MINUTES OF BOARD MEETING
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
BARTON HILLS VILLAGE
December 12, 2022
The meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order by President Holmes at 6:00 PM at Walter Esch Hall plus online video/phone conference.
ROLL CALL Present: Trustees Al-Awar, Conlin, Darden, Haitam, Hensinger, Holmes, Perry and Popp (all present in person at the meeting). Absent: Trustee Smith
(present via Zoom but not present in person at the meeting).
Others attending: Zoning Admin. Capozza, Asst. Treas. Carey, Supt. Rep. Reeves, Zoom Host Carla Smith, BHMC President David, nine residents and three guests.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of the August 8, 2022 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting were approved as printed. (Conlin/Al-Awar/P)
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE 135 Underdown Road (Housler)
Request. Variance was requested from BHV Zoning Ordinance Section 4.08 to construct a detached garage encroaching in the front and side setbacks. It was noted that an additional variance from Section 5.07.A.3 listed on the meeting agenda was not included in the published public notice and would not be reviewed at this meeting.
Introduction. Zoning Administrator Dennis Capozza reviewed the setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance (front property lines 35’ and side property lines 20’). The purposes of setbacks include preserving the character of the neighborhood, providing separation between houses, protecting views and enhancing privacy/security.
Applicant presentation. Project representatives Kevin Kolb and Steve Lucchesi, and owner James Housler, were in attendance. Mr. Kolb presented the application.
–Mr. Kolb said that while the house has an existing attached garage, it is at most a one and a half car garage, and the owners desire both more garage space and more living space. To accommodate the owners’ request, he had designed a detached two-story garage, with three parking spaces on the ground floor and living space on the second floor.
–Mr. Kolb presented a site plan (attached to these minutesA) indicating that the placement of the proposed garage necessitated the request for an 11-foot encroachment in the front setback and a 15-foot encroachment in the side setback.
–He said they had explored other options for locating the garage on the property, but that their options were limited by the septic system location, sloping topography, and the placement of the house on the lot.
–Mr. Kolb also said other considerations supported the proposed location of the garage in the setbacks. He said the vacant lot abutting the side setback on the north is not buildable and is heavily wooded. He noted that siting the garage in the front setback is designed to preserve existing large trees. He also said the garage would be built into the hillside, and the materials will match the style and scale of the existing house.
–Mr. Kolb concluded by saying the proposal meets the needs of a growing family while respecting neighboring properties and upholding the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance.
Following Mr. Kolb’s presentation, members of the Board had several questions for Mr. Kolb.
Question: How much of the structure will be seen from the home at 101 Underdown?
Response: About 8’ of brick plus the roof. Aerial views indicate that the views of the water from that location are through a number of trees, and from a different angle than directly towards the proposed garage.
Question: A member noted Mr. Kolb had given the Board prior to the meeting a document addressing the five standards governing the grant of a variance, outlined in Section 10.03.E.2. (A copy of that document is attached to these minutes.B) The member agreed that these are the standards that must be met to grant a variance and said the applicant has the burden of proof of establishing that all five standards are met. The member asked whether there are any exceptional characteristics of the property, as required in the Zoning Ordinance Section 10.03.E.2.a that support the grant of the requested variance? Although Mr. Kolb had talked about the status of the abutting lot, what is pertinent under standard (a) is the applicant’s lot—what is there about the applicant’s lot that is so different from neighboring properties, i.e. exceptional narrowness, shallowness, smallness, unique topography, etc. as listed in the ordinance?
Response from Mr. Kolb: The placement of the original house so near the property line limits the ability to provide a modern garage situation.
Follow up comment: But don’t standards (c) and (d) under the ordinance address those items as not allowable reasons to support a variance? Under standard (c), the characteristics of the property must not be of a personal nature, and the desire for a larger garage and more living space for a growing family is a personal matter, not a matter related to the property. A subsequent owner might not have a need or desire for more garage or living space. Under standard (d), the owner or a prior owner must not have created the situation that required a variance. You have said that the placement of the house on the lot is what necessitates the variance, and that is a difficulty created by a prior owner, not a characteristic of the property.
Response from Mr. Kolb: I have some experience working in the Village and know that previous variances have been granted for other projects with similar elements.
Follow up comment: There are no precedents in variance requests; because each property is unique, each project is reviewed according to the ordinance standards.
Zoning Administrator review. Mr. Capozza summarized points in his written report (received by the Board prior to the meeting and attached to these minutesC).
