Zoning Board of Appeals

Village of Winnetka Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting September 8, 2025 at 7:00 PM Village Hall Council Chambers 510 Green Bay Road AGENDA 1. Call to Order & Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes a. August 11, 2025, Regular Meeting Minutes 3. Community Development Report 4. Continued Cases a. Case No. 25-14-V2: 175 DeWindt Road: An application seeking approval of zoning variations to allow construction of a second-floor addition to the existing residence at 175 DeWindt Road. The requested variations would permit the proposed improvements to (i) exceed the maximum permitted gross floor area; and (ii) provide less than the minimum required front yard setback from the west property line. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request. At the August 11, 2025, Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, at the request of the Applicant, the Zoning Board of Appeals continued this item to the October 13, 2025, meeting. 5. New Cases a. Case No. 25-17-V: 270 Birch Street: An application seeking approval of a zoning variation to allow construction of an attached garage addition to the existing residence at 270 Birch Street. The requested variation would permit the proposed improvement to provide less than the minimum required front yard setback from the east property line along Brich Street. The Zoning Board of Appeals has final jurisdiction on this request. 6. New Business a. October 13, 2025, Regular Meeting - Quorum Check 7. Public Comments 8. Adjournment Page 1 of 48  NOTICE Public comment is permitted on all agenda items at the meeting. If you wish to provide testimony or comments prior to the meeting, you may provide them one of two ways: (1) by sending an email to planning@winnetka.org; or by sending a letter to Community Development, Village of Winnetka, 510 Green Bay Road, Winnetka, IL 60093. All agenda materials are available at www.villageofwinnetka.org/agendacenter. The Village of Winnetka, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, requests that persons with disabilities, who require certain accommodations to allow them to observe and/or participate in this meeting or have questions about the accessibility of the meeting or facilities contact the Village ADA Coordinator at 510 Green Bay Road, Winnetka, Illinois 60093, (Telephone (847) 716-3543; T.D.D. (847) 501-6041). Page 2 of 48  1 WINNETKA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES 2 AUGUST 11, 2025 3 4 Zoning Board Members Present: Matt Bradley, Chairman 5 Mark Haller 6 Lynn Hanley 7 Kathryn Leister 8 Mike Nielsen 9 Michael Ritter 10 Todd Vender 11 12 Zoning Board Members Absent: None 13 14 Village Attorney: Courtney Trefil 15 16 Village Staff: Ann Klaassen, Assistant Director of Community 17 Development 18 19 Call to Order & Roll Call: 20 Chairman Bradley called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Roll call was taken of the Board Members 21 present. 22 23 Approval of July 14, 2025, Meeting Minutes. 24 Chairman Bradley asked for a motion to approve the July 14, 2025, meeting minutes. A motion to approve 25 the July 14, 2025, meeting minutes was made by Ms. Hanley and seconded by Mr. Nielsen. A vote was 26 taken and the motion unanimously passed, 7 to 0: 27 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Hanley, Leister, Nielsen, Ritter, Vender 28 NAYS: None 29 30 Community Development Report. 31 Ms. Klaassen informed the Board Members that the 826 Humboldt case that was considered by the Board 32 in July was approved by the Village Council on August 5. 33 34 Chairman Bradley took the agenda out of order and noted that the applicant for Case No. 25-14-V2 175 35 DeWindt Road has a requested a continuance. 36 37 New Cases: 38 a. Case No. 25-14-V2: 175 DeWindt Road: An application seeking approval of zoning variations to 39 allow construction of a second-floor addition to the existing residence at 175 DeWindt Road. The 40 requested variations would permit the proposed improvements to (i) exceed the maximum permitted 41 gross floor area; and (ii) provide less than the minimum required front yard setback from the west 42 property line. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request. On August 7, 2025, the Applicant 43 submitted a request that the Zoning Board of Appeals continue this item to the September 8, 2025 44 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. 45 Emily Thomas, the applicant, explained that they recently received comments from their neighbors and 46 would like time to address their concerns. She noted that their architect and general contractor are not 47 available for the September 8 ZBA meeting, so they would like to request a continuance to the October 48 13 ZBA meeting. The Board members discussed their availability for the October meeting. Page 3 of 48  August 11, 2025 Page 2 1 Chairman Bradley then asked for a motion to continue the matter to the October 13, 2025, meeting. A 2 motion was made by Mr. Nielsen and seconded by Ms. Hanley. A vote was taken and the motion 3 unanimously passed: 4 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Hanley, Leister, Nielsen, Ritter, Vender 5 NAYS: None 6 7 Recommendations and Determinations: 8 a. Case No. 25-09-APL: 314 Walnut Street: Consideration of approval of written findings and 9 determination to affirm the Zoning Administrator's determination that 314 Walnut Street has a front 10 yard along Wilson Street. This item was continued from the July 14, 2025, Zoning Board of Appeals 11 meeting. 12 Chairman Bradley asked for either public comment to be taken or the Board to call the matter in for 13 discussion. Nicole Steel, the appellant, provided public comment noting that the Board needs to consider 14 the facts and zoning analysis provided in the appeal. Village Attorney Courtney Trefil stated for the record 15 the ZBA received the document entitled “Public Comment 314 Walnut Street August 11, 2025 ZBA 16 Meeting” which will also be entered into the record. 17 18 Chairman Bradley called the matter in for discussion and advised the Board of their role in this matter. He 19 referred to Attachment A2, which consists of the written findings and determination, and asked if there 20 were any questions. Mr. Nielsen asked if the question is do we disagree with the facts. Chairman Bradley 21 explained the question is whether or not you are submitting a vote in favor of the findings and 22 determination, namely the facts that are included starting on page 9 of 107, which mainly concludes that 23 based on the evidence at the hearing and the entirety of the record, the ZBA finds that the Zoning 24 Administrator correctly determined that the property contains a front lot line on Wilson Street. He asked 25 if anyone had any questions or concerns about any of the facts or findings that are included in that 26 document. 27 28 Chairman Bradley stated the purpose of tonight is not to re-litigate whether or not this Board at the time 29 voted 5 to 0 to affirm that the Board did not believe the Zoning Administrator at the time had committed 30 an error in his interpretation of the zoning ordinance as applied to 314 Walnut Street. He stated the 31 document is meant to be a summarization, as the Board directed staff and the Village Attorney to prepare, 32 of that finding based on all of the evidence that was provided over the course of the hearing on June 9, 33 posed by the Village staff, as well as the appellant, as a document the Board can review and approve as 34 the final findings. He noted that at the June meeting the Board directed staff and the Village Attorney to 35 prepare the document that is being considered by the Board this evening, so if anyone has any questions 36 or concerns the Board can discuss as a group. Chairman Bradley reiterated that they are not to re-litigate 37 all of the evidence that has been provided but if anyone has any questions about the written findings and 38 determination it’s time to discuss it. He stated it’s a clear review of the relevant code sections, steps that 39 were taken, historical evidence provided as to what the Zoning Administrator has in the past found this 40 property to have a front yard on Wilson Street, and then the decision to ultimately determine that he did 41 not act in error when he made that determination. 