Loading...
1989-12-19 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE , ILLINOIS TUESDAY , DECEMBER 19 , 1989 I . CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairman M . Kearns at 8 : 10 P . M . on Tuesday , December 19 , 1989 in the Lower Level Conference Rocm of the Village Hall , 50 Raupp Blvd . II . ROLL CALL Commissioners Present : M . Kearns , J . Paul , R . Lewandowski , B . Entman and H . Fields Commissioners Absent : R . Heinrich and D . Stolman Bldg . Dept . Liaison : James Sylverne , Housing and Zoning Inspector Village Board Liaison : Sid Mathias , Trustee Village Attorneys : Richard Skelton and Tom Dempsey III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 21 , 1989 - Motion to approve as submitted , made by Com . Fields and seconded by Com . Paul . Roll Call Vote : AYE - Paul , Entman Fields and Kearns NAY - None ABSTAIN - Lewandowski Motion Passed - 4 to 0 , 1 abstention . Minutes of Nov . 21 , 1989 approved and will be placed on file . IV . BUSINESS A . 1 Whitehall Court , Brian W . and Betty Ann Henderson Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts Construction of a 6 foot fence in the rear yard . Brian W . and Betty Ann Henderson were sworn in . Neighbors , most affected , Charles and Dolores Harris , 988 Whitehall Drive , were also sworn in . The Public Hearing Notice was read . Mr . Henderson explained that when they purchased the property in 1972 , there was an existing fence . When they constructed a deck this year , the contractor suggested replacing the fence and the Hendersons agreed . During constructed , a village inspector stopped the work because of the height . Mr . Henderson presented photographs and •requested the variance . The 6 foot height is necessary because it affords privacy screening of the deck for the Hendersons and for their next door neighbors . Mr . Harris testified that they have no objections to the proposed fence . Their front door and garage area are adjacent to the Henderson' s patio. The fence had provided privacy for both families , and the height is necessary. Com. Paul asked if the new fence is the same height and would the bushes remain? Mr . Henderson replied that the old fence was 3 to 6 inches lower . The same posts will be used for the new fence. The bushes will be trimmed , but they will remain. A 6 foot variance is needed for the whole fence to be replaced. The Commissioners had no objections or comments . Mr . Skelton had no comment . Com. Paul made the following motion: I move we approve a variance of the Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 .040, as requested by Mr . and Mrs . Brian W. Henderson, 1 Whitehall Court , for construction of a 6 foot fence along the building line parallel to Whitehall Drive and for a length of 15 feet along the rear property line , northeast of the site . Said variation will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood ; and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. Com. Lewandowski seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Fields , Lewandowski , Entman, Paul and Kearns NAY - None Motion Passed - 5 to 0 . Findings of Fact attached. Permit may be issued in 15 days . B. 870 Stonebridge , Allen and Anita Broyles Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40.020 - Area, Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations , for the purpose of : Constructing an addition that would extend 9 feet into the required rear yard setback. Mr . and Mrs . Allen Broyles were sworn in. Mr . Robert Drew, Architect/Cypress Builders , 242 Bryant , was also sworn in. The Public Hearing Notice was read. Mr . Drew explained that the Broyles have lived in Buffalo Grove for 8 years , and they have children in high school . They need more living space and are not in a financial position to purchase a large house in the same area. The addition will enhance the neighborhood and will add to the value of the property. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS December 19 , 1989 - Page Two The Village Engineer ' s drainage review dated Dec . 14 , 1989 , states that no alternation of the grade is permitted within 5 feet of the either side or rear lot lines . Mr . Drew described the plans and stated that the addition will not change the existing easement areas . The building materials will match the existing house . Mr . Broyles stated they have spoken to their neighbors , and none object . The lot to the rear is quite deep and there is about 90 feet distance between the houses and they are requesting a variance of 9 feet . They want to remain in the high school district , but when they investigated the housing market , they found they would not be able to afford a larger house . Their children are now "adult-size " and have "adult-sized " friends , so the addition is necessary . Mr . Sylverne stated the variance , including the proposed deck , is within the variation power of the ZBA . The Commissioners had no questions or comments . Mr . Skelton had no questions or comments . Com . Fields made the following motion : I move we grant the petition of Allen and Anita Broyles , 870 Stonebridge Lane , for a variance of �./ The Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 , for the purpose of constructing an addition at the rear of the house . Variation not to exceed a distance of 10 feet . Addition requires approximately 9 feet into the required 30 foot rear yard setback . The addition includes construction of a deck that come to within 17 feet of the rear lot line . Financial hardship having been demonstrated . The addition will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood . The addition will be constructed of like materials to match the existing structure , and will be consistent with the village ordinances . Com . Paul seconded the motion . Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman , Lewandowski , Fields , Paul and Kearns NAY - None Motion Passed - 5 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . Permit may be issued in 15 days . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS December 19 , 1989 - Page Three C . 720 Armstrong Drive , Willis & Kaplan , Engineers Sign Code , Section 14 . 20 . 050 - Industrial Districts Purpose : Installation of a sign closer than 10 feet to the property line Matt Miller , Project Manager , Mc Lennan & Thebault , Inc . , 1771 Commerce Dr . , Elk Grove Village , IL 70007 ( 228-6700 ) ; Mitch Kaplan and Terry Willis , 720 Armstrong Drive , were sworn in . The Public Hearing Notice was read . Com . Entman acknowledged that he once retained the services of Dr . Willis in an unrelated court case and recused himself from participation in this discussion . Ch . Kearns commented that the ZBA would be making a recommendation to the Village Board for approval of the signage and Com . Entman would be entitled to vote . Mr . Skelton agreed that if Com . Entman is not prejudiced , it is not necessary for him to refrain from participating . Mr . Miller explained that the building and the sign were designed by Mc Lennan and Thebault . He presented photo- graphs of the building with the sign base in place . It was mmoi his understanding that the sign base had been approved by the Appearance Commission in February 1989 , and that only the lettering for the sign needed to be submitted for approval . When he presented the lettering for AC approval , he was informed that the sign base was in violation and the variance was necessary . The sign base had been designed as part of the building , and is in keeping with the lines and architecture of the building . The cost of relocating the sign is not a factor . The owners prefer to keep the existing location , and request the variance for aesthetic reasons . To change the location of the sign would also change its character . It would have to be parallel , not perpendicular , to the lot line . The Village Engineer ' s Line-of-Sight Study , dated 12/ 14/89 , states " the proposed sign location conflicts with the desired site distance for Armstrong Drive . It would also obscure pedestrians on the sidewalk . A better location would be behind the desired sight triangle and parallel to the building . " Mr . Miller has spoken to Mr . Kuenkler but his opinion has not been altered . Trustee Mathias stated the ZBA must follow the recommenda- tion of the Village Engineer . The Village Board would also �./ uphold Mr . Kuenkler ' s review . In case of an accident , the Village , as well as the petitioners , could be held liable . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS December 19 , 1989 - Page Four Mr . Kaplan explained that one of the fields in which they work involves consultation with attorneys on matters , such as line-of-sight and visibility at railroad crossings , etc . relative to accidents . He agreed with Mr . Kuenkler , that there is an obstruction, but he disagreed that the obstruction would be dangerous with relation to the size of property involved, and that the speed of cars exiting their parking lot would be minimal , 4 to 5 miles per hour . Cars would also be stopping before exiting , and making the turn. Drivers would be able to see over the sign in both directions . The only danger would be to very small children who might be hidden by the sign. Ch. Kearns advised Mr . Kaplan that the ZBA would uphold the Village Engineer ' s recommendation. The matter could be Tabled to permit further discussion with Mr . Kuenkler : or the vote could be taken, recommending the matter to the Village Board of Trustees , who have the final authority. Mr . Willis responded that they were given a copy of the Line-of-Sight Study just prior to this meeting, and they would like the opportunity to discuss the matter with Mr . Kuenkler . He asked that the variance be Tabled until the January 16 , 1989 Zoning Board meeting. Com. Fields made a motion to Table until Jan. 16 , 1989 . The motion was seconded by Com. Entman. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Paul , Entman, Lewandowski , Fields and Kearns NAY - None Motion Passed - 5 to 0. Mr . Skelton informed the petitioner ' s that the criteria for obtaining a Sign Code Variance , includes the following: 1 . Show undue and unnecessary hardship. 2 . Situation is unique to the particular situation 3 . The variance , if not granted , would be materially detrimental to the owners of the property, and that these conditions do not apply to other areas in the district . Mr . Skelton added that the law clearly states that any hardship that is self-imposed , or created , could not be used to satisfy the first criteria. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS December 19 , 1989 - Page Five V . ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr . Skelton introduced an associate with Mr . Raysa ' s office , Mr . Tom Dempsey , who will be accompanying him for the next several meetings . Trustee Mathias informed the ZBA Commissioners that the variance requested by Hamilton Partners for the sign at 600 Lake/Cook Road was Tabled by the Village Board , but the petitioner has since indicated that they will remove the sign base and construct the original sign in the original location . VI . ADJOURNMENT Com . Entman made a motion to adjourn . Com . Lewandowski seconded . The meeting was adjourned at 9 : 00 P . M . Respectfully submitted , Shirley Bates , Recording Secretary sb