ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 2017/06/26 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest
Zoning Board of Appeals
Proceedings of the June 26, 2017 Meeting
A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday,
June 26, 2017 at 6:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 220 E. Deerpath, Lake
Forest, Illinois.
Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Chairman Louis Pickus and Board
members Michael Sieman, Mark Pasquesi, Nancy Novit and Lisa Nehring
Zoning Board of Appeals members absent: Board member Richard Plonsker and Kevin
Lewis
Staff present: Michelle Friedrich, Planning Technician and Catherine Czerniak, Director
of Community Development
1. Introduction of Board members and staff, overview of meeting procedures.
Chairman Pickus reviewed the role of the Zoning Board of Appeals and asked
members of the Board and staff to introduce themselves.
2. Consideration of the minutes from the May 30, 2017 meeting.
The minutes of the May 30, 2017 meeting were approved as submitted.
3. Consideration of a request for approval of a variance from the rear yard setback
to allow a rear addition to the residence at 251 King Muir Road.
Owners: Lawrence and Linda Remensnyder
Representative: Michael Breseman
Chairman Pickus introduced the agenda item and asked the Board for any Ex Parte
contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the
petitioner and swore in all those intending to speak.
Mr. Breseman introduced the petition and provided a brief history of the property, the
Deer Path Hill Estates Subdivision and reviewed the restoration work and upgrades that
the Remensnyders have made to the home in the nearly 20 years they have owned it.
He noted that the property was listed on the National Register in 2006. He described
the 2008 kitchen addition and upgrade and noted that the Preservation Foundation
recognized that project with an award. He noted the goals of the project now
proposed explaining that a first floor bedroom is desired to allow the Remensnyders to
age in their home. He added that the Remensnyders intend to carry on their tradition
of being good stewards of the historic structure. He noted that the petitioners looked
Zoning Board of Appeals – Minutes of the June 26, 2017 Meeting Page 2 of 13
at other homes, but after an extensive search of the area, they determined that the
best option was to add a first floor master suite and remain in the home that they love.
He noted that the proposed addition will make the house more marketable in the
future. He noted that the petitioners have already made significant investments in the
historic home He described the rear yard setback variance that is requested noting
that the proposed addition, at the furthest point, will be 10’ 4” from the rear property
line. He noted that the addition is proposed adjacent to the main portion of the house
for functional reasons. He noted that the proposed addition will also be considered by
the Historic Preservation Commission adding that a building scale variance is also
requested because the home, with the addition, exceeds the allowable square
footage for the property. He noted that the house was built in the 1920’s, in
compliance with regulations that were in place at that time. He added that there was
no rear yard setback requirement at that time. He noted that the proposed addition is
stepped in 6” from the outside wall of the existing house. He described the
neighborhood noting other nonconforming conditions. He described the large and
healthy oak trees on the site, noting especially the trees at the southern end of the
house. He described the existing vegetation along the east property line noting that it
will remain to help screen the proposed addition from views from the neighboring
house. He explained the configuration of the rooms in the existing house and noted
the small half bath on the first floor that is tucked under the staircase and the library
inspired by David Adler. He noted that the house was designed in a mini estate style,
the house is one room deep all rooms to have windows on at least two sides to allow
for ventilation through the house. He described the proposed addition as a modest
master bedroom and bathroom. He noted the covered porch that links the addition
to the house and the rear yard. He described the architectural details that tie the
addition into the existing house. He noted that the massing of the addition is broken
into three elements with the main mass of the addition having a flat roof with a railing.
He noted that the door in the proposed porch area will be relocated . He asked for
approval of the rear yard variance noting that the applicable criteria are satisfied due
to the uniqueness of the house and property.
Ms. Friedrich described the property and reviewed the history of the property and the
modification made to the home. She noted that the house sits about 10 feet from the
rear property line today, reiterating that there was no requirement for a rear yard
setback at the time the residence was originally constructed. She noted that the
Remensnyder’s constructed an addition in 2008 that required a 3’ rear yard setback
variance. She confirmed that the Remensnyder’s carefully considered options to
meet their current needs including moving to another home that has a first floor
master suite. She noted that the siting for the addition was carefully considered and
siting the addition at the south end of the home was considered. She confirmed that
as already noted, if the addition is located to the south of the home, out of the
required setback area, several oak trees would be lost due to the construction. She
described the proposed location of the addition noting that it will be tucked into the
“L” shaped footprint of the house to minimize further encroachment into the setback.
