Loading...
1990-06-19 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE , ILLINOIS TUESDAY , JUNE 19 , 1990 I . CALL TO ORDER Chairman Richard Heinrich called the meeting to order at 8 : 05 P . M . on Tuesday , June 19 , 1990 at the Village Hall , 50 Raupp Blvd . II . ROLL CALL Commissioners Present : M . Kearns , B . Entman , R . Lewandowski , H . Fields , and R . Heinrich QUORUM . Commissioners Absent : D . Stolman and J . Paul Bldg . Dept . Liaison : James Sylverne , Housing and Zoning Inspector Village Board Liaison : Sid Mathias , Trustee Village Attorney : Tom Dempsey III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 20 , 1990 - Motion to approve as submitted was made by Com . Kearns and seconded by Com . Entman Roll Call Vote : AYE - Lewandowski , Kearns , and Entman NAY - None ABSTAIN - Heinrich and Fields Motion Passed - 3 to 0 , 2 abstention May 15 , 1990 - Motion to approve made by Com . Kearns and seconded by Com . Fields . Corrections : Page 6 - Line 2 : After . . . a different - insert " house . " Page 11 - Line 9 : After . . . constructing a - insert " fence " . . . Roll Call Vote : AYE - Kearns , Entman , Lewandowski , Fields and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 5 to 0 . Minutes of March 20 , 1990 and May 15 , 1990 were approved and will be placed on file . IV . OLD BUSINESS A . 570 Silver Rock - James Bray - Tabled 5/ 15/90 Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 070 - Ornamental Fences Motion to remove from Table made by Com . Kearns and seconded by Com . Entman . Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously . Ch . Heinrich summarized the reason the item was tabled : , Surrounding neighbors had not been notified that the orna- d mental corner fences required a variance . Proper notifica- was given . Mr . James Bray was present . Ch. Heinrich recalled a neighbor , Mrs . Konrath, 580 Silver Rock Lane , had attended the May 15 , 1990 hearing and expressed concern that the corner split rail fence might block her vision when exiting the driveway . He asked Mr . Bray if he has spoken to Mrs . Konrath about the corner fence . Mr . Bray submitted photographs of the fences and replied that the corner fence is still in place . He has talked to Mrs . Konrath and she has not mentioned the fence . Jim Sylverne and Jim Kelly were out to view the fences and there was no discussion about that section of fence . Mrs . Konrath is not present . No questions from the audience . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Entman referred to the Village Engineer ' s Review about the fence at the corner being in the right-of-way . Mr . Sylverne said Mr . Bray is requesting a variance for the height only . He agreed to move all sections of the fences back twelve inches ( 12" ) from the right-of-way , in compliance with the ordinance . The fence company has been contacted . Com. Kearns asked if the property line issue had been settled? Mr . Bray responded and said the section of fence that was on Mrs . Konrath' s property was removed before the May hearing . Mr . Sylverne said the remaining fence appears to be on the Bray' s property , but they were unable to locate the front pin. Ch. Heinrich asked Mr . Sylverne to get Richard Kuenkler ' s approval before the fences are permanently relocated . Com. Kearns made the following motion: I move we grant petitioners , James R. Bray and Woodson Sias , 570 Silver Rock Lane , variance of the Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 070 , pertaining to Residential Districts , for the purpose of constructing 42" to 48" ornamental split rail fences as illustrated in the photographs . Condition: Fences are to be moved back twelve inches ( 12" ) from the right-of-way . Unique circumstances were demonstrated . Said fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare ; and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 19 , 1990 - Page Two Com. Lewandowski seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Fields , Lewandowski , Kearns , Entman and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 5 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in 15 days . (July 4 , 1990) Mr . Bray asked if the fence can be removed pending the Village Engineer ' s inspection? Yes , but it cannot be put back up until after the permit is issued after the 15 day period . V. NEW BUSINESS A. 40 Bernard Drive , Algirdas and Sieglinde Tiskus Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts Purpose : Construction of a 5 foot that would extend past the building line at the corner of Bernard Dr . and Navajo Tr . The Public Hearing Notice was read . Algirdas and Sieglinde Tiskus were sworn in. Mrs . Tiskus summarized their reasons for requesting the variance : 1 . Their house is located on a busy corner and they have no privacy. 2 . They had bushes along Navajo Trail , but they are old and do not grow. 3 . Children play ball in the street and enter their yard to retrieve balls . They trample the flower and vegetable gardens . They would like to have a 5 foot , board-on-board fence , 4 feet from the sidewalk . The bushes are about 2-3 feet from the sidewalk. Mr . Tiskus said they will either remove the bushes or relocate them inside the fence . The Village Engineer ' s Review, dated May 30 , 1990 , states : "The landscaping at the corner should be trimmed and main- tained in accordance with the Village Ordinance . . 