 |
|
|
|
|
|
Search Our Site Calendar
Village Newsletter |
|
|
|
|
|
Village Code |
|
|
Administrative Department |
|
|
-Administrative
Office -Mayor's Desk -Village Officials -Village Meetings -Financial Documents |
|
|
|
|
|
Village Departments |
|
|
-Building
Department -Clerk's Office -Finance Department -Historic Preservation -Recreation Department -Police Department -Public Works -Tree Body |
|
|
|
|
|
The Community |
|
|
-Library -Events -Organizations -Businesses -Fire Protection District -Arts and History -McCord Cultural Center -Farmers Market -History -Education -Churches -Links -Health/Medical -The Center -Trains & Buses -Utilities -Attractions -Utilities -Vote |
|
|
|
|
|
Programs |
|
|
|
-Replace
A Mailbox -Recycle Palos! |
|
Home |
|
Kaptur Administrative
Center |
|
|
|
MINUTES OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Palos Park, Cook County, Illinois held a public hearing on Thursday, January 21, 2010. Chairman David Lencioni called the meeting to order at 7:50 p.m. Answering to roll call were members: Stephen Maier, Phyllis Adams, and Nancy Konior. Jerry Dill, Jack Martin, and Cathy Saylors were absent. Also in attendance were Steve Manning, Community Development Director and Colleen Santo, Secretary to the Zoning Board. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mrs. Konior moved, seconded by Mrs. Adams, to approve the minutes of the November 19, 2009 meeting as presented. Upon roll call vote, the motion carried as follows:
AYES: -4- Board Members Konior,
Adams, Maier, and Chairman Lencioni PETITION OF LOT 17 SHADOW RIDGE SUBDIVISION: also known as 133 Forest Edge Court requesting a side yard variance of 27.6% from the required 37.29 feet to the proposed 27.0 feet. Mr. Manning stated the new buildable area is 12,763 square feet and asked if it included everything within the setback line envelope. PETITIONER RESPONSE: Mr. Scott Schreiner, the President of Design Tek Engineering & Surveying explained the plan. The setbacks on the plat showed a front yard setback of 50 feet and side yard setbacks of 27 feet. Mr. Schreiner stated that a storm sewer currently existed and ran through the north portion of the lot. The storm sewer falls within the 16 foot public utility drainage easement. The buildable area numbers that are shown on the plan exclude that easement. The triangle area on the north of the easement is technically buildable, but is small and the larger area on the south side of the easement is truly the buildable area. Mr. Manning asked what the existing setback was for the house to the south of this lot. Mr. Schreiner stated the house is actually skewed, but it is approximately 60 feet. The west corner is roughly 58 feet and the east corner of the house is about 62 feet off the property line. Mr. George Arnold, from Sosin, Lawler, and Arnold Law Firm, stated a hardship is looking at the design standards and building regulations of the Village code when applied to a lot if it can yield a reasonable result. In this case he stated it can not yield a reasonable result based on the following factors: shape, width, and lot dimensions. The variance he is requesting is 27 feet and the average side yard setback is 26.81 feet in Shadow Ridge Estates. This property can only yield a 12, 763 square foot buildable area and is about 4,000 square foot less then the average home in Shadow Ridge Estates. PUBLIC COMMENT: NONE DISCUSSION: Mr. Maier asked if the hardship was based on square foot buildable area of 12,763 square feet. Mr. Arnold answered yes. Mr. Maier asked how the buildable area of the lot increases when the size of the lot is decreased and what that number is. Mr. Arnold replied 9,895 square feet. Mr. Maier stated by subdividing the lots you actually get more buildable square footage. Mr. Arnold replied yes. Mr. Manning stated that is counter intuitive and the reason that happens is because side setbacks are a percentage of lot width and right now the lot is about 800 foot wide. Chairman Lencioni stated that as far as he could recall none of the other homes in Shadow Ridge had to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance. Chairman Lencioni asked how the petitioner came up with the request for a 27 foot variance. Mr. Arnold stated the builder and potential buyer are looking to maximize the lot in terms of the type of house they can build and in keeping with the neighborhood. They looked at the rest of the subdivision setbacks. The 27 feet they are requesting is a little bigger then the average, but feel it is a fair request. Chairman Lencioni stated he did some quick figures and he came up with a buildable area of 7,200 square feet and if that is a 2 story house it’s over 14,000 square feet. He doesn’t understand 10 feet being a hardship. Mr. Schreiner explained the garage area, driveway, patios, and pool would all be part of the footprint. Mrs. Konior stated the lot is being subdivided and it’s new construction so the home should be built within the Village codes. Mr. Maier stated the house sits on acre lot and the design concept of house is not a valid hardship. He stated the Zoning Board of Appeals is being asked to base a hardship on architectural plans that another house may fit on and still carry the same square footage, brick facade, etc. Discussion went back and forth between the board and Mr. Arnold of what constitutes a hardship. FINDINGS OF FACT: No hardship was found CHAIRMAN LENCIONI ASKED FOR A MOTION: Mr. Maier, seconded by Mrs. Adams to deny the variance as requested. Upon roll call vote, the motion carried as follows:
AYES:-4- Board Members Maier,
Adams, Konior, Chairman Lencioni Chairman Lencioni advised the petitioner to attend the Village Council meeting on February 8, 2010. APPROVAL OF SET SCHEDULE: Mrs. Adams moved, seconded by Mrs. Konior, to approve all future Zoning Board of Appeal hearings to be scheduled on the 2nd Wednesday of each month. Upon roll call vote, the motion carried as follows:
AYES: -4- Board Members Adams,
Konior, Maier, and Chairman Lencioni
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further
business Chairman Lencioni adjourned the hearing at 8:25 p.m. Upon voice
vote, the motion carried unanimously. |