42 43 Mr. Haller stated he is comfortable with the document and the decision reached by the Zoning 44 Administrator and summarized his position in detail and referenced the use of Section 17.30.050.C.3. He 45 referred to the other lots to the south of this property with frontage on Walnut and Wilson and stated 46 this makes a consistent front line for the others on the block all the way down the street where everybody 47 on the front and the back has to have a front yard setback, and a number of those properties have sought 48 relief through a variance and that would be what in his view the appellant was first pursuing is what others Page 4 of 48  August 11, 2025 Page 3 1 have done. Mr. Haller also stated the history of this interpretation on this particular property is on file. 2 Mr. Vender noted properties have front yards along Wilson and that he didn’t have a problem with the 3 original request. He stated that he would be in favor of approving the findings of fact. Ms. Hanley stated 4 although she was not in attendance at the June 9, 2025, meeting, her questions were addressed and she 5 would vote in favor. Ms. Leister stated she is also comfortable with the facts and findings. Mr. Ritter stated 6 the code supported the Zoning Administrator‘s determination and although he sympathized with the 7 homeowners, it would have to be something that the Village Council would have to change. He also 8 referred to the appellant’s attorney’s code interpretation and stated he would support the findings of the 9 Zoning Administrator. Mr. Nielsen stated he would also be in support of the Zoning Administrator’s 10 decision. Chairman Bradley also agreed with the facts and findings prepared for the Board. He 11 commented that he agrees and understands the frustration with homeowners who don’t appreciate how 12 the Village has zoned their properties perhaps at the time that they purchased those properties the record 13 was complete with information that would have let the appellant know that there are and have been since 14 at least 1998 as far as the record shows two front lot lines identified on this property, as well as all the 15 through lots in the neighborhood to the north and to the south. Chairman Bradley also referred to 2005 16 when the Village adopted the ordinance granting the variation for the existing garage on the property, 17 which was an intrusion into the front yard setback required at the time. He noted that wasn’t the current 18 homeowner but that has been part of the record for over two decades. Chairman Bradley also referred 19 to the language in Section 17.30.050.C.3. and that the entirety of that clause is to determine buildable 20 area not to define what the lot is. He noted that it is not a definition it is used when trying to work through 21 an unusual set of properties that have three street frontages to determine the buildable area. Chairman 22 Bradley then referred to the previous discussion relating to having a study session in order to tighten up 23 the code language to erase any ambiguity that might be there, either in the general public’s better interest 24 or to help the Zoning Administrator going forward. 25 26 Mr. Haller stated the Board is discussing the appeal that was brought before us. He referred to the 27 variation the applicant previously brought before the Board and noted that there are other properties on 28 the street that have gotten variances given the nature of the street. Mr. Haller noted that doesn’t mean 29 the Board isn’t sympathetic to that as they were when they were before the Board for a variance, as it 30 appears prior ZBA Boards have been for others with through lots on Wilson. He said the Board is here to 31 make a decision on whether or not the zoning regulations by the Zoning Administrator were properly 32 formed. 33 34 Chairman Bradley asked for a motion to approve the findings and determination included in the agenda 35 packet beginning on page 9. A motion as stated by Chairman Bradley was made by Ms. Hanley and 36 seconded by Mr. Nielsen. A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 7 to 0: 37 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Hanley, Leister, Nielsen, Ritter, Vender 38 NAYS: None 39 40 New Business: 41 a. September 8, 2025, Meeting - Quorum Check. 42 The Board Members discussed their availability. 43 44 Public Comment: 45 No comments were made at this time. 46 47 Adjournment: Page 5 of 48  August 11, 2025 Page 4 1 Chairman Bradley asked for a motion to adjourn. A motion to adjourn was made by Ms. Hanley and 2 seconded by Mr. Nielsen. A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 7 to 0: 3 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Hanley, Leister, Nielsen, Ritter, Vender 4 NAYS: None 5 6 The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m. 7 8 Respectfully submitted, 9 10 Antionette Johnson 11 Recording Secretary Page 6 of 48  MEMORANDUM VILLAGE OF WINNETKA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM: ANN KLAASSEN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DATE: SEPTEMBER 3, 2025 SUBJECT: 270 BIRCH STREET – VARIATION (CASE NO. 25-17-V) INTRODUCTION On September 8, 2025, the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) is scheduled to commence a public hearing on an application submitted by Spencer and Alexandrea Kaehler (collectively, the “Applicant”) as the owners of the property located at 270 Brich Street (the “Subject Property”). The Applicant requests approval of the following zoning variation to allow construction of an attached garage addition to the existing residence on the Subject Property: 1. Front Yard Setback of 26.38 feet from the east property line along Birch Street, whereas a minimum of 50 feet is required, a variation of 23.62 feet (47.24%) [Section 17.30.050 – Front and Corner Yard Setbacks] [Note: The residence currently provides a front yard setback of 49.55 feet]. A mail notice was sent to property owners within 250 feet of the Subject Property in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. The hearing was properly noticed in the Winnetka Talk on August 21, 2025. As of the date of this memo, staff has not received any written comment from the public regarding this application. The ZBA has final jurisdiction on this request as the Board has the authority to grant a variation to reduce a front yard setback for a principal building by more no more than 50% of the required setback. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Subject Property, which is approximately 0.87 acres in size, is located on the west side of Birch Street, between Mt. Pleasant Street and Sunset Road, and contains an existing two-story residence with an attached garage (see Figure 1). The property is zoned R-2 Single Family Residential, and it is surrounded by the same (see Figure 2). The Comprehensive Plan designates the Subject Property as appropriate for single family residential development. The zoning of the property is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Page 1 Page 7 of 48  Mt. Pleasant Street Birch Street Figure 1 – Aerial Map Subject Property Figure 2 – Zoning Map PROPERTY HISTORY AND PREVIOUS ZONING APPLICATIONS The residence was constructed in 1929 with the following subsequent building permits issued in: 1. 