Agenda & Packet

There will be a regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals at Kenilworth Village Hall, 419 Richmond Road; Kenilworth, IL. The public may attend in person or by utilizing the following link: TEAMS MEETING LINK If you do not have access to a computer, you may attend via telephone: +1 872-242-8055 Meeting ID: 151 767 049# Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Monday, March 9, 2026 at 7:00 p.m. Kenilworth Village Hall, 419 Richmond Road I. Call to Order / Roll Call II. Approval of Minutes A. January 21, 2026 Special Meeting Minutes III. Public Hearing A. Public Hearing to Consider Variations at 429 Warwick Road Pertaining to: 1. Maximum Building Size (Floor Area) IV. Other Business V. Business from the Public Rules for Public Comment may be viewed at https://www.vok.org/DocumentCenter/View/1423/Rules-for-Public-Comment VI. Adjourn Village of The Village of Kenilworth is subject to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Individuals with disabilities who plan to attend this meeting and who require certain accommodations in order to allow them to observe and/or participate in this meeting or who have questions regarding the accessibility of the meeting or the facilities are requested to contact the Village Manager at 847-251-1666 promptly to allow the Village to make reasonable accommodations for those persons. 1 VILLAGE OF 1 2 3 4 KENILWORTH, IL 5 6 Zoning Board of Appeals Special Meeting 7 Wednesday, January 21, 2026 8 9 Agenda Item I. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL 10 The meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Kenilworth in the Kenilworth Village Hall, 11 Kenilworth, Illinois was held at 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, January 21, 2026. 12 Chair Murphy called the meeting to order at 5:02 p.m. 13 Attendance was as follows: 14 15 Zoning Board of Appeals Members Present: 16 Katherine Peterson Member 17 Eamon Murphy Member 18 Mark Hinkamp Member 19 Jenelle Chalmers Acting Chair 20 Tim Quigley Member, Remote 21 Emily Tzur Member 22 23 Zoning Board of Appeals Member Absent: 24 Lori Roeser Member 25 26 A quorum was present. 27 28 Others Recorded as in Attendance: 29 Village Officials and Staff: 30 Heather McFarland Asst. to the Village Manager 31 Michael Blue Village Planner, Teska Associates 32 Katarzyna Thake Village Manager, Remote 33 34 Others in Attendance: 35 Quenby Erickson 429 Warwick Rd 36 Jim Janikowski 429 Warwick Rd 37 Paige Richards 429 Warwick Rd, Remote 38 39 Agenda Item II. APPROVAL OF THE November 10, 2025 MEETING MINUTES 40 The minutes of the special Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) meeting of November 10, 2025 were 41 presented to the members. Chair Murphy recommended minor changes to the minutes. 42 43 Member Hinkamp made a motion to approve the November 10, 2025, meeting minutes as 44 amended. Member Peterson seconded the motion. 45 46 A roll call vote was taken as follows on the motion: 47 2 Village of Kenilworth Zoning Board of Appeals 2 January 26, 2026 2 Yea: Peterson, Murphy, Hinkamp, Chalmers, Tzur, Quigley 1 Nay: None 2 Absent: Roeser 3 Abstain: None 4 5 The motion was approved 6-0. 6 7 Agenda Item III. PUBLIC HEARING 8 Chair Murphy opened the public hearing and swore-in people wishing to speak regarding matters on the 9 agenda. 10 A. Public Hearing to Consider Variations at 429 Warwick Road Pertaining to: Maximum 11 Building Size (Floor Area) 12 Village Planner Michael Blue gave an overview of the request. Mr. Blue explained that the 13 ZBA previously granted setback relief for the proposed new single-family home. Mr. Blue 14 stated that the request before the ZBA was for floor area. 15 16 Chair Murphy noted that it was not apparent to him that there was still an open request for 17 the application. Chair Murphy asked that it be more explicit moving forward if an additional 18 request for a variation is expected. Members Hinkamp and Peterson agreed. 19 20 Applicant Jim Janikowski responded that the floor area request was on the last meeting 21 notice, however, the request had not been ready for review. Applicant Quinby Erickson 22 explained that they were still working to meet the Code’s floor area requirements at that 23 time. 24 25 Chair Murphy asked the applicants to present their request. 26 27 In describing her request, Ms. Erickson stated that the Village’s Zoning Code has a clear 28 preference for detached garages. She explained that 10-15 feet of their backyard at 429 29 Warwick Rd is taken up by the Skokie Ditch, and a detached garage would consume a large 30 portion of the remaining space. Their attached garage, as proposed, would not be visible 31 from the street. 32 33 Chair Murphy stated that floor area is a multiplier of the parcel. He agreed that the size of 34 the lot was a hardship for the property’s setbacks and noted a distinction between requests 35 for building size variations for additions to existing homes and construction of brand new 36 ones, where there is more flexibility to design within the code requirements. Member 37 Hinkamp shared that he has not seen a variance request for new construction come in over 38 the past 20 years. 39 40 Mr. Janikowski explained that spec home developers would be deterred from applying for a 41 variance due to the carrying costs. Ms. Erickson described other options they considered 42 that were unsuccessful, such as salvaging 50% of the existing structure to benefit from an 43 increased floor area allowance. Ms. Erickson also pointed out that a detached garage in the 44 rear yard may block light and impact their neighbors. 