Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/14/1996 ZBA MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ZBA CASE NO. ZBA-I4-CU-96 PETITIONER: SUBJECT PROPERTY: PUBLICATION DATE: REQUEST: MEMBERS PRESENT: Hearing Date: November 14, 1996 Sedano Landscaping 832 North River Road July 10, 1996 (Journal) Text Amendment to Section 14.903 to list a land- scaping business as a conditional use in the R-1 Single Family District and approval of a conditional use to operate an existing landscaping business in the R-1 District. Gilbert Basnik, Chairman Ronald Cassidy Jack Verhasselt Robert Brettrager Leo Floros Elizabeth Luxem Richard Lohrstorfer OBJECTORS/INTERESTED PARTIES: Alonso Sedano Steven Kathe, Attorney John Tatooles, Attorney Chairman Gil Basnik introduced Case ZBA-I4-CU-96, being a request for a Text Amendment and a Conditional Use Permit to allow Sedano Landscaping, an existing business, to remain at 832 River Road in an R-1 Single Family District. Mr. Steven Kathe, attorney representing the petitioner, summarized the request for the text amendment and conditional use at 832 River Road. Mr. Kathe explained that Mr. Sedano has been operating his landscape business at this location since 1981. Prior to Mr. Sedano occupying this property a gentleman operated a tractor repair business at this same address. Mr. Kathe made note of the Village's history of ticketing Mr. Sedano for violations and requested the Board grant a conditional use on this property. Mr. Kathe presented the Board with a petition signed by Mr. Sedano's surrounding neighbors stating that they had no objection to Mr. Sedano operating his landscape business at this location. Mr. Dan Ungerleider, Planning Coordinator, presented staff's report. Mr. Ungerleider reiterated that Mr. Sedano was seeking a conditional use and a text amendment to continue operating his landscape business at 832 River Road. Mr. Ungerleider stated that Mr. Sedano purchased the property in 1981. ZBA- I4 -CU -96 Page 2 Since that time Mr. Sedano has considered his business to be a home occupation. Mr. Ungerleider stated that the Village's standards for home occupations are very different from the business that Mr. Sedano has been operating in his home. He then highlighted the portions of those standards of which Mr. Sedano was in violation. Mr. Ungerleider explained that Mr. Sedano is seeking relief of these violations so that he may continue to operate his business at this address. He also explained that there were two alternatives in granting this relief. One would be a conditional use and text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, the other would be to request a rezoning of the property to a zoning classification more suitable for a landscape business. He explained that the petitioner has decided to seek a conditional allowing a contractor construction offices, shops, and outdoor storage to the list of conditional uses permitted in the R-1, Single Family District. Mr. Ungerleider presented staff's objections to this conditional use. He noted it was staff's belief that adding this use to the list of conditional uses permitted in the R-1 District would establish the precedent that commercial uses are permitted within the Village's Single Family neighborhoods. This change in zoning regulations would negatively impact the overall character of the Village's residential community. Staff believes the petitioner's request should be denied and the petitioner be required to cease and desist the operation of his business at this location. A brief history of the property was then presented by Mr. Ungerleider. He stated that the property was originally annexed into the Village in 1971 and designated as the R-1 Single Family Residence District. There are no records of the petitioner's business or that of the predecessor's business being located at this property prior to the annexation. However, in 1976, 830 River Road received from the Village Board of Trustees approval of Ordinance 92634 granting an unlisted conditional use for the operation of a not-for-profit store for the retail sale, barter, or exchange of used goods other than automobile supplies, accessories and automobiles. This ordinance was later amended by Ordinance #2656 to state that the granted conditional use shall not run with the land, rather to be limited to that time period wherein the property is owned, occupied and operated by the Sisters of the Holy Spirit. No similar zoning requests were made for the subject property at 832 River Road. Mr. Ungerleider outlined how the Village has handled this issue in the past. In 1986, two tickets were issued to Mr. Sedano for parking landscape equipment and trucks; judgement was for the Village. In 1988, two tickets were issued to Mr. Sedano, one for landscaping business, the other for driveway; judgement again was for the Village. In 1989, the Director of Planning sent Mr. Sedano a letter notifying him that the existing use was illegal. During 1995, the Village has sent Mr. Sedano and his attorneys a series of letters. The Village also received letters from Mr. Sedano and his attorneys at this time. Letters were also received from surrounding residents explaining their dissatisfaction with Mr. Sedano's business being located in a residential district. In October of 1995 a ticket was issued. The judge gave Mr. Sedano four months to go through the zoning process. He failed to do so in that amount of time and was fined $500. Then in April of 1996 a second ticket was issued. This ticket was later withdrawn by the Village due to the court's lack of action. The property is still in violation. ZBA-I4-CU-96 Page 3 Staff recommended denial of a text amendment to Section 14.903 of the Zoning Ordinance so that it includes landscaping contracting business to the list of conditional uses permitted in the R-1 Single Family Residence District