is a 4’ slope that the northwest corner goes to. The whole back of yard is unusable. The only thing that is out of grade is the equipment. The tallest thing in the equipment pad is the filter which is 48” high, the heater is 24” high, the pumps are 18” high and the retaining wall will stick out of the ground about 18”. There is a 6’ fence around the property.
Member Hendrick stated on hearing the presentation they talked about the solid red line. He thought they were talking about the SBL being restrictive. He thought it was cutting off half of the pool. He asked for clarification.
Planner Burhop stated the primary driver of the variation is the pool equipment. He included the pool because when he looked at the elevations he thought he saw one or two minor structures that were higher than 12”, such as the rails. The pool itself is not part of the relief. Planner Burhop stated he was being extra detailed and cautious and hoped this did not confuse the issue. The primary relief driver is the equipment pad.
Member Hendrick asked if the pool is under 12” can it encroach.
Planner Burhop stated it can encroach like a driveway, patio or sidewalk. Member Hendrick asked if the restriction was based on the 12”.
Planner Burhop stated yes.
Member Bay asked whether the structures are located outside of the SBL.
Mr. Plauck stated per code, there have to be two exits out of the pool and the stairs are by the spa outside of the SBL. There is a bench located in the deep end corner of the pool close to the equipment pad and the railing is for the bench and it a 30” high stainless steel rail.
Member Bay asked if it has to be at the deep end per code and cannot be relocated. He mentioned the other options for the entire pool. He asked if they were talking about other options for the equipment shed and retaining wall.
Mr. Gawenda stated the option is for the equipment and pad.
Member Bay asked if there were no other options.
Mr. Gawenda stated the pad and wall go hand in hand and looking at moving the pad inside the SBL, it would be close to the neighbor’s house. The second location would force them to cut tress down and the third location would place the equipment pad in the middle of the green space.
Member Bay stated he understood and they are just talking about the pad and retaining wall.
Chair Chaplik asked if there was a viable option to locate the equipment in the permissible area.
Mr. Plauck stated their first idea was to locate the pool equipment on either side of the house but could not due to the setbacks.
Chair Chaplik mentioned the lower left corner of the red box and asked if they could locate the equipment in the lower left corner of the permissible building area.
Mr. Plauck stated he was talking about moving it north. It would move it closer to the residence next door. The reason they pushed it back as far as they did was there is a 15’ utility easement in the rear yard which they did not want to encroach on. Their first thought was to keep it as far away from the neighbors as possible.
Mr. Gawenda stated they are trying to push it back as far as they can.
Chair Chaplik asked how far are they from the neighbor to the south.
Mr. Plauck stated there apartments to the south. They met with a couple of neighbors and once he explained the situation they had no concerns. He spoke with the residents at 1990 Bertram and he had no concerns.
Chair Chaplik stated there is a good amount of space between their house and the neighbors.
Mr. Gawenda stated there is a 6’ fence and there is no impact on the trees.
Member Hendrick stated the applicant was thoughtful and he appreciated the options they considered. He struggled with this and thought the request was deminimus. He was not sure of the purpose of the SBL standards. His role was to look at what was given to him and interpret it. It is not an unusual hardship for a property and even though they might not be the best alternates they are the ones available. He was not sure how to vote.
Member Zaransky stated he was in favor of the application. He thought it was a prohibitive lot and forcing to remove trees or to move it closer is a lose-lose. The pumps are noisy and moving them closer to the house just to fit in a restrictive SBL is prudent.
Member Bay stated he was sharing the same struggles. He thought a strict interpretation of the standards in a restrictive SBL there might be an issue. He did not know if it was unique to his house and did not know if it had to be unique to just one house. He had troubles when they end up telling someone there is an alternate location, and it is not as good but it is in keeping with the zoning. They have dealt with SBLs before and he was wondering about the wisdom of the zoning ordinance in general that would be bound by an SBL that is more restrictive than the zoning ordinance. He was on the fence and could be persuaded one way or the other.
