Loading...
1990-05-15 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE . ILLINOIS TUESDAY , MAY 15 . 1990 I . CALL TO ORDER Chairman Richard Heinrich called the meeting to order at 8 : 10 PM on Tuesday , May 15 , 1990 at the Village Hall , 50 Raupp Blvd . II . ROLL CALL Commissioners Present : M . Kearns , J . Paul , B . Entman , R . Lewandowski , H . Fields and R . Heinrich Commissioners Absent : D . Stolman Bldg . Dept . Liaison : James Sylverne , Housing and Zoning Inspector Village Board Liaison : S . Mathias , Trustee Village Attorneys : R . Skelton and T . Dempsey III . April 17 , 1990 - Motion to approve made by Com . Kearns and seconded by Com . Paul . Correction : Delete "we " from De Kruif motion at top of Page Seven . Roll Call Vote : AYE - Kearns , Paul , Entman , Lewandowski , Heinrich NAY - None ABSTAIN - Fields Minutes of April 17 , 1990 approved and will be placed on file . Minutes of March 20 , 1990 remain Tabled . IV . OLD BUSINESS A . 270 Terrace Place , Howard and Michele Knaiser Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts Motion to removed from Table made by Com . Kearns , seconded by B . Entman . Voice Vote : AYE Unanimously . Howard and Michele Knaiser were present . They had asked that their request be Tabled to permit time to consider options . They had requested a 6 foot solid privacy fence to be constructed on the lot line along Plum Grove Circle , to replace an existing 4 foot , open picket style fence that has deteriorated . The Village Engineer ' s Line-of-Sight Review , dated 4/9/90 , recommended the fence be set back 10 feet from the sidewalk because the proposed fence would encroach into the required sight distance for the intersection of Terrace Place and Plum Grove Circle . The Knaisers have met with Mr . Richard Kuenkler , Village Engineer , and based on their conversation, submitted a new plat (Ex . A) with an alternate proposal for a 4-1/2 foot , scalloped open picket fence to be constructed diagonally from the rear lot , at the west end , at a point agreed upon to be safe for the neighbors to exit their property to a distance of 5 feet from the sidewalk along Plum Grove Circle , to a point that again diagonals into the required 10 foot set back as required by the Village Engineer . The fence at the rear lot line will be 5 foot , same design. Mr . Knaiser said the compromise was reached after due consideration of all the Village requirements , the opinions expressed by the ZBA Commissioners and the community. The proposed fence will maintain the essential character of the lot Mr . Kuenkler concurred with the revised proposal . Mr . Steven Goldspiel , 972 Plum Grove Circle , was present . He maintained his original objection that the fence was not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. He said 4-1/2 feet was too high, and proposed the maximum height be reduced to 4 feet , scalloped down to 3-1/2 feet . Mr . Knaiser said he had shown the proposal to Mr . Goldspiel , and some of their other neighbors . The following residents were present : 1 . Sherry Koplan, 284 Terrace Place - lives next door to the petitioners . She stated they have no problem with the proposed fence and added that they will appreciate the privacy that the fence will give them also . Replacement of the existing fence will improve the neighborhood . 2 . Ron Ascher , 293 Terrace Place - lives across the street diagonally. He stated the new fence will be much better than the old fence and he had no problem with the proposed height . 3 . Bob Tipsword , 985 Plum Grove Circle - lives next door on the west side of the petitioners . The existing posts are 4-1 /2 feet and he does not object to the proposed fence . His driveway is alongside the fence and he has no problem with the line-of-sight . Note : Mr . Goldspiel said he measured the existing fence posts to be 4 feet . Ch. Heinrich commented that the compromise is reasonable . The neighbor most affected by the line-of-sight has said he does not object . The scalloped , open picket fence is more attractive than a board-on-board . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 15 , 1990 - Page Two Comments from Commissioners : 1 . Com. Paul - Proposed fence is an improvement over the existing fence . The height would not be detrimental . He had no objections . The 5 foot distance from the sidewalk is close , but the compromise is reasonable . 2 . Com. Fields - No comment . He was not present in April . 3 . Com . Lewandowski - No problem with the modifications . 4 . Com. Kearns - The existing fence is unsightly and the compromise is acceptable . Would like to see a low bush planted at the west corner for screening. 