M I N U T E S ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 505 BUTLER PLACE PARK RIDGE, IL THURSDAY, JANUARY 28, 2016 AT 7:30 PM

Transcription

1 CITY OF PARK RIDGE 505 BUTLER PLACE PARK RIDGE, IL TEL: FAX: TDD: M I N U T E S ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 505 BUTLER PLACE PARK RIDGE, IL THURSDAY, JANUARY 28, 2016 AT 7:30 PM Commissioner Karkhanis called the meeting to order at 7:30pm. I. Roll Call Present Garrick Bunting Atul Karkhanis, Acting Chairman Missy Langan Rebecca Leslie Linda Nagle Absent Steven Nadler Staff Howard Coppari, Zoning Coordinator Julie Tappendorf, City Attorney Brigid Madden, Administrative Specialist Others Present 13 audience members City Council Alderman Van Roeyen II. Approval of Minutes December 3, 2015 On a motion by Commissioner Nagle, seconded by Commissioner Leslie, the Board agreed to approve the minutes from the December 3, 2015 meeting. Vote on the motion as follows: AYES 5 Commissioners Bunting, Karkhanis, Langan, Leslie and Nagle NAYS 0 None ABSTAIN 0 None ABSENT 1 Commissioner Nadler III. Appeals 1. Appeal at 916 N. Western Avenue Case Number: V (Appeal) Appeal of a Zoning Administrator s determination letter, which deals with the installation of a shed (treehouse) and an attached, elevated deck on a residential building lot. Ms. Julie Tappendorf addressed the procedure for an appeal with the ZBA and explained that she will not answer questions about interpretation or application of the Zoning

2 Ordinance; she is available for procedural questions only. She advised that although public testimony is not allowed, due to the Open Meetings Act members of the public can comment. Ms. Tappendorf explained that a written decision with finding is required in this case and will be prepared for the next meeting. Alan Stefaniak of DiMonte & Lizak, LLC, 216 W Higgins Road in Park Ridge, is the attorney for the applicant, Joseph and Margaret Solomon. Mr. Solomon and Mr. Gustavo Chavez were to be called as witnesses and were sworn in by Commissioner Karkhanis. Mr. Stefaniak asked that Exhibits 1 through 16 be entered into the record. These documents were included in the packet prepared by Mr. Howard Coppari and distributed to the Commissioners. He explained that the applicant is appealing the decision made by Mr. Coppari on August 19, 2015 with respect to the tree house built at 916 N Western Avenue which classifies the structure as a shed with an elevated deck. Mr. Stefaniak called Mr. Solomon to testify. Mr. Solomon indicated that a building permit, Exhibit 1, was issued on May 29, 2014 to make improvements to a deck and build a fence and that the fee for this permit was paid. The applicant stated that his contractor, Mr. Chavez, contacted the City regarding construction of the tree house and was told that tree houses do not require a permit. Mr. Stefaniak provided an invoice from Chavez Homes, entered into the Record as Exhibit 17. Mr. Solomon confirmed that invoice, in the amount of $21,500, was for the construction of the tree house. Mr. Stefaniak inquired about Exhibit 2, which Mr. Solomon confirmed was survey of the property which indicated the location of the deck and fence and was submitted for the permit. Mr. Solomon stated that construction of the tree house began in June of Mr. Solomon explained that Exhibit 3 is a drawing of the tree house that he prepared and submitted to the City. It indicates that the structure is 16-2 tall and set back 4-6 from the property line. At the request of Ed Cage, former Zoning Coordinator, and Lonnie Spires, former Building Official, the document was edited to bring the structure into compliance, following a complaint received by the City. Mr. Solomon indicated that Exhibit 4 was an from Mr. Cage dated October 29, 2014 which provided the setback and height requirements for the tree house. Changes were made, consistent with those requirements and included in a new drawing, Exhibit 5. Mr. Solomon ed this document to either Mr. Cage or Mr. Spires. Exhibit 6 is an dated November 10, 2014 from Mr. Spires to Mr. Solomon, which indicates that the drawings were approved. Mr. Solomon received an from Mr. Spires on November 24, 2014, Exhibit 7, which indicates that a permit was not needed and the deck permit would be amended to include the tree house. An invoice from Infiniti Builders Inc. in the amount of $4,800 dated May 12, 2015 was entered into the record as Exhibit 18, which Mr. Solomon said was the cost to make the changes to the tree house requested by Mr. Cage. Mr. Solomon confirmed that Exhibit 8 was a photograph of the treehouse as originally built and that Exhibit 9 was a photograph after the changes had been implemented at the subject property. Mr. Stefaniak referenced Exhibit 10, a letter from Howard Coppari dated August 19, 2015 regarding the tree house. Mr. Solomon indicated that Mr. Coppari visited the property in July to inspect the tree house after Mr. Solomon had requested a final inspection. At that time, Mr. Coppari stated that the tree house was an invalid structure. Mr. Solomon stated that Mr. Coppari did not want to look at the permit during the inspection. The next contact between Mr. Coppari and the applicant was the letter sent in August. 2