1972 to remodel the kitchen and install a new bathroom; 2. 1984 to remodel a bedroom and bathroom; 3. 1997 to remodel four bathrooms; 4. 2004 to construct a one-story addition consisting of a conservatory and pool changing room; 5. 2005 to construct an in-ground pool and spa; 6. 2019 to convert a living room into a first floor bedroom suite; 7. 2020 to construct a living room and foyer addition; Page 2 Page 8 of 48  8. 2021 to install an elevator; 9. January 2024 for interior remodeling; and 10. October 2024 to construct a pergola and terrace (currently under construction). Other minor permits have also been issued over the last several years. The Applicant acquired the property in July 2023. There are three previous zoning cases on file for the Subject Property: 1. In 1979, ZBA Case No. 1226 was denied by the ZBA to allow conversion of a dog run into a tool shed that was located within the minimum required front yard setback of 50 feet; 2. In November 2024, ZBA Case No. 24-16-V2 received a recommendation of approval from the ZBA, by a vote of 4-1, to allow construction of a one-story three-car attached garage addition on the front elevation of the existing residence within the minimum required front yard. On December 3, 2024, the Village Council introduced Ordinance M-18-2024 with a condition that the garage be reduced to a two-car garage. Then, on December 17, 2024, the Village Council considered adoption of Ordinance M-18-2024, which included revised plans reflecting a two-car garage. At the meeting the Applicant explained that there is large Heritage Beech tree that was not previously accounted for in the proposed plans that would impede vehicular access to the proposed garage. After Council discussion regarding various alternatives with placement and sizing of the proposed garage, the item was continued to the January 7, 2025, meeting to allow the Applicant time to continue to revise the proposed plans. The Applicant then withdrew the application on December 30, 2024; and 3. On July 14, 2025, the ZBA considered Case No. 25-10-V2 to allow construction of an attached garage addition to the existing residence and a detached garage that required approval of the following variations: (a) front yard setback; (b) total side yard setback; and (c) front-facing garage door width. After hearing from the Applicant’s representative, receiving written comments from two neighbors in opposition to the request, the Board heard from one member of the public who was also a neighbor and opposed to the request. The Board then discussed the project. Some Board members expressed support of the request to exceed the maximum permitted width for front-facing garage doors, but thought the existing attached garage could be expanded without encroaching into the required front yard setback, or at least not to the extent as proposed. Additionally, there was not ZBA support for the proposed detached garage that was driving the need for the total side yard setback variation. Ultimately, by a vote of 6-0, the ZBA recommended denial of the request. Prior to consideration of the request by the Village Council, the Applicant withdrew the application and has submitted the variation application that is currently before the Board. Minutes of the November 2024 and July 2025 ZBA meetings are included in this report as Attachment D. Figures 3 and 4 on the following page are photos of the site taken in July. Page 3 Page 9 of 48  General Location of Proposed Addition Figure 3 - Subject Property (Front Elevation – Birch Street) Figure 4 – Subject Property (Front Elevation Looking Northwest) Page 4 Page 10 of 48 PROPOSED PLAN The variation is being requested in order to construct a one-story attached garage addition on the front elevation of the existing residence. The existing front-facing attached garage would be converted into storage space. The proposed garage would accommodate two vehicles; and would be side-loaded, meaning the garage doors would not face the street. The addition would measure 21.96 feet by 27.33 feet (600 square feet). With the exception of the front yard setback, the proposed addition complies with the zoning regulations. Excerpts of the proposed site plan, floor plan, and proposed building elevations are provided below and on the following pages as Figures 5 through 9. The complete set of plans is provided in the application materials (Attachment C). Proposed Addition Tree to be Removed Figure 5 – Proposed Site Plan Page 5 Page 11 of 48 Figure 6 – Proposed First Floor Plan – Attached Garage Addition (North is to the right) Figure 7 – Proposed Front Elevation (East) of Attached Garage Addition Page 6 Page 12 of 48  Figure 8 – Proposed North Elevation of Attached Garage Addition Figure 9 – Proposed South Elevation of Attached Garage Addition Given the ZBA often receives questions regarding the stormwater regulations applicable to a specific request being considered by the ZBA, attached is a Stormwater Matrix (Attachment B). Based on the proposed plan it appears additional stormwater detention would not be required. However, a final determination will be made by Village Engineering staff upon submittal of the permits necessary for the proposed improvements, which are required to comply with the Village stormwater regulations. Figure 10 on the following page represents the Subject Property’s proximity to the floodplain; the cyan represents the 100-year floodplain, the orange represents the 500-year floodplain. A portion of the Subject Property along the north property line, west of the existing residence, is located within the 100- year floodplain; however, the residence itself is not. Any improvements within the 100-year floodplain are subject to the Village’s Flood Hazard Protection Ordinance and the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District (MWRD) Water Management Ordinance (WMO). The proposed addition is located east of the Page 7 Page 13 of 48 existing residence, away from the 100-year floodplain Subject Property Figure 10 – GIS Floodplain Map REQUESTED ZONING RELIEF The attached Zoning Matrix highlights the existing lot and the proposed improvement’s compliance with the R-2 zoning district (Attachment A). One variation is being requested to allow the proposed attached garage addition to provide a front yard setback of 26.38 feet from the east property line along Birch Street, whereas a minimum of 50 feet is required, a variation of 23.62 feet (47.24%). The existing residence is legally nonconforming with respect to the front yard setback as it currently provides a front yard setback of 49.55 feet, encroaching the minimum required setback of 50 feet by 0.45 feet. For reference, the variation application that was considered by the ZBA in November of last year and received a recommendation of approval, but was subsequently withdrawn, proposed a front yard setback of 16.25 feet to a side-loaded three-car attached garage. FINDINGS In the attached application materials submitted by the Applicant, the Applicant has provided a statement of justification regarding how the requested variation meets the standards for granting the requested zoning variation. Does the ZBA find that the requested variation meets the standards for granting such variation; and if so, is the ZBA prepared to approve the requested variation? Staff has prepared the attached draft resolutions for the Board’s consideration (Attachment E). One resolution approves the request, while the other denies the request. A Board member may wish to make a motion to adopt either the resolution to approve the requested variation or the resolution to deny the requested variation. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Zoning Matrix Attachment B: Stormwater Matrix Attachment C: Application Materials Attachment D: November 18, 2024, and July 14, 2025, ZBA Meeting Minutes Excerpts Attachment E: Draft Resolutions Page 8 Page 14 of 48  ATTACHMENT A ZONING MATRIX ADDRESS: 270 Birch Street CASE NO: 25-17-V ZONING: R-2 MIN/MAX DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ITEM REQUIREMENT EXISTING PROPOSED PROPOSED & EXISTING ZONING CODE COMPLIANCE (2) Min. Lot Size 24,000 SF 38,048 SF N/A N/A OK Min. Average Lot Width 100 FT 164.77 FT N/A N/A OK Min. Lot Depth 200 FT 230.92 FT N/A N/A OK Max. Roofed Lot Coverage 9,512 SF (1) 5,044.36 SF 5,644.53 SF 600.17 SF OK Max. Gross Floor Area 10,566.04 SF (1) 7,837.69 SF 8,437.86 SF 600.17 SF OK Max. Impermeable Lot Coverage 19,024 SF (1) 13,489 SF 14,148.22 SF 659.22 SF OK Min. Front Yard (Birch/East) 50 FT 49.55 FT 26.38 FT -23.17 FT 23.62 FEET (47.24%) VARIATION Min. Side Yard (North) 12 FT 10.39 FT 10.39 FT (3) 0 FT EXISTING NONCONFORMING Min. Total Side Yards 49.43 FT 57.44 FT 57.44 FT 0 FT OK Min. Rear Yard (West) 25 FT +95 FT +95 FT 0 FT OK NOTES: (1) Based on lot area of 38,048 s.f. (2) Variation amount is the difference between proposed and requirement. (3) Proposed garage addition would provide a north side yard setback of 12.29 feet. Page 15 of 48  ATTACHMENT B Stormwater Volume Requirements for Development Sites In addition to meeting the following storm water volume detention requirements, development sites must meet all other Village storm water management requirements such as drainage and grading, storm water release rates, storage system design requirements, etc. An exception is for lots along the lakefront that directly discharge into Lake Michigan; those lots are not required to provide stormwater volume detention on- site. They are required to meet all other Village stormwater system design requirements. Storm Water Detention Volume Applicable Requirement Requirements A. New Home Construction - The amount of additional required storm Previously Developed Lot water detention volume is based upon the difference between maximum impermeable lot coverage, per Zoning Code, and existing lot coverage, using the run-off coefficient for a 100-year storm event for both. B. New Home Construction - The amount of required storm water Previously Undeveloped Site detention volume is based upon the maximum impermeable lot coverage, using the run-off coefficient for 100-year storm event. C. Redevelopment of Site for The amount of required storm water Different Use detention volume is based upon the (e.g. single family to multi- maximum impermeable lot coverage, family, or commercial) using the run-off coefficient for 100-year storm event. D. Improvements to Existing The amount of additional required storm Applies to 270 Birch Street Home and/or Lot, causing an water detention volume is based upon Based upon preliminary review increase in impermeable lot the difference between the proposed of information to date, it coverage greater or equal to and existing impermeable lot coverage, appears that 270 Birch Street 25%. using the run-off coefficient for 100 year would not have to provide storm event. (Note: If the increase in additional storm water impermeable lot coverage is less than detention volume. However, a 25%, additional storm water detention final determination will not volume is not required.) occur until engineering plans are submitted with a building permit application. E. Improvements to existing The amount of additional required storm lots, who currently exceed water detention volume is based upon: maximum impermeable lot a) The amount of the impermeable coverage (e.g., School sites, lot coverage (ILC) currently in single family and multi- excess of the maximum family sites) permitted amount of ILC allowed by zoning that will be removed and replaced, and/or b) The amount of ILC in addition to what currently exists on the lot. Page 16 of 48 Stormwater Volume Requirements for Development Sites The amount of required detention volume is then determined using the run- off coefficient for 100-year storm event. Page 17 of 48 ATTACHMENT C 25-17-V Page 18 of 48 Page 19 of 48 Page 20 of 48 Page 21 of 48 Page 22 of 48 Page 23 of 48 Page 24 of 48 Page 25 of 48 Page 26 of 48 Page 27 of 48  ATTACHMENT D Minutes adopted 04.14.2025 1 WINNETKA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES EXCERPT 2 NOVEMBER 18, 2024 3 4 Zoning Board Members Present: Matt Bradley, Chairman 5 Mark Haller 6 Lynn Hanley 7 Kathryn Leister 8 Todd Vender 9 10 Zoning Board Members Absent: Kate Casale MacNally 11 Mike Nielsen 12 13 Village Staff: David Schoon, Director of Community Development 14 Ann Klaassen, Assistant Director of Community 15 Development 16 Christopher Marx, Associate Planner 17 18 *** 19 20 a. Case No. 24-16-V2: 270 Birch Street: An application seeking approval of a variation to allow 21 construction of an addition to the existing residence at 270 Birch Street. The requested variation would 22 permit the proposed addition to provide less than the minimum required front yard setback from the 23 east property line along Birch Street. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request. 24 Ms. Klaassen identified the property’s location, size and zoning classification as well as site photographs. 25 She explained the variation being requested and referred to the proposed addition’s illustrations. Ms. 26 Klaassen then described the rooms contained in the area of the existing garage that will no longer be 27 garage space and the proposed garage addition, and referred to various elevation views. She stated one 28 written comment was received and was included in the agenda packet. Ms. Klaassen stated following the 29 applicant’s presentation and public comment, the Board may consider a motion to recommend approval 30 or denial of the request, or continue the matter to a date certain with draft language included on page 89 31 of the agenda packet. She then asked if there were any questions. No questions were raised at this time. 32 33 Chairman Bradley asked for the applicant’s presentation and swore in those speaking to this matter. James 34 Laughlin, project architect, and Alex Kaehler, the applicant, introduced themselves to the Board. Ms. 35 Kaehler informed the Board the older home was extensively renovated and in their attempts to make the 36 garage more modern, they considered historically consistent options. She stated the proposal is 37 aesthetically pleasing and would not block sight lines. 38 39 Mr. Laughlin stated his company did historic preservation type projects and they realized they would have 40 to consider hardships relating to older homes. He stated the home is located right on the 50 foot front 41 yard setback which represented limited options in terms of the garage. Mr. Laughlin stated the proposal 42 represented the most architecturally appropriate approach without tearing down the home and would 43 contribute to the neighborhood by not having front facing garage doors. 