She noted that the proposed addition is in a well screened area. She noted that the
Zoning Board of Appeals – Minutes of the June 26, 2017 Meeting Page 3 of 13
City’s Certified Arborist visited the site and supports the location as proposed because
it will minimize impacts on significant oak trees and evergreens in the rear yard. She
stated that the staff recommendation is to support the variance request to allow an
addition to the house which encroaches no closer than 10’4” to the rear property line
subject to two conditions; the addition should remain one and sufficient landscaping
shall be maintained along the rear property line to screen the encroaching addition in
perpetuity.
In response to questions from Board member Pasquesi, Mr. Breseman noted that siting
the addition to the south of the existing house would negatively impact 5 to 6 oak
trees. He noted that the historic integrity of the house likely could be retained with an
addition in that location however, he noted that functionally, an addition in that
location would not be as successful.
In response to questions from Board member Pasquesi, David Horvath, an arborist with
the Care of Trees, noted that an addition to the south of the existing house would
negatively impact the oak trees.
Board member Pasquesi noted that his questions are intended to clarify whether or not
the current or property owners action to list the house on the National Register caused
the hardship that now necessitates a variance. He noted that it does not appear that
the property owners’ actions created the hardship.
In response to questions from Chairman Pickus, Mr. Breseman stated that there will be
no access to the flat roof and no lighting on that second floor element. He noted that
there will be a light in the covered porch.
In response to questions from Board member Novit, Mr. Remensnyder stated that any
lighting in the patio area will be only for security. He stated that the lighting on the
porch will be shielded from view from off of the property.
In response to questions from Board member Nehring, Mr. Remensnyder explained that
the only existing lighting is a light at the rear door and some security lighting on the
south end of the house.
In response to questions from Board member Novit, Mr. Remensnyder noted that the
seating in the rear yard is the only outdoor seating area on the property.
Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Pickus invited public testimony.
Hearing none, he brought the discussion back to the Board.
Board member Novit complimented the design of the proposed one-story addition
and acknowledged the historic significance of the existing home. She stated that in
addition to potential impacts to trees and the historic nature of the home, an addition
Zoning Board of Appeals – Minutes of the June 26, 2017 Meeting Page 4 of 13
at the south end of the home could negatively impact the visual balance of the
home.
Board member Pasquesi stated that initially, he was concerned about the extent of
the home that is and will be located in the rear yard setback. He noted however that
the existing and proposed encroachment does not seem to negatively affect
neighboring properties and it appears that the criteria are sufficiently met so he can
support the variance request to allow the addition as proposed.
Board member Sieman stated agreement with the comments of Board member
Pasquesi and stated general support for the variance. He suggested that the Board
consider adding a condition that would not allow future use of the flat roof area as
living space noting that given the proximity to the rear property line, activity on a roof
deck could negatively impact the neighboring properties.
Board member Nehring commended the petitioners for the well thought out project
and well done presentation.
Chairman Pickus noted his agreement with the comments of the other Board
members. Hearing no further comments, he invited a motion.
Board member Nehring made a motion to recommend approval to the City
Council of a rear yard variance to allow a single story addition to be constructed
no closer than 10’ 4” to the rear property line. She noted that the recommendation
is based on the following conditions of approval:
1. Since the variance is granted based on the one-story nature of the
addition, the flat roof of the addition is not permitted to be used as
outdoor living space in order to minimize impacts on neighboring property
owners.
2. Existing landscaping along the perimeter of the property in the vicinity of
the addition shall be maintained and enhanced in order to screen views
of the encroaching addition from neighboring properties.
Board member Pasquesi seconded the motion and the Board voted 5-0 in favor of
the motion.
4. Consideration of a request for approval of a variance from the side yard setback
requirement to authorize an existing elevated patio and steps at 700 Green Briar
Lane.
Owner and Representative: Ricci and Ricci, LLC (Fiona Ricci-McCarthy)
Zoning Board of Appeals – Minutes of the June 26, 2017 Meeting Page 5 of 13
Chairman Pickus introduced the agenda item and asked the Board for any Ex Parte
contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the
petitioner and swore in all those intending to speak.