3 Mr. Stefanik drew Mr. Solomon s attention to Exhibits 11, 12 and 13. He stated that the Exhibits where photographs taken by Mrs. Solomon of comparable structures in Park Ridge. He did not know when they were built, but that the structures are currently in existence. Mr. Solomon confirmed that Exhibit 14 was a survey of the property depicting the current location of the tree house, completed at the request of Jim Testin, Director of the Community Preservation and Development Department. Mr. Stefaniak directed Mr. Solomon s attention to group Exhibit 16, three photographs of the tree house facing west, south and east, respectively. Mr. Solomon confirmed the dollar amount of the invoices, Exhibit 17 and 18, which indicates the total cost of the tree house as $26,300. Mr. Stefaniak called Mr. Gustavo Chavez to testify. Mr. Chavez explained that he came to City Hall to obtain a permit and was directed to Mr. Cage, who stated that a permit was not required and the City could not stop the property owner from constructing a tree house as long as it was no higher than 15 feet and set back three feet from the property line. Mr. Chavez confirmed that a complaint was received October 2014 regarding the tree house. He then met with Mr. Spires, Mr. Cage and Mr. and Mrs. Solomon at City Hall. He confirmed that Exhibit 5, the revised drawing of the tree house, was submitted after the meeting after Mr. Spires and Mr. Cage indicated that it must be moved. Commissioner Bunting stated that Exhibit 14 indicates a setback of 4.1 feet in the southeast corner; he asked if this was correct. Mr. Chavez explained that the tree house was not required to be moved, but the surrounding deck was required to be set back five feet. Commissioner Bunting asked if the cost of the permit was amended to include the addition of the tree house. Mr. Solomon stated that it was not. Commissioner Leslie asked if the height of the house on the subject property was great than 15 feet. Mr. Chavez indicated that the principal structure was taller than 15 feet, but could not confirm the height of the house to the south. Commissioner Nagle inquired as to why the appeal was not filed within the 30 days allotted in the City s Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Solomon stated that additional time was allowed because the City was transiting to a new City Attorney, authorized by Mr. Testin. Mr. Stefaniak indicated that he does have documentation to back this up. Commissioner Nagle stated that a tree house is not defined in the ordinance; so if the structure was not a tree house, she asked what was it? Mr. Stefaniak stated that the structure is a tree house, and a permit was issued for its construction. Commissioner Nagle asked if the applicant s argument was that if something is not defined in the City s Ordinance then was it permissible. Mr. Stefaniak stated that the structure is not a shed or deck as defined in the Zoning Ordinance and he outlined the process documented in Mr. Solomon s testimony. Commissioner Bunting stated that playground / recreation equipment is allowed within three feet of a property line, as defined in Table 8, Section 11 of the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Langan spoke about Exhibits 11, 12 and 13 of existing comparable structures in Park Ridge. She explained that the Board does not know when the structures where built, if they were permitted, or if they were deemed sheds. She agreed with Commissioner Nagle s comment regarding permission by exclusionary ordinance. Commissioner Langan stated that the Board did not receive a written memo regarding the extension granted by Mr. Testin. 3

