Loading...
Minutes - 04/04/2017 - Zoning Board of AppealsVILLAGE of MINUTES OF THE APRIL 4, 2017 OAK B R92K� REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS AMENDED ON MAY 2, 2017 CALL TO ORDER: CALL TO ORDER The Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order by Acting Chairman Alfred Savino in the Samuel E. Dean Board Room of the Butler Government Center at 7:03 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: ROLL CALL Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons PRESENT: Acting Chairman Alfred Savino, Members Jeffrey Bulin, Natalie Cappetta, Baker Nimry, Steven Young and Wayne Ziemer ABSENT: Chairman Champ Davis Member, IN ATTENDANCE: Mark Moy, Trustee, Robert L. Kallien, Director, Development Services, Rebecca Von Drasek, Planner and Gail Polanek, Planning Technician 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES SPECIAL MINUTES OF THE MARCH 7, 2017 MEETING MARCH 7, 2017 Motion by Member Nimry, seconded by Member Bulin to approve the minutes of the March 7, 2017 Regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting as written. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. JULIE OLAFSON TRUST — 25 ROBIN HOOD RANCH — VARIATION — OLAFSON TRUST - 25 ROBIN HOOD ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 13 -11 -9 — ACCESSORY STRUCTURES — RANCH - 13.11.9 TRELLISES ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Acting Chairman Savino announced the public hearing. All witnesses providing testimony were sworn in. Director Kallien provided a brief review of the interpretation of `fences' and it was determined that the request was not for a fence because it was more than 42- inches VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 1 of 13 April 4, 2017 in height, far more dense than 50 percent open and did not meet the criteria for a fence -like structure and was determined to be a trellis as the applicant indicated, and is being treated as an accessory structure. Accessory structures can be up to 15 -feet in height, but must be located at least 5 feet from the lot line. Walter Morrissey, Lillig & Thorsness, Ltd., Attorney for the Petitioner, Julie Olafson, property owner of 25 Robin Hood Ranch made a presentation regarding the request for the six (6) proposed trellises. He noted that the situation was not that of the applicant's doing, but rather the natural occurrence of a single story older home being tom down and replaced with a new residence at 11 Robin Hood Ranch with a 30 foot tall brown slab wall, which is intrusive and the site lines are right into the garden area and patios and has created his client's need for the trellises to provide privacy for the enjoyment and use of one's yard and to buffer /shield her from invasive sight lines. Mr. Morrissey argued that the trellises were not a fence, but an appropriate screen to give his client privacy within her backyard. The trellises will be interspersed with plantings. The trellises will not only provide privacy but will help to protect the home's property values. He addressed the Variation standards. He suggested that the project would not negatively impact property values. The neighbors enjoy the gardens as well. The single story home was replaced with an approximately 4.5 larger size, multi -story residence with a brown slab wall. If the relief is granted, it will not set a precedent in the Village. The Robin Hood Ranch is a unique subdivision. The two lots are interior to the subdivision and the lots narrow going north to south. The lot dimensions and the unique lot sizes and shapes within the R -2 zoned Robin Hood Ranch subdivision where lots are all less than one acre had created the issue. He explained that Ms. Olafson planned to grow vegetation on the trellises and mulch the base which would further improve the appearance. He reviewed pictures of the existing site, showing the garden and landscape features, existing trellis that had been in place, the sight lines with the view of the neighboring house along the west boundary line. Tony Lobello, from Mariani Landscaping spoke on behalf of Ms. Olafson, explained that the challenge at 25 Robin Hood Ranch is the existing shade trees and their root zone inhibits some landscaping options. He explained that the trellises were an attempt to create a charming cottage garden and reduce the deer damage to landscaping. Mr. Morrissey stated that each of the standards were addressed in detail with the application and were included in the case file. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 2 of 13 April 4, 2017 Member Ziemer asked which neighbor had objected to the proposal. Mr. Morrissey responded the neighbor to the west at 11 Robin Hood Ranch. Member Nimry observed that he did not like the appearance of the white wall that would be created by the trellises more than the brown brick wall of the neighboring house. Ms. Olafson noted there were 10 trees separating the properties. There were five when she bought the house and she emphasized that she installed another five trees. Two were 10 -foot Colorado spruces, two 10 -foot giant arborvitae since it is most deer resistant along with a pear tree. The trellises were designed to be interspersed with the landscaping. Most of the vegetation on the neighbor's property, which had previously heavily wooded