Ms. Ricci-McCarthy read her statement of intent noting that it was also included in the
Board’s packet, and noted that the request is out of the ordinary. She noted that the
variance is needed in order to right a wrong, the installation of an elevated patio and
railing within the side yard setbacks.
Ms. Czerniak agreed that this is an unusual petition in that a variance is requested for
construction within the setback that occurred as part of a recently constructed home.
She reviewed the history of the recent subdivision which created the parcel on which
the new home was built. She noted that the subdivision was complicated because of
drainage issues in the area. She noted that a drainage easement and compensatory
stormwater detention areas were both required as part of the subdivision approval
which limited the buildable areas on the property. She explained that an at grade
stone patio was shown on the site plan and elevations that were submitted to the City
for review and approval. She explained that an elevated patio was constructed as a
result of changes that occurred to the grading and drainage plans through the course
of the project. She noted that when City staff, upon inspection of the site, notice the
discrepancy, the petitioner was notified that as constructed, the patio was not
consistent with the plans and could not be approved by staff. She stated that the
petitioner desires to keep the patio as constructed and since the patio encroaches
into the side yard setback, the patio can only remain in its present form if a variance is
granted. She noted that staff consulted with the City Attorney and determined that
given the uniqueness of the property and the significant accommodations that
needed to be made for drainage, consideration of a variance was appropriate. She
noted that work at the site is not yet completed, the permits remain open and a
Certificate of Occupancy has not yet been granted. She noted that the neighbor to
the west contacted staff with questions about the location of the elevated patio
within the setback and about drainage and ponding on his property as a result of the
location of the patio. She added that a letter from the neighbor is included in the
Board packet. She stated that the staff report includes findings in support of the
project which recognize the unique conditions on the property. She noted that any
lighting on the patio should be minimal and shielded from view from off the site to
mitigate impacts on the neighbor.
In response to questions Board member Nehring, Ms. Ricci-McCarthy clarified that
arborvitae were planted along the property line instead of installed the fence as
shown on the original plan. She noted that an additional larger drain will be installed
near the property line to take the water from the area of the arborvitae.
In response to questions from Board member Pasquesi, Ms. Czerniak noted that staff
was not aware of the petitioner’s intention to elevate the patio until it was
constructed. She acknowledged that due to changes to the drainage and grading
Zoning Board of Appeals – Minutes of the June 26, 2017 Meeting Page 6 of 13
plan throughout the construction process, staff should have asked some additional
questions about the intent for the patio given the grade changes. She noted however
that there was no evidence on the plans submitted that the patio located within the
setback would be elevated. She added that the plans submitted to the Building
Review Board did not show an elevated deck. She noted that the buildable area on
the property is limited because no construction can occur within the drainage
easement or in the compensatory storage area. She pointed out that the size of the
patio is not excessive and added that although rare, it is not the first time the Board
has heard a request for a variance for the purpose of correcting an error.
In response to questions from Chairman Pickus, Ms. Ricci-McCarthy noted that the
elevated patio is reflected on the most recent civil drawings but not on the site plan or
architectural drawings approved by the Building Review Board and submitted for
permit.
In response to questions from Chairman Pickus, Ms. Czerniak stated that if the patio
was constructed at grade, there would be no need for a variance.
In response to questions from Board member Novit, Ms. Czerniak stated that with some
modification, it is likely that the pooling of water on the neighboring property can be
addressed. She confirmed that a patio at grade level would not need a variance.
She explained that zoning setback requirements only apply to elements that are more
than eight inches above grade.
In response to questions from Board member Pasquesi, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that
the engineering plans were revised throughout the project however, the architectural
plans were not modified as the civil drawings evolved.
In response to questions from Board member Novit, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that
although the civil drawings were modified, the architectural drawings were not revised
to reflect the intended changes.
In response to questions from Board member Nehring, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the
regular inspections of the construction site were done and when the inconsistency
between the elevated deck and the approved plans was identified, the petitioner
was informed that the elevated patio was not in conformance with the approved
plans and encroached into the required setback.
In response to questions from Board member Pasquesi, Ms. Czerniak explained that
due to the uniqueness of the site and the special requirements for drainage
easements and compensatory storage for stormwater, the petitioner decided to
request a variance rather than remove the elevated patio and replace it with the
approved at grade patio.
