Lake County Gazette

City of Highland Park Zoning Board of Appeals met June 2.

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 Fawell to call the roll.

Planner Fawell called the roll:

Members Present: Beck, Yablon, Zaransky, Bay, Putzel1, Cullather

Members Absent: Hendrick

Planner Fawell took the roll and declared a quorum present.

Staff Present: Burhop, Fawell, Miller

Student Rep.: Bach

Council Liaison: Tapia

Corporate Counsel: None

II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

May 19, 2022

Chair Cullather entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the May 19, 2022 meeting. Member Yablon so motioned, seconded by Member Beck.

Chair Cullather stated he had watched the video for the May 19, 2022 meeting and had reviewed the minutes.

Planner Fawell called the roll:

Ayes: Beck, Yablon, Zaransky, Cullather

Vice Chair Putzel arrived at the meeting at 6:34 p.m.

Nays: None

Abstain: Bay

On a voice vote, the minutes passed 5-0.

III. PUBLICATION DATE FOR NEW BUSINESS: 5-18-22

IV. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC: None

V. NEW BUSINESS

A. #2022-VAR-017

Property: 375 Vine Ave., Highland Park, IL 60035

Zoning District: R5

Appellant: Preservation Restoration

Address: 7161 N. Cicero Ave., Lincolnwood, IL 60712

The petitioner, Preservation Restoration of 7161 N. Cicero Ave., Lincolnwood, IL 60712, submitted on behalf of ownership, 375 Vine Ave. LLC of 7161 N. Cicero Ave. Ste. 208, Lincolnwood, IL 60712, request by authority of Section 94.407 of the Highland Park Code, as amended, for a Tree Removal Permit for Heritage Trees, to remove one (1) heritage tree, a burr oak located approximately towards the center of the subject property, in order to construct a single-family home.

Planner Fawell made a presentation for the above item including site location, project background, aerial view, photos, existing survey, zoning analysis, proposed site plan, proposed elevations, alternate site plan, other comments and requested relief.

Member Zaransky mentioned the aerial view and asked where the lot is.

Planner Fawell indicted the lot on the slide.

Chair Cullather asked if this was considered a lot in depth.

Planner Fawell stated it is not a lot in depth and has enough frontage.

Chair Cullather mentioned the property line abutting in front and was it considered a side setback.

Planner Fawell stated it is unique and when you do the designation of yards you take the front yard abutting the street frontage and the rear yard becomes the yard immediately parallel on the other side.

Planner Burhop stated some of it located behind another lot of record. This was discussed with Director Fontane and Corporate Counsel and it was determined it is not a lot in depth. It is an irregularly shaped interior lot and it comes down to the definitions in Section 150.202. You start with the front yard adjacent to the ROW or street which is the south property line, the rear yard becomes that which is opposite the north and the side yards are those in between.

Mr. Danny Daoud, 7161 N. Cicero Ave., Lincolnwood, IL 60712, Applicant made a presentation including the majority of his work is in Highland Park, all of their projects have been renovations, most of the houses are not salvageable and they convert them, they love character and want to provide luxury with old homes, the original plan for the site was to renovate the existing structure, subdivide and build a small structure on Vine Ave., this was not feasible and there is not any building off the alleyway and not on Vine Ave. with construction costs now, they are a young company and try to do one project a year, they do a lot a meaningful work and put a lot a pride into what they do, the biggest hardship is the position of the heritage tree in center of the buildable area adjacent to Vice Ave., they cannot build anything facing Vine Ave. and would have to build in the rear area, it is unattractive because of the gravel alley, home is a gabled structure which has a façade of windows on the front and back, where the windows face and what they look at is very important to the structure, if they looked at side yards they would see the garage or the neighbor’s coach house, they have spent a lot of time on the design and working within the parameters, usually they can work within the code except for an older structure, they went through the demolition process and received some dispute from the neighbors to east, the Rothschild’s, he was trying to set up meetings and have conversations so they take away worry and fix any concerns and they had a brief conversation, at 4:00 PM today he received the packet, arborist’s report was in packet and their letter of concern, main thing was their trees, he called his architect to see if they can redesign to fit outside of the buildable area, he illustrated where the trees on the lot line in question, they made a quick modification and are trying to adapt to build outside the drip lines, their arborist recommended 11’ or greater, they are all trying to agree with Ben Miller with what the mark is and they are just touching their trees, touching their trees is different than killing some else’s trees, they have designed home to blend in with the lot, it is a one-story ranch all gabled, reaches 16’-18’’ at the maximum, took into account privacy of their house and the neighbors, they are 10’ off the front setback and pushed home further back, most important thing is being able to build on Vine Ave., heritage tree does not allow them to do that, home will be very expensive to build, they are sinking a lot of time and money into it, it needs a private back yard with a private courtyard in back and front surrounded by trees, will confirm to Highland Park replanting requirement.