5 . Com. Entman - He would prefer the fence to be pulled back farther from the sidewalk , but as long as the line-of-sight is acceptable to the Village Engineer and the neighbors , the proposed fence will not be detrimental to the neighborhood and is a reasonable compromise . Com . Lewandowski made the following motion: I move we grant the request of the petitioners , Howard and Michele Knaiser , 270 Terrace Place , as amended on its face , pursuant to Plat of Survey, Exhibit A, to permit variance of Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 , pertaining to Residential Districts , for the purpose of constructing a 4-1/2 foot , scalloped open picket fence that would come no 4 closer than 5 feet to the sidewalk along the north side (Plum Grove Circle) . Hardship having demonstrated , the proposed fence would not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood . Com. Kearns seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman, Kearns , Paul , Lewandowski and Heinrich NAY - None ABSTAIN - Fields Motion Passed - 5 to 0 , 1 abstention. Findings of Fact . The permit may be issued in 15 days . Objections to the approval of the petition must be submitted in writing to Mr . Frank Hruby , Director of Bldg . and Zoning within the 15 day period. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 15 , 1990 - Page Three B. The Arbors Condominiums - Ground Sign on Dundee Road Sign Code , Section 14 . 20 . 010 - Residential Districts Sign Code , Section 14 . 20 . 070 - Ground Signs Purpose : Construction of ground sign that would be within 250 feet of an existing ground sign Mr . Greg Lambert , Resident/Pres . of the Condo Association, 10 Oak Creek Dr . ; Ms . Pat Zaw, Resident , 3 Oak Creek Dr . and Jack Metzger , Diamond Outdoor Advertising , 1200 E. Golf Rd. , Des Plaines , IL, were sworn in. The Public Hearing Notice published on April 26 , 1990 , was indicated . Mr . Lambert stated they want to replace an existing sign that is attached to a deteriorating fence , with a ground sign. A variance is required because there is a ground sign 85 feet to the east . The proposed new location would be approximately 105 feet from the doctor ' s center sign. Originally a fence surrounded the property. The portion along Dundee Road has been removed and replaced with landscaping . The proposed sign will enhance the property. Photographs of the existing sign and a rendering of the new sign , were presented . The colors of the new sign will be : Background - Pilgrim Red Lettering - Ivory Inset line - Ivory Leaf - - - - Medium and Dark Green The Condo Association Board Members chose the Pilgrim Red background color . It will not appear as bright as the rendering . The existing sign is located on the right-of-way and the new sign will be moved back as indicated on the site plan. The new sign will be 16 square feet and the Oak Creek Drive panel will be 6"x 48" . The total height will be about 5-1 /2 feet . The posts will match the background . Comments from Commissioners : 1 . Com. Paul - The proposed sign is a definite improvement over the existing. The location is better . 2 . Com. Fields - Commended the Condo Association for the improvement by removal of the fencing. No objection. 3 . Com. Lewandowski - Agreed it was an improvement . 4 . Com. Kearns - Approved of the new sign. Would its location, on a berm , cause a line-of-sight problem , for entering and exiting the driveway? Mr . Kuenkler responded , "No , it will be setback and there will not be a problem. 5 . Com. Entman - It is an improvement . No problems . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 15 , 1990 - Page Four Appearance Commission reviewed the aesthetics of the sign , on Thursday , May 10 , 1990 and recommended a variance . No questions or comments from the audience . Com. Fields made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board that the petition of the Arbors Condominium Association for variance of Sign Code Section 14 . 20 . 010 , pertaining to Residential Districts (size) and Section 14 . 20 . 070 , pertaining to Ground Signs , be granted to permit construction of a ground sign that would be within 250 feet of an existing ground sign. Such ground sign to be located at the entrance to the Arbors Condominium development , to be approximately 105 feet from the next existing ground sign, and to located off the right-of-way, pursuant to plat of survey, Exhibit A. Sign is granted by authority of Sign Code , Section 14 . 44 . 010 , Sub-section B. Com. Kearns seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman , Kearns , Paul , Fields , Lewandowski and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . Permit may be issued in 15 days . An ordinance will be prepared and the item will be placed on the Village Board Consent Agenda on June 4 , 1990 . The petitioners were advised to attend to answer questions . B. 1332 Logsdon, Martin Eisenberg Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 , pertaining to : Area , Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations . Purpose : Construction of an addition at the rear of house Martin and Joanne Eisenberg were sworn in. The Public Hearing Notice was read . Mrs . Eisenberg summarized their reasons for requesting a variance for the purpose of constructing an addition that would encroach 10 feet into the required 30 ' rear yard setback : 1 . Their children , ages 13 , 10 and 6 are growing and the kitchen is too small . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 15 , 1990 - Page Five 2 . Without the variance , they would have to seek a different , and this would cause an economic hardship . 