Zoning Board of Appeals – Minutes of the June 26, 2017 Meeting Page 7 of 13
In response to questions from Board member Sieman, Ms. Czerniak stated that the
patio is 3 feet high and is generally aligned with the level of the doors on the house.
She stated that stairs would be needed to access an at grade patio.
Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Pickus invited public testimony.
Hearing none, he invited further questions from the Board.
In response to questions from Chairman Pickus, Mr. Ricci-McCarthy stated the
arborvitae are 8 feet tall now rising about 5 to 6 feet above the patio. She stated that
when standing in the house, she can only see the roof of the house next door. She
noted that she fully intends to make any further drainage improvements that are
required.
Board member Sieman stated that there is a letter in the packet from the next door
neighbor about drainage issues resulting from the recent construction. He noted that
he is struggling because the hardship, the construction of the elevated patio, was
created by the owner. He noted however that the drainage easement and the
required grading of the property are unique factors. He questioned whether the
Board would have supported a variance to allow an elevated patio if it was asked to
do so at the start of this project, prior to construction of the elevated patio.
Board member Novit agreed with Board member Sieman’s comments noting that it is
difficult to consider this request after the fact when earlier approvals did not include
an elevated patio.
Ms. Ricci-McCarthy noted that Mr. Andrasz at 688 Green Briar Lane, the neighbor to
the west, is not concerned with the patio but only with the ponding. She noted her
intent to resolve the ponding issue.
Board member Nehring noted that addressing the drainage along the west property
line is her major concern. She noted that there were errors made by various parties
and lessons were learned from them.
Board member Pasquesi stated that he also looked at this petition from the “what if
they came here first” perspective. He stated if the requested variance is approved,
the record needs to reflect the unique factors that lead to approval to avoid
establishing a precedent for future variances.
In response to questions from Chairman Pickus, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the
grading on the site is generally consistent with the approved grading plan adding that
the site plan and architectural drawings do not match the final grading plan.
Chairman Pickus suggested that the Board look past the thought of “what would we
have approved” and look at the issue and facts as now presented to the Board.
Zoning Board of Appeals – Minutes of the June 26, 2017 Meeting Page 8 of 13
Ms. Czerniak offered that the Board could direct staff to augment the findings to
specifically articulate the uniqueness of the facts in this case.
Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Pickus invited a motion.
Board member Sieman made a motion to recommend approval to the City
Council of a variance to authorize the existing elevated patio, as constructed, with
an encroachment that maintains a minimum distance of 3.70 feet from the west
property line. He added that the recommendation is subject to the following
conditions.
1. No exterior lights are permitted within the setback area except for low
level lighting on the stairs for safety. The source of the light shall be fully
shielded from view and the lights shall be turned off no later than 11 p.m.
(Lights at the doors, outside of the required setback, are permitted
consistent with standard Code provisions.)
2. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the requirements of
the City Engineer shall be fully satisfied.
a. All yard drains determined to be necessary by the City Engineer
shall be installed and will be subject to inspection and final
approval by City engineering staff.
b. All calculations and any other documentation determined to be
necessary by the City Engineer to allow verification that the
required compensatory storage volume is satisfied on the site shall
be submitted and will be subject to review and approval by the
City Engineer.
c. As determined to be necessary by the City Engineer, the plantings
and planting bed along the west property line shall be modified to
allow overland water flows as determined to be appropriate by the
City Engineer, and additional inlets shall be installed if determined
to be necessary, to mitigate ponding on the neighboring property
to the west.
3. Plantings shall be added to screen the elevated terrace located within
the side yard setback from views from the street and to preserve the
perception of open space between neighboring homes.
Board member Novit seconded the motion and the Board voted in favor of the
motion 5-0.
Zoning Board of Appeals – Minutes of the June 26, 2017 Meeting Page 9 of 13
5. Consideration of a quest for approval of modifications to the overall site plan for The
Knollwood Club, 1890 Knollwood Road. The Club proposes to relocate the paddle
courts, construct a new paddle hut and related amenities, modify the existing
tennis courts and expand the staff parking lot. No new uses are proposed.
Owner: The Knollwood Club
Representative: Peter Witmer, architect
Chairman Pickus introduced the agenda item and asked the Board for any Ex Parte
contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the
petitioner and swore in all those intending to speak.