–Owner’s reasons for request (more space needed for family, vehicles, guests, storage)
–project as proposed requires a variance
–other alternatives are possible, such as addition to the existing garage or siting in the rear yard
–the proposal violates the “spirit” of the ordinance by placing a large structure near the street, likely blocking views and reducing the privacy provided by setbacks.
–Recommendation: return the proposal to the owner/architect to explore alternatives that comply with the Zoning Ordinance.
Presentations by persons of interest (owners of property within 300’).
–John Koselka, 101 Underdown. Mr. Koselka and his wife Suzanne DeVine wrote a letter (distributed to the Board prior to the meeting and attached to these minutesD) detailing how their home has been in the family since 1955, and that they have enjoyed continuous views of Barton Pond since then. They own the smaller vacant lot directly south of the lot that their house is on, and that abuts the applicants’ property where the side yard variance is requested. He stated that his smaller lot is indeed buildable, and that they have made efforts over the years to maintain the lot for any future uses. Based on what they can now see of the applicant’s cars/basketball hoop, the new garage would be directly in their view. Their letter further cited the BHV Master Plan Section 2.2 (original Olmsted design of the community) and Section 3.5.1 (value of setbacks and lot integrity). Mr. Koselka concluded by saying he had hoped the conversation would be more friendly, but that he and his wife strongly objected to the variance request.
–John MacKrell, 120 Underdown. Mr. MacKrell lives across the street from the applicant and would definitely see the proposed garage from several window views. His more serious concern was the change in the character of the Underdown Road neighborhood that would result from the construction of such a large structure so close to the road that is unlike any other structures in the area. He was opposed to the variance request.
Public Hearing. The public hearing was convened at 6:43 PM.
–Carla Smith, speaking as a resident via Zoom, doubted that there was a pathway for approval and thought the ZBA should deny the request.
–Emails were received prior to the meeting from neighbors at 140 Underdown (Kevin Pipe and Kathleen Siekno), and 155 Underdown (Jennifer Hofmeister), both in support of the variance application (and attached to these minutesE). Mr. Perry requested that the letters and comments be made part of the minutes of the meeting.
The Public Hearing was closed at 6:45 PM.
Board Discussion.
Encroachment into the setbacks, especially so close to Underdown Road, and the potential view obstruction for neighbors, were of considerable concern to the board members. Findings regarding standards (a) through (e) of Zoning Ordinance Section 10.03.E.2 were:
- The applicants showed no exceptional characteristics of the property that would make compliance with the dimensional requirements substantially more difficult than would be the case for the great majority of properties in the same district. This standard was not met.
- There were no characteristics shown to be related to this particular location
that would present undue difficulty in compliance with the ordinance. This standard was not met.
- The applicant’s presentation showed that the variance request did involve aspects of a personal nature rather than relating to the property characteristics.
This standard was not met.
- The applicant said the location of the house by a previous owner necessitated the request for this variance. Because the need for the variance was created by a prior owner, this standard was not met.
- Objections raised by close neighbors highlighted potential harm and alteration of the essential character of the area. The references by neighbor Koselka, in his presentation and letter, to the BHV Master Plan and Deed Restrictions are significant factors against the proposed variance. The Deed Restrictions (copy attached to these minutesF), like the Zoning Ordinance, require a 35 foot front setback and 20 foot side setback. The applicant’s property is subject to these Deed Restrictions, and they represent the applicant’s agreement with the community to abide by them. The Master Plan, which is the guiding document for zoning and planning in the Village, also requires generous setbacks, preservation of original features, prevention of overcrowding, promotion of adequate light/space and management of accessory structures to accomplish these goals. This standard was not met.
Motion Request for variance from Section 4.08 of the Barton Hills Village Zoning Ordinance to allow construction of a detached garage in the front and side setbacks
at 135 Underdown Road is denied. (Al-Awar/Popp/P with Al-Awar, Conlin, Darden, Hensinger, Perry and Popp voting yes; Haitam and Holmes voting no)
There being no further business or objections, the meeting was adjourned at 6:55 PM.
Janice K. Esch, Deputy Clerk Approved 1.9.23
Attachments:
A. Slide presentation showing site plan and related materials presented by Mr. Kolb at the meeting.
B. Document received from Mr. Kolb prior to the meeting addressing the standards in section 10.03.E.2 of the zoning ordinance.
C. Slides presented by Zoning Administrator Capozza in his review.
D. Letter dated December 9, 2022, from Suzanne L. DeVine and John Koselka, 101 Underdown Road.
E. Emails received prior to the meeting from neighbors at 140 Underdown (Kevin Pipe and Kathleen Siekno), and 155 Underdown (Jennifer Hofmeister).
F. The Deed Restrictions.