3 . They have a corner lot and the addition will be in scale with other additions in the neighborhood . Mrs . Eisenberg said they have described the proposed addi- tion to their neighbors and there have been no objections . A second floor was previously added , and this addition will match the existing house . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Kearns - Would there be windows on Thompson Blvd . Mrs . Eisenberg responded there will only be a skylight on that side . The existing windows face east and they will be moved out . There are windows on the second floor that face east toward Thompson Boulevard . Com. Entman - There is sufficient room on the corner and he has no objections . Com . Paul - No objections . There is an existing deck . The addition will be built in that area and the deck will be smaller . Com. Fields - Thompson Blvd . curves and the addition will be set back far enough , so there is no problem . Com. Lewandowski - Asked about the neighbor to the south? Mrs . Eisenberg said this is a rental house , and they do not know the people . (Notice was sent to the property owner . sb) Plans should be submitted to the Village for review. No questions or comments from the audience . Com. Entman made the following motion: I move the petition of Michael Eisenberg , 1332 Logsdon, for variance of Zoning Ordinance , Sec . 17 . 40 . 020 , pertaining to Area , Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations , for the purpose of constructing an addition at the rear of the house , not to exceed ten feet ( 10 ' ) into the required rear yard setback , be granted . The addition to be built in accordance with and pursuant to plans and specifications approved by the Village . Addition to match the existing structure , constructed with like kind and quality of materials . Petitioners have demonstrated unique circumstances and financial hardship. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 15 , 1990 - Page Six The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood . Addition to be constructed pursuant to the Village Engineer ' s Review , dated May 8 , 1990 , which states : "The proposed addition will not alter the existing drainage pattern (which is toward the rear . ) " The petitioner was advised that no alteration to the grade is allowed within five feet (5 ' ) of any rear or side lot line . Com. Kearns seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Lewandowski , Fields , Paul , Kearns , Entman and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . Permit may be issued in 15 days . C. 801 Highland Grove Drive , Joel and Darcie Tapper Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 .040 - Residential Districts The Public Hearing Notice was read. Joel and Darcie Tapper were sworn in. Mr . Tapper presented photographs of their lot and summarized their reasons for requesting a variance for the purpose of extending an existing 5 foot scalloped cedar board-on-board fence so that it would be twenty-two feet (22 ' ) past the building line at the corner of Newtown Drive and Highland Grove Drive : 1 . There is a school across from their house and the 25 foot side yard is used by many children. 2 . They have a deck in the rear yard and the existing fence is very close to one corner of the deck , making that area useless . 3 . The traffic is heavy and the fence is needed for the safety and protection of their children. The Village Engineer ' s Review , dated May 8 , 1990 , states : "no obstruction is created for the intersection by the proposed fence . " Mr . Kuenkler recommended a five feet (5 ' ) setback from the sidewalk . Mr . Tapper said they would amend their petition to comply with Mr . Kuenkler ' s recommended setback five feet (5 ' ) from the sidewalk . They have spoken with their nearest neighbors and there have been no objections to the proposed fence . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Paul - Objected to the projection of the fence from the East looking West from Pritchett School because it protrudes farther out than all the other front yards on the block . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 15 , 1990 - Page Seven Mr . Tapper responded that it will cost about $1 , 500 to have the fence moved out . It would not pay if they don' t have enough room between the deck and the fence for a swing set . They want enough room in the yard to play ball . They have landscaped and keep the property in very good condition. They also have two large Golden Retrievers that need space to run. Com. Paul suggested adding two (2) eight foot (8 ' ) sections and that would give him an additional sixteen feet ( 16 ' ) from the existing location; about nine feet (9 ' ) from the sidewalk . Ch. Heinrich agreed with Com. Paul ' s comment and added that the Village Engineer usually recommends a setback of at least ten feet ( 10 ' ) . It would be different if the style was an open picket , but since they are moving an existing board-on-board fence , it should not be so far out of line . Mr . Tapper said he understood Com. Paul ' s concern and agreed to amend his petition sixteen feet ( 16 ' ) from the