Lake County Gazette

City of Highland Park Zoning Board of Appeals met Oct. 21.

Here are the minutes provided by the board:

I. CALL TO ORDER

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

Members Present: Beck, Zaransky, Hendrick, Bay, Putzel, Cullather

Members Absent: Yablon

Planner Burhop took the roll and declared a quorum present.

Staff Present: Burhop (physical present in City Hall)

Student Rep.: None

Council Liaison: Tapia

II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

October 7, 2021

Chair Cullather entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the October 7, 2021 meeting. Member Bay so motioned, seconded by Member Hendrick. Vice Chair Putzel stated she would abstain as she was absent from this meeting.

Planner Burhop called the roll:

Ayes: Beck, Zaransky, Hendrick, Bay, Cullather

Nays: None

Abstain: Putzel

The Chair stated the Motion passed 5-0.

III. PUBLICATION DATE FOR NEW BUSINESS: 10-6-21

IV. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC: None

V. NEW BUSINESS:

A. #2021-VAR-033

Property: 1661 Berkeley Rd. Highland Park, IL 60035

Zoning District: R6

Appellant: Duewel Family Living Trust Agreement dated June 22, 2018 (Karen Duewel) Address: 1661 Berkeley Rd., Highland Park, IL 60035

Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including site location, project background, aerial view, site plan, photos, other comments and requested relief.

Ms. Karen Duewel, Applicant, stated it was not her intent to have a 5’ fence and it was a mistake by the contractor. Now that the fence is up she likes it and it supports the bushes and makes the backyard look lovely. Rather than taking out the concrete piles and disrupting the landscaping, she is asking if she can keep it as is with the 1’ variance.

Vice Chair Putzel asked if it was her intent to have a 4’ fence in the front yard.

Planner Burhop stated the intent was to have a 4’ high fence and the contractor has already installed most of the fence and it is higher. When there is 5’ including the area within the front yard the City cannot pass inspection unless it is torn out and replaced or unless the ZBA grants a variation to allow it to remain at 5’. There is a short segment at not completed and this would be 5’ if granted approval.

Chair Cullather asked if the fence is going all the way around the property such that the parting facing the front of the house will also have a 5’ fence.

Ms. Duewel stated it is strictly what is functionally the back yard. Anything on the rest of Cavell and anything on the front of Berkeley would not have any fencing.

Member Beck stated he had no objections.

Member Zaransky agreed and was in favor of the variance.

Member Hendrick stated it looks good and the standards have been met.

Member Bay stated the standards have been met and it looks good and essentially they are talking about functional back yard and he would support the variance.

Vice Chair Putzel agreed and would support the variance.

Chair Cullather stated he agreed with the other members. It was unfortunate the contractor made an error and the applicant has made the case. He would support the variance.

Chair Cullather entertained a motion. Member Hendrick motioned to adopt the order as presented, seconded by Member Bay.

Planner Burhop called the roll:

Ayes: Beck, Zaransky, Hendrick, Bay, Putzel, Cullather

Nays: None

The Chair stated the Motion passed 6-0.

Councilman Tapia asked if they had safeguards to keep this from happening in the future.

Planner Burhop stated the permit was fine and the contractor made a mistake. The City caught it upon inspection and if it is not done correctly a variation has to be granted from the ZBA or the property owner has to bring the fence into compliance.

Member Bay stated if the City chose to take action for something being built in violation of the permit they could do so and likely be successful.

B. #2021-VAR-034

Property: 2730 Priscilla Ave., Highland Park, IL 60035

Zoning District: R6

Appellant: Green Building Technologies, Inc. (Neil Fortunato)

Address: 332 N. Deere Park Dr. West., Highland Park, IL 60035

Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including site location, project background, aerial view, site plan – proposed screened-in porch, FAR review, elevations, other comments and requested relief.

Member Bay stated it comes down to whether they choose to either accelerate or eliminate the seven-year waiting period for the bonus FAR. He asked the reason for the waiting period.

Planner Burhop stated there are three reasons – one is increasing the affordable housing stock, diversifying the architectural stock, and the floor calculation was changed in early 2000s and the maximum allowed. One of the trade-offs was the bonus FAR. That was done so the properties could use the higher allowance. The seven-year was a number the PDC and Council settled upon so only ‘older’ housing stock could take advantage.

Member Bay stated they can build the house within the existing FAR, wait seven years and the passage of time would give them the ability to build as a matter of right and the seven years is an arbitrary number.

Planner Burhop reiterated the seven year period was decided by the City Council after recommendation and public hearing by the Plan and Design Commission.

Mr. Fortunato, Applicant, stated he had nothing to add and would be happy to answer questions.

