1990-04-17 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE , ILLINOIS
TUESDAY , APRIL 17 , 1990
I . CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Richard Heinrich called the meeting to order at 8 : 10 PM
at the Village Hall , 50 Raupp Blvd . , on Tuesday , April 17 , 1990 .
II . ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present : R . Heinrich , M . Kearns , D . Stolman ,
J . Paul , B . Entman , and R . Lewandowski
Commissioners Absent : H . Fields
Bldg . Dept . Liaison : James Sylverne ,
Housing and Zoning Inspector
Village Board Liaison : Sid Mathias
Village Attorneys : Richard Skelton and Tom Dempsey
III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES
February 20 , 1990 - Motion to approve as submitted was made by
Com . Stolman and Seconded by Com . Entman
Roll Call Vote : AYE - Heinrich , Stolman , Paul , Entman , and
Lewandowski
NAY - None
ABSTAIN - Kearns
`./ Motion Passed - 5 to 0 , 1 abstention .
February 20 1990 minutes approved and will be placed on file .
March 20 , 1990 - Deferred because of Commissioner ' s absence .
IV . BUSINESS
A . 270 Terrace Place , Howard and Michele Knaizer
Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts
The Public Hearing Notice was read .
Mr . and Mrs . Howard Knaizer were sworn in and Mrs . Knaizer
summarized their reasons for requesting the variance of the
Fence Code for the purpose of constructing a 6 foot fence
that would extend past the building line at the corner of
Terrace Place and Plum Grove Circle :
1 . The fence was in existence when they purchased the
house in August of 1986 and it needs to be replaced .
The fence permit was denied because of height and
location .
2 . Plum Grove Circle is the entrance to the subdivision
and the 6 foot height is needed for privacy . There is
an existing 6 foot fence around the patio , but the yard
would be nicer if the proposed fence is permitted .
3 . The fence would offer protection for their child .
4 . Cooper High School students cut across the property ,
so they would like to extend the fence to the front
of the house .
The Village Engineer ' s Line of Sight Review, April 9 , 1990 ,
states : "the proposed fence encroaches into the required
sight distance for the intersection and is not recommended.
This fence should be set back ten feet from the sidewalk
which would reduce the safe approach speed to 24 m. p. h.
which would be acceptable at this "T" intersection. "
Mrs . Knaizer said she asked Richard Kuenkler what possible
options they would have , so they could reach a compromise
with their original request and not cause a safety problem.
She suggested reducing the fence to 5 feet in height ,
3 to 4 feet from the sidewalk and forward to Mr . Kuenkler ' s
angled line and staying within that line back to the front .
Photographs were presented of a similar fence at 280 Indian
Hill with 8 foot bushes inside the fence .
Ch. Heinrich commented that bushes (height , location, etc .
are not controlled by the Fence Ordinance .
Mrs . Knaizer responded that there is a house at Weidner and
Indian Hill with bushes extending all the way to the front
of the house which obstruct the view more than a fence .
In her opinion bushes should also be controlled .
Ch. Heinrich said the existing fence probably predates the
Fence Ordinance , and the Village has not permitted fences on
corner lots past the building lines for many years . The
Village Engineer ' s proposed location is actually more than
the normal distance that the ZBA has granted by variance .
Line-of-Sight is not the only criteria used by the ZBA.
Keeping the area of open space is also very important .
Mrs . Knaizer responded that if they are not permitted a new
fence in the same location, they will lose a substantial
portion of their back yard , and they will probably opt to
not replace the fence , and leave it as it stands .
Mr . Steven Goldspiel , 972 Plum Grove Circle , was present .
He objected to the proposed fence for the following reasons :
1 . A 5 or 6 foot fence facing Plum Grove would
be detrimental to the neighborhood. The existing
fence is 4 foot , open picket type of fence.
2 . The proposed fence is a solid board-on-board
privacy fence . There is no justification for
replacing the softer open type fence with a higher
solid fence , extended farther forward than the
existing fence .