36 inches , within 20 feet of the lot corner . Mr . Tiskus has already trimmed them and Mr . Sylverne stated Mr . Kuenkler is satisfied . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Entman, Com. Kearns , and Com . Lewandowski : No problem. Com. Fields : Commented that 4 feet is closer to the sidewalk than the ZBA usually allows , but the unique circumstance is that the garage is located in such a way that a fence at the building line would substantially decrease the amount of usable space . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 19 , 1990 - Page Three There were no questions or comments from the audience . Trustee Mathias observed that the neighbor ' s driveway to the north is next to the proposed fence , which would be in their front yard . Mrs . Tiskus responded that she has spoken to their neighbors about the fence and they do not object . There is a 6 foot easement along the rear lot line and the fence will be located outside the easement . Com. Lewandowski made the following motion: I move we grant the petitioners Algirdas J. and Sieglinde Tiskus , 50 Bernard Dr . , a variance of the Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 , pertaining to Residential Districts , for the purpose of constructing a 5 foot board-on-board fence that would be located past the building line at the corner of Bernard and Navajo Drive . Said fence to be constructed 4 feet from the sidewalk along Navajo Trail . Condition: Said fence not to be constructed within the 6 foot utility easement at the rear of the property. Unique circumstances having been demonstrated , the 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 - Entman, Kearns , Fields , Lewandowski and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 5 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . Permit may be issued in 15 days . (July 4 , 1990) ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 19 , 1990 - Page Four B. 1225 Busch Parkway , C . B. Mills Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 32 . 020 , Pertaining to : Location of Accessory Buildings and Structures Purpose : Construction of a deck on an easement The Public Hearing Notice was read . Mr . A. F . Krumholz , President of C . B. Mills , a division of Chicago Boiler Co . , 1225 Busch Parkway , B.G. (459-0007 ) was sworn in. He gave a summary of the location , which is situated next to a well landscaped detention lake and a deck will be beneficial for the employees to enjoy during lunchtime , etc . Photographs were presented . The Village Engineer ' s Review , dated October 26 , 1989 , states : " . . . the easement is greater than that expected to be inundated when the basin is full . This area of inundation is estimated to be 16 feet horizontal from the normal water level . As long as the owner clearly understand that this is the limit (no screening , walls , roof , or other structure-like additions) we don' t believe this is a problem and could be allowed . " Mr . Krumholz affirmed Mr . Kuenkler ' s review. The following letters of approval were submitted : 1 . Van Lissingen and Co . , Lincolnshire , IL 2 . Delice De France . 1111 Busch Parkway 3 . Advantest America , Inc . , 1100 Busch Parkway 4 . W . E. Grainger , 1250 Busch Parkway 5 . Hiffman Shaffer & Anderson, Chicago , IL Mr . Krumholz described the construction of the deck which will be built of wolmanized wood , with a partial railing . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Kearns : Com. Kearns commented that the closest building is Delice De France , across the pond , about 250 feet away . He does not object to the construction of the deck . Asked if the deck would be maintained by the C. B. Mills Company? He also asked how many other exits there are from the building , in case of a fire , or other emergency? Mr . Krumholz responded that the deck would be taken care of the same as the building , lawn, etc . and he said that they have considered the danger situation. Pressure vessels are not manufactured on site . The building is fully sprinklered . There are exits to the north, west and south. The deck is at level of the office floor area. Mr . Sylverne said there is a sufficient number of exits . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 19 , 1990 - Page Five Com . Entman: Said he has professionally represented Hiffman Shaffer & Anderson, but his association will have no affect on his decision in this matter . He asked how many employees use the lunchroom? Mr . Krumholz replied that there are 28 to 30 employees and the number that use the lunchroom varies from day to day . Com. Lewandowski : Asked for more information about the level of the deck in comparison to the water level ? Mr . Krumholz said the office floor level is about 4 to 5 feet above the water level . The edge of the deck will be about 6 feet from the existing water line and there will be a fence around this area. The deck will be cantilevered out over the easement . Com. Lewandowski commented that the deck is a nice amenity and asked other Corporate Grove businesses might do the same? Mr . Krumholz explained that their situation is unique because of the slope of the property. Most of the other businesses at Corporate Grove have patios and do not need a deck. Com. Fields : Agreed that the deck is a nice amenity and commented that it should improve the employee ' s morale if they take advantage of it . Ch. Heinrich: Commended Mr . Krumholz for constructing the deck for his employees and added that it would enhance the character of the neighborhood . No questions or comments from the audience . Com. Fields made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board of Trustees approval of the petition of C. B. Mills , 1225 Busch Pkwy. , for variance of the Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 32 . 