Chair Cullather asked him to run through the requirements for variation and how they meet the requirements.

Mr. Fortunato stated the house was under construction and he had a buyer and they requested a small screened-in porch due to her immune deficiencies and she works from home on a regular basis. They are framing up the house and when a new house is built they do extensive stormwater management systems on the house, yard drains, downspouts, etc. They are not creating any stormwater issues. It is not visible from the front and is a pleasing structure and looks nice. No one will see it except the neighbor.

Member Hendrick asked about the reasonable return standard.

Mr. Fortunato asked about a monetary return.

Member Hendrick stated it is not just about monetary return. He could review the standard and read the first standard. He asked why it had to be done for a reasonable return.

Mr. Fortunato stated it did not have to be done for a reasonable return. The reason is the buyer’s immune deficiency and need for fresh air.

Member Hendrick stated the house could be built to accommodate the zoning.

Mr. Fortunato stated the house is under construction and the foundation and framing are in place.

Vice Chair Putzel stated the applicant has approached this and her interpretation of the standard could be swayed more as a value of enjoyment of the property by the buyer.

Member Hendrick stated he was conflicted on this because they could do it as a matter of right in seven years and there is a common sense element to that. He did not feel the argument had been made it meets the standards. He was not currently in favor even though that did not seem like a common sense answer.

Member Zaransky asked if he began building the home and then the buyer wanted a screened-in porch.

Mr. Fortunato stated yes.

Member Zaransky stated he would support this. The house could have been made smaller. They started building the house and the buyer wants to enjoy the property. It is common sense and that this seven-year moratorium is silly in this particular circumstance.

Member Bay stated this demonstrated the need of having a change in the code that gives them some discretion. While the equities and common sense may be in favor of granting the application he did not think they had the wiggle room to ignore the code as written. They do not even know the reason for the seven years. They are obligated the follow the codes and he did not see how they could make an exception.

Member Beck stated he was conflicted and was not sure they met the standards. He agreed the seven years seemed arbitrary. He wanted hear what Vice Chair Putzel and Chair Cullather had to say and was leaning towards no.

Vice Chair Putzel stated she was torn regarding if you could do this in seven years why not now. They have zoning regulations for a reason and she believed the reasonable rate of return can be measured in a level of happiness and pleasure and not necessarily only

monetary. She did not feel the applicant had addressed the standards or given an argument on why they should receive the variance. Without a stronger argument she could not support the request.

Mr. Fortunato stated the reason why they are asking for this is to allow for the buyer to have a safe area to work that will help with her immune deficiencies. She had serous health issues. There is no other reason. He did not think the seven-year issue was relevant. He did not see why it would be trumped by the seven-year rule. What is important is the buyer’s health.

Chair Cullather stated he understood their plight. The do have eight standards they need to balance when considering a variance. He sided with Member Bay and Vice Chair Putzel in saying he did not believe the case had been made to grant the variance. He could cite variance #4 which goes to hardship not having not been created by any person having a proprietary interest in the subject property. It is hard to say he does not have a proprietary interest.

Mr. Fortunato stated he was not in favor or against for his own monetary reasons and was trying to satisfy health the issues important to the buyer. He did not see how that was near the lack of importance for waiting seven years.

Chair Cullather stated maybe there other options that could be worked out with an architect to identify if there is a way to get the buyer a room within the current footprint to give the buyer a space that has the amount of air she wants without an addition. He had not made the case he had examined other options.

Member Bay stated another option would be to confer as to how to better address the standards or amend the request or figure a way to make a more compelling case. He could continue the matter.

Mr. Fortunato stated regarding the buyer’s medical needs, they are building the house to accommodate the air quality, ventilators, non-toxic paints, and have made a lot of accommodations to satisfy her medical needs. The 13’ x 14’ porch and the reason it falls under the FAR is because there is a roof. There are no walls and it is not addition, just a platform enclosed with a screen.

Member Hendrick asked if the applicant had been sworn in. He stated he did not doubt the medical reasons, but they area a zoning board bound by standards and they check to see if the applications meet them. He understood the reasons for the porch and has to use the testimony against the standards.

Mr. Fortunato asked if it was the response to the standards presented. Member Hendrick stated there is an email in the packet.

Mr. Fortunato stated he had responded to the standards very specifically. Member Hendrick stated they need to put forth a persuasive argument.

Mr. Fortunato stated with regard to being persuasive and sworn in was that the issue about being truthful.

Chair Cullather stated it was proper procedure to be sworn in. He swore in the applicant. Mr. Fortunato stated it is the truth.