44 45 Mr. Haller questioned an area in an illustration. Ms. Klaassen responded it represented a vacated right- 46 of-way. Ms. Kaehler informed the Board that neighbor provided a letter in support of the application. Ms. 47 Hanley asked if other locations were considered. Ms. Kaehler informed the Board of the alternative 48 locations which included a detached garage installation that would not require a variance. Mr. Laughlin Page 28 of 48  November 18, 2024 Page 2 1 noted that alternative would make the garage closer to two adjacent properties. Ms. Kaehler noted they 2 are not yet living in the home and have been renovating it for a year. She added they have photos of the 3 home prior to the renovation. 4 5 Chairman Bradley asked how much of the interior layout matched what would have been common in 6 homes of this time period. Mr. Laughlin and Ms. Kaehler explained the prior parlor type spaces and how 7 the home’s interior was divided up. Mr. Laughlin added they planned to match the existing materials. The 8 applicant also provided additional information relating to the size of the three car garage and accessing 9 the westernmost bay of the garage and the necessary clearance from the existing residence. Mr. Laughlin 10 confirmed the proposal represented the most minimally invasive version of the garage. Ms. Kaehler stated 11 they could consider using a double door garage to minimize the garage size by 2 feet. 12 13 Chairman Bradley asked for public comment and swore in those speaking to this matter. Alexandra 14 Nichols, 900 Mt. Pleasant, read her comments into the record relating to the length of time and amount 15 of construction at the applicant’s property and asked for the Board not to approve the variation. 16 17 Ms. Kaehler responded the garage was considered as part of the initial project and that it was determined 18 the property was in the flood plain which meant they could not expand the home’s footprint. She stated 19 the home was later determined to not be in the flood plain and explained how construction traffic is being 20 staged. Mr. Vender asked if a garage could be built as of right to the south to alleviate the neighbors’ 21 concerns. Ms. Klaassen confirmed that is correct provided the applicant complied with impermeable lot 22 coverage limitations which would result in a driveway extending the length of the south property line. 23 24 Chairman Bradley called the matter in for discussion. Mr. Haller stated he is sympathetic to the neighbors’ 25 concerns relating to the amount of construction. He stated with regard to the garage as positioned and 26 how it related to the rest of the construction, it seemed logical. Mr. Haller also indicated the garage could 27 be a two car garage instead and the garage being installed in the rear would be more intrusive. He then 28 stated he is also concerned with setting a precedent. Ms. Hanley stated while she loved the design and 29 the attempt to keep it historically appropriate, the request did not fit within zoning and the encroachment 30 would be very significant. She also referred to standard nos. 1 and 3 not being met and referred to the 31 existing home’s setback on the street in the R-2 zoning district. Ms. Hanley then stated while the 32 alternatives are not desirable, she is not in favor of the significant encroachment. 33 34 Ms. Leister stated she is in favor of the request and referred to standard no. 1 as being reasonable with 35 the garage’s alternate southwest location being inferior. She then stated the preservation of the older 36 home warranted the variation. Mr. Vender stated he is not as bothered by the encroachment and agreed 37 there is a lot of construction traffic. He stated the resulting garage would be befitting to the amount of 38 work done on the home. Mr. Vender stated a garage will ultimately be built on the property. Chairman 39 Bradley agreed with Ms. Hanley’s comments relating to standard nos. 1 and 3 and made several points 40 relating to reasonable return. He then stated for this project, he questioned the reasonable return for this 41 home without some relief being granted to quantify having a garage of a size in keeping with the home’s 42 size. Chairman Bradley stated it is expected to have a garage to accommodate two vehicles for a home 43 this size and alternative locations would create issues. He then stated he would be less troubled by 44 encroachment in the front yard setback in this instance and would be in favor of recommending approval. 45 Mr. Haller referred to the alternative of tearing down the home and having a newly constructed home 46 and concluded he would be in favor of recommending approval. 47 Page 29 of 48  November 18, 2024 Page 3 1 Chairman Bradley then asked for a motion to recommend approval. A motion to recommend approval 2 was made by Mr. Haller and seconded by Ms. Leister. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 4 to 1: 3 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Leister, Vender 4 NAYS: Hanley 5 6 *** 7 8 Respectfully submitted, 9 10 Antionette Johnson 11 Recording Secretary Page 30 of 48  Minutes adopted 08.11.2025 1 WINNETKA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES EXCERPT 2 JULY 14, 2025 3 4 Zoning Board Members Present: Matt Bradley, Chairman 5 Mark Haller 6 Lynn Hanley 7 Kathryn Leister 8 Mike Nielsen 9 Michael Ritter 10 11 Zoning Board Members Absent: Todd Vender 12 13 Village Attorney: Courtney Trefil 14 15 Village Staff: Scott Mangum, Director of Community Development 16 Ann Klaassen, Assistant Director of Community 17 Development 18 Christopher Marx, Associate Planner 19 20 *** 21 22 New Cases: 23 a. Case No. 25-10-V2: 270 Birch Street: An application seeking approval of zoning variations to 24 allow construction of an addition to the existing residence and a new detached garage at 270 Birch 25 Street. The requested variations would permit the proposed improvements to (i) provide less than the 26 minimum required front yard setback from the east property line along Birch Street; (ii) provide less 27 than the minimum required total side yard setback; and (iii) exceed the maximum permitted width for 28 front-facing garage doors. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request. 29 Ms. Klaassen identified the property’s location, zoning classification, photos and location of the proposed 30 detached garage. She summarized the Board’s consideration of the previous variation application at a 31 prior ZBA meeting, as well as the Village Council’s consideration of the previous proposal. The Board 32 Members discussed the tree in question which caused access issues. Ms. Klaassen summarized the 33 proposed variations related to constructing an addition to the existing attached front facing garage and a 34 new detached garage she identified for the Board. She noted the total garage space on the site would 35 accommodate three vehicles and explained the rear quarter setback requirements. Ms. Klaassen 36 described the proposed and existing garages’ position and dimensions and explained the zoning relief 37 required. She informed the Board two emails were received from neighbors and stated following hearing 38 from the applicant and the public, and Board deliberation, a Board Member may make a motion to 39 recommend approval or denial with draft language provided on page 78. Ms. Klaassen asked if there were 40 any questions. No questions were raised at this time. 41 42 Chairman Bradley swore in those speaking to this matter. Scott Rosett, the general contractor, explained 43 the two year process undertaken in considering the proposed plan to help maintain the integrity of the 44 older home. He stated a two car normal sized garage would not function well for the owners and described 45 the process the applicants underwent to solve the issues. Mr. Rosett stated although there may be a way 46 in which to conform to the restrictions, the owners are aesthetically driven and the architect created a 47 plan to allow for modern day living. He noted the existing two car garage would not conform to a typical Page 31 of 48  July 14, 2025 Page 2 1 two car garage in terms of its width which drove the need for how an additional garage came into play. 2 Mr. Rosett also provided an explanation in response to the two letters submitted in opposition. 