Member Putzel stated when they initially thought it was just regarding the pool she thought it was not a hardship. They have the right to install the pool and she thought maybe they should put it next to the house since it seems to be the most suitable place based on the neighbors and the property. If it were just a zoning issue and not a SBL they would not be having this conversation. They do not see SBLs that often. It is a unique situation and she did see it as a hardship because if you had a regular zoning code there they would be able to put the equipment where it made the most sense. She was in favor of the application.
Member Henry stated initially he was not in favor of the application. After having heard more clarification the applicant went above and beyond considering alternates and presenting a lot of information. He thought if they could build the pool as of right as long as does it does not exceed 12” from grade, the relief stated in the proposed order is not correct so that is not accurate. They are talking about the equipment location and as Member Putzel stated it seems to be the most appropriate place to put it and they have not heard from the neighbors. He was loathe to put it back there because both neighbors to the west do not seem to have anything back there. One of the things SBLs deal with is uniformity within a range in a neighborhood. He was inclined to go along with the application and had been swayed by designer’s explanation and the fact that the pool is not the issue. That is the reason the ZBA exists to try and bring some common sense when a square application does not fit into the round hole. He would support the application. He thought the order needed to be modified.
Vice Chair Cullather thanked the applicant for providing a number of different options. It was helpful in trying to realize they considered different options particularly where to place the equipment. He asked if there are filters or heaters that are lower or other options that would have brought down the vertical height.
Mr. Plough stated the heater is the smallest in the industry and is only heater is 24” high. The pumps will sit about 17”-18” high and the filter sits the highest which is 48” with a small gauge on top. Regarding the filters in the industry for water clarity they can go with a sand filter which is a little lower but does not give the water clarity they want.
Vice Chair Cullather stated this was a thorough answer and there were no other options for the height of the equipment. He stated there was no comment from the Forester and did he send the packet with the different locations. They did their due diligence and looked over the proposal and he would support the application. He thought it was difficult to try and place the equipment on the lot in a place where it is not intrusive to the neighbor’s environment and they have not pushed it too close to the property lines. The location was the least obtrusive of the options.
Planner Burhop stated the Forester had no comment and he sent the packet to him.
Chair Chaplik stated his feelings were identical to each of the comments and he would support the application.
Chair Chaplik stated there were thoughts about modifying the order and asked for a motion as is or with modifications.
Member Henry motioned to approve as submitted but thought the relief is incorrect. There are three parts to the order and the part were it talks about encroaching 20’ within a 35’ rear yard SBL and proposed setback of 15’ in order to construct a swimming pool with deck and patio seemed inappropriate. That conforms with the requirements. They would have to pass on B and C.
Member Bay stated they talked about the rails possibly requiring relief. He thought it should be tailored to allow for the rails as well.
Planner Burhop stated that was going to be his recommended revision.
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion. Member Henry motioned that staff be directed to prepare findings of fact and a proposed order approving the application as submitted with the correction as the testimony and evidence presented requires. Member Hendrick seconded.
Planner Burhop stated the motion was to draft an approval order to approve the variation as presented with the revision to remove the line of relief about the pool relief and the deck and patio and to amend that to the relief for the rails.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Zaransky, Hendrick, Bay, Putzel, Henry, Cullather, Chaplik
Nays: None
The Chair declared the Motion passed 7-0.
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion to approve the order with modifications. Member Bay motioned to approve the order consistent with the modifications to confirm to the evidence and the actual relief they are granting and has been requested. Member Hendrick seconded.
Chair Chaplik stated Planner Burhop will draft the order and he will look at it.
Planner Burhop stated this is a motion to adopt the approval order as presented with revision to the relief listed as A.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Zaransky, Hendrick, Bay, Putzel, Henry, Cullather, Chaplik
Nays: None
The Chair declared the Motion passed 7-0
VII. STAFF REPORT:
Planner Burhop stated if anyone ever asks a Board member about a variation they can refer them to him and give them his email address.
There is one item for the July 23rd meeting.
VIII. MISCELLANEOUS: None
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
Chair Chaplik entertained a motioned to adjourn. Vice Chair Cullather so motioned, seconded by Member Henry.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Zaransky, Hendrick, Cullather, Chaplik, Putzel
Nays: Bay, Henry
The Chair declared the Motion passed 5-2.
The Zoning Board of Appeals adjourned at 10:08 PM.
http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2390&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up