and landscaped had been removed during construction and no vegetation/trees, with the exception of grass had been added since construction had been completed in 2016. She also explained that the deer eat the arborvitae. She emphasized that the trellises are separated by landscaping and she disagreed with the characterization that it would look like a white wall. Member Nimry added that it would take time for the landscaping to establish itself and that the 12 -foot high trellises will be very tall. Member Bulin pointed out that he was familiar with the English Garden design and found the proposed design elements attractive. Acting Chairman Savino indicated that he had visited the subject property and discussed the project with Ms. Olafson. He said that he had a hard time with the number of trellises. He also noted that the trellises are still below the second story of the home to the west would still have a line of sight into 25 Robin Hood Ranch's backyard. Ms. Olafson responded that when she purchased her home the one -story house then at 11 Robin Hood Ranch had significant landscaping and trees and was much more private. There was a trellis on the property that dated back to 1998. Member Young informed the applicant that deer damage would likely still occur. He inquired as to the type of materials used for the posts. Mr. Lobello responded that the cedar posts were anchored in concrete. Member Young also confirmed that an irrigation system would be installed to keep up the landscaping. Ms. Olafson agreed. Member Cappetta stated that she viewed the property and did not realize how very close the back of the properties and houses were to each other. With the plantings VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 3 of 13 April 4, 2017 and spacing between the trellises she did not see them as a fence or a wall and that these decorative features created good separation of the properties and did not see the issue expressed. These two houses are the closest houses in Robin Hood Ranch and neither house has a backyard. Although the new house is in compliance with the zoning code, it was not expected to happen. She believed the relief to the Code was warranted. She felt that the trellises would be nice in appearance. Member Bulin noted the difficulty with the size and shape of the property to comply with the zoning regulations. Director Kallien reported that rezoning of the entire area had been discussed ten years ago but that the preferred decision was that it would be more appropriate for homeowners to seek variations rather than rezone the properties. These lots are very oddly shaped and do not have what you would expect for a rear yard. This type of subdivision would strongly be discouraged from being approved. Acting Chairman Savino viewed the property as well and noted that the garden is probably only 5 feet wide, and if the trellises were moved 5 feet then it would be on the other side and would look like the landscaping belonged to the neighbor, so she has a difficult situation to comply with the 5 foot requirement. He felt there was too much length of trellis. Member Ziemer asserted that the proposed 12 -foot height was a bigger concern for him rather than the length. The applicant's side of the trellis would be covered with landscaping and would soften the effect, but the other side facing the neighbor may or may not. Mr. Morrissey suggested that his client would be willing to reduce the height of the three 12 foot trellises if needed. Acting Chairman Savino recognized members of the audience wishing to speak in favor of the application. Stanley Strand, 27 Robin Hood Ranch, and who is on the Architectural Review Committee for Robin Hood Ranch, stated that he was in favor of the trellises. As the neighbor north of the property he felt that his property benefited from the improvements. He noted that replacing the arborvitae would only result in the deer eating the bushes and showed a picture of the row of arborvitae that had been eaten by the deer going up six and seven feet as high as they could reach, then they were green on top. She replaced it with the trellis that had been moved abutting their property and they think it is a great improvement. It is on a wall and with the grade difference it is probably about nine feet tall from their side and it looks wonderful VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 4 of 13 April 4, 2017 and is a vast improvement to what was there. They also have the 30 -foot wall to stare at from their side and there is no trellis that they could put up to change it. Margaret Murphy, 26 Robin Hood Ranch and president of the Homeowner's Association supported the request for the trellises. She lives directly across the street. She read Mr. Khan's letter in which he mentions openness and she was surprised that would be an issue for him especially when his house was being built. Her view used to be openness, with beautiful majestic trees, now it is the brown wall (she pointed to the screen showing the side of the house). She noted that from the garage there is a compressor and air conditioner. She did not know when it became an issue for him, but it was after his house was built. No one in the audience spoke in opposition to the request. Acting Chairman Savino referenced the objection letter