45 46 Member Hinkamp stated that he does not see a land-based hardship. 47 48 3 Village of Kenilworth Zoning Board of Appeals 3 January 26, 2026 3 Mr. Janikowski asked how the property at 605 Essex Rd received additional floor area. Chair 1 Murphy explained it was a distinct request involving a corner lot and the preservation of an 2 existing home. Mr. Janikowski responded that their floor area request is the smallest of the 3 options they considered. He further explained that the project would correct many existing 4 non-conformities, and that it would not be possible without the additional floor area. 5 6 Member Hinkamp made a motion to approve the request. 7 8 Mr. Janikowski asked to withdraw the request. Mr. Blue confirmed the applicant was within 9 their rights to withdraw since there was no second to the motion. 10 11 Agenda Item IV. OTHER BUSINESS 12 None 13 14 Agenda Item V. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC 15 None 16 17 Agenda Item VI. ADJOURN 18 Member Peterson made a motion to adjourn, and Member Hinkamp seconded the motion. 19 20 A voice vote was taken as follows on the motion: 21 Yea: Peterson, Murphy, Hinkamp, Chalmers, Tzur, Quigley 22 Nay: None 23 Absent: Roeser 24 Abstain: None 25 26 The motion was approved 6-0. 27 28 The meeting concluded at 5:52 p.m. 29 30 Respectfully Submitted, 31 32 Heather McFarland 33 Asst. to the Village Manager 34 4 Request for Commission Action Agenda Item: S taff Contact: Michael Blue, Teska Associates, Inc. Su bject: Public Hearing to Consider a Variation at 429 Warwick Road Pertaining to Building Size Petitioner: Greenside Design Build, LLC, on behalf of owner Chicago Title Land Trust Co. L ocation: 429 Warwick Rd Z oning: R-1 Single-Family Residential P urpose: Consider variations to permit construction of a new single-family residence of greater than the allowed floor area. A pplicable Regulations: §153.068(A) Building Size I ntroduction: The petitioner, Greenside Design Build LLC, is requesting a variation to floor area on behalf of the homeowner to permit construction of a new single-family residence at 429 Warwick Road. This property is mid-block on Warwick Road between Melrose Avenue and Kenilworth Avenue. The Building Review Commission approved a demolition permit for the existing structure, at least part of which was constructed in 1923. The Zoning Board of Appeals has heard this matter at previous meetings and granted Variations for front and side yard setbacks at the November 10, 2025 meeting. O n January 21, 2026, the ZBA last considered a variation request to permit construction of a single-family residence at 429 Warwick Road containing 4,350 square feet, which exceeds the maximum permitted building size of 3,956 sq. ft. by 394 sq. ft. The applicant withdrew the variance request during the public hearing and subsequently re-filed its application seeking the same relief. The applicant’s re-filed application includes new information regarding their described hardship and properties considered as comparable examples. This information is provided as an attachment to this report. Considered By: Date: Zoning Board of Appeals 03/09/26 01/21/26 11/10/25 10/14/25 09/08/25 Village of 5 III.A Recap of Previous ZBA Meetings: At the October 14, 2025, Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, the petitioner presented a revised request for three (3) variations: floor area, side yard setback, and front yard setback. The Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) expressed concerns about the variation to the floor area maximum meeting the variation standards and asked the applicant to consider revisions to the side yard setbacks. Based on the Board’s feedback, the petitioner requested to continue the public hearing to allow for revisions to the proposed design. The ZBA voted to continue the public hearing to the November 10 th Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting. At the November 10 th meeting the petitioner presented revised plans and a request for front and side yard variations. The Board approved variations for: 1. A front yard setback variation was approved as a 48 ft setback, which is 12 ft less than the required 60 ft setback; and 2. A side yard variation for the west and east side yard setbacks were for both side yards setbacks to be 8 ft, which is 2 ft less than the required 10 ft setback. The total side yard for the lot would be 16 ft, which is 6 ft 6 in less than the requirement. a. As a condition of the approval for the east setback, the chimney must adhere to the approved setback. At the January 21, 2026 hearing, the ZBA considered the request for a single-family residence at 429 Warwick Road of 4,350 square feet, to exceed the maximum permitted building size of 3,956 sq. ft. by 394 sq. ft. (minutes of that hearing are attached). The applicant noted while an alternative to achieve the desired square footage existed by constructing space above a possible detached garage, such an approach was not in keeping with their needs and, and while permitted by code, would be too close to and imposing for the neighboring property. In addition, the applicants noted several examples of nearby homes where variations for floor area had been granted. In considering these points, the ZBA noted that construction of a new home offered options for the design to be in keeping with standards for variations. Differences in the conditions related to other properties that had been granted relief before them were also noted. Following a motion on the matter, but prior to a vote, the applicant withdrew the variation request. The withdrawal enables the applicant to re-file the request with additional material. Background information about the re-filed variation application is consistent with the previous application and related hearings described above. The materials and minutes from the earlier hearings are included in the Attachment section and are incorporated by this reference as part of the March 9, 2026 hearing record. Background (previously included in the November 10 th memo): Before the property became an independent single-family home, it historically served as an auxiliary property to 220 Melrose. The lot has a nonconforming lot width of 75 ft., 15 ft. less than the minimum required of 90 ft. The Lot Area is also nonconforming, measuring 13,125 sq. ft., which is 2,625 sq. ft. less than the minimum required for interior lots in the R-1 District of 15,750 sq. ft. 6 Proposed Site Plan of New Residence (1/13/25) Nonconforming Lot Area and Lot Width in the R-1 Zoning District The R-1 Residence District is comprised of the land area first developed in what would later become the Village of Kenilworth. The 429 Warwick Road property is within this area, and was likely platted before the Village was incorporated, and certainly before the first Zoning Code was adopted in the Village. In review of properties within the R-1 District, a range of interior lot properties are found throughout the zoning district that are undersized for Lot Area and Lot Width for the R-1 District. The following table is a non-exhaustive list of the interior lot properties located throughout the R-1 District: Interior Lots Min. Lot Area % Compliance Min. Lot Width % Compliance R-1 District 15,750 sq. ft. 100% 90 ft. 100% North Side of Warwick Road between Melrose and Kenilworth Avenues 429 Warwick 13,125 sq. ft. 83% 75 ft. 83% 421 Warwick 16,450 sq. ft. 122% 94 ft. 104% South Side of Warwick Road between Melrose and Kenilworth Avenues 432 Warwick 19,300 sq. ft. 122% 100 ft. 105% 7 424 Warwick 19,300 sq. ft. 122% 100 ft. 105% 414 Warwick 19,300 sq. ft. 122% 100 ft. 105% Other Properties in the R-1 District 322 Warwick 13,510 sq. ft. 85% 70 ft. 77% 315 Warwick 13,125 sq. ft. 83% 75 ft. 83% 315 Leicester 14,000 sq. ft. 88% 80 ft. 88% 235 Raleigh 14,347 sq. ft. 91% 82 ft. 91% 321 Raleigh 13,125 sq. ft. 83% 75 ft. 83% 141 Kenilworth 15,430 sq. ft. 98% 85 ft. 94% 621 Warwick 13,125 sq. ft. 83% 75 ft. 83% 522 Essex 13,139 sq. ft. 83% 75 ft 83% 537 Abbotsford 14,000 sq. ft. 88% 80 ft. 88% 531 Abbotsford 12,250 sq. ft. 77% 70 ft. 77% 417 Abbotsford 10,500 sq. ft. 66% 60 ft. 66% 422 Abbotsford 13,125 sq. ft. 83% 75 ft. 83% 331 Cumnor 8,750 sq. ft. 55% 50 ft. 55% 327 Cumnor 8,750 sq. ft. 55% 50 ft. 55% 316 Cumnor 13,125 sq. ft. 83% 75 ft. 83% 325 Richmond 13,125 sq. ft. 83% 75 ft. 83% Permit History: The permit and zoning request history of 429 Warwick Road is detailed in the table below. Year Type Purpose 2025 Demo BRC Approved demolition permit 2018 Water New water service, Permit #2018-152 2013 Fence Cedar Fence, Permit #2013-75 1991 Fence New Brick & Wrought Iron Fence, Permit #7156 1990 Addition Crawlspace addition, Permit #6927 1986 Fence Construct replacement stockade fence, Permit #6242 1952 Building Interior Remodeling, Permit #3780 Requested Variation: Variation 1 – Maximum Building Size (Floor Area) Applicable Regulations: Section 153.068(A) of the Zoning Ordinance The petitioner requests a variation from the maximum permitted floor area of 3,956 sq. ft. by 394 sq. ft. to construct a 4,350 sq. ft. residence. This represents a request to exceed the maximum by 10%. Lot Area Lot Area 13,125 sq. ft. Floor Area Maximum Permitted Floor Area (Lot Area x .21) + 1,200 3,956 sq. ft. 100% Proposed Floor Area 4,350 sq ft. 110% (of allowed) Variation Proposed Floor Area Variation Requested 394 sq. ft. 10% variation 8 Zoning Standards In considering the request for relief, the ZBA should focus on the standards outlined in Section 153.244 of the Kenilworth Zoning Ordinance: Section153.244 (E) Standards for Variations (1) The Board shall not grant, and the Plan Commission, as applicable, shall not recommend approval of, a variance from any of the regulations of this chapter, as authorized by subsection (D) above, unless it shall make a finding of fact, based upon the evidence presented to it in a particular case, that: (a) In the case of property the principal use of which is for business purposes, the property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations applicable to the district in which it is located; (b) The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances; and (c) The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality The Zoning ordinance also sets out the consideration that may be part of that determination (2) For the purpose of supplementing the above standards, the Board or, as applicable, the Plan Commission, in making its determination whether the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances and whether the variation, if granted, may alter the essential character of the locality, shall take into consideration the following factors to the extent they are established by the evidence and deemed relevant by the Board or, as applicable, the Plan Commission: (a) The particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical condition of the property in question would result in a practical difficulty or particular hardship upon the applicant for the variation, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulation were enforced; (b) The conditions upon which