building line ; nine feet (9 ' ) from the sidewalk . Com. Fields - The school is close to the lot and the fence is necessary to curb the pedestrian traffic . He agrees that nine feet (9 ' ) from the sidewalk is acceptable . Com. Lewandowski - Could not support petition as requested. , Agreed with the nine foot (9 ' ) setback from the sidewalk . Com. Kearns - Commented that he would like to see some kind of landscaping to break up the "wall " effect at the end of the fence , next to the neighbor ' s to the rear . Mr . Tapper agreed with this suggestion and would add a low berm and some bushes . Com. Entman - Agreed with Com. Fields ' comments about the additional foot traffic from the school and Com . Kearns ' request for landscaping . Trustee Mathias asked what part of the next house (fronting on Newtown Drive) will face the fence? Mr . Tapper replied it ' s their dining room and living room. Mr . Kuenkler reminded the Commissioners that the property line is usually 1 foot from the sidewalk , so if the variance is for sixteen feet ( 16 ' ) , the fence should be ten feet ( 10 ' ) from the sidewalk . Ch. Heinrich agreed and the variance would be sixteen feet ( 16 ' ) from the building line . Mr . Tapper also agreed . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 15 , 1990 - Page Eight Com. Kearns made the following motion: I move we grant the petition of Joel and Darcie Tapper , 801 Highland Grove Drive , for variance of the Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 , pertaining to Residential Districts , for the purpose of constructing a fence that would extend past the building line at the corner of Highland Grove Drive and Newtown Drive . Said fence to be sixteen feet ( 16 ' ) from the building line along Newtown Drive , which is the south lot line . Motion is granted on the basis of increased traffic from Pritchett School , which creates a hardship. Also , a condition of the variance is the planting of shrubbery at the southeast end of the fence , to screen the fence . Plantings should be on petitioner ' s lot . Said fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare ; and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood . Com. Entman seconded the motion. Roll, Call Vote : AYE - Lewandowski , Fields , Paul , Entman, Kearns and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . Permit may be issued in 15 days . D. 1596 Countryside Drive , Raymond A. Nowakowski Fence Code, Section 15 . 20 .040 - Residential Districts The Public Hearing Notice was read . Raymond Nowakowski was sworn in. He summarized his reasons for requesting a variance for the purpose of constructing a five foot (5 ' ) wooden fence that would extend past the building line at the corner of Countryside Drive and Rose Boulevard . 1 . He wants to come out eight feet from the house go back to meet the existing fence . He requests a variance of six and one/half feet (6-1/2 ' ) . 2 . The fence is needed to confine their dog . The Village Engineer ' s Review , dated May 8 . 1990 , states : "no obstruction is created for the inter- section by the proposed fence . " There was a prior variance (Oct . 20 , 1987) granted to extend the fence along the rear lot line . Should Arlington Heights extend Kennicott Avenue . a portion of the fence along the rear lot line would have to be removed . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 15 , 1990 - Page Nine Mr . Nowakowski said he wants to keep the existing fence as it is and agreed to remove whatever is necessary when and if Kennicott Avenue does go through. Mr . Kuenkler confirmed that if Kennicott Avenue is extended , the proposed fence would not obstruct the intersection and only the portion along the rear lot line would have to be removed . Mr . Nowakowski said has only one neighbor and he does not know them. There is a similar fence across the street that comes out to the sidewalk , for which a variance was granted. Comments from Commissioners : Com. Paul , Com . Fields , Com. Lewandowski , Com. Kearns and Com. Entman agreed this was a reasonable request and had no objections to the proposed fence . There were no questions or comments from the audience . Ch. Heinrich said the variance would be for seven feet (7 ' ) . Com. Paul made the following motion: I move we grant the petition of Raymond A. Nowakowski , L.J 1596 Countryside Drive , for variance of the Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 , pertaining to Residential Districts , for the purpose of constructing a five foot (5 ' ) solid wood fence that would extend seven feet (7 ' ) south of the south property line along Rose Boulevard at the corner of Countryside Drive . Hardship having been demonstrated . The proposed fence would not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood . Condition: Should Kennicott Avenue be extended , the portion of the existing fence along the west property line , south of the new fence would have to be removed . Com. Entman seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Lewandowski , Fields , Paul , Kearns Entman and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact attached . Permit may be issued in 15 days . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 15 , 1990 - Page Ten E. 570 Silver Rock Lane , James R. Bray (and Woodson W. Sias) Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 070 - Ornamental Fences Two Public Hearing Notices were read (April 25 & 30 , 1990) . James Bray was sworn in. He explained that when they purchased the house , they removed the existing five foot (5 ' ) fence in order to permit equipment to enter when they built an addition. They now request a variance for the purpose of constructing a for the following reasons : 1 . For the safety and protection of their daughter . 2 . To confine their dog to the yard 3 . For decorative purposes , they have chosen a forty-two inch (42" ) two rail beaver tail fence with chicken wire attached to the inside . 4 . They have been accustomed to the size of the yard with the original fence and prefer to keep it . (A fence variance was granted in Sept . of 1988 . ) Mr . Bray said Mr . Sylverne advised him that he should use chain link fence , not chicken wire , and he agreed to do so . He presented photographs of the property , with the corner fences that were constructed too high by the contractor . Mr . Sylverne explained that after the April 25 , 1990 notice for a split rail fence that would extend three feet (3 ' ) beyond the building line along Farrington Drive at the �✓ corner of Silver Rock Lane was published , a Village inspector observed that the ornamental corner fences in the front and side yards were over three feet (3 ' ) in height . Mr . Bray requested that the corner fences be added to the application and heard at the same time . A second notice was published on April 30th„ but since the contiguous property owners were not notified about the decorative corner fences , Tom Dempsey, Village Attorney, has directed that this portion of the request be Tabled until the June ZBA meeting , and the contiguous property owners are to be so advised . Ch. Heinrich asked how high the chain link fence would be? Mr . Bray replied that it would go from the ground to the top of the second rail which is about 38/39 inches high. Comments from Commissioners : Com. Paul - Since the proposed fence three feet (3 ' ) past the building line would line up with the neighbor ' s fence , he does not object . Com. Fields - Does not object to the location, but does object to the materials . Would prefer have only one type . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 15 , 1990 - Page Eleven Mr . Bray responded that he believes solid fences are unattractive and they want to be able to see out onto Farrington Drive . He chose split rail to match the ranch style house . The chain link would be attached to the neighbor ' s fence . He plans to have a flower bed in front . Com. Lewandowski , Com. Kearns and Com. Entman did not object Comments from the audience : Mrs . Sheila Konrath, 580 Silver Rock Lane , said that when the decorative corner split rail fences were installed , one was located on her property. Does someone from the Village come out to measure such fences? Mr . Bray said when he realized his error , he removed the section of fence , as shown in the photos . Mr . Sylverne said the final inspection of this fence has not been made because the section on the corner is in the right- of-way, per the Village Engineer ' s Review dated May 8 , 1990 . Mrs . Konrath is not certain if more of the fence is on her property , and she is concerned about it blocking her vision from the driveway . Mr . Sylverne explained that the Village does not actually review the measurements , but a line-of-sight study is done . Ch. Heinrich said that , unless they can find the metal stake , only a surveyor can determine the actual lot line . He asked Mr . Sylverne to make an inspection and he asked Mr . Kuenkler to review the line-of-sight from the driveway. Com. Entman made the following motion: I move the petition of James R. Bray & Woodson W. Sias , 570 Silver Rock Lane , for a variance of Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 , pertaining to Residential Districts , for the purpose of constructing a 42 inch high, split rail /chain link fence extending from the southeast corner of the house to the rear property line , be granted. Said fence to be no farther than three feet (3 ' ) beyond the building set back line on the south side of the property. Unique circumstances 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 . L ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 15 , 1990 - Page Twelve Com . Kearns seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Lewandowski , Paul , Kearns , �✓ Entman and Heinrich. NAY - Fields Motion Passed - 5 to 1 . Findings of Fact attached. Permit may be issued in 15 days . Com. Kearns made a motion to Table the petitioner ' s second request for a variance of Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 070 , pertaining to Ornamental Fences until June 19 , 1990 . Com. Lewandowski seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote was AYE Unanimously. 