and correspondence received from the property owner at 11 Robin Hood Ranch that was included in the case file. Director Kallien observed that this type of request is unique. He noted that it was not a fence and it appears to be more of a privacy issue. He noted that there was some rationale as to why this privacy feature cannot be located 5 -feet from the property line. He added that the question appears to be what would be the appropriate height. There may be others with similar issues in the subdivision and over time some of the houses will be replaced with possibly similar structures. Going forward this type of relief may be requested by others; however, every lot and situation is unique. Acting Chairman Savino polled the members. Member Ziemer noted that his only objection was the 12 foot trellis height, but was open to discussion with the Board. Member Cappetta noted that she did not have any objections and added that if all the neighbors' plant 15 -foot evergreens it would box in the yards. With the proposal there are trellis and landscaping which is still open. Solid evergreen would look like green fences and the deer would eat them, like they were shown in the pictures, hollow on the bottom and green on top, would not look good. This will help and will keep things open and beautiful. Member Bulin noted that he did not have any objections and repeated his appreciation of the English Garden. Member Nimry stated that the trellises look and feel like a fence. He did not have a VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 5 of 13 April 4, 2017 solution, but noted that he liked what they did around Midwest Club with the evergreens surrounding a chain link fence, that cannot be seen. He argued that the neighbors should work together to find a better alternative. There was a brief discussion regarding chain link fences. Director Kallien added that as far as accessory structures, there could be a continuous 15 foot high structure, going around the property as long as it was located 5 feet from the property line and would be allowed by Code. He asked if the applicant would give any thought to varying the height of the trellises. Acting Chairman Savino questioned the southernmost trellis be removed and reduce the height of the other trellises to 10 feet. Ms. Olafson agreed to eliminate the southernmost trellis, which is toward the garage. Member Young cautioned the property owner that once installed the structures may act as a sail in high winds. He acknowledged visiting the Chicago Botanical Garden and appreciating the English Gardens but cautioned that the height might be too tall. Acting Chairman Savino noted that the applicant had addressed the main standards and were addressed in writing on pages A -1 to A -5 of the case file. Motion by Member Young, seconded by Member Ziemer to recommend approval of the variation to Section 13 -11 -9 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the installation of a total of five (5) trellises, as follows: 1. four (4) trellises to be located in the rear yard and one (1) trellis to be located in the side yard, and are to be installed in substantial conformance with the site plan as modified and approved. 2. The southernmost sixth (6ffi) trellis proposed to be in the rear yard is to be eliminated from the site plan. 3. The three (3) proposed twelve -foot (12') high trellises are to be reduced to a maximum height of ten feet (10'). 4. All trellises are to be located not less than six - inches (6 ") from the property line. 5. Add the condition "Notwithstanding the attached exhibits, the applicant shall meet all Village Ordinance requirements at the time of building permit application except as specifically varied or waived." ROLL CALL: Ayes: 5 — Members Bulin, Cappetta, Savino, Young and Ziemer Nays: 1 — Member Nimry Absent: 1 — Chairman Davis. Motion Carried. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 6 of 13 April 4, 2017 5. NEW BUSINESS A. MIKE SAHLI — 3715 SPRING ROAD — VARIATION — ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 13 -6C -3A — LOT AREA REQUIREMENTS Acting Chairman Savino announced the public hearing. All witnesses providing testimony were sworn in. Member Natalie Cappetta recused herself from participation in this agenda item due to her law firm's representation as attorney for the Petitioner. Frederick Cappetta, Attorney for the petitioner, Mike Sahli, the owner of the property located at 3715 Spring Road, reviewed the request. He noted that the subject property is 54,276 square feet. When going through the subdivision, it was required that the land on Spring Road and Washington ROW be dedicated to the Village. The result is that the land was reduced by 15,000 square feet. He was willing to dedicate the ROW, but now the property has been reduced down to 39,260 square feet. The property no longer has adequate land to meet the minimum lot area requirements. If subdivided the property will remain the same, the roads will not change. The only thing changing is his ownership of the land to be dedicated. There are many nonconforming lots in the Fullersburg Woods area, and some of which do not have dedications. He noted that there were a number of undersized lots abound in the vicinity of the subject property. This property unfortunately has two streets requiring dedications, which is substantial. Mr. Cappetta stated that the variation standards were addressed in writing on pages C -C.2 of the case file and incorporated them as part of his testimony. He addressed the first 3 standards, stating as follows: The existing property is 54,155 square feet, which may be divided into two lots, 25,000 square feet each without a variance; and was purchased with that intention. It is only after the requirement of the dedication to the Village which now renders the property undevelopable as previously intended to build a house for himself and another person. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. Most properties alongside a street in the Village have already made the required dedications so it is uncommon to have the problem of losing square footage because of an adjacent street and the lack of a previous dedication. It is rare that two streets along a property are not dedicated. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 7 of 13 April 4, 2017 NEW BUSINESS SAHLI - 3715 SPRING ROAD - SECTION 13- 6C -3A- LOT AREA The variation will not alter the character of the locality. The variation is only necessary because of the required dedication which will not visually change the property. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood. He selected 10 properties that were close to these properties that are all less that the required acreage. There are an abundance of undersized properties in the area and approval of this variation will not impact the neighborhood, because they all have this situation of undersized lots throughout Fullersburg. The hardship was not created by any person presently having an interest in the property. When he bought the property he thought he had 54,000 square feet and he reasonably believed that he could subdivide, until after closing when he got the title and thought he could go forward, which is the reason for the application. This is the only variation being requested. He does have an application for the subdivision that will go before the Plan Commission. They also discovered that this property falls within the Historic Graue Mill Gateway Area and will need to appear before the Village again to request a Certificate of Appropriateness. The owner did try to inform his neighbors as to what he was doing and they did not hear back from any of the neighbors. Member Ziemer inquired if Washington Street further south was dedicated. Director Kallien responded that he was uncertain as the area has not had any recent redevelopment. There have been a couple of variation granted, but dedication was not required. Member Nimry questioned what happened when he bought the property to believe he had 54,000 square feet and then found out he actually only had 39,000 that would cause the need for the variation. Mr. Cappetta responded that in order to subdivide the property it was required that the land in the road be dedicated to the village. Member Young asked what financial implications of approving the variation. Director Kallien observed the benefit would be an additional family to the community. He also noted that there would also be new costs for fire and police services. Member Young asked if the road ownership would add cost, Mr. Kallien responded that the road is already maintained by the village. Acting Chairman Savino inquired as to how the issue was discovered and how SDLL Company was related to the ownership. Michael Sahli responded that after submitting plans to the Village to build a home VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 8 of 13 April 4, 2017 was when he was informed that the setbacks would be different as he would need to dedicate roadway, he then went to see Mr. Cappetta,. He explained the SDLL Company was the beneficiary of the trust which owns the property. He stated that he bought the lot with the intention of building a home and then perhaps his brother would build next to him. The plans for the first house did not work because the setbacks were wrong as he was informed they would need to be moved to show where the new dedication would be. Director Kallien responded that he did not get to the point of actually submitting building permit drawings. Member Bulin noted that there are a lot of nonconforming lots in every zoning district. He cannot recall when the Board approved a nonconforming lot. Mr. Cappetta reiterated that there are many legal nonconforming lots in the Fullersburg area. Member Bulin challenged that creating a nonconforming lot by granting a variation would be different than lots brought into the village undersized. He observed that at 39,000 square feet the lot currently complies with zoning. He also suggested that with sufficient due diligence Mr. Sahli could have determined that the roadway would need to be dedicated. Member Bulin observed that this subdivision appears to be an attempt to make more money for the lot than the conforming lot. Although, it would be similar to other nonconforming lots, the Village did not approve those to create nonconforming lots. Mr. Cappetta added that Mr. Sahli thought he was buying adequate land for two parcels. Mr. Sahli suggested that he had been told that the lot was 54,000 square feet and that the R -3 only required 25,000 square feet. This was an unforeseen