Loading...
Minutes - 04/05/2005 - Zoning Board of AppealsMINUTES OF THE APRIL 5, 2005 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS WRITTEN ON MAY 3, 2005. 1. CALL TO ORDER: CALL TO ORDER The Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order by Chairman Champ Davis in the Samuel E. Dean Board Room of the Butler Government Center at 7:34 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: ROLL CALL Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons PRESENT: Chairman Champ Davis, Members George Mueller, Manu Shah and Steven Young. ABSENT: Member Richard Ascher and Robert Sanford IN ATTENDANCE: Director of Community Development, Robert Kallien, Jr. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES REGULAR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF FEBRUARY 1, 2005 SPECIAL ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF FEBRUARY 15, 2005 Motion by Member Mueller, seconded by Member Young, to approve the minutes of the February 1, 2005 Regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting and the February 15, 2005 Special Zoning Board of Appeals meeting as written. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. 5. NEW BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS A. BORNE — 3305 YORK ROAD — TITLE 13 OF THE VILLAGE CODE — BOHNE= 3305 YORK ROAD — VARIATION ZONING ORDINANCE — VARIATION — SECTION 13 -3 -5 and - SECTION I3 -3 -5 and SECTION 13- 613-31'.3 — TO ALLOW AN ENCROACHMENT IN THE SECTION 13-68 -3F 3 — TO ALLOW AN REQUIRED FRONT AND REAR YARD SETBACKS IN ORDER TO ENCROACHMENT IN THE REUIRED CONSTRUCT A SINGLE- FAMILY HOME FRONT AND REAR YARD SETBACKS Chairman Davis swore in Berkshire Bohne, the petitioner and owner of the property at 3305 York Road, Steven Amu, Architect, and Robert Petrasek, VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 1 of 7 April 5, 2005 Project Manager. Mr. Bohne reviewed the request. He purchased the property approximately 2V2 years ago and at that time started working with his architect. The house on the property was built in 1925 and at the time of purchase did not know that it was a nonconforming structure. He is seeking a variation to maintain the current nonconforming setback in the front yard and reduce the rear yard setback from 60 feet to 50 feet. Just before the plans were completed it was discovered that there was a special setback. Once the setback was discovered, they reduced the house approximately 13 feet in an attempt to conform to the setback requirements. However, it was his architect's opinion as well as his builder that any further changes would eliminate the drawing they had been working on for about two years. They sent letters to all the surrounding neighbors and personally met with four of them. They went through the proposed drawings with each of those neighbors and there are copies of the letters in the file (on page H of the case file) indicating that they have no objections. 3309 is the property directly south; 409 Canterberry is directly east and 416 Canterberry is across the street. Chairman Davis clarified that the request is to maintain the current nonconforming setback. He asked what the width of the variation would be. Mr. Petrasek responded that it would be approximately 30'6" feet. Chairman Davis noted that the neighbor to the east had some landscaping between the properties and asked if that supported his petition. Mr. Bohne responded that there was one issue that the neighbor had regarding a drainage concern. However, the concern was with the current state of the house which was built in 1925 and has no existing drainage in the yard. He said the neighbor was excited about working with him regarding providing drainage. They have been working with the neighbors and believe they are very satisfied, to his knowledge, with what they have proposed. Chairman Davis asked that the standards be addressed. He noted that they were addressed in writing in the case file. Steven Amu, the architect addressed the factors as follows: (a) The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations governing the district in which it is located. Response: The existing structure was constructed in 1925 and is out of character with the neighborhood and the type of house prevalent in Oak Brook VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 2 of 7 April 5, 2005 today. The proposed structure is more in keeping with that. The petitioner came upon the realization that the ordinance restricted him from building late in the game. 1(b) The plight of the owner is due to Unique circumstances. Response: The lot's location on York Road is unique because it is the one Street mentioned in section 13 -3 -5 for a larger setback than would otherwise be permissible. The house (circa 1925) was constructed at a time when the prevalent type of house, now in Oak Brook, was not even a distant dream.. 1(c) The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Response: The proposed structure will maintain the current structure's front set back exactly as it is and will be more akin to the typical Oak Brook residence than what exists there. The proposed structure will tend to add value to the Village and the adjacent properties. 2(a) The particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific property involved would bring a particular hardship upon the owner as distinguished from a mere inconvenience it the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. Response: The shape and location of the existing house, which the petitioner purchased in 2003, has caused the petitioner to rethink the manner of living. It is on a major street; York Road is a highly traveled street. The proposed structure would create some privacy without a less natural buffer, like a screen with a fence as permissible by the Code. His idea and instruction to the architect was to preserve the natural beauty and flow of the property. 2(b) The condition upon which the petition for variation is based would not be applicable generally to the other property within the same zoning classification. Response: The hardship on this particular lot is further compounded by the fact that it is a corner lot, on York Road, and has a smaller buildable area than would be typical for a typical R -2 lot. The petitioner feels that this is a unique circumstance to this lot. 2(c) The granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. Response: The variation, if granted, will in no way be injurious to any VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 3 of 7 April 5, 2005 neighbor. In fact, the variation will, if granted, help to create a new structure that will become a standard in keeping with other admirable Oak Brook residences. 2(d) The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase danger of fire, or otherwise endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair the property values within the neighborhood. Response: Inherent in the design of the new home is a lower pitch roof than most new Oak Brook residences specifically to minimize the impact of absence of light to the neighboring homes and the trees on the property. The new structure will also serve as a good comparable for increasing the value of the houses nearby. 