Mike Chabria, a Knollwood Club Board member, introduced himself and noted that as
a Board member, he is in charge of the Racquets Program at the Club. He noted that
how best to meet the needs of the program has been carefully considered for a
number of years. He noted that the existing paddle hut is insufficient for the size of the
program noting that the program has continued to grow in both the adult and junior
leagues. He noted various locations on the Club property were considered and the
more remote areas of the Club property were determined to not be the best locations
for the paddle facilities for security and convenience reasons. He noted that being a
good neighbor has been and will continue to be a priority for the Club. He noted for
instance, the proposed court lighting uses LED technology and is designed to shine
down on the courts and not into the neighborhood.
Mr. Witmer , project architect, described the Club property and the location of the
various facilities on the property. He noted that with the current proposal, the paddle
courts and the tennis courts will be in one place and will be able to share amenities.
He reviewed the proposed site plan noting the new driveway to provide for pick ups
and drop offs near the courts. He pointed out that an expanded employee parking
area is proposed generally in the footprint of the existing paddle courts which will be
removed and relocated. He noted the screening that exists today along Knollwood
Road, near the existing paddle courts, will mostly remain to screen the expanded
parking lot. He noted that some low, LED lights will be added for safety and security
purposes in the expanded parking lot. He reviewed the proposed location for the
relocated paddle courts noting the locations of the existing cart barn and the
racquets building. He noted that considerable study was done to find a way to
incorporate the paddle courts and a paddle hut into the existing tennis court area.
He reviewed the new elements planned for the area. He noted that there is trees and
landscaping in the area, some of which will be removed. He noted that there are
some significant trees in the area and they will be protected during construction. He
presented images of how the area will look after the improvements are completed.
He noted that landscaping will be added around the new facilities.
Ms. Czerniak noted that the Knollwood Club is located in a residential zoning district
and like other private clubs, is permitted through a Special Use Permit. She explained
that although the Club was established before the Code requirement for a Special
Zoning Board of Appeals – Minutes of the June 26, 2017 Meeting Page 10 of 13
Use Permit, a Special Use Permit was later issued to recognize the Club as an existing
special use. She noted that the Special Use Permit approved in1999 was amended in
2012 to allow the addition of a fourth paddle court. She explained that the 2012
amendment will be voided and replaced with the amendment now requested. She
noted that in 2012, the question was raised about whether there was a more central
location for the paddle courts and that is the direction now being pursued. She noted
that staff is recommending that the Board gather information at this time and hear
public testimony but then, continue the petition to allow the Knollwood Club to
provide further details of the project and to respond to any questions and comments
raised by the Board and members of the public. She noted that the parking lot
expansion proposed in the area of where the existing paddle courts are located will
need to be looked at carefully to avoid impacts on significant trees in the area and on
the neighboring single family homes. She stated that in staff’s opinion, more details
overall are needed in order to allow the Board to fully understand and consider the
petition.
In response to questions from Board member Sieman, Mr. Witmer stated that his firm
has been involved in master planning for various private clubs and understands the
importance of looking at the issues comprehensively and with a long term view. He
noted that the sport of paddle has become more popular over the last few years and
upgraded facilities are needed. He acknowledged that the sport of tennis may
change in the future as well. He noted that after much study, the Club determined
that centrally locating the facilities for court sports makes good long term sense. He
noted that the project represents a large investment by the Club’s membership. He
agreed that engineering reviews of the traffic circulation and drainage is needed.
In response to questions from Board member Sieman, Mr. Chabria confirmed that the
work proposed is intended to be a long term solution for the court programs at the
Club. He stated that the proposed paddle building and other amenities will meet the
needs for both winter and summer use of the court.
In response to questions from Board member Nehring, Mr. Witmer stated that the
amount of additional pavement will be kept to the minimum needed. He stated that
the intent is not to impact the oak trees. He stated that the intensity of the lighting will
be kept to the minimum necessary and stated that more information will be provided
on the proposed lighting for the courts, parking areas and walkways. He stated that
as needed, landscaping will be added to screen the expanded parking area.
In response to questions from Chairman Pickus, Ms. Czerniak stated that because
private clubs are a special use, the number of parking spaces is determined based on
the needs of the Club and the ability to mitigate impacts on surrounding residential
properties.
In response to questions from Chairman Pickus, Mr. Witmer noted that 25 parking
spaces for employees should be sufficient.