Member Bay stated when they first acquired the property they had different plans and they became non-feasible and asked why they became non-feasible.

Mr. Daoud stated they have a relationship with the previous owner and they allowed them to go through the planning, submit permits and the demolition process. They wanted to preserve the home. It is approximately a 1,500 s.f. footprint. The nature of their business is to save and they do not like to tear down if they can make it work. They cannot throw unlimited amounts of money into a project and lose money. The original plan was to subdivide and build on Vine Ave. The density prevented them from doing that.

Member Bay stated zoning restrictions prevented them from doing what they wanted.

Mr. Daoud stated they were under contract and trying to figure out what they could do with it. There was no pressure from the owner and he wanted them to have the property because he liked what they were doing. They did not want new construction but this is the only thing that makes it feasible to sell and make a profit.

Member Bay mentioned the independent arborist’s report commissioned by the neighbor and asked if he was willing to comply with the report.

Mr. Daoud stated he thought the guidelines for new pre-construction would require them to fence all the trees within the drip lines. He thought they could comply with all the requests for preserving and protecting the trees with a trench and not pouring concrete near there. They want an arborist to inspect the site. They are willing to comply with the drip lines and not excavating or digging near there. It will be an extra cost but he wants to accommodate the neighbors. He was not here to take away from the community, but to add to it.

Member Zaransky asked how many square feet are the proposing.

Mr. Daoud stated 3500 s.f.

Member Zaransky stated he was looking at an architect footprint with an area of 4599 s.f.

Mr. Daoud stated that is the total buildable area in the rear lot if they keep the heritage tree.

Member Zaransky asked if they looked into that option and why it is not a good option.

Mr. Daoud stated the biggest thing is the type of structure they are designing and it has glass on both sides and you would be looking at gravel alley on the side and the neighbor’s garage on the east. On the west you would be looking at the carriage house. They would have to totally redesign with a cheaper design. The ranch is very costly because of the large foundation and they would probably have to do a two-story design and completely redesign the home. You would not have the view of Vine Ave. and the private back yard. They would have to start from scratch from floor to ceiling. The back is the great room with a covered patio. It would be a total redesign and they have already done the engineering and just found out about the heritage tree. They would have to de scale the design and it would not add as much value to Vine Ave and the City.

Member Zaransky asked if the driveway would be in the alley.

Mr. Daoud stated they would have to rethink and reevaluate the design. Mr. Miller proposed putting the garage in front of the heritage tree. They were trying not to touch Vine Ave. because there is no curb cut and it is nicer to not look at a garage. This is why the lot offers a lot of advantages with their design. The alley would be a service entrance. They are not taking away light or air from the neighbors. There is a three-story home to the east. They are trying to be conscientious in the design.

Chair Cullather asked if he had seen Section 94.407 for the removal of heritage trees. There are mandatory and selective findings. He asked the applicant how they meet these standards.