3 . The street is a T-intersection, but the street
curves and the grade drops from the direction of
Arlington Heights Road , so there is a potential
for obstruction of view.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
April 17 , 1990 - Page Two
Mr . Goldspiel said he would support Mr . and Mrs . Knaizer ' s
application to replace the fence , with the same kind of
fence . The fence pictured is not similar to the proposed
`,/ fence . It is also a 4 foot picket fence and surrounds only
the rear yard . A 5 or 6 foot fence , as proposed , would be
detrimental to the essential character of the neighborhood ,
where open corner lots have , for the most part , been
maintained .
Mrs . Knaizer responded that they have not contracted for any
fence at this time , but were considering a wood board-on-
board with a scalloped top . They are willing to reconsider .
Ch . Heinrich said they have not granted fences to the
property line , and the Zoning Board cannot go against the
Village Engineer ' s Line-of-Sight recommendations . In fact ,
the ZBA usually prefers fences to be set back farther than
10 feet . The difference between a picket fence and a board-
on-board is significant .
Mr . Sylverne stated that when he spoke with Mr . Kuenkler ,
Dick said he would not change his Line-of-Sight , and he was
most concerned with the fence coming more toward Terrace P1 .
Comments from Commissioners :
Com . Paul - The neighbor ' s driveway to the West is directly
adjacent to the proposed fence . The situation that would be
created by the proposed fence , would make a bad situation
much worse , and would obstruct children from the neighbor ' s
driveway . He didn ' t think 10 feet back would be sufficient .
Mrs . Knaizer responded " the next door driveway was widened
last year . The area next to the fence used to be grass . "
Com . Paul - The fence would have to be at least 10 ' back .
Com . Lewandowski - Understands the desire to rebuild the
fence , but the next door driveway situation is serious . He
could not support a height increase from 4 to 6 feet , nor
support the change from an open picket to a solid fence .
The fence would have to be setback , per the Village
Engineer ' s Review , and it could not go as far forward as
proposed .
Com . Kearns - Appreciates the fact that the petitioner ' s
want to get the most use of their backyard , but there is a
problem with corner lots . He agrees with the other comments
that have been made and would have liked a line-of-sight as
it pertains to the neighbor ' s driveway , because it is very
important because of the safety of children . Would prefer
to see the fence moved back closer to the building line as
close to the house as possible .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
April 17 , 1990 - Page Three
Mr . Knaizer proposed the question of what the Commissioners
would do in their situation , where they will be losing about
250 square feet of back yard , and therefore losing property
value? They purchased the house with a certain sized yard .
Ch . Heinrich responded that the property value is not in
questioned , the fence exists in contravention of the current
ordinances , and could be left , until changes are made . The
ordinances have a purpose , and purchasers are advised to
look at them before they buy corner lots .
Com . Stolman - First , can this item be Tabled to permit the
Village Engineer to review the driveway situation? and
Second , would it be advisable to repair the existing fence?
Other options would be to lower the fence and bring it back ,
or to use bushes .
Ch . Heinrich stated that if the fence is changed , it would
come under the ordinance , and the petitioners do not want to
keep it as it is . The ZBA has never permitted a fence to be
1 foot away from the sidewalk .
Mrs . Knaizer asked that the item be Tabled until May 15th so
they can consider all their options .
Ch . Heinrich agreed . Mr . Kuenkler will be asked to do
another line-of-sight study and to attend the hearing .
He advised the Knaizers that the Village has the authority
to remove bushes that become overgrown .
Com . Paul suggested moving the fence back about half way .
Com . Kearns made a motion to Table until May 15 , 1990 .
Com . Stolman seconded the motion .
Roll Call Vote : AYE Unanimously .
B . 75 Trotwood Court , Michael and Susan Hartman
Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts
The Public Hearing Notice was read .
Mr . and Mrs . Michael Hartman were sworn in and Mr . Hartman
summarized their reasons for requesting a variance of the
Fence Code , for the purpose of constructing a 5 foot ,
spaced picket , fence that would extend past the building
line at the corner of Trotwood Court and Sandhurst Drive :
1 . They have a 3 year old son who needs protection
from traffic , etc . and they have no fence at all .
2 . The greater portion of their yard is on the corner ,
and , if the fence is constructed according to the
Code , they would lose much of the usable space .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
April 17 , 1990 - Page Four
Mr . Hartman said they have informed their neighbors of their
proposed 5 foot , open picket , fence and none have objected .