4 Howard Coppari, Zoning Coordinator for the City of Park Ridge, was called to present his testimony. Mr. Coppari was sworn in by Commissioner Karkhanis. He stated that he began working for the City nine months ago and the appeal concerns two former City employees, Ed Cage the former Zoning Coordinator and Lonnie Spires the former Building Official. Mr. Coppari first referenced Exhibit 0.7, an dated July 6, 2015 addressed to Jim Testin with his findings and photographs from his inspection at 916 N Western Ave. He explained that City inspector, Anthony Padula, visited the subject property on June 23, 2015 to inspect the footings, piers and trench of the deck and denied its approval. When Mr. Coppari visited the property, he was anticipating inspecting a deck and fence as indicated on the permit, Exhibit 1. He stated that Exhibit 2, the site copy for the modifications to the fence and deck, indicates a deck attached to the principal structure extending to the pool and a red line for the fence. Mr. Coppari arrived at the subject property and immediately noticed the imposing tree house and elevated deck. Mr. Coppari explained that Exhibit 3, the plans drafted by Mr. Solomon for the tree house, were not date stamped by his Department, as is customarily done for all incoming documents. Although Exhibit 5 is stamped as the site copy it also does not have a received date stamp. Mr. Coppari explained that although s presented by the applicant may indicate that the permit was revised; there is no documentation in the City file to confirm that. Following the inspection, Mr. Coppari spoke to the former City Attorney, Mr. Everette Hill who explained that the City s Zoning Ordinance is exclusionary, meaning if something is not defined in the ordinance then it is not allowed. He stated that the table referenced by Commissioner Bunting regarding set back requirements for playground equipment does not include tree houses. Mr. Coppari expressed safety concerns, specifically with the slides connecting to the pool. He indicated that all projects should require a separate permit because confusion is often created during the inspection process when projects are grouped together. As a Zoning Coordinator, Mr. Coppari indicated that he is to consider the general welfare of the community and given the height of the structure it presents privacy and intrusion issues. Mr. Coppari stated that building permit # , Exhibit 1, was reviewed by Mr. Spires on May 29, Mr. Spires performed the structural and safety building review. Mr. Cage the Zoning Coordinator did not acknowledge approval of his department in the Department s computer system. Mr. Coppari explained that he drafted his response letter after consulting with the City Attorney and the structure was deemed a shed, as it was the closest interpretation. He stated that he requested the survey in order to show the Board members the position of the structure and elevated deck relative to the fence, principal structure, and house next door. A deck requires a building permit, must be attached to a principal structure, and is limited to 1 story in height. He explained that the tree house is a non-issue because it is not allowed; he would have suggested that the applicant seek a text amendment to build the tree house. Mr. Coppari recapped his findings and explained that the permit is still open and in violation. Commissioner Karkhanis requested that Mr. Coppari clarify a statement from his to Mr. Testin, Exhibit 0.7, regarding the property surpassing the 40% open space requirement. Mr. Coppari confirmed that he calculated the open space based on the survey provided by the applicant, and the property does meet the lot coverage requirement for an R-2 District but not open space. He also stated that a survey was not included with the original permitting documents. Mr. Stefaniak objected to the discussion of the open space 4

5 requirement because it was not indicated in the letter from Mr. Coppari dated August 19, Ms. Tappendorf explained that Mr. Stefaniak is correct in that the appeal is based on the structure being deemed a shed and elevated deck; however, due to the relief request, that the structure remain intact, the structure will have to be in compliance. She explained that the testimony is not irrelevant because the treehouse would need to comply in order to issue a permit for the structure if the appeal was overturned. Commissioner Bunting indicated that Exhibit 2 does not have a date stamp but does have a site copy stamp. He asked if a date stamp copy was in the City s file for this property. Mr. Coppari did not find record of any in the City file. Commissioner Bunting referenced Exhibit 7, an from Mr. Spires to Mr. Solomon which indicates that drawings were submitted to revise the permit. Commissioner Bunting expressed concern with the ambiguity of this , as the specifics of the plans were not indicated. He explained that the previous sent by Mr. Solomon would provide the necessary context. He then asked Mr. Coppari whether he has any indication that the drawing, Exhibit 5, was approved or denied. Mr. Coppari stated that his copy was not stamped and it did not indicate any approval. Ms. Tappendorf spoke about the extension granted to the applicant authorized by Mr. Testin as the City was transitioning its attorney services. She stated that in her opinion it was reasonable to consider the appeal despite the fact that it was submitted after the deadline. Mr. Stefaniak presented an from Mr. Testin to Mr. Solomon regarding the extension to October 21, Commissioner Karkhanis read this , dated October 5, 2015 into the record. It reads as follows: Joe- We discussed with the new City Attorney. The letter from the Zoning Coordinator, dated August 19 th, is to be enforced. Regardless of what may have happened previously the City must enforce its code. The options that you may wish to consider are to request variances, appeal the determination outlined in the letter to the Zoning Board of Appeals, or come into compliance as identified in the letter. While appeals are limited to being filed within 30 days of the determination, due to the added time to review with the new City Attorney, I will extend that for 15 days. If you do wish to appeal please file prior to October 21, Jim Mr. Stefaniak provided his closing statement. He stated that while he appreciates the situation Mr. Coppari finds himself him, the lack of detail and substance maintained in the City s files is not the problem of Mr. and Mrs. Solomon. The appeal is regarding Mr. Coppari s classification of tree house as a shed and elevated deck. Mr. Stefaniak stated that it is not the applicant s fault that a tree house in not defined by the Zoning Ordinance. He reiterated Mr. Chavez s inquiry regarding a permit for the tree house and the s regarding height and set back requirements. He addressed the issue of equitable estoppel that was in his appeal letter. Mr. Stefaniak explained that it was not fair to the applicant to remove the tree house when two duly appointed City officials approved the permit and plans. He stated that Mr. Coppari s ruling is not supported by the Zoning Ordinance and is in error. Mr. Coppari, in his closing statement, stated that he was new to the municipality but not new to planning and zoning. Information is missing and the available information was utilized to make his decision. He stated that if the structure is a tree house, then it is not allowed and should be removed. He suggested the elevated deck be thoroughly examined by a building official, as it is a safety concern. 5