Member Beck stated there is no document addressing the standards. Planner Burhop it was page 50 in the packet.

Chair Cullather stated there a number of ways they can proceed. In order to adopt the variance there needs to be four affirmative votes. They can proceed with a vote or he could come back.

Member Bay stated regarding how to address the standards if they look at the statement by the applicant in paragraph #1 it states it is single- family home and monetary return is not relevant. So that is saying one of the standards is not relevant. The standards are relevant and you cannot declare is not relevant because you do not understand the issues the standard raises.

Mr. Fortunato stated he was not saying the standard is irrelevant, but the monetary return is not relevant to the reason they are asking for the variance.

Member Bay stated still have to address it.

Mr. Fortunato stated he was not negating the nature of the standard, but saying there is no monetary return relevant to her medical issues.

Vice Chair Putzel stated it does not have to be a monetary return and Mr. Passman has said it can be a return as far as enjoyment of the property. She was hearing that they do not believe the applicant has addressed the standard properly and they need to come with a stronger argument for each standard and each standard has to be met for approval. They understand it is a personal hardship due to a medical reason but that does not fall under their jurisdiction and they have to adhere to the standards. She was in favor of offering the applicant the opportunity to come back at a later date so he can have the opportunity to address this. One option would be to convey that they have looked at other options and this is the only one that works.

Mr. Fortunato stated this is option that works. They are talking about 180 s.f. of a porch with no walls. They have spent a lot of time addressing the criteria and have addressed them all very specifically. The reasons are clear and there are no other reasons why they are asking for this. He had no interest except for satisfying her desire for some fresh air she can work in. He had answered all the questions and if they did not find it convincing he accepted that. He did not think the vote would go their way. They could hear from her on a Zoom meeting. It is a medical issue and not a particular monetary issue in this case.

Chair Cullather stated they have had other cases before the Board for medical reasons and in those cases when granted it was because the applicant had made the case that the eight standards had been met. He suggested they continue to a date identified by the applicant and hopefully they will have a full board and maybe the applicant and client can identify how the eight standards have been met.

Councilman Tapia stated the Board is trying to be helpful be declaring there is a set of standards they are obligated to meet and they did not feel the argument was made as strongly as it could. They are not saying no, but they have not heard it approached in a way that would address the standards according to how they are obligated to listen to them. They are giving an opportunity to come back with a stronger case. Maybe they could seek counsel to see how they could position the argument in a way that would be more forceful.

Planner Burhop stated the next meeting is November 4, 2021.

Chair Cullather asked if he wanted to continue.

Mr. Fortunato stated yes.

Chair Cullather entertained a motion to continue to November 4, 2021. Member Bay so motioned, seconded by Vice Chair Putzel.

Planner Burhop called the roll:

Ayes: Beck, Zaransky, Hendrick, Bay, Putzel, Cullather

Nays: None

The Chair stated the Motion passed 6-0.

Planner Burhop stated the application would next be on the Thursday, November 4 agenda, and no additional mailed notice would be provided.

C. #2021-VAR-035

Property: 1075 North Ave., Highland Park, IL 60035

Zoning District: R6

Appellant: The Amended and Restated Revocable Living Trust of Nadine Rozowsky dated September 27, 2013 (Nadine Rozowsky)

Address: 1075 North Ave., Highland Park, IL 60035

Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including site location, project background, aerial view, site plan, photo, fence design samples, other comments and requested relief.

Chair Cullather asked about the setback from the sidewalk.

Planner Burhop stated 25’ is the required setback.

Chair Cullather asked along North Ave. and if it was 18”.

Planner Burhop stated normally a property line is 18” behind the sidewalk, but not necessarily.

Ms. Nadine Rozowsky, Applicant, stated she has lived in the house for 20 years and does not have full use of the back yard because of the 4’ fence. She has three dogs one of which is a Labrador and can clear the fence very easily. There is a lot of traffic and two schools and there are a lot of children back and forth. It would allow for privacy and safety for the dogs. There are bushes and she is a keen gardener and keeps the landscaping pretty. She has good relations with the neighbors and has spoken with them. The next door neighbor also had a big dog and he would be happy with it. She sent letters to 10 people and it is a friendly neighborhood. It will look appealing and you will barely see it because of the bushes.

Member Hendrick asked if she had an issue if they condition the order upon one of the pictures in the packet. Sometimes the condition approval on an example given.

Ms. Rozowsky stated the two shown are the kinds of fences she would like. Being in the house for 20 years, this will be the third fence because the wood rots and she wanted to go with a longer lasting fence.

Vice Chair Putzel stated she had no problem and was in favor of the application. Member Bay agreed and thought it met the standards. He would support the application. Member Hendrick agreed. Member Zaransky agreed.