and the denial of a conditional use for a landscaping contractor business to continue operations at 832 River Road, Case No. ZBA-I4-CU-96. Staff further recommended that the petitioner be required to immediately cease and desist the operation, the illegal landscaping business at this location and that all conditions of the property be brought into compliance with current Zoning Ordinance requirements. Chairman Basnik asked if the petitioner disputed any of the facts presented by Mr. Ungerleider. The petitioner's attorney John Tatooles responded that in 1995 a ticket was issued and a judgement of $500 was fined to Mr. Sedano but the Village on its own motion withdrew the case and the case was ultimately dropped. Mr. Ungerleider responded that the Village withdrew the case so that he may pursue other means of resolving this case. Mr. Tatooles stated that during Mr. Ungerleider's presentation the petitioner was requesting both a conditional use and a text amendment, however, Mr. Sedano's neighbor to the south is operating under an unlisted conditional use. Mr. Sedano would like to seek the same. He went on to say that they are not seeking to amend the Zoning Ordinance permanently. Rather, they are requesting only that the limited special use be granted while Mr. Sedano owns this property. Chairman Basnik then questioned the term an unlisted conditional use. Mr. Ungerleider responded by saying that the neighbor to the south was granted an unlisted conditional use in 1976. Chairman Basnik stated that there is no longer such a thing as an unlisted conditional use. Chairman Basnik added that just because a neighbor was granted something 20 years prior does not give the petitioner the right to ask for the same thing 20 years later. Mr. Tatooles reiterated his point that he was not intending to broaden the scope of the Zoning Ordinance but instead he wanted a conditional use only for Mr. Sedano's property as long as Mr. Sedano owned this property. He went on to say that this has been granted for the adjacent property and that the Village is now saying it cannot be granted for another. This is a whole different discussion for a different forum. Mr. Verhasselt questioned the issue that there was an existing business prior to Mr. Sedano's occupying this property. He asked that this was also a landscaping business. Mr. Tatooles responded that the previous business was a tractor and agricultural machine repair operation. Ms. Luxem asked what time the annexation occurred. Mr. Ungerleider responded by saying 1979. Mr. Verhasselt then questioned why it has been 20 years and nothing has been done. Mr. Verhasselt then questioned whether or not the property should be grand fathered since a business has been operating on this property for so many years. Mr. Tatooles then stated that Mr. Sedano's predecessor ran a similar business long before Mr. Sedano bought the property and it has been operated as an agriculture or landscape business since its inception. Mr. Tatooles expressed his feeling that it was unfair that after 18 years someone would take interest in this case and try to force Mr. Sedano out of his business. He again pointed out that Mr. Sedano's neighbors have no objection to his business being operated at this location, and if it is the consensus of this Board that a text amendment is required then we are ZBA-I4-CU-96 Page 4 not withdrawing any request for a text amendment, we are not so concerned about the means to the end, we are more interested in the results of this hearing. If the Board sees fit to allow Mr. Sedano to continue his business with some minor restrictions and alterations, then Mr. Sedano would be happy to comply with any reasonable request. Chairman Basnik asks Mr. Tatooles if he contests any of the standards listed by staff for a home occupation. Mr. Tatooles went on to say that Mr. Sedano is not seeking a home occupation use, he is instead seeking any remedy that would allow him to continue his business while bringing the property in conformance with Village Code. Chairman Basnik pointed out that what Mr. Tatooles was actually asking for was to use a R-1 piece of property for a business rather than a residential use. Mr. Tatooles responded by saying they are requesting to use the property just as it is. Mr. Ungerleider clarified that the landscape business would not be allowed in B-3 or any other business district, instead it would only be allowed in the I-1 Limited Industrial District. Ms. Luxem expressed her concern that this case has gone on for so long and that it was similarly ignored by Mr. Sedano since 1986. She also said that no one is trying to force Mr. Sedano out of business and in fact many businesses must locate in the appropriate area and not be run as a home occupation. Mr. Tatooles stated that the Village did issue some citations, however, they did not follow up on them. Mr. Sedano paid the fines and beyond this the Village filed no litigation and up until two months ago had no interest in the case. Ms. Luxem then asked Mr. Tatooles if his client had applied for permits when doing any of the changes to the property. Mr. Tatooles explained that Mr. Sedano has made no alterations to the property since he has owned it and claims that all the blacktopping and concrete work was done prior to his occupation of the property. Chairman Basnik then questioned whether this property should be granted some type of transitional zoning for the duration of Mr. Sedano's ownership of the property. Mr. Ungerleider responded by saying that the Comprehensive Plan zoned this entire area as R-1 and it is his opinion that it should stay that way. Mr. Tatooles stated that beginning with the intersection of Kensington and River Road there is a car wash and proceeding to the north a condominium development then Sisters of the Holy Spirit Resale Shop then Mr. Sedano's property, then