3 4 Chairman Bradley summarized the application’s prior consideration and questioned the issues involved 5 relating to the tree and the vehicle turning radius. Mr. Rosett described the limitations of the existing two 6 car size in detail which explained the need for the additional south garage. 7 8 Ms. Hanley questioned the interior and exterior garage measurements as well as the floorplan with two 9 garage doors. Mr. Rosett explained the reasoning for the different elevations as well as the size needed 10 for the applicants’ vehicles and storage. He added that the north side would be a very wide one car garage 11 and explained the need for the garage addition. The Board Members and applicant further discussed the 12 amount of interior space. Mr. Haller asked for the amount that it could be brought forward which did not 13 trigger a front yard variation. Ms. Klaassen responded it could come towards Birch Street approximately 14 3.5 feet and identified the existing front yard setback. The Board Members and applicant discussed 15 possible garage sizes to eliminate one of the variances. 16 17 Ms. Leister asked about the south neighbor’s position regarding the detached garage placement in the 18 front compared to the rear of the lot. Mr. Rosett responded the neighbor supported their initial 19 submission and stated the proposed location would affect them less. Chairman Bradley noted the 20 neighbor to the south presented a letter in opposition to the free standing structure. He then asked why 21 the design was changed. Mr. Rosett stated the applicant’s preferred a single detached garage in the front 22 of the property but that would not have been acceptable, which resulted in the three car garage noting 23 the tree presented a problem. He explained the applicants’ preference for a detached garage on the south 24 which would result in an estate type setting which mimicked the home’s original architectural style. The 25 Board Members and applicant further discussed alternatives. No additional questions from the Board 26 were raised at this time. 27 28 Chairman Bradley asked for public comment and swore in those speaking to this matter. Alexandra Nichols 29 identified herself as the rear neighbor and described how the existing garage is not used. She stated the 30 applicants are asking for special consideration to allow them to have additional space and referred to 31 several neighbors who are strongly opposed to the request. No additional comments were made at this 32 time. 33 34 Chairman Bradley called the matter in for discussion and summarized the items the Board is to consider. 35 Ms. Hanley stated she voted in opposition to the initial request and stated the property did not have any 36 unique aspects which created a hardship. She stated she would not vote in favor of the requested setbacks 37 and identified alternatives for the garage location. Ms. Hanley applauded the applicants on maintaining 38 the older home and stated she would not be in opposition to one garage door for the existing garage. 39 40 Mr. Nielsen agreed with Ms. Hanley’s comments and referred to the standards. He stated the applicants 41 still have the ability to yield a reasonable return. Mr. Nielsen stated he would not vote in favor of the 42 request and would agree to the existing garage’s modification. Mr. Haller agreed with the comments 43 made and stated bringing the garage forward would provide additional depth and allow for more storage. 44 He also stated he would not have an issue with a wider garage door on the existing garage. 45 46 Ms. Leister stated she would vote against the three variations requested and referred to the standards 47 which were not met. She also referred to the neighbors’ concerns. Ms. Leister then stated they can 48 maximize the existing options which would not trigger the setback as well as the alternatives suggested Page 32 of 48  July 14, 2025 Page 3 1 with regard to storage space. Mr. Ritter commented the project has been beautifully done and stated the 2 criteria for granting the variations have not been met. He stated he would be in favor of the garage door 3 width change and extending the front of the existing garage. Chairman Bradley stated he supported the 4 initial plans and there has been no justification for the detached garage on the south side. He identified 5 the prior concerns raised with regard to placing a detached garage on the south side. Chairman Bradley 6 stated he would otherwise support the application and described the effect on the neighbors. He then 7 stated the first three standards are not satisfied with the architect having identified other options. 8 9 Chairman Bradley asked for a motion to recommend denial of the request as noted on page 78. A motion 10 as stated by Chairman Bradley was made by Ms. Hanley and seconded by Mr. Nielsen. A vote was taken 11 and the motion unanimously passed, 6 to 0: 12 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Hanley, Leister, Nielsen, Ritter 13 NAYS: None 14 15 *** 16 17 Respectfully submitted, 18 19 Antionette Johnson 20 Recording Secretary Page 33 of 48  ATTACHMENT E RESOLUTION NO. ZBA-02-2025 VILLAGE OF WINNETKA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPROVAL OF ZBA CASE NO. 25-17-V – 270 BIRCH STREET WHEREAS, Spencer and Alexandra Kaehler (collectively, the “Applicant”) are the owners of the property commonly known as 270 Birch Street, Winnetka, Illinois, and legally described in Exhibit A attached to and, by this reference, made part of this Resolution (“Subject Property”); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is located in the R-2 Single Family Residential District; and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is improved with a single family residence with an attached garage that is nonconforming with respect to the minimum required front yard setback from the east property line along Birch Street (“Building”); and WHEREAS, the Applicant desires to construct a one-story addition to the Building in order to expand the existing attached garage on the Subject Property that would provide less than the minimum required front yard setback (“Proposed Improvement”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.30.050 of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance (“Zoning Ordinance”), the Subject Property is required provide a minimum front yard setback of 50 feet; and WHEREAS, the Applicant desires to construct the Proposed Improvement on the Subject Property with a minimum front yard setback that is less than 50 feet, a violation of Section 17.30.050 of the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Applicant filed an application for a variation from Section 17.30.050 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the Proposed Improvement on the Subject Property with a front yard setback of 26.38 feet (“Requested Variation”); and WHEREAS, a public notice for the Requested Variation was duly published on August 21, 2025, in the Winnetka Talk and notice was mailed to the owners of record of all properties within 250 feet of the Subject Property as required by