the application for variation is based would not be applicable generally to other property in the same district; (c) The request for the variation is not based exclusively upon the desire to make more money out of the property; (d) The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property; and (e) The variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties or substantially increase the run-off of stormwater onto adjacent properties or public streets, or substantially increase congestion in the public streets or increase the danger of fire or otherwise endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. (3) For the purpose of further supplementing the above standards and factors in connection with requests for variations from the requirements of § 153.068: Maximum size and Maximum Lot Coverage, the Board, in making its determination, may also take into consideration the following factors, among other factors deemed relevant by the Board, to the extent they are established by the evidence and deemed relevant by the Board: 9 (a) The effects of the proposed construction on the overall appearance of the size and bulk of the existing structures on the property when viewed from streets abutting the property and from adjacent properties; (b) The proximity of the proposed construction to streets abutting the property and to adjacent properties; (c) The relative proximity of the proposed construction to streets abutting the property and to adjacent properties in comparison with the relative proximity of existing structures on other properties in the same vicinity; (d) The magnitude of the variation requested in absolute terms and in proportion to the floor area and/or impervious surfaces allowed if the strict letter of the regulation were enforced; (e) The need for other variations in connection with the proposed construction and the nature and extent of those other variations; (f) The need for the variation to allow the owner or occupant of the property to make reasonable use of a structure, the design of which otherwise fails to conform to generally accepted or prevailing standards of the village for the use and enjoyment of a structure as a residence for a family; (g) The efficient and advantageous use of existing structures and the degree to which the proposed construction makes efficient, economical and advantageous use of existing and proposed floor area and impervious surfaces; and (h) The reasonableness of the variation requested in light of the purposes served by the proposed construction and the design problems of the existing structure intended to be alleviated by the proposed construction. Example Motion for Consideration: I move to approve (with conditions) the request submitted by the petitioner, Greenside Design Build LLC, on behalf of owner Chicago Title Land Trust Co., to permit construction of a single- family residence which exceeds the maximum permitted building size of 3,956 sq. ft. by 394 sq. ft. at 429 Warwick Road in accordance with the materials included in this packet. The variation requested by the petitioner shall be granted conditioned upon the petitioner’s strict compliance with the plans included within this packet. Any subsequent revisions to these plans that affect the scope of the variation granted or that the Code Official determines to be a material change will require the petitioner to resubmit an application for the requested variation. Attachments: 1. Narrative of zoning variation request provided by the property owner dated February 19, 2025 2. Site Plan, Architectural Plans, and Elevations prepared by Schwarz Lewis Design Group (provided January 13, 2026) 3. Narrative of zoning variation request provided by the property owner dated December 18, 2025. 4. Response to Variation Standards by Schwarz Lewis Design Group (provided January 13, 2026) 5. Minutes of 1/21/26, 11/10/25, 10/14/25 and 09/08/25 Hearings (links) 6. Meeting packets for 1/21/26, 11/10/25, 10/14/25 and 09/08/25 Hearings (links) 10 February 19, 2026 Dear Chairman Murphy and Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals - At the previous meeting, our request for a 394 sq. ft. FAR variance appeared to be met with significant contempt. After reflecting on prior meetings, we recognize that we may not have clearly articulated the unique hardships of our property or how our proposal aligns with the Village’s goals for preserving neighborhood character. We care deeply about Kenilworth—its history, its architecture, and the unique character that makes this Village so special. That is what attracted us, and why we are committed to building a home that reflects the same timeless, traditional aesthetic the Village has worked so hard to protect. Our current structure, however, is not one of those historic treasures. The Building Review Commission recognized this clearly: they unanimously and enthusiastically approved our demolition request in June, 2025, expressing genuine excitement for what we were proposing to build. That level of support only heightens our confusion at the hesitation surrounding our request for 394 sq. ft. of FAR relief—an amount that simply allows us to design a home proportionate to surrounding R1 properties and consistent with Kenilworth’s architectural standards. We are not asking to build something large; we are asking to build something appropriate. The alternative—an undersized, compressed home—would look out of place on this block for another generation. As neighbors who intend to raise our family here, it has been discouraging to feel that our commitment to investing meaningfully in this historic community has been met with such reservation. We are trying to build a home that strengthens the block, enhances the streetscape, eliminates existing nonconformities, and reflects the very character the Village seeks to preserve. This leads us to the central and necessary question: Is 429 Warwick truly a structure the Village hopes to preserve, or is the traditionally designed, stately home we are proposing—one that embodies Kenilworth’s own architectural values—the outcome the Village prefers? From every conversation we have had, from every design choice we have made, and from every standard articulated in the Village’s code, we believe strongly that our proposal aligns with the vision Kenilworth has always championed. We also want to be fully transparent: without the 394 sq. ft. variance, we cannot build this home. The constraints of the lot, the presence of the creek, and the FAR penalty applied solely because the structure is not being renovated, leave no viable path to build a home that is functional for us, proportional, and consistent with the character of this block. We do not want to build something that diminishes the streetscape—nor do we believe the Village wants that outcome either. 11 This request is not about excess. It is about feasibility, fairness, and the long-term character of this neighborhood. The variance enables a home that fits harmoniously within its surroundings and replaces a structure that many agree is out of place. Our only goal is to create a home that honors this community. We hope this letter provides the clarity needed for a fair, thoughtful, and balanced evaluation, and that the Board will see how essential this relief is—not just to our family, but to the architectural integrity of this block for decades to come. At previous meetings, several comments suggested a presumption that new construction inherently lacks hardship: 1. “New construction does not get variances.” 2. “You have a blank slate—build something within the code and you will not need to come back to us.” 3. “I see no sacrifice here.” 4. “You knew what you bought when you bought it.” 5. “You don’t have an FAR problem, you have a design problem” However, the circumstances of our property are materially different from a standard R1 lot and do create genuine, practical hardship that affects our ability to build a home that is proportional and consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Our hardship lies in constructing a home that is appropriately scaled for the neighborhood on a highly non-conforming lot, positioned between two conforming R1 parcels, one of which is quite large. This challenge is intensified by the substantial variances granted to our Melrose neighbor, who is now constructing an oversized addition—already exceeding the maximum FAR—just four feet from our shared property line. As the board knows, only three homes remain on this block. There is a unique opportunity either to restore visual harmony or to perpetuate the lilliputian disproportion that currently exists. With only three homes remaining on this block, decisions made at each property significantly shape the overall streetscape, heightening the importance of proportionality and coherence. Although we understand that the board prefers to consider each property individually, and not to consider other variances as precedent, it is difficult to ignore the significant allowances granted at 220 Melrose, particularly given its direct impact on our property. That single project received five variances, including maximum building size, maximum building coverage, minimum yard width, parking/garage setbacks, and a substantial front-yard setback reduction. While the justification may be that it has historic value to the neighborhood, that alone cannot explain the breadth of approvals compared to the resistance we are encountering for a modest request of 394 sq. ft. 12 The zoning code itself provides a more generous FAR calculation (0.24 vs. 0.21) for existing homes undergoing limited demolition/addition. It has been explained to us that this was set in place to encourage renovation of the existing homes and to create a penalty for demoing the neighborhood’s jewels. Makes complete sense. Yet, the Melrose project was permitted to exceed even that enhanced allowance by 1,088sq. ft., while also reducing setbacks and expanding the footprint significantly. Given these factors, it is difficult to reconcile why existing homes may exceed calculations so substantially, while new construction is discouraged from seeking even minor relief, even in circumstances such as ours where the home is neither historic nor in character with the neighborhood. While from our perspective, the investment that we are making to build a home on this parcel that is consistent with several of the other “gems” in the neighborhood is being met with surprising antagonism. Would the Village prefer to preserve this “utilitarian/non-historic” anomaly? As a matter of public record, in recent months, several properties have been granted sizable FAR increases: • 163 Abingdon – 3 FAR variances sequentially granted (658 sqft in 2018, 114 sqft in 2022 and an additional 471 sqft in 2024) total excess FAR granted is 1,250 sqft, a whopping 30% over max, for a property with a lot area that is less than ours. Based on this property’s 12,000 sqft lot area and already benefiting from the more generous 0.24 multiple afforded to existing homes, this property had a max FAR of 4,080 sqft but is now at a FAR of 5,330 sqft. Latest motion approved 5-0 • 605 