The Village Engineer ' s Review , dated April 9 , 1990 states :
" no obstruction is created for the intersection by
the proposed fence . "
Comments from Commissioners :
Com . Paul - The fence across the street is set back farther ,
and angles from about 12 to 15 feet . He would like to have
the fence set back more than 10 feet . He suggested 15 feet
from the sidewalk , following the curve .
Com . Lewandowski - Asked why the proposed distance on the
plat and in the letter was changed from 12 ft . to 10 ft . ?
Mrs . Hartman replied that they really want 12 feet , but
decided to request 10 feet in case they had to compromise .
They would like to come into the side just past the chimney .
Com . Kearns - Would agree with 12 feet from the sidewalk ,
following the curve of the street .
Com . Entman - Agreed to distance of 12 feet from sidewalk .
No objectors were present .
Mr . and Mrs . Hartman agreed to amend their petition on its
face for a fence to be located 12 ft . from the sidewalk on
Sandhurst Drive .
Com . Lewandowski made the following motion :
I move we grant the petitioners , Michael and Susan
Hartman of 75 Trotwood Court , a variance of the
Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 , pertaining to
Residential Districts , as amended , for the purpose
of constructing a 5 foot spaced picket fence ,
that would come on closer than 12 feet to the
sidewalk at the corner of Trotwood Court and
Sandhurst Drive .
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 . Stolman seconded the motion .
Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman , Stolman , Kearns , Paul ,
Lewandowski and Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached .
Permit may be issued in 15 days .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
April 17 , 1990 - Page Five
C . 1181 Twisted Oak Lane , Willard R . and Joan S . De Kruif
Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 - Area , Height , Bulk
and Placement Regulations ; Purpose : Addition
Mrs . De Kruif and her son Robert De Kruif were sworn in .
The Public Hearing Notice was read and Mrs . De Kruif stated
the reasons for requesting a variance :
1 . The De Kruifs want to install a hot tub to be
used for physical therapy . Mrs . De Kruif has
had two back operations and Mr . De Kruif has
circulation problems with his leg . The hot tub
will make it possible to have home therapy .
2 . The configuration of the lot is irregular and
only one corner requires a variance . It would
be costly to remove a bearing wall and build the
addition within the required rear yard setback .
3 . There is a fence surrounding the yard and the
addition will not be seen by anyone .
Comments from Commissioners :
Com . Lewandowski - Will the existing deck be removed?
Mrs . De Kruif responded the deck will be removed and the
addition will be smaller . The room will not be heated , and
the electric connections will be done according to Code .
The Village Engineer ' s Study , dated April 17 , 1990 , states :
" some minor regarding will be required to convey the
drainage around the proposed addition . This grading will
not affect any other properties . "
Ch . Heinrich suggested that the Village Engineer be
contacted if there are any questions regarding the grading .
Com . Kearns - Asked about the construction materials , etc .
Mrs . De Kruif responded that the patio room will be
constructed on a new deck , with wiring below , and will
basically be a glass enclosure , with white aluminum sliding
doors . The house has white aluminum siding .
Com . Kearns - No problem .
Com . Stolman - No problem .
Com . Entman - No problem .
Com . Lewandowski - No problem .
There were no objectors present .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
April 17 , 1990 - Page Six
Com . Entman made the following motion :
I move we the petition of Willard and Joan De Kruif ,
1181 Twisted Oak Lane , for a variance of the
Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 , pertaining to
Area , Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations , for the
purpose of constructing an addition at the rear of the
house that would encroach 6 feet into the required rear
yard setback , be granted .
Said variance be conditioned upon construction of the
addition according to plans and specifications approved
by the Village , and pursuant to the Village Engineer ' s
recommendations regarding grading as outlined in the
review dated April 9 , 1990 .
Petitioners having demonstrated unique circumstances
and hardship . The proposed addition will not alter the
essential characteristics of the neighborhood .
Com . Stolman seconded the motion .
Roll Call Vote : AYE - Lewandowski , Paul , Entman ,
Stolman , Entman and Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached .
Permit may be issued in 15 days .