the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Winnetka Zoning Board of Appeals during a meeting held on September 8, 2025, for the purpose of considering the Requested Variation with the final decision being rendered at the Zoning Board of Appeal’s Regular Meeting on September 8, 2025; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has considered the evidence presented, as follows: 1. Application for the Requested Variation submitted by the Applicant, dated August 15, 2025, including all attachments as well as all subsequent additions and revisions to these application materials and attachments; and 2. All written and oral testimony concerning the Requested Variation. Page 34 of 48  WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has determined that the Requested Variation does satisfy the standards for a variation provided in Sections 17.60.040 and 17.60.050 of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has determined that it will serve and be in the best interest of the Village and its residents to grant the application for the front yard setback variation, subject to, the conditions, restrictions, and provisions of this Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Winnetka, Cook County, Illinois, that: SECTION 1. RECITALS. The foregoing recitals are incorporated into, and made part of, this Resolution as the findings of the Zoning Board of Appeals. SECTION 2. APPROVAL OF VARIATION. Subject to and contingent upon the conditions, restrictions, and provisions set forth in Section Three of this Resolution, the requested front yard setback variation from Section 17.30.050 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the Proposed Improvement on the Subject Property is hereby granted, in accordance with and pursuant to Chapter 17.60 of the Zoning Ordinance and the home rule powers of the Village. SECTION 3. CONDITIONS. Notwithstanding any use or development right that may be applicable or available pursuant to the provisions of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance or any other rights the Applicant may have, the approval granted in Section Two of this Resolution is hereby expressly subject to and contingent upon compliance with each and all of the following conditions: A. Compliance with Plans. Except for minor changes and site work approved by the Director of Community Development in accordance with all applicable Village standards, the development, use, operation, and maintenance of the Subject Property, shall comply with those certain plans attached hereto as Exhibit B. B. Compliance with Regulations. The construction, development, use, operation, and maintenance of the Proposed Improvement and the Subject Property must comply with all applicable Village codes and ordinances, as the same may be amended from time to time, except to the extent specifically provided otherwise in this Resolution. SECTION 4. RECORDING; BINDING EFFECT. A copy of this Resolution will be recorded in the office of the Cook County Clerk Recording Division. This Resolution and the privileges, obligations, and provisions contained herein will inure solely to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the Applicant and its respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns. SECTION 5. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS. Upon the failure or refusal of the Applicant to comply with any or all of the conditions, restrictions, or provisions of this Resolution, the approval granted in Section Two of this Resolution will, at the sole discretion of the Zoning Board of Appeals, by Resolution duly adopted, be revoked and become null and void; provided, however, that the Zoning Board of Appeals may not so revoke the approval granted in Section Two of this Resolution unless it first provides the Applicant with two months advance written notice of the reasons for revocation and an opportunity to be heard at a regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. In the event of revocation, the development and use of the Subject Property will be governed solely by the applicable regulations of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance, including, without limitation, the front yard setback requirement set forth in Section 17.30.050 of the Zoning Ordinance. Further, in the event of Page 35 of 48 such revocation, the Village Manager and Village Attorney are hereby authorized and directed to bring such zoning enforcement action as may be appropriate under the circumstances. SECTION 6. AMENDMENTS. Any amendments to the Requested Variation granted in Section Two of this Resolution may be granted only pursuant to the procedures, and subject to the standards and limitations, provided in the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance. SECTION 7. EFFECTIVE DATE. A. This Resolution will be effective only upon the occurrence of all of the following events: B. Passage by the Zoning Board of Appeals in the manner required by law; and C. The filing by the Applicant with the Village Clerk of an Unconditional Agreement and Consent, in the form of Exhibit C attached to and, by this reference, made a part of this Resolution, to accept and abide by each and all of the terms, conditions, and limitations set forth in this Resolution and to indemnify the Village for any claims that may arise in connection with the approval of this Resolution. D. In the event that the Applicant does not file fully executed copies of the Unconditional Agreement and Consent, as required by Section 7.C of this Resolution, within 60 days after the date of final passage of this Resolution by the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Zoning Board of Appeals will have the right, in its sole discretion, to declare this Resolution null and void and of no force or effect. ADOPTED this 8th day of September, 2025, pursuant to the following roll call vote: AYES: ______________________________________________________________________ NAYS: ______________________________________________________________________ ABSENT: ____________________________________________________________________ ABSTAIN: ___________________________________________________________________ Signed: ____________________________________ Matthew Bradley, Chairperson Countersigned: ____________________________________ Village Clerk Page 36 of 48  EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY PARCEL 1: LOTS 46 TO 54 INCLUSIVE IN OAK GROVE ADDITION TO WINNETKA. A SUBDIVISION OF THE EAST 8 ACRES OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH RANGE 13, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINICIPAL MERIDIAN. ALSO, THE NORTH 33 FEET OF OSGOOD STREET IN THE VILLAGE OF WINNETKA. ABUTTING ON THE SAID LOTS 46 TO 54 INCLUSIVE AFORESAID ALL IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. ALSO KNOWN AS: LOT D IN OWNER’S CONSOLIDATION OF LOTS 10 THROUGH 72 IN OAK GROVE ADDITION TO WINNETKA INCLUDED WITH VACATED WINDES AND OSGOOD STREETS. A SUBDIVISION OF THE EAST 8 ACRES OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 13 EAST OF THE THIRD PRICNIAIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED SEPTEMBER 29, 1947 AS DOCUMENT NO. 14155054. Commonly known as 270 Birch Street, Winnetka, Illinois. Parcel Index Number: 05-20-400-065-0000 Page 37 of 48  EXHIBIT B PLANS (SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT B) Page 38 of 48 EXHIBIT B Page 39 of 48 Page 40 of 48 Page 41 of 48 Page 42 of 48 Page 43 of 48 Page 44 of 48  EXHIBIT C UNCONDITIONAL AGREEMENT AND CONSENT TO: The Village of Winnetka, Illinois (“Village”): WHEREAS, Spencer and Alexandra Kaehler (collectively, the “Owner”) are the owner of record of that certain real property located at 270 Birch Street, Winnetka, Illinois (“Property”); and WHEREAS, Resolution No. ZBA-02-2025, adopted by the Winnetka Zoning Board of Appeals on September 8, 2025 (“Resolution”), grants a variation to construct a one-story addition to the legally nonconforming single family residence on the Subject Property; and WHEREAS, Section 7.A.2 of the Resolution provides, among other things, that the Resolution will be of no force or effect unless and until the Owner has filed, within 60 days following the passage of the Resolution, its unconditional agreement and consent to accept and abide by each and all of the terms, conditions, and limitations set forth in the Resolution; NOW, THEREFORE, the Owner does hereby agree and covenant as follows: 1. The Owner hereby unconditionally agrees to accept, consent to, and abide by each and all of the terms, conditions, limitations, restrictions, and provisions of the Resolution. 