Weinstein v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Highland Park, No. 2-99-0631

2nd District, 6 April 2000

JUSTICE INGLIS delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiffs, Allan and Margot Weinstein, appeal from the judgment of the circuit court of Lake County affirming the order ofdefendant Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Highland Park (the Board) that granted a variance to defendants Edwardand Janice Litke (defendants) to allow them to construct an addition to their house. Plaintiffs contend that defendants couldhave completed plans for the addition that would not have required a variance, that defendants failed to offer sufficientevidence to support their request for a variance, and that the Board's order was invalid for failing to make specific findingsof fact. We affirm.

Defendants' property is located at the intersection of Florence Avenue and Sheridan Road in Highland Park and isimmediately west of plaintiffs' property. Defendants' driveway accesses Sheridan Road.

On June 19, 1997, defendants requested variances to exceed the maximum allowable floor-area ratio and to encroach intothe front yard, backyard, and side yard setbacks in order to build an attached garage, add to existing interior rooms, andconstruct an attached covered porch. At the hearing on the variances before the Board, the plaintiffs conceded thatdefendants' additions affecting the front yard and backyard did not require a variance and plaintiffs did not object togranting a variance for the floor-area ratio. The only evidence specifically presented to the Board at the hearing concernedthe issue of granting the variance from the side yard setback requirement.

At the time defendants requested the variances, their home already encroached 6 feet 3 inches into the required 12-foot sideyard setback. Defendants proposed to extend the existing legal nonconformity for a distance of 33.4 feet in order to build anattached two-car garage.

At the hearing, Bruce Green, defendants' architect, presented his design for the addition. His plan converted the one-cargarage into additional kitchen space, an added laundry room, and a mud room. Additionally, Green's plan called for theconstruction of a two-car garage, a turnaround driveway with two exits onto Sheridan Road, and an attached covered porch.Green's plan called for the extension of the existing nonconformity, which would be the new garage wall, to have nowindows.

Richard Williams, senior planner for a land-use consulting firm, testified that, owing to the steep slope in the backyard, itwould be extremely expensive to put the proposed addition on the back of defendants' house. Williams also testified thatdefendants' small lot created a hardship and Green's plan was a reasonable use of the property and in keeping with the otherresidences in the neighborhood. Williams also testified that allowing the variance would not be detrimental to the publicwelfare or injurious to other property in the neighborhood.

Renee Tickman, a real estate broker, testified that the property was functionally obsolete and would be difficult to sell. Shealso testified that the addition would increase the value of the property.

Defendant Edward Litke testified that his growing family needed more space. He testified that he and his family loved theneighborhood and did not want to move.

Barry Weinstein, an architect, testified for plaintiffs. He noted that a variance for the front yard setback was unnecessary.Weinstein presented an alternate plan for the addition. Weinstein testified that, if defendants were to adopt his plan, theycould construct the addition without needing to obtain a variance and that his plan would provide defendants with the samefunctionality they would receive from Green's plan. Weinstein also testified that, unlike defendants' plan, his plan would notimpair the supply of light and air to plaintiffs' property.

Tony Sanchez, a landscaper, testified that the line of pine trees along the plaintiff-defendant property line would be harmedby the proposed addition and would die prematurely. Sanchez also noted that several of the pine trees were distressed as aresult of the existing legal nonconformity and would likely die prematurely. Sanchez testified that it would cost plaintiffs$15,000 to replace all of the pine trees if they were to die.

Wayne Wanek testified that defendants' addition would cause plaintiffs' property to decrease in value. Wanek testified that,in its present configuration, defendants' house currently had the least impact on the value of plaintiffs' property; any changeto defendants' house, either an increase or decrease in its size, would cause the value of plaintiffs' property to decrease.

The Board made the following findings of fact. It determined that the proposed side yard variation was nothing more thanthe extension of an existing legal nonconformity that harmonized well with the existing building. The Board also found thatplaintiffs' privacy would not be compromised and the trees along the property line would not be harmed by the proposedaddition. The Board further resolved any credibility issues in favor of defendants and granted defendants' request for theside yard variance. The Board granted variances for all of defendants' requests and conditioned them on defendants'agreement to put in two windows into the garage wall extension.

Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the circuit court for administrative review. The circuit court affirmed the Board's decision andplaintiff timely appeals.

Before turning to the merits of plaintiffs' contentions, we first review the standards pertaining to the review of a decisionmade by a local zoning board. As in any administrative review case, we review the decision of the trial court de novo. Townof Sugar Loaf v. Environmental Protection Agency, 305 Ill. App. 3d 483, 491 (1999). Further, we may not disturb theboard's determination unless it was against the manifest weight of the evidence or the board acted in an arbitrary andcapricious manner. Smith v. Town of Normal, 238 Ill. App. 3d 944, 950 (1992).

Plaintiffs initially contend that defendants failed to present evidence in support of every essential element required to obtaina variance. Specifically, plaintiffs argue that defendants failed to include evidence that the zoning ordinances causedpractical difficulties or a particular hardship only to defendants that the proposed variation would alleviate. Section150.1205 of the Highland Park Zoning Ordinance of 1997 provides, in pertinent part, that the Board shall not grant avariance unless, based on the evidence presented at the hearing, it finds: