Park Ridge Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting – August 27, 2026

The Park Ridge Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) met on Thursday, August 27, 2026, at 7:00 p.m. in City Hall Council Chambers. All five commissioners were present (Chair Shilling, Commissioners Genko, Tabber, Vlasich, and Accurate) and a quorum was established. The board considered four variance cases, one of which included a split vote. All variances were approved or recommended for approval with varying conditions.

Consent Calendar

• Approval of Minutes (July 23, 2026): The minutes were approved unanimously by a roll call vote of 5-0.

Public Comments & Testimony

• No members of the public offered testimony during the Citizens Wishing to Be Heard on Non-Agenda Items portion. Each variance case included a public hearing; in all cases, no audience members spoke in favor or opposition.

Discussion Items

Case VA-26-17: Variances at 113 Belle Plaine Avenue (Major/Minor)

• Applicant: Zach Barnett, owner and resident.
• Request: Construct a new detached 24x22 ft garage in the rear, converting the existing attached garage to a bedroom. Required variances: (1) Major – detached accessory building less than 10 ft from principal (proposed 8.63 ft); (2) Minor – exceed maximum floor area ratio by 79.9 sq ft; (3) Minor – exceed maximum lot coverage by 61.63 sq ft.
• Applicant’s Position: Cited a substandard lot (550 sq ft below the 6,500 sq ft R2 baseline) and a household member with a progressive visual impairment, invoking a Fair Housing Act reasonable accommodation. He argued the garage location minimizes impact on mature trees and water issues, and aligns with alley‑access garages in the neighborhood.
• Board Discussion: Commissioners noted the substandard lot created a unique hardship. They acknowledged the applicant compromised on garage depth to reduce the variance. The board agreed the project would improve the neighborhood appearance and that the driveway removal, while desirable, was not required.
• Finding of Fact: The strict application would cause undue hardship due to the substandard lot; the plight is unique; the variance will not alter neighborhood character.

Case VA-26-18: Variance at 638 Ottawa Avenue (Major)

• Applicant: Larry Kelly, owner and resident.
• Request: Add a one‑story addition (bathroom and laundry room) to the south facade. Required variance: Major – interior side yard setback of 5 ft instead of required 6.49 ft (an 18‑inch encroachment).
• Applicant’s Position: The house has only one small bathroom, and the basement stairs are dangerous (the owner fell and broke his foot). He and his wife (age 78) need a safer layout. The addition attaches to the existing plumbing wall and is the most logical location. The neighbor was informed and had no objection.
• Board Discussion: Commissioners initially struggled with whether a hardship existed, but concluded that the existing plumbing location and house layout made alternative placement impractical without major renovation. They emphasized that such projects help keep homes affordable and suitable for aging residents.
• Finding of Fact: The location of plumbing and home layout would require extensive modification to place the addition elsewhere; unique circumstances exist.

Case VA-26-19: Variance at 1713 S. Ashland Avenue (Major)

• Applicant: Steve Godsell, owner and resident.
• Request: Install an above‑ground hot tub behind the detached garage, 7.25 ft from the rear (east) property line instead of the required 8 ft (9‑inch encroachment).
• Applicant’s Position: He suffered a stroke and a broken ankle; hot tub therapy is prescribed by his doctor. He argued the proposed location is the only one that avoids taking over the backyard, preserves privacy, and minimizes cost. He provided a doctor’s letter (redacted for public record). He stated that smaller or rectangular hot tubs are either poor quality or not accessible for his family.
• Board Discussion: The vote split 3‑2. Those in favor (Commissioners Accurate, Vlasich, Genko) cited the therapeutic need, the very minor encroachment, and that the applicant had limited viable alternatives. Those opposed (Commissioners Tabber, Shilling) argued that other locations (e.g., front yard, different shaped hot tub) were available and that the hardship was not unique from a land‑use perspective. Staff noted that if the recommendation is denied by City Council, the applicant must obtain a two‑thirds vote to overturn.
• Finding of Fact: Uniqueness was debated; the motion passed with a condition that the variance applies only to the east lot line.

Case VA-26-20: Variances at 525 S. Chester Avenue (Majors)

• Applicant: Patrick Maher, owner and resident for 25 years.
• Request: Install two new AC units on the north side of the house, within the interior side yard. Required variances: (1) mechanical equipment in interior side yard; (2) encroachment of up to 3 ft into the required 5‑ft setback.
• Applicant’s Position: The existing AC units are located at the rear garage, 100+ ft from the house, causing inefficiency, frequent breakdowns, and no warranty with new refrigerant lines. Trenching new lines would destroy a row of arborvitae and a patio. The proposed location is directly adjacent to the mechanical room and electrical panel, making it the most logical and efficient spot. The neighbor to the north provided a letter of no objection. Many nearby homes have side‑yard AC units.
• Board Discussion: Commissioners generally agreed that the long run of buried lines created a unique hardship. The change in refrigerant requirements made replacement unavoidable. The location was the only one that avoided major disruption and preserved the backyard. The neighbor’s support was noted. One commissioner initially expressed concern about self‑imposed conditions (house built to setbacks), but others countered that the existing AC placement predated the applicant and that the code had changed.
• Finding of Fact: Strict adherence would cause undue hardship given the unique lot configuration and distance of existing mechanicals; the variance will not alter essential character.

Key Outcomes

• VA-26-17: Minor variances (FAR and lot coverage) approved 5‑0. Major variance (accessory building distance) recommended for approval to City Council 5‑0. Findings of fact adopted.
• VA-26-18: Major variance (side yard setback) recommended for approval to City Council 5‑0. Findings of fact adopted.
• VA-26-19: Major variance (hot tub setback) recommended for approval to City Council 3‑2 (Accurate, Vlasich, Genko yes; Tabber, Shilling no). Condition added that the relief applies only to the east lot line. Findings of fact adopted.
• VA-26-20: Two major variances (mechanical equipment in interior side yard and encroachment) recommended for approval to City Council 5‑0. Findings of fact adopted.

Discussion Items / Updates

• Staff reported three additional variance cases are scheduled for the September meeting. Chair Shilling will be absent; Director Drew will represent staff.