Mr. Daoud stated the homes on Vine Ave. are close to the road and the majority of the trees in the front yard are in or near the parkway. The heritage tree is positioned almost 100’ from the sidewalk. It would be different if it were near the parkway or near the parkway. There will be two parallel lines of trees to encapsulate the front yard. All the trees are in the middle and Highland Park is known for its tree lined streets. There is one tree on the corner where their home meets the home on the east. Removing the heritage tree will not be detrimental to the public. The tree is in the middle and the limbs overhang the neighbor’s homes. The previous owner told him he was constantly cleaning the area because he was concerned they would fall on the neighbors’ homes. They are increasing air flow and light and remediating drainage issues. He had talked to Mr. Rothschild and he stated how much water comes from the lot and runs down the sidewalk. Everything is pitched to the east. The are proposing yard drains and they will adjust them to be outside of the drip line. There are no practical alternates to removing the tree. If they build in back it is detrimental to what they can do. There is no curb appeal because it is already set back and you have to look through the lot. The reasonable use of the property is building on Vine Ave. like every other house. It is not a lot in depth and they are trying to take advantage of the lot and what is has to offer. They talked to the neighbors and no one is in opposition other than the Rothschilds. Everyone was supportive of what they are doing. The hardship was created by the location of the heritage tree and the original home being located in the rear. They would have to scale down the project and build a two story structure in the back which would block light and air flow. All the other homes are on Vine Ave. and they are trying to have the same privilege. Removal of the tree is necessary due to the unusual circumstances unique to the property and the unattractiveness of having a house in the rear.

Member Beck stated he read the arborist’s report about the key trees on the neighbor’s property. He asked if their concerns were germane to the application. If it were not for the heritage tree, would he be able to build on the property as proposed without variation.

Planner Fawell stated yes.

Member Beck stated if just related to this application, the neighbor’s concerns about their trees are not germane to this application.

Planner Fawell stated a zoning variation would not be required if the heritage tree were not poised to be removed.

Chair Cullather stated if the heritage tree was not there it would not be before the ZBA even if the neighbors were concerned about their trees.

Member Beck asked if their concerns would be addressed through the permitting process. Planner Burhop stated that was correct.

Mr. Ben Miller, City Forester, stated if there was not a heritage tree the key trees would be a matter of tree preservation and dealt with in the permitting process.

Mr. David Meek, 513 Central Ave., Highland Park, IL, Attorney, stated the Rothschilds submitted a tree conversation report and their tress were ignored in Mr. Daoud’s application and there is a deficiency in the application. The tree preservation was supposed to have accounted for adjacent trees. They decided to commission a report and understand the possible impacts if they removed the heritage tree. The principal concern is the removal of the heritage tree and to make sure the applicant has attempted to address the necessary standards. They have not presented credible evidence to support findings of fact on any of the mandatory and selective findings. The easiest way is to demonstrate this is that there is 4,500 s.f. of buildable area in the rear that protects the heritage tree. There are standards they cannot meet. You have to be able make the findings of fact backed by the evidence that there is no practical alternate to the removal of the heritage tree given the nature of the property and proposed improvements. They submitted an alternate plan with 4500 s.f. of buildable area which would not require a zoning variance. The adjacent homes could easily fit within the footprint. A home can be built back there and once your establish a home can be built how can you say there is no practical alternate. You also make to make a finding that the removal of the heritage tree is necessary for reasonable use of the property. There are reasonable alternates to what they propose. The question is whether there is a reasonable alternate that preserves the tree. The applicant’s proof on the two elements are deficient and undercut by their own submittal. The other mandatory findings include the removal will not alter essential character of the neighborhood. There is no record from the applicant that it will not harm the neighborhood. The City Forester stated no deference has been given to the existing trees on the lot. There is a substantial likelihood of causing harm to adjacent trees on the Rothschild property and lots to the west. Lots 375 and 371 were once one lot and divided in 1966. There is a way to do this without removing the heritage tree. Another finding is removal will not be injurious to other properties in the neighborhood. The Forester stated the tree contributes to the vibrant and essential character of the neighborhood and it is prominently positioned in the landscape of the parcel and denuding the lot of its oaks and potentially compromising those on adjacent properties will unfavorably alter the essential character. The other mandatory finding is the removal will not diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. The removal will compromise the health and integrity of other key oak trees. Their charge is they have to find for all of those to approve the application. They would have to take two selective findings. One is that the removal is necessary is due to hardship. The applicant stated the hardship is the location of the tree. That removes any meaning to the concept of hardship. They have a lot of land area to come up with a proposition. It may not be what they want, but that is not relevant as to whether the tree should be removed. There is buildable area and it would hard to make a case. There is an alternate that can preserve the heritage tree. Another finding is that the removal is not requested due to the inability to enjoy a special privilege but is requested due to a desire to facilitate the reasonable use of the property. Their desire to make a reasonable use is imported. They may not make the profit they wanted or have a design they would like to see, but that is not to say they cannot make reasonable use. One of the selective findings is that removal of the tree is necessary due to unusual circumstances unique to the property. The unusual circumstances cannot be the location of the tree and there are plenty of odd shaped lots. The aesthetic considerations and their desires are not relevant to the criteria.

