our April 9th board of adjustment meeting to order and start with uh approval of the agenda and approval of last month's minutes Move to approve agenda minutes I'd second Then I've got a couple changes Go
ahead Corrections Um with the I got to make sure I get the right one the March 12th board of adjustment just it's a small thing but if it ever came back to haunt us it might be worth noting um in
the I got to find the right one sackstrap discussion um in Neva's um findings it just says the contractor advised the homeowner that and maybe this is what they said But as long as it
was under 40 square ft and within 40 foot of the vegetation I think the number they 160 ft they understood that that was the the size and just that's Does that make sense Diane okay that's fine Otherwise I would second the approval Right We've got a
motion and a second with a couple adjustments All in favor i All right we approve that Um we'll start with our update on ongoing
business Um Nea do you Yep Just an update Uh if you'll recall our last uh March 12th board of adjustment meeting Mr Novichek requested that his board his variance be tabled so that he could spend some time to better familiarize himself with the discussion And after
that he decided to withdraw his variance application So that's his letter of withdrawal in your package just kind of wanted to close the book on that And then also the next chapter now is that he's going to reapply for a new variance to um amend the variance that granted
the garage in 1989 to allow that structure to be used as a cabin because that 1989 variance was very specific about it being a garage Didn't give me a lot of wiggle room So it's an intensification of use of that structure So it's kind of reopening that 1989 variance for an amendment So won't be um
any significant change in size or any change in size within theru shoreland setback area So that will be before you at the May meeting So that's your date Thank you All right Um new business uh
Tom Propes Probes uh variance request um 20257V Thank you Mr Chair This is a request to amend a variance that was granted in 2023 Um this property is a half acre and approximately 150 feet of Clear Water
Lake shoreline within the Lakeshore residential zone district And um the request in 2023 uh was granted as he's re uh it's an old cabin and needs to essentially be replaced And so it was a
pretty minor variance in 2023 it The board of adjustment granted the replacement cabin to have minor modifications including a three-foot increase in roof height and eliminating a 29 square ft indent to square up a corner of the building Um and everything else about the cabin was essentially
remaining the same And so after that 2023 variance he found that he needs to increase 2 feet on the cabin Um it's towards the lake but it's the part of the cabin that's set back from the lake So the um drawing on the screen up there
it's that shaded gray area that little twoft section there um to be extended And so on page um 16 to 57 of your packet it's that grade bar that's 37 ft from the shoreline that's having
the twoft extension Um this property um if you've been on site it's pretty close to the lake itself There are some trees about 30 ft from the shoreline so it's within the shore impact area Um on the back side of
the cabin is a retaining wall Um you can see that retaining wall on the left side of the picture up top Um for backgrounds the cabin was built in the 1940s and has been maintained over the years to reflect an effective year built date of
1975 per the Cook County Assessor's Records The applicant indicates that this cabin was originally built as a part of a resort Uh both properties on either side of the subject property have received variances to be replaced and expanded from the original cabins The board of adjustment approved the 2023
variance as I earlier described In reviewing the 2023 variance the board determined that the property was restricted by unique topographic features and a small lot size and that the variance request was reasonable and should have no negative impact to neighboring properties The board of
adjustment approved that 2023 variance with four conditions that I've included in your packet For site conditions and consideration um the property has a septic tank and treatment area which served the existing cabin proposed to be replaced The septic
was redone in 2009 and there's no issues with impervious surface coverage or wetlands The slope uh the property does have a unique slope The existing cabin is located between the toe of the bluff and the lake Behind the cabin is a bluff feature which includes the retaining wall and at the top of the bluff is a
septic treatment area by the road There isn't really anywhere on this property to to build any other structure in a conforming capacity for a public notice The application was noticed in the Cook County News Herald on March 21st 10 letters of notification were sent to adjacent property owners as well as
county departments the Cook County Coalition of Lake Association and the DNR hydraologist One written comment was submitted by Julie Car Carlson in support of the variance request First staff recommendations for consideration Staff consider the modest amendment of the