circumstance. Mr. Sahli added that before he purchased the property he called the Village and asked what the square footage was for subdividing the property and was told it was zoned R -3 and would need to be 25,000 square feet per lot. He thought he did his due diligence. The Board briefly discussed if this type of variation request, which would vary the lot size, had ever been approved. Director Kallien responded that staff had created a list of similar requests, he pointed out that the variation at 302 Oak Brook Road was a request to allow subdivision VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 9 of 13 April 4, 2017 with one of the resulting lots being a nonconforming lot. The nonconformity in that instance was due to the widening of Oak Brook Road and there was a dedication, which resulted in the lot area being undersized in order to be subdivided. The property went through the variation and subdivision process and was approved. Acting Chairman swore in all members of the audience objecting to the variation. Mr. Borris, resident at 3710 Spring Road, noted that it was unfortunate that Mr. Sahli did not know about the area for the roads. He believes the seller sold one lot and that was what he acquired. He questioned the appropriateness of a single lot subdivision and stated that he supported one house for the lot. He thinks that would be an issue in Oak Brook because there would be more of those considering the one on York Road north of the York Tavern. If it were a matter of a 1,000 square feet, that would be okay, but 15,000 square feet is considerably smaller and he did not want to look at 2 new houses back to back. Ms. Allison Rush, resident at 3721 Spring Road indicated that she and her family were long time residents of the village. She was sorry that he bought the property not knowing the rules, and that he should have gone to the Village first to see if it could be done. Although it was stated the area would not change, it would. Oak Brook is not Elmhurst and why would a nonconforming property be allowed to be created because he did not do his homework. It would affect property values and the rest of those living in the neighborhood would have to look at it. She suggested that Oak Brook was intended to be open spaces as a "country- type" community. This would set a precedent. There is a huge difference in that amount of land he is seeking and questioned whether they would like it in their own back yard. Frank Scarpiniti, resident at 3719 Spring Road objected to the variation. He explained that one of the things that attracted him to Oak Brook was the wide open spaces where the houses are farther apart. If approved, it will affect his property value. He doesn't want to see 2 houses. He could build a very large house or small house; he didn't care, as long as it was one house. Tasha Scarpiniti, resident at 3719 Spring grew up in Oak Brook and said that horses had been there since 1988. As a realtor back in 2001 when she represented the seller she had talked to the Village and was told that the property was not subdivide -able. The owner told her that her husband had dedicated the road to the Village in the 60's or 70's so that the street could be built. She cited knowledge of previous real estate transactions of the subject property. She concluded looking forward to a future long- term neighbor with a vested interest in the quality of life for the community and not someone to profit from selling the property. They do not want the value of their houses to be diminished. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 10 of 13 April 4, 2017 Ed Cladek, resident at 408 Luthin Road, objected to the minimizing the lot, as in his neighborhood there is a similar circumstances. He would hate to see this doubling up of smaller houses that do not meet the minimum requirements so that they could make quick money on it. Paul Butler had a vision for the area to be semi - rural. He has been there 30 years and wants to preserve it and this does not. He felt some sympathy for the mix up, but the buyer did not do their due diligence and should have gotten a lawyer first and buyer beware. It does not justify his impinging on the rights of the neighborhood to deal with a house on top of house. He said do not open the door on this happening in other areas in the Village. Director Kallien read into the record an email from David Fichter, resident at 3804 Washington who objected to the proposal after he reviewed the application, because the resulting lots would be far too small. Mr. Cappetta responded that he too is a 40 year resident of the area and that Fullersburg is comprised of many lots that are a third and a quarter of an acre, and some are less. The size is not necessarily what it is about. In his area the lots are measured to the middle of the private street. The property has been empty for two years, derelict, built in 1954 and needs redevelopment, which does not help the community or the neighbors. No one chose to buy it and knock it down to rebuild. He understood everyone's feelings and passion, but that we live in an area where we need to be reasonable and understand that they are taking 15,000 square feet away from the property, which is not customary of all the properties he has represented in Oak Brook. He never had