Member Bay stated sticking with the mandatory findings, he would not opine on A, B or C. He thought D and E required interpretation. He stated Mr. Meek was representing the other side and asked if he could make a case that is not reasonable or practical to force a lot of this shape where all the construction has to be done in the back of the lot with a non-desirable view and not being able to take advantage of the natural surroundings. He asked if he could not make that argument or could he make that argument.

Mr. Meek stated he believed in the correctness of his client’s position and thought it was a correct interpretation of the rules that applied to the lot. He was asking him to be an advocate for the applicant.

Member Bay stated he was asking to refute the other side and if is reasonable to force them to build that far back.

Mr. Meek stated the codes forces a lot of things on people. People have to deal with the property that comes to them. One of the things they neglected to find in their due diligence was that there was a tree in the middle of the lot. They proceeded and now they are in a jam. This site has limitations and the code says protect the tress unless the applicant can demonstrate hardship. He did not think they could justify this in the face of a very substantial buildable area. They should have figured this out earlier and he has put in a lot of time and money. They are not thwarted to build a house on the property that is potentially generously sized. His client’s house is 4,400 s.f. and next to them is it dwarfed. There is nothing that entitles them to build a single-story building and they have to build within the code and one of them is tree preservation. It is a generous home (unintelligible). He was sorry it is not the home they want to build, but anyone faced with zoning needs to build within that. He did not see the hardship here. It cannot be the location of the tree because they are asking to remove the tree. There is an alternate area that may not be as attractive to them. This is a spec home and maybe they should wait until they have someone who has a house they want to build there. They are making assumptions about street frontage and have not supported those conclusions with evidence. They have not demonstrated they cannot do something in the back.

Member Bay asked about the independent arborist if they are opposed to the removal of the tree or are more concerned about the effects of removing the tree will have on their own trees.

Mr. Meek stated they are concerned about their own trees and would like to see the tree stay.

Member Bay asked if their objection is driven by their concern for their own trees.

Mr. David Rothschild, 371 Vine Ave, Highland Park, IL, stated the proposal did not have their trees on it. They put the money into the report because they want to present their side which is it not on the tree preservation plan. They were trying to have it as part of the packet.

Member Bay stated his concern was for his own trees rather than the removal of one specific tree.

Mr. Rothschild stated his concern is all the trees, the character of the neighborhood and the scale of development. The rear is huge and they could take his house and put it in the back and have room to spare. This will encase them wall to wall up to the 6.12’ line and there will be a concrete walk which will go within that amount of space from their trees. Those trees are still there and they have taken care of them. It makes a huge difference to the character of the neighborhood. The structure will rob them of why they came out here. They are trying to preserve their trees and it is part of a grove of trees. It is a subjective thing, but air, light, animals and birds are in short supply where they came from.