328 Hill Court West , Lee and Barbara Silver Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts The Public Hearing Notice was read . Lee and Barbara Silver were sworn in. Mr . Silver summarized their reasons for requesting a variance for the purpose of constructing a five foot (5 ' ) solid wood fence that would extend eleven feet ( 11 ' ) past the building line along Fox Hill Drive at the corner of Hill Court West : 1 . The building line is only eight feet (8 ' ) from the side of the house and they want to increase the size of the yard . 2 . They have a gas grill on that side of the house , if the fence is that close , it would be a hazard to their child . 3 . The fence would be ten feet ( 10 ' ) from the sidewalk They have discussed the fence with their neighbors and there have been no objections . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Paul - The parkway is wide and the proposed fence is a good distance from the sidewalk . No problem with request . Com . Fields - Observed that the sidewalk is within the property line , so the fence is actually fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) from the property line . No problem with request . Com . Lewandowski , Com. Kearns and Com. Entman had no problems with the request . There were no comments from the audience . The Village Engineer ' s Review , dated May 8 , 1990 states : no obstruction is created for the intersection. " ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 15 , 1990 - Page Thirteen Com. Fields made the following motion: I move we grant the petition of Lee and Barbara Silver `•/ 328 Hill Court West , for a variance of the Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 , for the purpose of constructing a five foot (5 ' ) solid wood fence with an arched top , that would extend eleven feet ( 11 ' ) past the building line along Fox Hill Dr . at the corner of Hill Ct . West . Said fence would be ten feet ( 10 ' ) from the sidewalk . It would not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare ; and would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Com. Lewandowski seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman, Kearns , Paul , Fields , Lewandowski and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact attached . Permit may be issued in 15 days . G. 458 Patton Drive , Constance M. Mitchell Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 Area, Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations The Public Hearing Notice was read . Constance M. Mitchell was sworn in. She summarized her reasons for requesting a variance for the purpose of constructing an addition at the rear of the house that would extend ten feet ( 10 ' ) into the required rear yard setback: 1 . Mrs . Mitchell ' s brother has come to live with her . 2 . The house is small and additional living space is needed in anticipation of Mrs . Mitchell ' s parents coming to live with her . 3 . The house has no basement , and additional storage space is needed . 4 . There is no family room. 5 . She has lived in the house for over 26 years and does not want to move , nor could she afford to purchase a new house . 6 . The lot is an unusual shape , and only one corner of the addition requires the ten foot ( 10 ' ) variance . Mrs . Mitchell has spoken with her nearest neighbors and they do not object to the variance . There is not yet a house to the rear , but Lexington' s Windsor Ridge is building there . Mr . Sylverne said Windsor Ridge homes have required rear yards of forty feet (40 ' ) . The petitioner ' s rear yard is thirty feet (30 ' ) . Lexington was notified of the request . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 15 , 1990 - Page Fourteen The addition will match the construction of the existing house , same siding , roof line , materials , etc . She has not had plans drawn, because she wanted the variance first . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Paul - Drove through the new development and the proposed addition will be between the houses to be built . He had no problem and there is obviously a need . Com. Fields - Observed that the angle of the lot would require only one corner to be varied the full ten feet ( 10 ' ) Com. Kearns , Com. Lewandowski and Com. Entman did not object to the variance . Com. Lewandowski made the following motion: I move we grant the petition of Constance M. Mitchell , 458 Patton Drive , for 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 lot that would encroach into the required thirty foot (30 ' ) rear yard setback a distance of ten feet ( 10 ' ) . Said addition to built according to plans and specifications submitted to and approved by the Village . Addition to match existing house . Hardship having been demonstrated , the addition will not alter the essential characteristics of the neighborhood. The Village Engineer ' s drainage study, dated May 8 , 1990 , states : "the proposed addition will not alter the existing drainage pattern" . Mrs . Mitchell has been notified that no alteration of the grade is allowed within five feet (5 ' ) of any rear or side lot line . Com. Paul seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman, Kearns , Paul , Entman, 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 May 15 , 1990 - Page Fifteen H. 1119 Mill Creek Drive , Norman and Evelyn Friese Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 .040 - Residential Districts The Public Hearing Notice was read . Norman and Evelyn Friese were sworn in. Mr . Friese summarized their reasons for requesting a 6 foot (6 ' ) solid cedar privacy fence along the southeast property line , from the front of the house to the rear property line : 1 . They have had problems with their next door neighbors to the extent that a law suite has been filed against them (by the neighbors) . 