Loading...
1990-02-20 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE , ILLINOIS TUESDAY , FEBRUARY 20 , 1990 I . CALL TO ORDER Chairman Richard Heinrich called the meeting to order at 8 : 05 PM , on Tuesday , February 20 , 1990 at the Village Hall , 50 Raupp Blvd . II . ROLL CALL Commissioners Present : D . Stolman , J . Paul , B . Entman , R . Lewandowski , H . Fields and R . Heinrich Commissioners Absent : M . Kearns Bldg . Dept . Liaison : James Sylverne , Building and Zoning Inspector Village Attorneys : Richard Skelton and Tom Dempsey III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 16 , 1990 - Motion to approve , as submitted was made by Com . Entman and seconded by Com . Fields . Roll Call Vote : AYE - Stolman , Paul , Entman , Lewandowski , Fields and. Heinrich NAY - None \w/ Motion Passed 5 to 0 . Minutes of January 16 , 1990 were approved and will placed on file . IV . OLD BUSINESS A . 1134 Devonshire Road , Albert and Andrea Carrino Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 - Pertaining to : Area , Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations Purpose : Construction of an addition Motion to remove from Table made by Com . Stolman and seconded by Com . Entman . Voice Vote : AYE Unanimously . Mr . Carrino was present and it was confirmed that all the surrounding property owners had received proper notice of the meeting date and time . No objectors were present . Com . Stolman made the following motion : I move that the petitioners , Albert and Andrea Carrino , 1134 Devonshire Road , be granted a variance of Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 ; pertaining to Area , Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations ; for the purpose of constructing a room addition , per attached exhibits , that would not exceed encroachment of more than 8 feet into the required rear yard setback . Architectural integrity of the house will be maintained. Petitioner is advised that no alteration of the grade is allowed within five feet (5 ' ) of any rear or side lot line , per Village Engineer ' s Review, dated 1/2/90 . Hardship having been demonstrated , the proposed addition will not alter the essential characteristics of the neighborhood. Com. Entman seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Paul , Entman, Stolman, Lewandowski and Heinrich NAY - None ABSTAIN - Fields (Has no objections , but is the most affected contiguous neighbor . ) Motion Passed - 5 to 0 , 1 abstention. Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in 15 days . V. NEW BUSINESS A. 1427 Winston Drive , Daniel E. Koletsos Fence Code , Section 15 . 20. 040 , Residential Districts Purpose : Construction of a 4 foot , scalloped , spaced picket fence that would extend past the building line at the corner of Winston Dr . /Thompson Blvd . The Public Hearing Notice was read. Mr . Daniel E. Koletsos was sworn in. He summarized the reasons for requesting a variance of the Fence Code to permit construction of a fence 15 feet from the building line : 1 . Increase area to permit room for their dog and a garden. 2 . Future possible compost pile , enlarged patio , children and shed ( if and when needed) . 3 . Neighbor ' s deck at the Southeast corner of the lot comes to within 6 feet of the rear lot line and they do not want to build anything offensive in that area. Ch. Heinrich asked if the next door neighbor , between the subject property and the house on Madison? Mr . Koletsos said he has discussed the fence with this neighbor (Paul Matuszczak , 333 Thompson Blvd . ) and he was willing to come to voice his non-objection. Since he works nights , it would have been difficult for him to come . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS February 20 , 1990 - Page Two The Village Engineer ' s Review, dated January 23 , 1990 , states : " . . . . this proposed ence puts the abutting property property in a unique situation. As the only property fronting Thompson Blvd . between Madison Drive and Winston Drive , it may find itself in a "hole" if this fencing, along with similar fencing on its abutting lot , were allowed . " Mr . Koletsos responded that considering the type and style of the fence (4 ' scalloped spaced picket) is not like a 5 ' to 6 ' privacy fence , it will not create a "hole . " There is a 5 foot privacy fence abutting 200 Thompson that extends about 10 feet from the building line . The adjoining lot on Margate is similar to this situation. Comments from Commissioner : Com. Paul : The proposed fence will not be as obtuse as the Village Engineer ' s memo suggests because a similar situation would exist if the fence stopped at the building line . Com. Entman: Even a 4 foot fence causes a unique situation, so he would prefer the fence to be closer to the building line . Com. Stolman: Agreed with Com. Entman, and noted there would not be a line-of-sight problem pulling out of the driveway next door , but would prefer the fence moved back farther from the street . Com. Fields : Has seen similar situations , but the Matuszczaks should have been aware of the problems of their lot . Agreed the fence should be moved back Com. Lewandowski : Mr . Kuenkler ' s letter does point out an interesting feature of the two lots , but since there are no objections , he would not be opposed to the variance , considering the size of the fence . Ch. Heinrich: The situation is unique , what distance would be acceptable? Mr . Koletsos presented a photograph of the rear yards . Com. Paul : Observed that the plat does not reflect the distance between the sidewalk and the street? About 12 feet would put the fence about 30 feet from the street , and there would be more space than is apparent from the drawing . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS February 20 , 1990 - Page Three Com. Entman: Some of the reasons given for desiring a variance are related to the future . Based on requirements of the criteria , and the fact that the lot is large , he would suggest moving the fence back to 20 feet from the sidewalk . Com. Stolman: Considering this to be a small fence and the current neighbors do not object , it should be noted that the variance goes with the land and future neighbors could object . He would agree to a distance of 20 feet from the sidewalk. Ch. Heinrich: Commented that without a variance , the yard is relatively large for a corner lot , and the fence will create a unique situation. A fair compromise would be 10 feet from the building line and 20 feet from the sidewalk . Mr . Koletsos agreed to amend his petition on its face , from 15 feet from the sidewalk to 20 feet from the sidewalk. Com. Lewandowski made the following motion: I move we grant a variance of the Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 , pertaining to Residential Districts , \ for the purpose of constructing a 4 foot , scalloped spaced picket fence , that would extend past the building line a distance 16•/ of 10 feet , at the corner of Winston Drive and Thompson Boulevard , to be no less than 20 feet from the sidewalk . Hardship having been demonstrated , the proposed fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare ; and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Com. Fields seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Paul , Entman, Stolman, Fields , Lewandowski and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. The permit may be issued in 15 days . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS February 20 , 1990 - Page Four B. 2937 Bayberry Drive , Joseph and Paula Elliott Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 32 . 020 ; Pertaining to: Location of Accessory Buildings and Structures Purpose : Installation of in-ground swimming pool that would exceed the 20% rear yard coverage limitation. The Public Hearing Notice was read and Mr . Joseph Elliott was sworn in. He summarized the reasons for requesting a variance in order to install a 16 ' x 32 ' swimming pool : 1 . There is a 400 sf . existing deck . Permits have been submitted for a new 144 sf . deck with a hot tub, and with the 448 sf . swimming pool the total would be 1 ,056 sf . 2 . Mr . Elliott has had knee surgery and swimming will help facilitate healing as stated in a letter from John A. Hefferon, M. D. , dated Jan. 8 , 1990. Ch. Heinrich asked Mr . Elliott if he has discussed the pool with his neighbors . Mr . Elliott said they purchased the property in Oct . 1989 and does not know all his neighbors very well . He has talked with the neighbors to the rear and to one side. They do not object to the pool . There were no objectors at the hearing . The Village Engineer ' s review, dated January 23 , 1990 states : " . . . .no adverse effects on the drainage would result . However , a detailed grading plan was required to assure that no alteration of the existing easement of the existing easement is proposed. " Mr . Sylverne had computed the area of the rear yard to be 3 , 883 . 95 sf . and the permitted coverage equals 776 . 79 sf . The ZBA has the authority to grant variances of 1/3 which would be 258 . 93 sf . totaling 1 ,035 . 72 sf . The total coverage area requested would be 1 ,056 , which is 20 . 28 sf . over the maximum of the ZBA authority. Mr . Elliott agreed to reduce the size of the swimming pool to meet the requirement . A new grading plan was submitted (this date) and it has been reviewed and approved by Mr . Kuenkler (Village Engineer) . It shows a 2 ft . tie-wall , not within the easements . A 5 foot fence is proposed for the top of the tie-wall . Mr . Elliott explained that the grade of the rear yard drops and must be built up. A lower fence would not be feasible . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS February 20 , 1990 - Page Five Comments from Commissioners : Com. Paul : No problem with proposal , but he added that pools do raise the noise level of the neighborhood. Mr . Elliott responded that the privacy fence will help to reduce the noise . Com. Entman: Asked if the concrete apron is included in the total coverage area. Mr . Sylverne responded that concrete is not prohibited . Com. Stolman: No problem, if the Bldg. Dept . approves . Com. Fields : Questioned whether the fence height would be considered a 5 ' fence , or a 7 ' fence? Mr . Sylverne responded that the fence height would be 5 ft . , measured from the underlying ground after the grade change . Ch. Heinrich disagreed and recalled a similar situation that had been discussed previously. He asked Mr . Skelton for his interpretation. Mr . Skelton replied that he was unaware of the tie-wall and he would have to research his file for the final decision. Mr . Heinrich recalled that fences were to be measured from the initial underlying grade of the property. Including the 2 foot tie-wall the proposed fence would be 7 feet in height , requiring a variance . Mr . Skelton advised that the fence is a separate issue and if the interpretation determines that a variance is required, it can be submitted for review at a later date . Mr . Sylverne recalled that when the previous situation was discussed by Mr . Kuenkler and Mr . Hruby, the decision was made to measure the grade from ground level . The Engineering Department controls grade changes . Extreme changes , such as a 10 ' tie-wall with a 5 ' fence , would not be permitted . A A permit is required to make a grade change , using a given number of yards of dirt . Mr . Skelton asked that the matter be postponed until he can review the previous memos that pertain to the discussion. Mr . Sylverne recalled that much time was spent discussing the previous situation. The conclusion was if the land was just bermed and sloped , it would not be considered a wall . .With the tie-wall , the fence would be measured from the top of the ground . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS February 20 , 1990 - Page Six Mr . Heinrich strongly disagreed and said the Zoning Board would recommend an ordinance revision, if necessary and asked Mr . Skelton to prepare any necessary documents . Mr . Sylverne explained that in this case , the reason the ground must be raised is to permit the pool to be level . The same situation exists in other parts of the Village , where the rear yards of two lots are at different levels . Com. Paul commented that 6 foot fences are permitted to surround patios and decks . A deck could be 4 feet or higher , and still have 6 foot screening. It is important for pools to have fences , and the code requires a height of 4 feet . A 5 foot fence could be constructed around the perimeter of the property. Mr . Elliott responded that a 5 foot fence at the rear would be equal to a 3 foot fence from his neighbor ' s yard , and would not provide privacy for either family. Mr . Sylverne said he and Mr . Kuenkler discussed the situation after the plan was submitted this morning and agreed the grade would not be a problem. He will discuss the situation with Mr . Hruby and determine if a variance is required . Mr . Skelton recommended proceeding with the proposed rear yard variance until the fence matter is resolved. Com. Entman asked what would be done to reduce the size of the pool? Mr . Elliott said they would prefer to cut the width of the pool by 8 inches and he would reshipment plans if necessary. Com. Lewandowski : No objection to pool variance if the concrete apron is permissible . After discussion, it was decided not to include a condition to the variance concerning a fence . The Village will require some fence , and the pool permit is not to be issued until . the issued is resolved . If it is the Building Department ' s conclusion that a fence variance is necessary, the petitioner will be required to submit another application and reappear . Mr . Elliott stated he understood the situation and would apply for a fence variance , if necessary. Tabling was suggested, but the plans have not been approved , and since the weather will not permit construction for some time , it was decided to proceed . The grade measurement situation will be discussed at the March 20th ZBA meeting. Mr . Skelton was asked to be prepared with a draft for an ordinance change with specific language relative to grade measurement . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS February 20 , 1990 - Page Seven 1 Com. Fields made the following motion: I move we grant the petition of Joseph and Paula Elliott , 2937 Bayberry Drive , for variance of the Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 32 . 020 , pertaining to Location of Accessory Buildings and Structures , for the purpose of constructing an in-ground swimming pool and additional decking in the rear yard , that would exceed the 20% rear yard coverage limitation, but not to exceed the maximum of 1 ,035 . 72 sf . coverage. Petition having been amended on its face to provide for the swimming pool to be 15 '4" in width and 32 ' in length. Hardship having been demonstrated per letter from the petitioner ' s orthopedic surgeon, John A. Hefferon, M.D. dated January 8 , 1990 . Said variation will not alter the essential characteristics of the neighborhood. Ch. Heinrich noted the site plan shows a mechanical equipment pad in the side yard. It was confirmed that the rear yard is measured from the rear of the house . Com. Paul seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Lewandowski , Fields , Stolman, Entman, Paul and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. Permit will not be issued before 15 days . Mr . Elliott asked to be informed about the final decision concerning the fence issue. VI . ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr . Sylverne and Skelton will research the previous fence/grade interpretation for discussion at the Mar . 20 , 1990 ZBA meeting. VII . ADJOURNMENT Com. Stolman made a motion to adjourn. Com. Entman seconded . Voice Vote : AYE Unanimously Ch. Heinrich adjourned the meeting at 9 : 11 P.M. Respectfully submitted A)LeLt9-ea _..aaata-=-- Shirley Bates Recording Secretary ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS sb February 20 , 1990 - Page Eight