Ch . Heinrich advised Mrs . De Kruif to submit the
construction drawings to the Building Department as soon as
possible so the review does not delay the issuance of the
permit .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
April 17 , 1990 - Page Seven
E . 701 Aptakisic Road , Congregation B ' nai Shalom
Sign Code , Section 14 . 20 . 010 - Residential Districts
The Public Hearing Notice was read . Mr . Martin Korman ,
President of the Congregation and Mr . George Woock of
White Way Signs , were sworn in .
Ch . Heinrich read a letter from Mr . and Mrs . V . S . Jung ,
RFD , Long Grove , IL . The Jungs object to the proposed sign
because it would be in a residential area and they believe
the building is large enough to be easily seen . Exhibit A .
The Village Engineer ' s Line-of-Sight Review , dated March 2 ,
1990 , states " the proposed sign is 2 feet from the property
line . . . . would obstruct the required site distance for
entering Aptakisic Road . . . . A better location would be 12 '
back from the property line , or possibly east 20 ' so the
sidewalk would be visible . " Exhibit B
Mr . Woock described the proposed sign . It will be 16 square
feet and feet high . It has been reviewed and recommended
by the Appearance Commission . Photographs , depicting the
Road from all directions , were presented and described .
If the sign is set back 12 feet , per Dick Kuenkler ' s recom-
mendation , it would not be seen , because it would be behind
the cars parked in the lot . People exiting the parking lot
would be traveling parallel to the sidewalk (going west ) and
turning right , would be able to see any pedestrians .
The sign as proposed would be 3 feet back from the sidewalk ,
and pedestrians would easily be seen . It could be setback
as far back as 5 feet from the edge of the sidewalk .
Per Mr . Kuenkler ' s recommendation , a third location would be
east of the island , within the planted area , between the
first and second parking stalls , at the proposed 3 foot
setback .
Mr . Korman said one reason the original location is
preferred is because the electrical outlet was provided at
the island , per the final site plan approved by the Plan
Commission .
Ch . Heinrich responded that the electrical conduit could
easily be run along the property line to the east . This is
inexpensive and the sign would identify the building in time
for people to turn into the driveway . The ZBA cannot act in
contravention to the Village Engineer ' s recommendation .
Mr . Korman and Mr . Woock conferred and agreed to relocate
the sign to the east . It will be installed on a slab .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
April 17 , 1990 - Page Eight
Com . Stolman recalled that Mr . and Mrs . Jung had attended
the Feb . 20 , 1990 ZBA meeting and commented about the
parking lot lights being left on late at night . Would the
sign remain lighted also?
Mr . Korman responded that the sign would be connected to
the timer with the parking lot lights and would go off at
10 : 30 P . M . The lights are left on to discourage vandalism .
Comments from Commissioners :
Com . Lewandowski : The original location would have been
within the planted island . Will the sign still be within
the planted area? .
Mr . Woock replied that the planted area is about 10 ft . wide
and the front edge of the sign will be about 3 feet from the
sidewalk and the back will be about even with the parking
curb . The front edge will be 3-4 feet from the sidewalk .
Coma Lewandowski commented he agreed with this location .
Com . Kearns : Agree with the proposed location 20 feet to
the east and added this location would eliminate the
possibility of liability in case of an accident .
Com . Stolman : Asked for the exact location as amended .
After discussion , Mr . Korman agreed to amend the petition on
its face to concur with the Village Engineer ' s recommenda-
tion and the sign will be located at least 20 feet east .
It could be between the 1st and 2nd , or 2nd and 3rd stalls .
Com . Stolman , Com . Paul and Com . Entman agreed this was
acceptable .
Com . Paul made the following motion :
I move we recommend to the Village Board granting
of the petition of Congregation B ' nai Shalom ,
701 W . Aptakisic Road , pursuant to Sign Code ,
Section 14 . 20 . 010 ,
pertaining to Location of Ground Signs ,
to locate a ground sign no less than 20 feet east
of the existing driveway , and 3 feet south of the
sidewalk ( 2 feet from the property line) , per the
exhibits shown .
Lighting to be turned off coincidental with the
parking lot lights . Granting the petition will not be
detrimental to the neighborhood .
Com . Stolman seconded the motion .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
April 17 , 1990 - Page Nine
Variation Power and Criteria : Sec . 14 . 44 . 020 , Sub-Sec . A
Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman , Stolman , Kearns ,
Lewandowski , Paul and Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached .
The permit may be issued after the sign is approved by
Ordinance . This item will be on the Village Board Agenda
May 7 , 1990 . The petitioners were advised to attend the
meeting to answer any questions .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
April 17 , 1990 - Page Ten
E . 32 Carlyle Lane , Lot 28 , Ed Schwartz & Company
Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 - Area , Height ,
Bulk and Placement Regulations
Purpose : Construction of a house that would encroach
3 feet into the required front yard setback .
The Public Hearing Notice was read .
Mr . Ed Schwartz , Edward Schwartz & Co . , 1110 Lake/Cook Road ,
Buffalo Grove , IL 60089 , 537-2600 was represented by
Mr . Lawrence Freedman , Attorney , 77 W . Washington St . ,
Chicago , IL 60602 ;
Mr . Frank Korycanek , I . R . L . S , and Mr . William F . Herrmann ,
Regional Land Survey , 107 S . Bloomingdale Road , #L 1 ,
Bloomingdale , IL 60108 ( 708-894-7072 ) .
These gentlemen were sworn in and Mr . Freedman explained
the situation . A field error in conjunction with the
original staking and placement of the foundation a single
family home was made . They are requesting a variance of the
front building line setback from 0 ' to 3 ' as designated on
the plat of survey . A small triangle area is in violation
of the ordinance . The maximum distance is 3 feet . The
street is curved and the error will not affect the sight
distance . Lot 29 , if constructed , as proposed , will be
set back closer to the street than the proposed house .
Mr . Korycanek explained the field error . During the
`,/ construction , control is maintained as much as possible .
When the gas company came through , a pipe was shifted to
the south , and the pitch of the house was tilted forward .
If the variance is not granted , the foundation would have
to be removed and replaced at an estimated cost of $10 , 000
to $ 12 , 000 . This cost would fall upon the surveyor .
Mr . Freedman recalled other similar situations when he
represented other builders and variances were granted .
He understands that because every case is different , in
other situations , foundations were removed .
Mr . and Mrs . Michael Rosen , (Northbrook ) contract purchasers
of Lot 27 were present . They viewed the plat and asked how
the construction would impact their view? Their house is a
ranch model and the house being reviewed is a 2-story , so
it will seemingly block their view .
Com . Paul demonstrated how the pivot point did not change
and the angle of the house move only slightly . In fact , the
house was tilted away from Lot 27 , giving the Rosens more
open space .
Ch . Heinrich explained that the error is slight and would
not be noticed . The impact of a two story house next to a
�../ ranch would not be changed .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
April 17 , 1990 - Page Eleven
Mr . Freed said that Mr . Schwartz notified the contract
purchasers of Lot 28 of the staking error and variance .
Mr . Schwartz also supplied the Village with the names and
addresses of the other contract purchasers . Lot 29 is not
under contract at this time .
Mr . Sylverne said that Mr . Schwartz could build a spec house
on Lot 29 , and a building permit could be issued for without
a contract purchaser .
Ch . Heinrich said the variance would carry a condition that
the purchasers of Lot 29 be notified at a time prior to
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy . Also , before a
Certificate of Occupancy is issued for Lot 28 , a signed
letter of notification should be submitted to the Village .
Mr . Skelton commented that purchasers of Lot 29 would be
able to visually see the house on Lot 28 before they buy ,
whether they were notified of a variance , or not .
Com . Stolman made the following motion :
I move that Edward Schwartz 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 house on Lot 28 ,
at 32 Carlyle Lane , that would encroach 3 feet into
required front yard setback .
Economic hardship having been demonstrated . The
variance will not alter the essential character of
the neighborhood .
Condition of variance : Petitioner shall notify the
contract purchaser of Lot 29 of this variance at the
time the contract is signed ; and the Building Dept .
is to be notified in writing before issuing the Certi-
ficate of Occupancy .
Further condition : The petitioner shall submit a
signed copy of his letter of notification to the
contract purchasers of Lot 28 to the Bldg . Dept .
Com . Kearns seconded the motion .
Roll Call Vote : AYE - Lewandowski , Paul , Entman ,
Kearns , Stolman and Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached .
Building Permit may be issued in 15 days .
The Rosens were informed of their appeal rights .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
April 17 , 1990 - Page Twelve
V . ANNOUNCEMENTS
Document Discussion : Grading By Single Family Home Owners , dated
�./ March 20 , 1990 , sent by the Village Attorney , William Raysa , to
the Zoning Board of Appeals .
Ch . Heinrich summarized the document and Mr . Raysa ' s legal inter-
pretation to be : The height of a fence is to be measured from
the grade of a homeowner ' s lot , even if it has been regraded up
to two ( 2 ) feet .
Ch . Heinrich said this is not the intent of the ordinance . If a
person wants to change their grading , as opposed to surrounding
houses , and put up a fence , and the total impact of that fence is
more than the Ordinance permits , which is 5 feet , they should
have to come for a variance .
Mr . Skelton responded that the original topography would have to
be determined , and a second topography study would have to be
done to determine how much the grade has been changed . It would
be costly to the homeowner to have a topographical study done .
Engineering Department will not know if a property owner plans to
erect a fence . For instance , if a homeowner is denied a 6 foot
fence , all they have to do is build up the grade a foot and put
up a 5 foot fence .
Mr . Skelton responded there is a caveat to that theory , and that
is all rear yards have to have easements on which the grade
cannot be changed , and now new subdivisions will be easements on
both sides , so regrading will not be allowed on side lot lines .
Ch . Heinrich recalled that recently a petitioner was granted a
variance for a swimming pool , and the rear yard grade has to be
raised 2 feet in order to level the yard , and a 4 foot fence will
appear to be 6 feet . They were not required to have a variance .
The same situation is occurring with people coming in for fences
on corner lots . They are told they should have investigated the
ordinances before purchasing property on corner .
Mr . Skelton said there will be problems , but in the vast majority
are grading issues that do not fall under the Zoning Ordinance .
Ch . Heinrich does not have a problem if normal variance
procedures are followed , but he does not think they fall into
Staff administrative handling , if a petitioner wants to construct
the effect of a 6 foot , or higher , fence .
Mr . Skelton responded that in clear cut cases where the intent
is to heighten the fence , such as construction of a tie wall ,
then the grading should be considered part of the area of the
structure of the fence , and these cases should fall under the
jurisdiction of the Fence Code .
�../ ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
April 17 , 1990 - Page Thirteen
vik
r .w ■ r
Trustee Mathias commented that it would be difficult to determine
original grade because when property is sold , etc . the buyer does
not know what has been done previously , and he wants a fence .
Ch . Heinrich said he would be satisfied if he could be sure the
Building Department would send people for variances if they are
obviously trying to circumvent the Fence Code , i . e . the fence
around the pool that was granted a variance last month . The
Bldg . Dept . should send the petitioner back for a fence variance .
Trustee Mathias said the variance for the pool could have been
granted with the condition that the fence be a certain height .
Mr . Sylverne said the Building and Zoning Department has stated
it will effectively measure fences at ground level . If the
Village Board authorized Dick Kuenkler to permit grade changes ,
up to 2 feet within their yard , not on the easement , the Building
Department will not go against this ruling .
Ch . Heinrich suggested drafting the ordinance to read if a yard
is regraded outside the easement , then they plan to put a fence
on the new grade , a variance would be required , but if the fence
is constructed on the easement , it could only be 5 feet high .
Com . Paul agreed that this is a reasonable way to clarify the
issue .
Mr . Skelton agreed and so did Trustee Mathias . When an
L ordinance is drafted , it will be sent to the Zoning Board
before it is put on the Village Board Agenda .
Ch . Heinrich said he would discuss the situation with Mr . Hruby
again and suggest a text amendment to the Fence Code .
Mr . Sylverne suggested clarifying the Fence Code by stating that
if a tie wall is constructed , a fence permit will not be issued
for that point , but would only be issued on the lot line .
VI . ADJOURNMENT
Com . Stolman made a motion to adjourn .
Com . Kearns seconded the motion .
Ch . Heinrich adjourned the meeting at 10 : 20 P . M .
Respectfully submitted ,
Shirley Bates ,
ZBA Recording Secretary
sb ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
April 17 , 1990 - Page Fourteen