Member Bay asked if they proceeded in a manner consistent with their arborist’s report would they still object to the removal of the tree.

Mr. Rothschild stated yes.

Member Bay asked how they address Members Beck’s point if the tree was not there the preservation of their trees would be dealt with under the permitting process. Their objection may not be germane to the application.

Mr. Rothschild stated it was a ridiculous argument. Otherwise they would have to go back in time and say that mall should not be there. It is theoretical.

Mr. Meek stated they recognize but the for heritage tree, they would come in with building permits and they would receive notification and they would see if their trees had been respected, which they have not been. Part of the concern is they have to get something on record. If this is approved they would (unintelligible) with respect to the location and the trees and the preservation. There would need to be some modification to the building if it was built like that. They wanted to get the report into their hands to show the applicant had not done their job of getting it you with their trees. He could make the argument they did not have jurisdiction to hear the case because they did not have their trees accounted for. They commissioned the report to understand what kind of impact might happen if a house was built. They realize there is a 6’ setback and a house could be built. They might have muddied the waters by presenting the tree assessment report. They could still object to the removal of the heritage tree and make sure an applicant had enough substantiation to convince you and give enough evidence to make the necessary claims. What you may think about his client’s motive or whether they are more concerned about the preservation of their own trees is not relevant to the inquiry that they have to address.

Chair Cullather asked Planner Burhop to address the issue whether or not they should of had the protection of the neighbor’s trees before the ZBA to consider this.

Planner Burhop stated the submission requirements come from Chapter 94 and it is not a zoning consideration. You can ask Ben Miller the same question if the application is complete or not. If the application is incomplete that does not mean it cannot come to the ZBA. If this is incomplete that should be clear to the Board.

Mr. Miller stated issues of tree preservation with the neighboring tree were addressed in the application. He asked Planner Fawell to bring up the document included in the packet. It outlined a number of steps that should be taken should construction move forward in the interest of preserving trees on the adjacent property. The grey boxes addresses the heritage tree report, the state of the tree (unintelligible).

Planner Burhop stated this is not a position taken by the City, just documenting an item submitted with the application.

Mr. Miller stated they are required to address it, but the manner in which they address it is up to the applicant. This is how it was addressed in this application.

Member Beck mentioned page 19 of the packet and the inventory report. He asked if this included the applicant’s property or does it also include the neighbor’s.

Mr. Miller stated only the applicant’s property.

Member Beck stated they should also have the neighbor’s.

Mr. Miller stated it was recommended.

Member Beck asked if it was required.

Mr. Miller stated he did recommend it to them.

Member Beck asked, according to the code, would it be required.

Mr. Miller stated he would have to go back and read it.

Member Beck asked Planner Burhop if on the inventory would the neighbor’s trees be recommended or required to be included.

Planner Burhop stated this is a Chapter 94 requirement and not a zoning code.

Member Beck stated they were getting away from the point and even if it were incomplete it could come before the Board.

Planner Burhop stated if an application is complete it becomes a matter for the Director to determine if it goes to the Board or Commission or not. If it is incomplete they want to communicate that to the Board or Commission clearly so they know it.

Mr. Meek stated they were concerned graphics submitted did not show their trees nor the inventory. The sheet with the notation came later after they had commissioned the report. They are new to new development and are renovators and may not know all the nuances of the code. It is a requirement for removal of a heritage tree that the tree preservation plan comply with every element which includes cataloging the trees on the adjacent properties that could be impacted. They are not challenging whether they have jurisdiction, but he did want to point out there was a deficiency in the application.