6 Mr. Solomon presented the additional information relative to Exhibit 7. This , dated November 24, 2014, was forwarded to Mr. Solomon and the previous does not provide the context requested by Commissioner Bunting. Mr. Chavez then read an from Mr. Spires which requested the size of the beams, floor joists, distance between the posts, height of the deck and railing. It also stated that a licensed surveyor will be required to indicate the size and location of the deck and play house in order for the City to complete the permit. Mr. Coppari stated that the requested information, if submitted, was never included in the City files. The hearing was open for public comment. Judy Barclay, resident, referenced Commissioner Nagle s question regarding the timing of the filing of the appeal. Ms. Barclay questioned Mr. Testin s authority to postpone the appeal and ignore the Municipal Code. She explained that the appeal was filed 63 days after Mr. Coppari s determination. Victoria Burge, 912 S Western Avenue, expressed her support for the removal of the tree house. She stated that the structure has directly impacted the use and enjoyment of her property, as the structure is overwhelming and intrudes and her privacy and comfort. The structure is viewable from several rooms in her home and well as the street. She questioned the safety of the structure and its proximity to utility wires. Ms. Burge provided photographs of the structure from her property taken in the fall of Ms. Burge also pointed out that the three existing tree houses that the Solomon s indicated are present in Park Ridge, are much different than that of the Solomon s, in that they are not near the neighbor s property line. Pat Livensparger, 413 Courtland Avenue, questioned the evidence presented and its authenticity, specifically images on a cell phone presented by the applicant. The Board entered deliberations. Commissioner Nagle stated that if the tree house was added to the original permit the City would have charged an additional fee, which was not done. She is concerned with the main argument seems to be one of liability and equitable estoppel. She explained that although she has great empathy for the applicant, the charge of the Zoning Board of Appeals is to protect the public interest, adjacent properties and property values. She explained that she read the cases cited in the applicant s appeal supporting their argument that the City has potential liability to the applicants under the principal of equitable estoppel. She stated that the cases cited dealt with construction of a gas station and an apartment building, which are very different from a tree house. Commissioner Nagle stated that she agrees with Mr. Coppari s determination. Commissioner Leslie agreed with the statements made by Commissioner Nagle. She drove by the property and was concerned when she saw that the structure was visible from the street, looming over the principal structure and the house next door. Commissioner Langan also agreed. She noted gaps in the material provided by the applicant. She recognized the Board s obligation to protect the welfare of all and not a single applicant. Commissioner Bunting explained that he was torn because a permit was issued and drawings were submitted, but there is not proof of denial or acceptance of the drawings. He explained that the deck associated with the tree house is nearly twice its size which then becomes the controlling factor. Commissioner Karkhanis agreed with the other Commissioners and stated that the Board must protect the welfare and safety of the community. 6