Essex – 579 sq. ft. increase (granted a variance for the more generous 0.24 calculation even though this project demolished/added more than 50% of FAR; this is effectively 11% over max FAR had they been held to the 0.21 calculation) • 520 Briar St – 649 sqft. increase (554 sqft granted in 2002, additional 147 sqft granted in 2025 for a total of 649 sqft which is 20% over max FAR - again using the 0.24 multiple) • 220 Melrose – Currently 1,088 sqft over the max permitted FAR of 6,702 sqft. In 1987, an additional 884 sqft (+13%) was approved; in 2025, with an existing FAR of 7,552 sqft (113%) the ZBA unanimously approved an additional 114 sqft (one of 5 variances for this renovation) bringing the total FAR variance granted to the property to 1,088 sqft (+16.2%)*. *If this property was held to the less-favorable new construction factor (0.21), this would be 26% above the max FAR. This tremendously exacerbates the challenge of building a home that appears appropriate for a R1 lot on our nonconforming lot. These approvals demonstrate a consistent generosity toward existing homes, contrasted with a marked reluctance to grant similar relief for new construction—even though the zoning code contains no language prohibiting FAR variances for new builds. In practice, this creates a double penalty for new construction: existing homes not only benefit from a more favorable FAR calculation, but they also routinely receive substantial variances on top of that, effectively granting them carte blanche. 13 What is also relevant is that Section §153.205 (“Intent”) of the code states that nonconforming structures may continue, but their expansion is not to be encouraged. The ordinance makes clear that existing nonconformities should not be enlarged, expanded, or used as grounds for permitting prohibited structures elsewhere in the district. Despite this guidance, the Board has repeatedly expanded the nonconformities at 220 Melrose, while expressing strong resistance to a modest 394 sq. ft. request that would allow us to eliminate, rather than expand, several existing nonconformities at 429 Warwick. Our property currently includes five nonconformities: • Building coverage at 104% • (2) side-yard encroachments (one side is <1 ft from the lot line; the other roughly 4.6") • A significantly nonconforming rear yard, further constrained by the creek • Front yard setback ~78’ Crucially, none of these nonconformities are being expanded under our proposal. In fact, our design brings the property into compliance in multiple areas, consistent with the intent of the code and the long-term character of the neighborhood. The following table clearly illustrates this point: 14 We have also heard concerns that granting our request would set a precedent for builders. Yet we are not developers, and the process—already causing a six-month delay while we continue to pay the mortgage and property taxes—is hardly one a builder would willingly endure. We are simply a family wanting to invest in the community where we intend to raise our son. Regarding the purpose of zoning, the standard explanation is that codes serve to protect property values, ensure safe and healthy development, regulate density, and maintain neighborhood character. Given these goals, it is difficult to understand how a 394 sq. ft. variance could harm neighboring property values or disrupt the character of the block—especially when our proposed design eliminates existing non-conformities and conceals the garage, aligning the streetscape with traditional Kenilworth aesthetics. Additionally, the 394 sqft would be fully contained within the building footprint of which the max building coverage would not be breached. However, by constructing a front-loading garage, Warwick would present four consecutive garage doors, creating a streetscape more reminiscent of an alley or tract subdivision—precisely the outcome the code (favoring detached garages placed in the back corner of the property) was written to avoid. Hardship: The Garage and the Creek Our lot presents several natural hardships. The rear property line lies within the Skokie Creek, preventing us from placing a detached garage in the typical location two feet from the north and east property lines. Any compliant placement would require building 15–20 feet from the rear lot line, resulting in the destruction of a heritage oak tree, a significant reduction of sunlight to our Melrose neighbor’s yard, further crowding of that property line, and a severely diminished backyard for our own family. It would also require disruption of a natural habitat, which seems unnecessarily harmful. The 394 sq. ft. variance that we are requesting corresponds directly to the area that would otherwise exist above a detached garage and is the difference between the 0.21 calculation for new construction and the 0.24 calculation for existing home remodels or additions. Because we are proposing an attached garage concealed behind the front façade, we do not benefit from the “free” FAR typically allowed above a detached garage. The variance we seek simply levels the playing field so that we may design a home with appropriate curb appeal while avoiding environmental disturbances and neighbor impacts. By concealing the garage behind the front of the house, our design preserves curb appeal and prevents four garage doors from facing Warwick. The requested variance enables a home that reflects the stately character Kenilworth is known for, eliminates current non-conformities, and avoids imposing negative impacts on adjacent properties. Without the additional 394 sq. ft., the home becomes functionally and financially impractical for us to build. Finally, the Village has acknowledged that its zoning code—written in the 1960s—is outdated and is currently undergoing revision to reflect modern living needs. One such need are attached garages - safer and more-convenient than a detached garages. At the last meeting, a board member remarked that we “can build whatever [we] want within the code,” and therefore need not consider neighbors. 