2 . Mrs . Friese ' s health has been affected . The privacy fence will help alleviate some stress . The Friese ' s have submitted a permit for the 6 foot solid wood fence along the interior property line , and a 12 foot section of chain link along the rear lot line . No fence along the north- west property line . A document signed by the Friese ' s contiguous neighbors was presented . The following people have no objection to the fence : 1 . Dr . and Mrs . D. Saidel , 1113 Mill Creek Drive 2 . Mr . and Mrs . Julian Sowa , 792 Thornton 3 . Mr . and Mrs . Robert Holcombe , 1084 Crofton 4 . Mr . and Mrs . J . Orloff , 1100 Crofton �./ Ch. Heinrich varied the usual procedure and asked for comments from the audience . Mr . Ed Le Blanc . 1125 Mill Creek Drive (next door neighbor) asked what problems the petitioners were having and said they have not spoken to him regarding anything specific . Mr . Friese responded that the Le Blanes have filed a law suit against them . Mr . La Blanc said the law suit involves a pesticide spill that has affected his property , and caused some problems . Ch. Heinrich informed both parties that the Zoning Board of Appeals cannot address any civil issues . Mr . Le Blanc summarized their reasons for objecting to the proposed fence : 1 . There is a bedroom window on the side of the house next to the Frieses . The proposed fence would deprive the room of light and air . 2 . The Frieses have added a two story addition which considerably cut down the light and air already. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 15 , 1990 - Page Sixteen 3 . There are extensive plantings of flowers along that side of the house . The fence would cut off from 25 to 30% of the sunlight . 4 . There are also 6 foot high bushes along the back of the lot for screening , and they would also be deprived of light . 5 . The Frieses have no windows on that side of the house at ground level . 6 . The La Blanes object to 6 foot high fences for the same reasons that the Village Fence Code prohibits them. Comments from Commissioners : Com. Paul : Stated this seems to be a classic example of a grudge fence . Mr . Friese responded that they have tried to be good neighbors . When the Le Blanes constructed an addition several years ago , the Frieses permitted a truck and crawler to cross their property line and their yard was torn up for 6 to 8 weeks . Mrs . Friese added that the Le Blanes have constantly harassed them with complaints about such things as not planting certain flowers , not being able to use their fireplace , saying that their dog attracts skunks , etc . These things have caused her a great deal of stress and have worsened her physical condition. Ch. Heinrich asked if a six foot (6 ' ) fence would help more than a five foot (5 ' ) fence? Mr . Friese answered that the Le Blancs could not look over a six foot (6 ' ) fence and this would provide more privacy for his wife . Mr . Le Blanc commented that the Frieses have been letting their dog out loose in the yard without a fence for ten ( 10) years . Com. Paul observed that the Frieses have no windows on the first floor on that side of the house , so they have more of a problem when they are in the back yard . He asked if they would consider a five foot (5 ' ) fence running the length of the house and a six foot (6 ' ) fence from the rear of the house to the rear lot line? This would allow light to enter the Le Blanc ' s bedroom window . The Friese ' s discussed this compromise and agreed to it . Mr . Le Blanc still objected to the six foot (6 ' ) because it could be detrimental to the bushes by depriving them of sunlight . Com. Paul explained that the Zoning Board Commissioners must look at both sides of the issue and the Frieses can put up a five foot (5 ' ) fence on the property line , so the compromise is reasonable . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 15 , 1990 - Page Seventeen Com. Fields : Agreed the compromise is reasonable . He has a similar situation with his property . There is a five foot (5 ' ) fence and he has similar bushes that grow fine . �.J Com. Lewandowski : Said he could support the six foot (6 ' ) fence the full length, as requested . Com. Kearns : Would support an amended petition for a five foot (5 ' ) fence from the front to the rear of the house and a six foot (6 ' ) fence continuing to the rear lot line . The six foot portion would not be detrimental to the surrounding neighbors . Com. Entman: Asked about the bushes on the Le Blanes property. Mrs . Friese said they are deciduous , planted about four feet (4 ' ) apart , and have not filled in the area . Com. Entman expressed concern about the six foot fence in the event that if either house is sold , the fence would remain. Ch. Heinrich said the ZBA has granted variances for similar fences in the past , usually for similar reasons . Residents have a right to request the variance . The Zoning Board of Appeals is not a court of law , but the Commissioners have an obligation listen to all testimony , and make a determination as to whether the request is reasonable , and what affect the fence would have on the surrounding property. Such situations are difficult . `•/ The petitioners confirmed their decision to amend the petition on its face to request a six foot (6 ' ) fence to be constructed from the back of their house to the rear lot line ; and abruptly drop to five feet (5 ' ) from the rear of the house to the front of the house . Mrs . Friese asked if the style can also be changed from board-on-board to dog eared? "YES" Com. Paul made the following motion: I move we grant the petition of Norman and Evelyn Friese , 1119 Mill Creek Dr . , pursuant to Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 , for construction of a six foot (6 ' ) fence along the southeast property line , starting north of the house to the rear property line . Hardship having been demonstrated . The proposed fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare . Com. Lewandowski seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman. Kearns , Paul , Fields , Lewandowski and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 15 , 1990 - Page Eighteen The permit may be issued in 15 days . Ch. Heinrich informed Mr . and Mrs . Le Blanc of their right to appeal the ZBA decision to the Village Board of Trustees . Request must be made in writing to Mr . Frank Hruby , Director of Building and Zoning , within 15 days . I . 770 Thompson Blvd . , Hugh H. and Gail Olbur Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 .040 - Residential Districts The Public Hearing Notice was read . Hugh H. and Gail Olbur , the petitioners , were represented by their son and his wife , Brett and Luzanne Olbur , who reside in the house . Brett Olbur summarized their reasons for requesting a variance to construct a 4 foot arched picket fence that would extend past the building line a distance of twenty-two feet (22 ' ) : 1 . For the safety and protection of their young daughter from traffic on Thompson Blvd . 2 . To provide a protected area for their dog . 3 . To keep other dogs from entering the yard . The lot is most unusual because the side and rear yard of the house is on a cul-de-sac and the 25 foot building line cuts through the yard . The Olburs have informed their neighbors of the proposed fence and no one has objected. Mr . Kuenkler ' s Review, dated May 8 , 1990 states there is no line-of-sight problem. Comments from Commissioners : Com. Paul - The proposed fence is the natural way it should be . Trustee Mathias asked how the house to the rear is situated? Mr . Olbur responded that the house faces the cul-de-sac and there are no windows on that side . The neighbor ' s house is angled in such a way that they would not see the fence unless they were in their front yard . The fence would not obstruct the driveway . The fence will be constructed inside the line of existing bushes and will not be seen from the street . There are no bushes along the rear lot line . Com . Fields , Com. Kearns , Com. Entman and Com. Lewandowski had no questions or objections . There were no objectors present . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 15 , 1990 - Page Nineteen Com. Fields made the following motion: I move we grant the petition of Hugh H. and Gail Olbur as presented by Brett Olbur , their son, for property located at 770 Thompson Blvd . for variance of the Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 , pertaining to Residential Districts , for the purpose of constructing a wooden fence that would extend past the building set back line . Said fence to run along a line continuing from the rear of the house to the rear property line , as shown on the plat . Hardship having been demonstrated , the fence will not be detrimental to the public health , safety and welfare . Said fence will not alter , but will be consistent with the character of the neighborhood . Com. Kearns seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman, Kearns , Paul , Fields , Lewandowski and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . VI . ANNOUNCEMENTS Com. Paul noted that the Johnson' s garage on Dundee Parkway is nearing completion. He asked Mr . Sylverne if it has had a final inspection. The garage does not have the required gutters and berm has not been put in. Mr . Sylverne responded that he is watching the construction and will make the final inspection personally. VII . ADJOURNMENT Com. Kearns made a motion to adjourn. Com. Fields seconded the motion. Ch. Heinrich adjourned the meeting at 10 : 35 P.M. Respectfully submitted , Shirley Bates , Recording Secretary sb ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 15 , 1990 - Page Twenty