7 On a motion by Commissioner Langan, seconded by Commissioner Leslie, the Board agreed to affirm the Zoning Determination and deny the Owner s Appeal. Vote on the motion as follows: AYES 5 Commissioners Bunting, Karkhanis, Langan, Leslie and Nagle NAYS 0 None ABSTAIN 0 None ABSENT 1 Commissioner Nadler Ms. Tappendorf stated that a written decision and findings will be presented at the next meeting for approval. The applicant will have 35 days from the writing decision to appeal with the Circuit Court. The applicant can also apply for zoning relief, text amendments or variances to bring the structure into compliance. IV. Variances 1. Variance at 741 Florence Drive Case Number: V (Minor) Request to allow for the creation of two smaller buildable lots from a proposed subdivision. Out of the two lots, a new corner lot corner lot will be substandard in lot area and lot width, while the new interior lot will be conforming in lot area and lot width. Paul Kolpak of Kolpak & Lerner, 6767 N Milwaukee Avenue in Niles, is the attorney for the applicant and property owner Chris Mietus. Mr. Mietus was sworn in by Commissioner Karkhanis. Mr. Kolpak explained that the subject property is zoned R-2 and is feet wide by feet deep; a total square footage of 12, The applicant is proposing to divide the lot in two. The dimensions of the proposed outside lot are feet by feet, or 6,111 square feet, and the interior lot is 50 feet by feet, or 6,566 square feet. One of the subdivided lots will be nonconforming, the outside lot. This lot does not meet the minimum lot requirement (6,500 square feet) and the minimum lot width (50 feet), as defined in Section 7.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant intends to construct two single-family homes on the property after demolishing the existing home. To support the application, Mr. Kolpak referenced the Sidwell map, Exhibit 7. He explained that the exterior lots in this subdivision are all 46.5 feet in width, while the interior lots are 50 feet. Mr. Kolpak explained that if approved, the variance would not alter the characteristics of the locality. Mr. Mietus explained that the subdivided property will be improved with two single family homes, each approximately 2,800 square feet, as seen in the site plan, Exhibit 9. The outside lot will have a detached garage and the interior lot an attached garage. Mr. Mietus explained that he has built in Park Ridge before and he referenced concern from the neighbors regarding storm water retention. Commissioner Bunting asked if the property already has separate PIN numbers and property taxes and Mr. Kolpak confirmed. He also explained that the dimensions of the two lots will not be altered. Commissioner Bunting confirmed that the applicant is not seeking any additional variances. 7

8 Commissioner Langan explained that although there are two PIN numbers, the property has had contiguous ownership for a significant amount of time. Commissioner Nagle asked Mr. Coppari to address the discrepancy in the lot area numbers, as noted in his staff report. Mr. Coppari explained that the property is not a perfect square, as seen in Exhibit 9. He applicant indicates a lot area of 6,111 square feet for the outside lot, and Mr. Coppari calculated 6,124 square feet. The lot area of the interior lot was determined to be 6,566 square feet and Mr. Coppari calculated 6,575 square feet. The lot width calculated by Mr. Coppari is feet, compared to feet. Mr. Coppari stated that the Board should be aware of the discrepancies, however the difference in not significantly impactful. He explained that otherwise all set back requirements appear to be met and a throughout review will be conducted during the permitting process. Commissioner Karkhanis disclosed that his company, AKA Architects, has worked with Kolpak & Lerner and that this will not impact his decision on the matter. Bob Mack, 740 Forestview Avenue, resides immediately behind the subject property. He recognized that the lots are undersized. His only concern with the project is storm water management. Mr. Mack stated that he likes the open space and trees on the existing property, but understands that it was inevitable that a builder would separate the property for two homes. Judy Barclay, 524 Courtland Avenue, referenced A-1 of Section 15.5 of the Zoning Ordinance, regarding nonconforming lots of record held in common ownership. She then read Section 4.4A, Purpose of a Zoning Variance and Procedure for a Minor Variance. Ms. Barclay explained that the property did not meet the requirements for a minor variance. Pat Livensparger, 413 Courtland Ave, distributed copies of Section 4.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. She stated that the Ordinance was written to anticipate the type of relief requested by the applicant. Ms. Livensparger explained that the property has been under single ownership since the 1950s and that the applicant does not have undue hardship. The inability to subdivide does not prevent the owner form full use of the property. She stated that an administrative body does not have the right to not follow a legislative directive. Commissioner Bunting referenced Section 15.5A and stated that such land is to be considered an undivided parcel. He read the definition of lot from the Zoning Ordinance and stated that he understood the property to be two lots based on the legal description and the City s definition. He explained that the applicant is not creating a new lot because two lots already exist. Commissioner Langan stated that the variance will create a substandard buildable lot. Mr. Coppari offered his opinion, regarding the common ownership and the definition of lot. Commissioner Bunting stated that he wanted to ensure the Board was interpreting the Zoning Ordinance correctly, regarding the definition of a lot and parcel. Commissioner Nagle suggested that the City Attorney offer an opinion to ensure the Board does not act outside the scope of its authority and the case be continued to the next meeting. On a motion by Commissioner Bunting, seconded by Commissioner Langan, the Board agreed to continue the hearing for the variance at 741 Florence Drive, Case Number V (Minor) to the February 26, 2016 meeting. Vote on the motion as follows: AYES 5 Commissioners Bunting, Karkhanis, Langan, Leslie and 8