residences, then the intersection of River Road and Hopi. Mr. Floros expressed his concern about the growing number of landscape businesses that are operating in the Village, specifically, those operating in residential areas, and suggested that it be stopped. He also added that he felt that Mr. Sedano has been avoiding the issue for so many years that he had no sympathy for this situation. Ms. Luxem questioned how many trucks Mr. Sedano had on his property and he responded he had six. Ms. Luxem then asked how many employees Mr. Sedano has that report to his property on a daily basis. Mr. Sedano responded 6. ZBA-I4-CU-96 Page 5 Mr. Cassidy then expressed his concern that the only legal way to grant this relief would be a text amendment and he felt this would open up the Village for other text amendments. He also added the Village would like to keep its businesses in the appropriate business and industrial districts and its residential in the residential districts and he felt that mixing the two would have negative impacts on the Village. A motion to approve text amendment ZBA-I4-CU-96 was made by Ms. Luxem, seconded by Mr. Cassidy. The motion was denied unanimously. Upon Roll Call: NAYS: Brettrager, Cassidy, Verhasselt, Floros, Luxem, Lohrstorfer and Basnik Ayes: None The motion was approved 7-0. Respectfully submitted, Cl Joseph LaMantia, Intern MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ZBA CASE NO. ZBA-19-96 PETITIONER: SUBJECT PROPERTY: PUBLICATION DATE: REQUEST: MEMBERS PRESENT: OBJECTORS/INTERESTED PARTIES: Hearing Date: November 14, 1996 Joseph Niewinski 1451 West Lincoln Street October 30, 1996 (Journal) Variation to permit the construction of a perimeter fence in front of the principal building in the exterior sideyard (Section 14.304.D.1.B.(2). Gilbert Basnik, Chairman Ronald Cassidy Jack Verhasselt Robert Brettrager Leo Floros Elizabeth Luxem Richard Lohrstorfer Chairman Gil Basnik introduced Case ZBA 19-96 being a request for a variation to permit construction of a fence in the front of a principal building in the exterior sideyard at 1451 W. Lincoln Street. The petitioner, Joseph Niewinski, summarized his request. He stated that he was proposing to build a fence on the side of his house to provide privacy for his screened porch that faces Busse Road. Mr. Niewinski provided pictures of homes in his neighborhood that have constructed fences similar to the design he is proposing. Chairman Basnik asked the petitioner to explain the hardship in this case. Mr. Niewinski stated that since his house was built on a corner of an intersection with an increasing amount of traffic, he no longer has privacy when using his screened porch that faces the street. In addition, headlights from cars turning right from Busse Road to Lincoln Avenue shine through his windows reducing his enjoyment of the porch. He noted that staff had recommended that he plant vegetation to create a barrier between his porch and the street. Mr. Niewinski told the board that planting vegetation would only create more work and he did not approve of this suggestion. Mike Sims, Planner, presented staff s report. Mr. Sims stated that the petitioner is seeking approval of a variation to construct a five foot high fence in the west side of the principal structure in the exterior side yard just behind the front yard building setback line. In accordance with the General Provisions ZBA-19-96 Page 2 of the Zoning Ordinance fences may only be placed in the exterior side yard behind the principal structure. Given that the screened porch addition is considered part of the principal structure the fence must be located behind the screened porch addition. The owner recently installed a wood perimeter fence in compliance with the Village Zoning Ordinance requirements and is proposing to extend the fence to encompass the existing screened porch addition. Staff has visited the site and believes the owner has alternatives to installing the fence at the requested location. These alternatives would address the issues he has identified without granting a variation. The first alternative would be to install plant vegetation that would grow to the desired height. The second alternative would be to install vertical blinds in the porch. The blinds could be opened to an angle that would allow air and light to the porch while screening unwanted vehicle headlights. The petitioner states that the proposed fence would provide privacy for his family when they are in the screened porch. He also stated that the fence would screen vehicle headlights from automobiles traveling eastbound on Lincoln Avenue and turning south onto Busse Road. Mr. Sims stated that staff does not believe that the petitioner has provided valid justification or hardship, warranting this variation. Staff therefore recommended denial of the variation to permit construction of a fence in the front of the principal building in the exterior sideyard located at 1451 W. Lincoln Street, Case ZBA-19-96. Mr. Brettrager proposed that perhaps bringing the fence half the distance to the front building line would solve the problem. The petitioner stated that he would be satisfied if the fence could be constructed up to the middle of the garage. Mr. Sims notified the Board that the distance from the front of the principal structure to the screened porch is twenty two feet, half that distance would be eleven feet. The petitioner stated that this would be satisfactory. Chairman Basnik entertained a motion to approve the request for variation of a fence to setback the fence 11 feet from the front line of the principal structure. The motion was made by Mr. Brettrager, seconded by Mr. Cassidy. Upon Roll Call: AYES: Brettrager, Cassidy, Verhasselt, Floros, Luxem, Lohrstorfer and Basnik NAYS: None The motion was approved 7-0. Re pectfully s bmitted,,, Q�11ti(�C t Gz-� Joseph LaManti , Intern