2. The Owner acknowledges that public notices and public hearings have been properly given and held with respect to the adoption of the Resolution, have considered the possibility of the revocation provided for in the Resolution, and agree not to challenge any such revocation on the grounds of any procedural infirmity or a denial of any procedural right. 3. The Owner acknowledges and agrees that the Village is not and will not be, in any way, liable for any damages or injuries that may be sustained as a result of the Village’s granting of the variation, and that the Village’s approval of the variation does not, and will not, in any way, be deemed to insure the Owner against damage or injury of any kind and at any time. 4. The Owner hereby agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the Village, the Village’s corporate authorities, and all Village elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, representatives, and attorneys, from any and all claims that may, at any time, be asserted against any of such parties in connection with the Village’s adoption of the Resolution granting the variation for the Property. Dated: _____________________, 2025. ATTEST OWNER By: By: Spencer Kaehler Name:_____________________ By: Alexandra Kaehler Page 45 of 48  RESOLUTION NO. ZBA-02-2025 VILLAGE OF WINNETKA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DENIAL OF ZBA CASE NO. 25-17-V – 270 BIRCH STREET WHEREAS, Spencer and Alexandra Kaehler (collectively, the “Applicant”) are the owners of the property commonly known as 270 Birch Street, Winnetka, Illinois, and legally described in Exhibit A attached to and, by this reference, made part of this Resolution (“Subject Property”); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is located in the R-2 Single Family Residential District; and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is improved with a single family residence with an attached garage that is nonconforming with respect to the minimum required front yard setback from the east property line along Birch Street (“Building”); and WHEREAS, the Applicant desires to construct a one-story addition to the Building in order to expand the existing attached garage on the Subject Property that would provide less than the minimum required front yard setback (“Proposed Improvement”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.30.050 of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance (“Zoning Ordinance”), the Subject Property is required provide a minimum front yard setback of 50 feet; and WHEREAS, the Applicant desires to construct the Proposed Improvement on the Subject Property with a minimum front yard setback that is less than 50 feet, a violation of Section 17.30.050 of the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Applicant filed an application for a variation from Section 17.30.050 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the Proposed Improvement on the Subject Property with a front yard setback of 26.38 feet (“Requested Variation”); and WHEREAS, a public notice for the Requested Variation was duly published on August 21, 2025, in the Winnetka Talk and notice was mailed to the owners of record of all properties within 250 feet of the Subject Property as required by the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Winnetka Zoning Board of Appeals during a meeting held on September 8, 2025, for the purpose of considering the Requested Variation with the final decision being rendered at the Zoning Board of Appeal’s Regular Meeting on September 8, 2025; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has considered the evidence presented, as follows: 1. Application for the Requested Variation submitted by the Applicant, dated August 15, 2025, including all attachments as well as all subsequent additions and revisions to these application materials and attachments; and 2. All written and oral testimony concerning the Requested Variation. Page 46 of 48  WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has determined that the Requested Variation does not satisfy the standards for a variation provided in Sections 17.60.040 and 17.60.050 of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance because (i) the Requested Variation is not in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance; (ii) the Subject Property can yield a reasonable return if it is permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed for the R-2 Single Family Residential District; and (iii) the plight of the Applicant is not due to unique circumstances; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has determined that it will not serve and be in the best interest of the Village and its residents to approve the Requested Variation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Winnetka, Cook County, Illinois, that: SECTION 1. RECITALS. The foregoing recitals are incorporated into, and made part of, this Resolution as the findings of the Zoning Board of Appeals. SECTION 2. DENIAL OF VARIATION. In accordance with and pursuant to Chapter 17.60 of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance and the home rule powers of the Village, the Zoning Board of Appeals denies the Requested Variation for the Subject Property. SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution will be effective upon passage by the Zoning Board of Appeals in the manner required by law. ADOPTED this 8th day of September, 2025, pursuant to the following roll call vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Signed: ____________________________________ Matthew Bradley, Chairperson Countersigned: _______________________________________ Village Clerk Page 47 of 48  EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY PARCEL 1: LOTS 46 TO 54 INCLUSIVE IN OAK GROVE ADDITION TO WINNETKA. A SUBDIVISION OF THE EAST 8 ACRES OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH RANGE 13, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINICIPAL MERIDIAN. ALSO, THE NORTH 33 FEET OF OSGOOD STREET IN THE VILLAGE OF WINNETKA. ABUTTING ON THE SAID LOTS 46 TO 54 INCLUSIVE AFORESAID ALL IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. ALSO KNOWN AS: LOT D IN OWNER’S CONSOLIDATION OF LOTS 10 THROUGH 72 IN OAK GROVE ADDITION TO WINNETKA INCLUDED WITH VACATED WINDES AND OSGOOD STREETS. A SUBDIVISION OF THE EAST 8 ACRES OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 13 EAST OF THE THIRD PRICNIAIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED SEPTEMBER 29, 1947 AS DOCUMENT NO. 14155054. Commonly known as 270 Birch Street, Winnetka, Illinois. Parcel Index Number: 05-20-400-065-0000 Page 48 of 48