020 , pertaining to Location of Accessory Buildings and Structures , for the purpose of constructing a deck that would located on an easement , as proposed . Unique circumstances and economic hardship having been demonstrated , the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood , but would bring this property in line with many of the surrounding properties . Said deck to be constructed on the west face of the building toward the south end of the building . Com . Lewandowski seconded the motion. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS `./ June 19 , 1990 - Page Six Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman, Kearns , Lewandowski , Fields and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 5 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. This item will be placed on the Consent Agenda for the next Village Board meeting which is scheduled for July 2 , 1990 . D. 411 Claret Drive , David and Mila Sapoznik Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts Purpose : Construction of a 6 ft . fence along rear lot line The Public Hearing Notice was read . David and Mila Sapoznik were sworn in. Mr . Sapoznik summarized their reasons for requesting a variance for the purpose of constructing a 6 foot privacy fence : 1 . The rear lot line abuts Old Checker Road 2 . Traffic is very heavy and noisy. The fence would reduce the noise . 3 . The fence would provide privacy from the golf course across the street . Many golfers come into the yard to retrieve golf balls . 4 . All their neighbors have identical fences and this one will complete the line . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Entman: Asked if the fence will be 1 foot from the property line? "Yes , same as neighbors . Com. Kearns , Com . Lewandowski and Com. Fields : No problem. Com. Entman made the following motion: I move the petition of David and Mila Sapoznik , 411 Claret Drive , for variance of the Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 , pertaining to Residential Districts , for the purpose of constructing a six foot (6 ' ) wood privacy fence along the rear property line on Checker Drive , be granted . Conditions : Said fence to be constructed no closer than 1 foot from the sidewalk along Checker Drive . Same quality materials , style , etc . to be used that were used to for the neighboring fences along Checker . The fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare . It will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood . Com. Kearns seconded the motion. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 19 , 1990 - Page Seven D. 301 Checker Drive , Edna M. Farrell Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts Purpose : Replacement of 6 ft . fence along Arlington Hts . Rd . The Public Hearing Notice was read . Mrs . Edna M. Farrell was sworn in. She summarized reasons for requesting a variance : 1 . The house is located at the corner of Checker Drive and Arlington Heights Road . A major portion of the lot lies along Arlington Heights Road . Traffic is very heavy and noisy. 2 . There was a 6 foot fence along Arlington Heights Road , but during a wind storm about 1/2 of the fence blew down and the rest is also beginning to fall . 3 . The house is next door to the soccer/baseball fields and people often come into the yard . The new fence will match the existing fence and will connect to the chain link fence next door . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Fields : Many neighbors have similar 6 foot fences . No problem with variance . Com. Lewandowski : Will there be a fence along the rear lot line and will it be the same distance from the sidewalk? It is 31 - 38 inches away. Mrs . Farrell responded that the existing fence only goes about half way down the distance of the rear lot line , but she is going to extend the new fence the entire distance . It will be 6 feet high up just past the storage shed and then drop down to 4 or 5 feet along the rear lot line so she can watch the children playing in the park . It will be located the same distance from the sidewalk . Com. Kearns and Com. Entman: No problem , the fence should be replaced and the corner is one of the busiest in the Village . The Village Engineer ' s Review , dated May 30 , 1990 , states : "The is no particular line-of-sight reuirement . . . . and the fence is adequately set back from the sidewalk . No questions or comments from the audience . Com. Kearns made the following motion: I move we grant the petition of Edna M. Farrell , 301 Checker Drive , for variance of the Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 , pertaining to Residential Districts , for the purpose of replacing a 6 foot wood privacy fence along Arlington Heights Road , at the corner of Checker Drive . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 19 , 1990 - Page Eight At the rear lot line , the fence will be 6 feet in height up to one section past the storage shed , where it will drop down to about 5 feet , completing the rear property line . The new fence to be constructed in the same location as the existing fence . Said fence 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 , Kearns , Entman and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 5 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . Permit may be issued in 15 days . (July 4 , 1990) E. 4 Cobblestone Court , Steven and Deborah Macklin Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40. 020 Construction of a 2-story addition at the rear of the house The Public Hearing Notice was read . Steven and Deborah Macklin were sworn in. Mr . Michael Menn , Architect was also present . Mr . Macklin summarized the reasons for requesting a variance : 1 . The increasing growing size of the family 2 . When they purchased the house , 7 years ago , they were unaware of the zoning restrictions 3 . They prefer to stay in the same community , close to schools , near their neighbors , etc . 4 . They cannot afford to move to a larger house . Mr . Menn presented photographs of the house and said the addition will match the existing architecture . The property is very well landscaped and it will be enhanced . The exist- patio will be removed and a smaller one built on the side . The swing set will remain in position. The Village Engineer ' s Drainage Review , dated May 30 , 1990 , states : "The proposed addition will not alter the existing drainage pattern. " Mr . Menn stated the addition will be 16 feet in depth and will have a full basement . The first floor will have a master bedroom suite (with bathroom and closet ) , a larger kitchen and a family room. The basement will be a recreation room. A 3-1 /2 ft . by 7 ft . doorway will be cut into the foundation wall . Mr . Sylverne confirmed that this was structurally safe . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ft/ June 19 , 1990 - Page Nine Comments from Commissioners : Com . Entman: Stated that Mr . Menn is a close personal friend , but this not affect his decision in this matter . He said the plan is good . The yard is not large , but there is a lot of shrubbrey . The house next door is set back and the addition will not impair their line-of-sight . Mr . Macklin said he has spoken to his neighbors about the plans and some of the neighbors are present . Comments from the audience : Howard Schwartz , 177 Fox Hill Drive , asked how the drainage onto his property could not be affected by the large addition? Mr . Menn explained that the addition will replace the patio , replacing hard surface for hard surface . There should be no additional run-off to the neighbor ' s property. Ch. Heinrich added that lots are graded toward the rear of property where there are storm sewers to collect water . By Code , water cannot be displaced onto neighboring property. Michael Garfield , 18 Cobblestone Court , said he and other neighbors are present to support the Macklins . The improve- ments to the property will upgrade the value of the surround- ing properties . Michael Dubow , 185 E. Fox Hill Drive , said he was also concerned about the drainage and he accepts the explanation. He added that the addition will bring the house 16 feet closer to his house . Mr . Heinrich replied that the request is not unusual , and he has never been informed that any addition has negatively affected the neighborhood . The addition will blend in with the rest of the house . A 6 foot addition could be built with- out a variance , so the actual difference would be 10 feet . Com. Kearns : The addition is very tasteful and should not be a problem because of the way the house is situated on the lot . The entire 16 feet is only needed for one point and it tapers away toward the north. He does not oppose the variance . Com. Lewandowski : Agreed that the rear yard is small and the addition is large , but the variance is justifiable . Mr . Menn responded that the lot is pie-shaped and therefore it has more width than depth. There will be less than 50% total ground coverage . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 19 , 1990 - Page Ten Mr . Macklin added that he is in the landscaping business and he described his plans to add arbor vitae evergreens along the rear lot line for a natural barrier . Com. Fields : Agreed with the statements about the extra bulk , and recalled the May variance approved for his neighbor ' s home . The addition has been constructed and it is closer than he had envisioned it . The proposed landscaping will provide a significant visual barrier , and from the plans submitted , the addition will be attractive . Ch. Heinrich concurred with the comments about the size of the addition, but the evergreens will conceal the first floor from the neighbors . The addition will blend in with the house and it will increase the property values . Com. Lewandowski made the following motion: I move we grant the request of the petitioners , Steven and Deborah Macklin, 4 Cobblestone Court , for variance Zoning Ordinance , Sec . 