Mr. Joseph Giampa, 385 Vine Ave., Highland Park, IL, stated he had been following the situation on the lot and the applicant has been vigilant in trying to communicate what they are trying to do and how they plan on doing it. Tonight’s meeting has been very specific about the heritage tree. They have lived here 20 years and appreciate the tree and he appreciated the five standards. The applicant has done everything they can do and have not tried to sidestep anything. They are a great candidate to develop this site. They have to do their job in determining if the criteria has been met. He did not know if it was a healthy tree and did not know if anyone had sought to determine if it was. They are trying to determine what is best and if there is an alternate for the development plan that would fit with all the other criteria and he was supportive of that. He thought that one tree in scheme of things is not the most important thing in terms of creating value and a good look for Vine Ave. The lot has been a disappointment for many years and it has some good trees on it. One tree will not determine the future of Vine Ave. He thought it was a good plan and someone who has their heart in developing the site is more important than anything else they are talking about tonight.

Mr. Daoud stated they made some great points as far as hardship, and they went into this project trying to build the least obtrusive and most beautiful structure they could. As soon as they saw Vine Ave. it screamed to them. He asked if they would want a two- or three story structure that blocked the light. They took down all the allowable trees they could. They have been working on the drawings since November and put a lot of time and effort into the home trying to give back to Highland Park. If he was able to set up a second meeting with the neighbors or with neighbors or knew it was more important to get a tree report on the neighbor’s property he would have hired an arborist. They want to make everyone happy and love creating beautiful homes. They had received the late news with their concerns about their trees. He was able to have his architect draw up a site plan with the trees on there. They had stated no one knows the value of a property in an alley and no one would want to but a home of this caliber in an alley. They will have to ask approximately $2,000,000 to make a profit. You cannot put that in an alley. They can descale and build up with a smaller foundation, but at the back of the neighbor’s home is the family room with wrap around windows and they will look at a two- or three-story structure. This was the main reason for the hardship of accommodating and blending in. They are closer to Mr. Giampa on the west and their driveway is an egress on his lot. They are their trees on the lot line. He is closest to the house and he supports it. It might not fit the mandatory findings, but they are trying the develop the community and build out of passion.

Mr. Katherine Rothschild, 371 Vine Ave., Highland Park, IL, stated she appreciated the thoughtful consideration given. She hoped they can develop something lovely on the property. Some of what the applicant stated is not aligned with their experience. They received a note yesterday saying he wanted to talk with them. They were not available. She did not want to leave the impression they have not had conversations. They are building this as a spec house and they will live next to it. They are living with a beautiful tree canopy and there are rules in the Highland Park code. When an application is submitted it is supposed to take into consideration the trees in the neighboring lot. It is the reason they had the arborist’s report created. They are proposing to remove 12 trees and they are taking down most of the trees on the lot and replant with smaller trees. They also said they would create a screen of trees on both sides. There is a large buildable area in back and they could create a screen on both sides. This would improve the view on the neighboring side. The alley was supposed to be paved last year but was not due to COVID, and will not be gravel.

Member Yablon thanked the applicant for the thought and what they are proposing is stunning. She was having a hard time with the mandatory findings especially D, that there are no practical alternates. What they are proposing sounds like a knockout and there is buildable space behind the tree. If they voted now she would vote no.

Member Beck stated in regard to the five mandatory standards, some are met but not all. He agreed with Member Yablon there are alternates in the back lot. They could build a large two-story structure by right and that would affect the neighbors. He thought it would behoove all the parties to get together and come up with something acceptable. He was not in favor of the application and if the applicant wanted to withdraw and try and met with the neighbors and come up with an acceptable plan that would be best. He would be amenable to granting to variations on setbacks to save the tree.

Member Zaransky stated he struggled with the standards. He struggled D and is there a practical alternate. He was more swayable and thought is was a disservice to force them to site the house in the back of the lot. It seems to be more harmonious to front Vine Ave. He was on the fence could be swayed to approve this.

Member Bay stated he was struggling and agreed with Member Beck that it would be nice if the parties could get together and agree to something everyone would be happy with. He was not sure that would change their legal obligations. The standards are what they are. It was not reasonable to force them to build in back. That was his major stumbling block. He did not see a way to get around the mandatory finding that no other alternate exists. Maybe it is not the best alternate, but there is an alternate. He would not vote for granting the removal.