Zoning Board of Appeals – Minutes of the June 26, 2017 Meeting Page 11 of 13
In response to questions from Board member Nehring, Mr. Witmer explained that
currently, employees park in the main lot. He noted that once the parking lot near the
service area, in the location of the existing paddle courts, is completed, more spaces
in the main lot will be available for guests and members of the Club.
Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Pickus asked for public
testimony and swore in those requesting to speak.
David Kaughvan, 2001 Knollwood Road, noted that he is a member of the Club and
supports the overall project. He noted however that there is an existing drainage
problem near the 18th hole and would like to see the Club take the opportunity to fix
the drainage when the tennis courts are relocated and before the new facilities are
installed. He noted that currently, he and a few other neighbors are impacted by the
drainage.
Daphne Shoemaker, 2069 Knollwood Road, noted that her property is the most
impacted by the existing drainage issues. She noted she is also a member of the Club
and would like the drainage issue to be resol ved as part of this project.
In response to public testimony, Mr. Witmer reviewed the site plan pointing out the
drainage route. He stated there is space to make some modifications and stated that
the Club is willing to meet with the neighbors and develop a plan to address the
issue.
Chairman Pickus invited further public comment.
Don O’Malley, 2021 Knollwood Road, noted that he has been at this house for 12 years
and drainage has been a consistent problem. He stated that Ms. Shoemaker was very
proactive in the past in communicating with the Club and the City and making
improvements on her property. He stated that it is important that the proposed
project does not make the situation worse. He noted that currently, the tennis courts
flood. He stated he is also a member of the Club and supports the project.
Laura Turansik, 1844 Knollwood Road, stated that her property is very affected by
drainage issues. She noted that one of the main original storm lines for the area
extends behind her house. She noted that the storm pipes throughout the area have
been collapsed for some time. She stated that water ponds on her property and on
the neighbors’ properties on either side of her. She noted that she has lost heritage
trees on her property due to the water.
Hearing no further requests to speak from members of the public, Chairman Pickus
returned the matter to the Board for final comments and action.
Zoning Board of Appeals – Minutes of the June 26, 2017 Meeting Page 12 of 13
In response to questions from Chairman Pickus, Ms. Czerniak stated that the storm lines
in this area are all private but ultimately water from the area proposed for the
upgraded courts flows toward Waukegan Road. The noted that some of the drainage
issues make be relevant to the project that is now proposed and others may be larger
drainage issues involving other parts of the Club property and the overall Knollwood
Subdivision.
In response to questions from Board member Nehring, Randy Harper, General
Manager of the Club, noted that the is reviewing the documents from 1924, when the
area was developed and is trying to understand who is responsible for the various
components of the storm drainage system.
Board member Sieman commented that the proposed project has many
components. He stated that he agrees with staff recommendation that input be
gathered at this meeting, and questions asked, and then, the petition should be
continued to allow the Club to provide additional details and response to the
comments raised. He encouraged the Club to take a long term view and make sure
that decisions will serve the Club well over the next 10 to 20 years. He stated that it is
clear that there is a drainage issue that needs to be addressed.
Board member Pasquesi stated support for the Club’s efforts to look for a better
location for the paddle sports and improved facilities. He noted that care should be
taken to assure that relocating the courts will not make the drainage problems worse.
In response to questions from Board member Nehring, Ms. Czerniak stated that to her
knowledge, there is not a Homeowner’s Association for the Knollwood Subdivision
adding that the Club is responsible for much of the area around the homes because it
is the Club grounds.
Board member Nehring stated that efforts should made to preserve significant trees.
Board member Novit stated that she looks forward to seeing more detailed plans from
the Club and stated agreement with the comments from the other Board members
and staff’s recommendation.
Chairman Pickus agreed with the Board member‘s comments and this is a good
framework and needs some details in the plans.
Board member Nehring made a motion to continue the petition with direction to
the petitioner to further develop the plans, address the drainage issues raised by
the neighbors and respond to the questions raised in the staff report.
Zoning Board of Appeals – Minutes of the June 26, 2017 Meeting Page 13 of 13
The motion was seconded by Board member Novit and was approved by a vote of 5
to 0.
5. Public testimony on non-agenda items.
No public testimony was presented to the Board on non-agenda items.
6. Additional information from staff.
There was no additional information presented by staff.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:42 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Michelle E. Friedrich
Planning Technician