17 . 40 . 020 , pertaining to Area , Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations , for the purpose of constructing an addition that would encroach a distance of 10 feet into the required rear yard setback . Hardship having been demonstrated , the proposed addition would alter the essential character of the neighborhood . The addition to be consistent with the plans submitted , and approved by the Building Department . Com. Kearns seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman, Kearns , Lewandowski , Heinrich NAY - None ABSTAIN - Abstain Motion Passed - 4 to 0 , 1 abstention. Findings of Fact Attached . Permit may be issued in 15 days . Objections to the decision may be appealed by written notice , to the Director of Building and Zoning , within 15 days . F. 560 Checker Drive , Naoki and Leah Nakamura Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - 4 foot , open picket fence that would extend past the building line at the corner of Checker Drive and Farrington Drive . The Nakamuras were unable to attend and asked to be defered . Motion to Table until July 17 , 1990 was made by Com. Kearns and seconded by Com. Fields . Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS �„/ June 19 , 1990 - Page Eleven G. Wendy ' s - 245 Mc Henry Road (Seigle ' s Resubdivision Lot 1 ) Sign Code , Section 14 . 20 . 070 - Ground Signs Michael F . Minnich, Development and Engineering of Wendy' s ; and Dan Scurek , Director of Real Estate of Wendy ' s , Int ' l , Two Transam Plaza Drive , Suite 330 , Oakbrook Ter . , IL 60181 were sworn in after the Public Hearing Notice was read . Mr . Minnich described the proposed monument sign. It will be 5 ' 2" x 6 ' 5" = 23 square feet . The only other sign will be a wall sign on the building which is set back 135 feet from Mc Henry Road . The monument sign would be located approxi- mately 1/2 way between the bank sign and Seigle ' s Home Center sign: 202 feet south of the existing First American Bank of Lake County sign and 156 feet north of the Seigle ' s Home and Bldg. Center sign. The main reason they need the monument sign is because most of Wendy' s business comes from people driving by, who decide to stop on the spur of the moment . An economic hardship would be caused if a sign is not visible from the highway . The sign, constructed with brick to match the building , will be internally illuminated . This Wendy' s will not be open for breakfast at this time . The hours will be from 6 AM until about 10 P. M. to 11 PM. The lights will be turned off at closing . A letter , from Harry J . Seigle and Mark S . Seigle , dated , April 24 , 1990 , was read . It confirms Wendy ' s has a long term land lease , for the purpose of erecting and operating a restaurant . Mr . Harry Seigle was present and stated that he has no objections to the sign. The Appearance Commission minutes of April 12 , 1990 states the "pylon" sign will have Wendy ' s and the logo , but will not read Old Fashioned Hamburgers . The exhibit submitted with the variance application has Old Fashioned Hamburgers on the base , but does not have the logo . Mr . Minnich said they have several different signs and they have no objection to the sign without "Old Fashioned Hamburgers . " Mr . Matt will be contacted and the file copy will be checked to clarify what was said and approved. Pylon is not technically correct , it should be "monument sign. " Comments from Commissioners : Ch. Heinrich: No problem with sign or placement . It is tastefully done and the height is in keeping with the ZBA' s general policy. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 19 , 1990 - Page Twelve Com . Entman: Asked where the entrance/exit will be for Wendy' s? There Is a right-in, right-out driveway for north- bound traffic near Seigle ' s sign; and southbound traffic can enter through Bank Lane , or go to the light near Blockbuster . Com. Entman commented that the restaurant will be visible from Mc Henry Road and people will easily recognize it as Wendy' s . He questioned whether there would be any economic hardship. Com. Kearns : No objection to the sign. It is in keeping with the intent of the ZBA to keep advertising off signage . Com. Lewandowski : No comment , no objection. Com. Fields : Stated he is related to the Seigles by marriage , but this will not have any impact upon the petition for a variance . The location is in a commercial district and he encourages Village commercial activities . He supports the petition. No comments or questions from the audience . The Village Engineer ' s Line-of-Sight Study , dated May 30 , 1990 states : "There is no applicable sight distance to the right as this is a restricted access point (right out only) . Com. Fields made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board of Trustees , approval of the petition as submitted by Wendy ' s Int ' l , Inc . for a variance of Sign Code , Section 14 . 20 .070 , pertaining to Ground Signs , for the purpose of constructing a ground sign that would be no closer than 156 feet north of the Seigle ' s sign and 202 feet south of the presently located bank sign. Hardship having been demonstrated , granting of the sign would not be detrimental to property owner in the vicinity. The sign is recommended pursuant to Sign Code , Section 14 . 