9 Nagle NAYS 0 None ABSTAIN 0 None ABSENT 1 Commissioner Nadler 2. Variance at S. Dee Road Case Number: V (Minor) Request to allow for the installation of a new six-foot tall fence instead of a five-foot and two inch tall fence. This new fence will be situated along the rear property line of a multifamily residential complex. Barry Ash is the attorney for the applicant, Park Ridge Place LLC. William Rotolo of Lexington Homes, 1731 N Marcy in Chicago, was also present and sworn in. Mr. Ash explained that the underlying zoning of the subject property is R-4 Multifamily Residential District and it was approved for townhome development by the Planning and Zoning Commission. He stated that the variance would allow for a six foot tall fence to be erected at the rear of the property. A five foot, two inch tall fence is permitted. Mr. Ash explained that the property abuts a forest preserve and a six foot tall fence would provide shelter for future homeowners and create additional privacy. Wildlife is an additional concern. The fence would not alter the character of the locality; a wooden fence is proposed and will blend in nicely with other properties in the area. The Commissioners briefly discussed the fence requirements based on the abutting property. On a motion by Commissioner Nagle, seconded by Commissioner Langan, the Board agreed to approve a Minor variance at S Dee Road, Case Number V-16-03, to allow for a residential fence to be six feet (6 ) tall instead of a five foot and two inch (5-2 ) tall fence, per Section 11.4.E.2.b. Vote on the motion as follows: AYES 5 Commissioners Bunting, Karkhanis, Langan, Leslie and Nagle NAYS 0 None ABSTAIN 0 None ABSENT 1 Commissioner Nadler V. Other Items for Discussion and Updates Commissioner Karkhanis thanked former Chairperson Alice Borzym-Kuczynski for her 12 years of service on the Zoning Board of Appeals. VI. Citizens Wishing to be Heard on Non-Agenda Items VII. City Council Liaison Report Alderman Van Roeyen provided an update from the Procedures and Regulations Committee of the Whole Meeting on January 25, 2016 regarding the approval process by boards and commissions. He also stated that there will likely be a motion to withdraw the appeal for 400 Talcott at the City Council meeting on February 1 st. 9

10 VIII. Adjournment On a motion by Commissioner Langan, seconded by Commissioner Bunting, the Board agreed to adjourn the meeting. Vote on the motion as follows: AYES 5 Commissioners Bunting, Karkhanis, Langan, Leslie and Nagle NAYS 0 None ABSTAIN 0 None ABSENT 1 Commissioner Nadler The meeting was adjourned at 10:17 PM. These minutes are not a verbatim record of the meeting but a summary of the proceedings. 10

11 BEFORE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF PARK RIDGE, ILLINOIS In the Matter of ) ) Case No. V S Dee Road ) FINDINGS OF FACT This matter having come before the Board for hearing on the request of Park Ridge Place, LLC, S Dee Road, for a Variance to allow for the erection of a six-foot (6 ) fence situated along the rear property line, which conflicts with Section 11.4 of the City of Park Ridge Zoning Ordinance, and the Board having held a public hearing as required by law on January 28, 2016, and having heard evidence on the matter, based on the evidence presented, as reflected in the minutes of these proceedings, and for the reasons indicated in the minutes of this Board in this case, The Zoning Board of Appeals finds that the following facts have been established: 1. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance does not allow for a fence to be erected in residential districts which is taller than five feet, two inches (5-2 ) in any interior side, rear or corner side yard of an interior or corner lot. Therefore, the application of the terms of this Zoning Ordinance would result in undue hardship. 2. The applicant s property abuts an existing recreational walking path, which runs along the bordering edge of the Chippewa Wood Forest Preserve, which presents a nuisance. A six-foot (6 ) tall fence would provide more privacy from the multitude of walkers, bikers and natural wildlife, compared to a fence that is five-feet, two inches (5-2 ). Therefore, the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. 3. The proposed fence will not adversely impact the character of the neighborhood. Residential properties in immediate proximity have similar wooden fences. Date Atul Karkhanis, Acting - Chairperson