Vice Chair Putzel stated it was a beautiful presentation. Mr. Meek had a persuasive argument. She did not have a problem with D. She thought it was feasible to put the house in the back but not practical. She agreed with Member Zaransky that it makes the most sense to be on Vine Ave. The neighbor being frustrated by the size is not relevant or something they are discussing. Her issue was with B that it would be materially detrimental to the value of other property. Her concern was regarding whether or not the removal of the tree will damage the neighbor’s trees. Otherwise she was in favor of the application. She suggested a continuance and to meet with the neighbors and try to figure out some kind of plan amenable to all. They want their trees not to be damaged. By them being disappointed they are cutting down trees they every right to is irrelevant. She hoped they could meet and find common ground so that everyone is satisfied. She did not think it was a difficult or unrealistic task. She did not feel she could say yes due to that issue. Otherwise she supported it. She thought there needed to be some harmony.

Student Rep. Bach stated he was happy he did not have to vote. He agreed with Member Yablon and thought there were practical alternates.

Chair Cullather stated he agreed with the other members and thought all the parties had done a wonderful job in presenting the issues before the Board. The issue he came up with are exactly what the other members have said. He read the entire packet and came in with an open mind. When Mr. Daoud brought up the alternate in his presentation he thought he admitted there are other alternates to develop on the property. He stumbled over D and E under the mandatory findings because he believed there was a reasonable use of the property with the tree there. Removal of the tree allows them to build a house where they want to. He wished the photos were more recent. He could not support this and did not think there was a need to continue. He was not sure of an agreement between the parties that would allow the removal of the tree to happen. They can meet with regard to the preservation of the neighbor’s trees, but that is not before them. He did not see a redesign happening. The heritage tree would still be required the Rothschild’s position would not change.

Mr. Rothschild (unintelligible).

Chair Cullather entertained a motion. Member Bay motioned to vote to deny the request to remove the heritage tree.

Chair Cullather stated it could be to direct staff to draft a motion denying the removal of the tree.

Member Bay amended his motion to direct staff to draft a denial order for the application.

Member Beck asked if they could vote on what is before them. They do not need another order.

Planner Burhop stated if the Board denies or approves that it take the form of an order.

Chair Cullather stated the motion is to direct staff to draft an order denying the request to remove the heritage tree on the property. Member Beck seconded.

Planner Burhop stated he would recommend the application be continued.

Planner Fawell stated this is a motion to direct staff to draft a denial order for this application.

Planner Fawell called the roll:

Ayes: Beck, Yablon, Zaransky, Bay, Cullather

Nays: Putzel

Motion passed 5-0.

Vice Chair Putzel entertained a motion to continue the matter to the next meeting. Seconded by Member Zaransky.

Planner Burhop stated there will be no further notice and the next meeting is June 16, 2022.

Vice Chair Putzel asked even though they made a motion to deny does the applicant have the opportunity to amend his presentation.

Planner Burhop stated technically yes because the order to deny has not been adopted. Planner Fawell stated this a motion to continue this item to June 16, 2022. Planner Fawell called the roll:

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

Nays: None

Motion passed 6-0.

VI. STAFF REPORT:

Next meeting - June 16, 2022

Planner Falwell stated there are three cases on the agenda and this will make it four.

Planner Burhop stated he will be sending an email to the ZBA and the PDC regarding the statement of economic impact due the County and it is a State requirement. Nothing has changed for the ZBA.

Chair Cullather asked if everyone had submitted theirs.

Planner Burhop stated there are no outstanding responses.

Chair Cullather stated he started work in the Count Clerk’s Office as an election communication specialist and asked Hart Passman if there is any conflict and has not heard back.

VII. MISCELLANEOUS: None

VIII. ADJOURNMENT:

Chair Cullather motioned to adjourn. Member Beck so motioned, seconded by Member Yablon.

On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously.

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

http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2694&Inline=True