44 . 010 , Subsection B: The sign is of particular good design and particular good taste ; and the site will be particularly well-landscaped . Com. Kearns seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman, Kearns , Lewandowski , Fields and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 5 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . This item will be placed on the Consent Agenda of the next Village Board meeting which is scheduled for July 2 , 1990 . The AC minutes will be researched as directed and the petitioners will be informed of the result of the search. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 19 , 1990 - Page Thirteen VI . ANNOUNCEMENTS Ch. Heinrich announced that the Trustees upheld , by a 4 to 0 vote , the variance for the Friese ' s privacy fence at 1119 Mill Creek Drive , granted May 15 , 1990 by the ZBA. The Le Blanes had an attorney present and an expert witness testifed about the effects of pesticides . The Frieses declined the opportunity to call in an expert and have the hearing remanded back to the ZBA. Com. Fields asked if all conditions of the variance granted the Johnsons on Dundee Parkway have been met? Mr . Sylverne responded that all the grading has not been done and a final review has not been done by the Engineering Department . A letter was written to Mr . Johnson. but there has been no reply to date . Ch. Heinrich announced that Mr . Sylverne is leaving his postition as Housing and Zoning Inspector for B.G. , and will begin working for Palatine in July . He added his regrets and wished Jim good luck in his new job. Com. Kearns proposed that a letter be written from the ZBA to Mr . Balling and the Village Board acknowledging Jim' s help and assistance as Building Department Liaison. Affirmed by ALL ! . Mr . Robert Sherman was present during the .public hearing and made Li a statement about various laws that refer to oaths of office . He requested that the ZBA drop the "so help you God" portion of the oath that is administered by the ZBA, in the case that an atheist , such as himself , is going to give testimony. Mr . Dempsey affirmed that there are two oaths commonly used , one is the "swearing under God oath" and the other uses the term , " I solemnly affirm to tell the truth. " People had the choice . Ch. Heinrich responded that should anyone objected to "swearing under God" he would change the oath for that person , without having any negative feelings toward that person. He respects the beliefs of all people , and their right to free choice . This is in accordance with the Constitution of IL and the U . S.A. VII . ADJOURNMENT Com. Kearns moved to adjourn. Com. Entman seconded the motion. Ch. Heinrich adjourned the meeting at 10 . 10 P. M. s Respectfully submitted , Shirley Ba' s Recording Secretary ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 19 . 1990 - Page Fourteen VI . ANNOUNCEMENTS Ch. Heinrich announced that the Trustees upheld , by a 4 to 0 vote , the variance for the Friese ' s privacy fence at 1119 Mill Creek Drive , granted May 15 , 1990 by the ZBA. The Le Blanes had an attorney present and an expert witness testified about thereffects of pesticides . The Frieses declined the opportunity to call in an expert and have the hearing remanded back to the ZBA. Com . Fields asked if all conditions of the variance granted the Johnsons on Dundee Parkway have been met? Mr . Sylverne responded that all the grading has not been done and a final review has not been done by the Engineering Department . A letter was written to Mr . Johnson, but there has been no reply to date . Ch. Heinrich announced that Mr . Sylverne is leaving his postition as Housing and Zoning Inspector for B.G. , and will begin working for Palatine in July. He added his regrets and wished Jim good luck in his new job. Com. Kearns proposed that a letter be written from the ZBA to Mr . Balling and the Village Board acknowledging Jim' s help and assistance as Building Department Liaison. Affirmed by ALL ! . Mr . Robert Sherman was present during the public hearing and made a statement about various laws that refer to oaths of office . He requested that the ZBA drop the "so help you God" portion of the oath that is administered by the ZBA, in the case that an atheist , such as himself , is going to give testimony . Mr . Dempsey affirmed that there are two oaths commonly used , one is the "swearing under God oath" and the other uses the term , " I solemnly affirm to tell the truth. " People had the choice . Ch. Heinrich responded that should anyone objected to "swearing under God" he would change the oath for that person, without having any negative feelings toward that person. He respects the beliefs of all people , and their right to free choice . This is in accordance with the Constitution of IL and the U . S.A. VII . ADJOURNMENT Com . Kearns moved to adjourn. Com. Entman seconded the motion. Ch. Heinrich adjourned the meeting at 10 . 10 P.M. s Respectfully submitted , Shirley Bat Recording Secretary ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 19 , 1990 - Page Fourteen