2(e) That the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire to make more money out of the property. Response: The petitioner purchased the home for personal use out of a love for the Village and intends, for the foreseeable future, to occupy the proposed residence as his primary residence. The desire to build this project as proposed is born from a long period of searching for the best way to improve the property for the private enjoyment of its current owner. 2(f) That the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. Response: The current owner (the petitioner) purchased the property in 2003 and has not altered it in any way since then. The petitioner having lived in the neighborhood has sought this project as his idea of he highest and best use of the property. Member Young asked if any substantial lighting was planned that would shine upon the neighbor's yards. Mr. Bohne responded that it would not. Part of the design of the house was to provide privacy in the backyard without a berm. Member Young said that since the home was built in 1925, there would probably be lead paint in the home? Are they making provisions to take care of that at the time of demolition? Mr. Bohne responded that they are looking into all those things. Chairman Davis asked the petitioner to expand on the uniqueness of this property. Mr. Amu said that they looked at the surrounding properties. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 4 of 7 April 5, 2005 Mr. Kallien said that the Ordinance for the front yards on York Road south of 31St Street (Oak Brook Road) was changed in 1995 from being measured at 100 feet from the property line to being measured at 100 feet from the centerline. He said that this particular lot is one of the older lots whose property is measured to the centerline of Canterberry Lane and to the centerline of York Road. It currently measures under an acre. If you go back to the right of way line we are dealing with a far smaller lot than whatever should have been envisioned for an R -2 parcel. With the parcel being zoned R -2, along with the oddities of where the rights of ways are; there are conditions of this property that any owner would have to deal with; the usable space is more like R -3 zoning when you look at its size. Chairman Davis noted that the lot measurement itself goes to the centerline even though there is no use of that portion of the property. The fact that the house is out of character for the other homes being built there. No one in the audience spoke in support of or in opposition to the requested variation. Chairman Davis said that it appears the petitioner has addressed the standards as required and it appears that the situation is unique by reason of the existing restrictions on the property and the hardship is not of the present owners own making. In addition to satisfying the standards, the neighbors do not object. The request does not appear to jeopardize the public health, safety or general welfare of any party. Motion by Member Young, seconded by Member Shah to recommend approval of the variations as requested subject to the following conditions: 1. To reduce the front yard setback from 100 feet to approximately 94'5" and to reduce the rear yard setback from 60 feet to approximately 50 feet and the proposed construction is to be in substantial conformance with the Site Plan, prepared by Steven Amu & Associates on page J and K of the case file. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4 - Members Mueller, Shah, Young and Chairman Davis Nays: 0 - Absent: 2 - Member Ascher and Sanford. Motion Carried 6. OTHER BUSINESS: OTHER BUSINESS Chairman Davis commented on a seminar sponsored by the DuPage Mayors SE GE MAYORS & VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 5 of 7 April 5, 2005 and Managers. A portion of the discussion was on the Comprehensive Plan and MANAGERS how you get people in the community involved in order to get their ideas into the Comprehensive Plan. They had a land planning group discuss what is necessary for a Comprehensive Plan and how you get the people in the community involved to get their ideas into the plan. There was an hour and a half long presentation by two attorneys from a law firm that represents a lot of municipalities and they went through all of the procedures necessary to be applied by a zoning board under a decision called Clarion vs. the Village of Lisle. Dick Martens had mentioned that case to the Zoning Board shortly after it came down and there has been a lot of interpretation since then. The conclusion drawn was that very formal procedures need only be applied in a special use hearing. In a special use hearing, particularly where there may be a lot of opposition, you have to have a full and complete hearing. The reason for that is if the matter goes to a judge and it is challenged, the judge has to have a complete record. The public has to be given the chance to cross - examine. The lawyers said that generally they give the right to cross - examine to experts and people giving testimony. You do not want to cross - examine a member of the public that just gets up to make a comment. It can be limited, but you do have to give people that right. Everyone must be sworn in, even if they get up to make a comment. In a large matter, there can be a group swearing in. Staff should also be sworn in, especially if the Board is asking them questions. If the matter is appealed, they are a stickler if someone is making comments and they have not been sworn in. They also gave instances of how to control unruly people. All precautions should be in place and only applies to special use proceedings. In particular you should be careful if you believe it is one that might be contested. The case they referred to involved a large box retailer coming into Lisle and it lead to the Court saying that the hearing was really judicial in nature so you need to have all these safe guards. In a variation, map amendment and zoning amendment, the Zoning Board acts like a legislature and you do not really have to worry about all those precautions because if it would get challenged the judge can start all over and review it "de novo" meaning to start over again. On special use matter, the judge only has the record created during the Zoning Board public hearing, so you have to make sure that it is a good record. The court cannot review a special use proceeding starting from scratch like they do a zoning amendment. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 6 of 7 April 5, 2005 Member Young noted that when the board acts as a legislature the judge looks for legislative intent. Chairman Davis added that the test for that is that whatever the legislature decided was it reasonable and did it satisfy the health safety and welfare. There was no other business to discuss. 7. ADJOURNMENT: ADJOURNMENT Motion by Member Mueller, seconded by Member Young to adjourn the meeting at 8:03 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. ATTEST: Robert L. Kallien, Jr. Robert Kallien, Director of Community Development Secretary VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 7 of 7 April 5, 2005