2023 variance approval to be a reasonable request and is aligned with findings and conditions of the 2023 variance listed in the background section of this narrative Thank you Neva Uh would the applicant like to add to NEA's if so uh step to
the microphone and state your name and address for the record Thank you My name is Tom Propst Uh I live at 9340 84th Street North in Grant Township Uh NA said pretty much
everything It is a small cabin It's it's 18 ft wide and where the bedrooms are and there's two bedrooms back there So and once you factor in the walls the bedrooms are about eight and a half feet wide Uh and I actually this didn't occur to
me until we started working with a an architect and he said "Boy if you could get two more feet that would make all the difference." So I'd like to do it the right way And uh that's why I'm here Thank you Uh we'll open to the public Is anyone in the public wish to
speak on this application hearing none we'll close to the public and discuss as board Paul you want to start um yeah I think it's nonproatic and uh very reasonable request Courtney
Um I agree I do have one question Um is there trees or anything that would be removed to accommodate that my my dad who died in October he's 98 but he hated to pull any and then grow my There's a tree growing right upside out
Year has been directly the wall Yeah it looks a little close It's uh it's been 70 years of conflict between my dad and my mom because he would not pull anything My mom would have to sneak around and pull it and
this one just got out This one got out Jeff um no I I agree with Paul It's a very minor change Seems reasonable And you can walk around your bed in the bedroom Well you know we we had full bed back there and that was a little We
finally upgraded to a queen I can't how many times I stubbed my toe trying to make that bed D I was just going to point out the conditions I kind of glazed over them but one of the conditions of that 2023 variance approval was for a a improved
shoreline buffer a 10-ft shoreline buffer to be planted with native plants and shrubs along the shoreline to improve vegetative buffer So to your point um there's supposed to be a planting improvement on the shoreline for this And we do I don't know if you remember this from last time but we
do the the cabins on either side are kind of mowed clear to the lake and ours is all you can't see the cabin from the lake even though it's it's 30 ft away So we we are not we don't want to put ourselves on display
Just this is the property right adjacent to the landing No it's it's two over Paul Scop is next to the landing and then we're between Paul Scott and Paul Scott I was trying to remember I I use that landing quite a bit and I was trying to think in my mind exactly where that was If you go around the towards
the bay ours is the cabin you can't see Okay Okay Thank you Yeah I don't see anything else and would make a motion to approve Um sorry One quick do we concur with staff's findings or do we want to go
through the findings of fact no I thinking we I listed the same findings that were granted in the 2023 variance because I felt that nothing had substantially changed from what the board had found in that really we're kind of modifying a v an approved variance I just wanted to address it and
have have us state it for the record I think we're probably pretty clear So go ahead Courtney Um I would make a motion to approve it with the same 2023 variance request conditions being met Do we have a second
i'll second Got a motion and a second Uh any other discussion uh call for a vote All in favor i I opposed hearing none Thank you Um next item George Stag uh variance
request uh 2025 8V Eva this is a variance request to allow the afteract creation of two substandard lots in the F1 zone district where a minimum lot area of 20 acres is required
and the Lakeshore residential zone district where a minimum lot width and water frontage of 150 ft is required The applicant has two parcels as a part of this variance request So on the screen you'll see the one that's highlighted blue with the little strip
going down to the lake and then the one to the um left of that the 3400 one in the far one zone district also is a part of this These lots were created between 1996 and 2002 when the zoning ordinance standards were in place So everywhere
that's white should be a 20 acre minimum and everywhere that's blue should be at least a 1acre minimum or at least 150 ft wide at the lake and that's a 20ft strip going down to the lake This uh applicants are requesting that these lots be recognized as legal lots of
records So essentially granting relief by the date that the lots were created Um had these lots been created prior to zoning ordinance requirements in 1984 um they would have been grandfathered in Um let's see The easterly parcel has the 20
foot wide strip of land accessing Pike Lake which is not an allowable lot configuration per the shoreline standards And both parcels have much less than the 20 acre uh minimum of F1 zone district requirements Included a little table in the packet that tried to kind of
summarize this So this is on over on the um like northwest side of Pike Lake off of Willard Lane And this is kind of that summary of the two lots uh relative to the area