15 Yet setbacks exist precisely to protect access to light and air. While we could build a code-compliant detached garage that adversely affects our neighbor, we believe our proposed design is more respectful, more harmonious, and more consistent with the values the zoning code seeks to uphold. We truly believe our design represents a “win–win”—better for the neighborhood, better for our immediate neighbor, and far more consistent with Kenilworth’s architectural character than what exists today. We respectfully ask the Board to consider the genuine hardships posed by the creek, the non-conforming lot, the surrounding homes, and the limitations imposed by the FAR calculation for new construction, and to grant the relief needed to build a home that fits harmoniously within the block. Thank you for your time, consideration, and service to the Village. Dr. Quenby Erickson & Mr. Jim Janikowski 16 Application to Zoning Board of Appeals regarding 429 Warwick Road Kenilworth, IL 60043 Submitted: February 6, 2026 17 06 FEB 26 18 19 X x Requesting an additional 9% FAR 20 21 22 Application Requirements REQUIRED MATERIALS Existing Floor Plans 23 24 25 26 27 28 Application Requirements REQUIRED MATERIALS Demolition Floor Plans Approval for Demolition of Entire Structure was granted by The Kenilworth Building Review Commission on June 23, 2025 29 Application Requirements REQUIRED MATERIALS Proposed Floor Plans 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Application Requirements REQUIRED MATERIALS Existing Exterior Elevations 37 FRONT ELEVATION OF HOUSE 38 FRONT ELEVATION OF HOUSE (continued) 39 REAR ELEVATION OF HOUSE 40 REAR ELEVATION OF HOUSE (continued) 41 SOUTHEAST SIDE OF HOUSE 42 NORTHWEST SIDE OF HOUSE 43 YARD/SKOKIE DITCH 44 YARD/SKOKIE DITCH 45 YARD/SKOKIE DITCH 46 Application Requirements REQUIRED MATERIALS Proposed Exterior Elevations 47 48 49 50 Application Requirements REQUIRED MATERIALS Plat of Survey & Legal Description 51 52 Application Submittal LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM NEIGHBORS 61 62 63 64 Application Requirements ZONING VARIANCE FOR: Maximum Permitted Building Size (floor area) 65 Application Requirements REQUIRED MATERIALS Zoning Compliance Worksheet 66 67 3956.75 4350 4,350 68 69 70 71 72 73 Application Requirements REQUIRED MATERIALS Written Explanation of Request 74 75 76 77 78 79 Application Requirements FEES SUBMITTED WITH THIS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPLICATION $350.00 Filing Fee 80 December 18, 2025 VILLAGE OF KENILWORTH Zoning Board of Appeals Letter of Situation and Hardship: 429 Warwick Road Dear Chairman Murphy and the other members of the ZBA, Thank you again for the constructive and engaging discussion at the November 10th ZBA meeting. We sincerely appreciate the relief granted with respect to the front and side yard variances. After the October ZBA meeting, we sharpened our pencils and again attempted to reduce the FAR of the proposed construction to the allowed 3,956 sq ft. We hadn’t made sufficient progress in time for the November meeting, so we withdrew our request to allow time for evaluating alternative options to build within the allowed FAR. To recap, our original design proposed back in September included a third car attached garage, and a covered porch/all-weather room. After the September meeting, we made the tough decision to sacrifice the third car garage (which subsequently eliminated our variance request for building coverage) and converted our covered porch/all-weather room to a pergola. We also reduced the size of a few other rooms throughout the house to reduce our FAR variance request from the original 850 sq ft to 395 sq ft. While reviewing our plans, we found it immensely difficult to determine where else to subtract yet another ~400 sq feet from the custom home that we are building for our needs, so we felt that an explanation of our thought process may help bring understanding to our dilemma. Essentially, the 395 sq ft that we are over in FAR is either the two-car garage or the space above the two-car garage. As you know, the Village code is favorable to detached garages as they are allowed to be built at two feet off the property line in the rear of the property with the space above the garage not being calculated in FAR. A detached garage, however, is less desirable for many reasons, including they are less convenient, pose safety concerns and future resale potential. Considering the premium price of North Shore real estate, families purchasing houses at these price points desire certain amenities, of which is an attached garage for many. To put this into context, we strongly considered purchasing a new construction (~ three years old) in Kenilworth during our housing search, but because of the detached two-car garage and very small master closets (smaller than the closets in our city condo), we passed on the property. That property eventually sold for more than one million dollars less than their original asking price. During one of our ZBA meetings, a comment was made about the size of the planned primary closet being