Member Beck agreed and wanted to condition it on one of the fences. If you added another foot you want a solid fence. He would be in favor even if they chose not to condition it.

Chair Cullather stated if it were the preference to condition it he would have no objection.

Chair Cullather entertained a motion to approve. Member Hendrick motioned to approve as presented in the packet, seconded by Vice Chair Putzel.

Planner Burhop called the roll:

Ayes: Beck, Zaransky, Hendrick, Bay, Putzel, Cullather

Nays: None

The Chair declared the Motion passed 6-0.

VI. STAFF REPORT:

Planner Burhop stated the next meeting is November 4, 2021 and will have the one item that was continued.

VII. MISCELLANEOUS:

Member Bay mentioned the second matter and it seems periodically there has been talk and the Board has been presented with draft proposed revisions to the zoning code and then it disappears or goes away and there have been no changes to the code since some time before that. The second matter does highlight the need for some change in the zoning code. The inequities and common sense lean one way and yet we are bound by the provisions of the zoning code. He thought this should be addressed.

Planner Burhop stated the different types of standards were brought before the Board two years ago and it is up the City Council if the Council wants to change policy. That specific change was not finalized. Council did adopt a set of changes related to multi frontage lots as well as some specific to allow encroachments geared toward to single family uses. Looking at permits over the last six months there have been 10-20 applications that could be done with a permit where over a year ago it would have to have come before the Board. This has eliminated approximately 10-20 applications.

Member Bay stated that has streamlined the process for a lot of people. The one thing it has not done is address a lot of border line cases such as the middle one where if they had a catchall discretionary it would make the equities come out a little more (unintelligible).

Chair Cullather stated they have had cases where they have asked why this is not covered by ADA for medical or handicapped catchall.

Councilman Tapia stated he understood that there are some common sense issues that you are bound by the legality and code requirements and standards.

Member Bay stated a number of months ago they were presented with some proposed changes that they rejected that they were meeting five out of seven standards. They are a body of last resort with the next step being circuit court, and they want to be clear on what their authority is and that they follow the law. There are a lot of cases that they have not been able to pass even though it is in the best interest of the City and the homeowner. Tonight’s case would have easy to grant and they need a certain amount of discretion.

Member Hendrick stated the draft standards were almost too complicated and more complicated then what they are dealing with now. They need another standard that says or “if after considering the totality of the circumstances the Board feels”…the language can be worked out. He thought that was the kind of thing they were looking for.

Councilman Tapia commented on standards and code.

Member Bay stated there was a change made to the code that Council adopted.

Member Beck stated they could write something in the code giving them another standard to evaluate. In all the cases when a well presented argument for the standards they grant the variance. When the argument is well made it is easy to grant the variance.

Member Bay stated he would volunteer to draft a standard with Member Hendrick and maybe they could draft a proposed standard and run it by Mr. Passman if they knew Council would consider it. This would be a good use of their time.

Councilman Tapia stated he would favor that. He thought it was a good exercise and he was in favor of it.

Chair Cullather stated when they passed there was a sense that they were trying to insure that the large McMansions were not popping up. It goes to the impact on the neighbors and he could see exceeding the FAR in some cases where it is not adding additional bulk and this one does not add additional bulk. When the applicant makes a strong case it is easy to say you have met the standards. He liked what Member Bay has thrown out there as a potential and they need more guidance and wiggle room.

Vice Chair Putzel stated they need to define how these issues fall under their jurisdiction.

Member Bay stated he was looking at it more from the perspective of there may be cases where technically they do not meet all the standards but the equities and common sense is so compelling that they be granted. It is in the best interest of the homeowner and the City in making Highland Park a welcoming community. The ninth standard would encompass the catchall type situation and not rely upon the instance where an applicant makes a compelling case so they get granted or not as compelling and is not granted. It is more in terms of what makes sense and what is equitable.

Planner Burhop mentioned the Open Meetings Act and cautioned the members not to communicate with each other.

Member Bay stated if there are three or more then they have to give notice as an open meeting.

Member Hendrick stated that was his understanding as well.

Councilman Tapia wanted commend the Board for a compassionate approach to the second applicant.

VIII. ADJOURNMENT:

Chair Cullather entertained a motion to adjourn. Vice Chair Putzel so motioned, seconded by Member Beck.

Planner Burhop called the roll:

Ayes: Beck, Zaransky, Hendrick, Bay, Putzel, Cullather

Nays: None

The Chair stated the Motion passed 6-0.

The Zoning Board of Appeals adjourned at 9:10 PM.

http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2601&Inline=True