there I included the ordinance citation and some definitions So legal nonconformities lots or structures that were placed prior to the enactment of the zoning ordinance in 1984 are granted certain rights and allowances outlined in article 9 of the Cook County zoning
ordinance Since these lots were created after that date they are not eligible to be processed according to those non-conforming standards I included the definition of lot of record and lot width which does stipulate that it has to be the water frontage amount as well
as the FB1 and the Lakeshore residential zone district standard So feel free to ask me any questions that you might have about those differences of things I'm going to try to keep this kind of light and then we can get into the weeds in your discussion if you want Um so again
section nine what this variance request is essentially asking for is saying okay these lots were created substandard when they should have been created to be standard Uh the difficulty I would say is that these properties have undergone a couple of different property
transactions and Mr Stag the current property owner here tonight um you know he he kind of got left holding the bag when this came to our attention so to say he didn't purchase this property knowing that these issues uh were present and now the propertyy's up for um transfer again and this came to our
attention during the potential buyers kind of inquiries So um my perspective has been that the board of adjustment has granted variances for substandard lots that are not legal lots of record when you have found that um they've been
there for a long time So you know there's no line in the sand but usually the ones in the '9s have been granted relief The way I describe it to people it's a lot different than if a substandard lot was created 5 years ago Um we did not have an administrative process for creating parcels when this was done
um although they should have been created according to standards and um as long as there is still like valuable recreational actual use of the property So um there have been smaller FAR one substandard lots that this board has um
recognized for variance approvals previously because the owners have recognized that there were recreational uses and there were not any combination options for those examples So if this does get approved tonight uh one thing is that these lots will be then subject
to article 9 of the Cook County zoning ordinance And because both parcels do not meet the 66 66% dimensional standards they will need to be combined So um if the variance gets approved the landowner will need to combine those two
parcels to become one parcel and then they're a little less non-conforming or a little closer to conforming So um I think also in weighing your discussions how difficult would it be to force compliance and force these lots to try
to meet the zoning ordinance standards Um you know we always weigh like how much burden to the owner to comply versus benefit to the county These have been there for a long time and to force these to comply with the ordinance standards would certainly cause some turmoil I would say So um just some
things for you to consider I included a lot more detail in your staff narratives but um honestly this is like the driest stuff of ordinance stuff to explain to people So I don't quite want to read all that to you I'm hoping the anecdotal versions is enough Um I did provide you
some draft findings for your consideration And I think I'll leave it at that Thank you Um would the applicant like to add anything to the narrative i don't have anything to add Thank you Um I'm just here to answer any questions that
you might have Thank you Mr Thank you Uh we'll open it to the public I'm not seeing any public We'll close it to the public and discuss as a board I would like to know how a chunk between
two properties down to the lake got taken out and stuck in another property Must have been some pretty nice neighbors back in the day Paul yeah I think it's pretty straightforward from my perspective I think yeah it's a it's an unnecessary
burden to try to enforce uh enforce that on the current property owner And this seems like uh the fact that it's stipulated that they'd be combined afterwards I think gets us closer to a better you know solution So
um I'd agree with Paul given that they are going to be combined it removes any heartburn I might have I agree I just I don't see that I don't see any good in in not doing it
So um do we concur with the staff's findings or do we want to go through them i concur Yeah I'm comfortable with these findings Comfortable with them Um with that I'd
look for a motion I'd make a motion to uh approve the variance with the staff conditions as part of that Do we have a second i'll second Okay Go ahead I'll second Okay We got a motion
and a second to approve with the staff conditions And uh with that I look for a I would call for a vote All in favor i I opposed Hearing none
Motion carries and a motion to adjurnn A motion to adjurnn Second All in favor we thank you everybody Y I was talking to some friends on the recent emails about this You've been on
Willy No