excessive and “essentially being the size of a bedroom” - this is in fact true. The closet was designed such that it could be converted to a fourth bedroom by future owners, if needed, as it is quite common for houses in East Kenilworth to have four or more bedrooms on the second floor. This “closet” is essentially the space above the garage – the increase to square footage that we are seeking. We desire to build our dream home with certain amenities, and after giving up a third car attached garage and the all-weather room, we are at a loss as to where additional reductions in FAR will come from without seriously sacrificing our overall intended design or creating new concerns/issues. Detailed below are options that have been considered to achieve the desired added square footage while being FAR compliant. Option 1: Detach the two-car garage and place it in the rear of the property: This consideration would allow us to increase the size of the garage to 550 sq ft (from 20’x21’ to 22’x25’) and create the guest suite above the garage without the square footage above the garage “counting against us”. While this option would eliminate our FAR variance request and at the same time, provide us with a generously sized guest suite above the garage, the suite would not be accessible for disabled persons and also physically separates our elderly/disabled family members from the main house. The Skokie Ditch also presents a structural/building challenge for this option too, not to mention that the depth of the yard is already reduced by the presence of the ditch, so a garage would need to be built even further forward. But probably the most important consideration with this option is that it wouldn’t be very neighborly of us to construct a 1 ½ story garage two feet from the property line in the yard as it would essentially block an adequate supply of sunlight and obstruct the rear yard view for our Melrose neighbors. (See Exhibit A, A1 and A2) Option 2: Redesign the house with the two-car garage facing the street: Although once a consideration, this option is no longer feasible. Considering the newly-constructed garage next door, another neighboring forward-facing garage would be unappealing and undesirable when viewed from the front of the house (street/sidewalk). As you know, it is not common in the neighborhood to have forward-facing garages built at the front of the house, and to have two such garages next door to one other on this already short block would further compromise the traditional look of the neighborhood and make this short block even more of an oddity. This aesthetic would alter the esseneal character of the locality and throw off the balance of the block. Although this option would also eliminate our FAR variance request by providing 484 sq ft of “bonus space” above the garage, it would now create a new balance/aesthetic issue. (See Exhibit B) Finally, we’d like to call attention to the section of the code (§153.068A + §153.003) that would provide us with an additional 394 square feet – the smallest amount of additional square footage of the options presented, the least disruptive or objectionable of the options and coincidentally, almost the same amount of square footage that we are requesting. This section of the code allows for a more generous FAR calculation by increasing the multiplier from .21 to .24 for properties built on or before October 22, 2005, that will undergo an alteration of less than 50%. The current property, in its earliest form, was built over a century ago, but renovating less than 50% of this property isn’t feasible, nor possible, as it would not result in a house with a basement and a larger back yard. It would also leave four current non-conformities in-tact (both side yards are non-compliant, current building coverage is non-compliant as is the rear yard (back of the house to the rear property line). If it were possible to renovate, not only would we be allowed to build to 4,350 sq ft. (instead of 3,956 sq ft), we’d also leave four non-conformities in place – how is this more desirable than our proposal? Our current house design, with the garages tucked into the side of the house, brings harmony to the block while also being accessible to elderly/disabled family members by leaving the first-floor guest room intact. This clever design avoids the economically friendly (less-desirable) front-facing garage while also preserving the natural nature-scape of the creek in the rear of the property, not only for us, but for our neighbors too. Having considered alternative designs and reducing our original variance request by almost 500 sq ft, we feel that we have made good-faith efforts to fit within the rules, while at the same point, not wanting to create hardships for others and not significantly compromising on the overall design and layout that we desire. We are confident that our revised FAR variance request for 395 sq ft is very modest and remains within/true to the intent of the original code and is by no means excessive. In conclusion, our proposed construction design will not create hardships for our neighbors nor adversely alter the esseneal character of the locality. Quite the contrary, our design will dramaecally increase the character of the locality by providing balance and harmony to a short block. We respeclully request that our variance request for an addieonal 395 sq m be granted. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Sincerely, Dr. Quenby Erickson & Mr. Jim Janikowski EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT A1 EXHIBIT A2 EXHIBIT B