anyone lose any of their property to the Village. Although it is true in this case, it is not true in most cases. It is not something that is customary and is quite extraordinary and would like that taken into account. This is an opportunity to redevelop a property that was built in 1954. This property needs to be redeveloped and sat for a long time. He lives in the area too and is not trying to ruin anyone's neighborhood, including his own. Member Nimry looked at the slide of the surrounding neighborhood and noted that the proposed lots would not be smaller than the lots down the street on Washington. Mr. Cappetta agreed and noted that the lots across Washington are zoned R -2, 1 acre minimum and are a third of that. Member Nimry commented that what was being requested was not unique to the area. Mr. Cappetta added that he also has a passion for the neighborhood, but the houses in the area are very small. Member Ziemer agreed that the title policy is the authority that should know whether there are restrictions on the property or not. If there were no restrictions on VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 1111 of 13 April 4, 2017 Yz the title that was received, then it seems like the due diligence was sought, when knowing that the property was zoned R -3 and it exceeded the zoning requirements for lot area. It appears to be an unexpected hardship on the applicant. If it had been on the title policy that would have been different. Mr. Cappetta added that had been the reason he had asked to see the policy. The Board discussed the size of the properties to the east and questioned whether the parcels were conforming lots. Director Kallien responded that there only two parcels to the east and could not confirm whether they were conforming lots. However, on the east side of Washington there are a number of lots especially along Wood Road that clearly do not meet the R -2 minimum requirements. He added that the same was true in Robin Hood Ranch. Tasha Scarpiniti, resident at 3719 Spring said that the previous owner did not abandon the property it was sold to the applicant in 2014 for $690,000. She noted that is why the house was vacant. She added that they were happy to have new neighbors. She noted that it had been listed for sale for $200,000 more than what he had paid. Ms. Rush said that that the property is going to be developed by someone who will not be living in the Village; it is a corporation just to make money and leave. It would change the landscape for the area for someone who will not live here. Mr. Cappetta added that opinions may be given by the Village and Mr. Kallien; however, there are processes and boards in place to seek these changes. Director Kallien responded that until a formal request is made for a building, a final determination cannot be made. There may have been discussions and a lot of people inquired about the property. We always try to disclose the elements of a parcel, but at the end of the day we talk in hypothetical terms. Member Young offered an observation that two smaller homes could be placed on the lots with the ability to be sold or the existing home that may or not be sold. Motion by Member Nimry, seconded by Member Ziemer to recommend approval of the variation to Section 13 -6C -3A of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the reduction of the minimum lot area requirements for the property at 3715 Spring Road, subject to the following conditions: 1. The reduced lot area is to be in substantial conformance to the Area Exhibit B and C on pages I and K of the case file. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 12 of 13 April 4, 2017 1 ?4001 2. Approval of the Final Plat of Subdivision. 3. Add the condition "Notwithstanding the attached exhibits, the applicant shall meet all Village Ordinance requirements at the time of building permit application except as specifically vaned or waived." ROLL CALL: Ayes: 3 — Members Nimry, Young and Ziemer Nays: 2 — Member Bulin and Savino Recused: 1 — Member Cappetta Absent: 1 — Chairman Davis. Motion Failed. Gail Polanek, Planning Technician reviewed the Rules of Procedure and advised that when a motion to recommend approval fails, but could pass, should any absent voting members be present at the meeting and vote in favor. This is the situation with this motion. The Rules direct that the public hearing be continued to the next meeting to allow the opportunity for another vote. Should the vote fail at the next meeting then the motion would be entered as failed. Motion by Acting Chairman Savino, seconded by Member public hearing to the next regular Zoning Board of Appeal s scheduled for May 2, 2017. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. 6. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business to discuss. 7. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no additional comments from the public. 8. ADJOURNMENT: Ziemer to continue the meeting that has been Motion by Member Young, seconded by Member Ziemer to adjourn the meeting at 9:16 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. ATTEST: /s/ Robert L. Kallien Jr. Robert Kallien, Jr. Director of Community Development Secretary VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 13 of 13 April 4, 2017 OTHER BUSINESS PUBLIC COMMENT ADJOURNMENT