1990-08-21 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE , ILLINOIS
TUESDAY , AUGUST 21 , 1990
I . CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Richard Heinrich called the meeting to order at 8 : 00 P . M .
on Tuesday , August 21 , 1990 at the Village Hall , 50 Raupp Blvd .
II . ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present : M . Kearns , R . Lewandowski , H . Fields
and R . Heinrich . QUORUM .
Commissioners Absent : D . Stolman , B . Entman and J . Paul
Com . Entman arrived at 8 : 08 P . M .
Bldg . Dept . Liaison : Ed Schar , Housing and Zoning Inspector
Village Attorney : Tom Dempsey
Village Board Liaison : Sid Mathias , Trustee
Ch . Heinrich announced that four ZBA members consist of a quorum ,
but four ( 4 ) affirmative votes are necessary for a motion to be
passed . A fifth commissioner is expected , but if any petitioner
wants to delay his hearing until more commissioners are present ,
they can make a request to Table anytime during the meeting .
I' . APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Postponed until after the business was conducted .
IV . OLD BUSINESS
A . 218 Vintage Lane , Lawrence D . Ybarra - Tabled 7/ 17/90 .
Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts
Motion to remove from Table was made by Com . Kearns and
seconded by Com . Fields . Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously .
Com . Kearns announced that he ushers at church with Mr . Ybarra
but this will not affect his judgement in this matter .
Nr . Ybarra was present , but Mr . Torgovnik (objector ) , next
door neighbor at 406 Claret was not present .
Mr . Ybarra recalled that he had requested time to discuss the
optional open picket fence style and location with his wife .
He submitted additional information for discussion :
1 . Regarding the open picket fence vs . board-on-board
privacy fence , the picket would provide safety , but
they also need privacy . The family room is open to
view from cars and pedestrians on Claret Drive .
Mr . Ybarra submitted photographs taken at night ,
showing the double set of patio doors .
Com. Entman arrived at 8 : 08 P.M.
2 . An open picket fence would allow their pet Beagle to
� see out and bark at pedestrians , etc . A privacy fence
would prevent him from becoming a neighborhood
nuisance .
3 . Submitted a list of other five foot (5 ' ) solid fences :
a . Vintage Lane - 211 , 213 , 215 , 217 , 219 , 306 , 312
b. Claret Drive - 401 , 403 , 405 , 407 , 409 , 411 , 413
4 . Regarding distance from the 20 foot building line ,
Mr . Ybarra was advised by the Ms . Conroy, Sales
Manager , Baird & Warner at Terramere Plaza , that
fences on a corner lot add to property value , and a
fence constructed along the building line would
negatively affect the value . The more of the property
that is enclosed, the greater the dollar value.
Mr . Ybarra stated they were original buyers at Vintage and
they selected their lot about a year before the house was
built . They had inquired about the Village fence ordinance
and knew about the 5 foot height limitation and the building
line requirement , and they knew variance were granted.
He submitted photographs with markers at the building line ,
30 feet , and 10 feet and 15 feet from the sidewalk. The side
yard view is still open at the ten foot ( 10 ' ) distance.
Regarding Mr . Torgovnik 's view, onephotograph was taken from
g g g
the corner of the yard , showing that the fence would not be
seen from their living room because the garage is in front of
the house . There is also a photo showing the view from
the Torgovnik ' s patio , and there is not a significant
difference between the 10 feet and 15 feet distance from the
sidewalk. His view will be basically the same as it has
always been. He talked to Mr . Torgovnik after last month' s
public hearing and they respect each other ' s opinions . His
objection was to fences in general and the neglect of yards
behind the fences . Mr . Ybarra' s yard is well kept .
At the corner of Vintage Lane and Claret Drive , other fences
have been granted variances from 6 ' to 10 ' from the sidewalk .
Mr . Ybarra requested a board-on-board fence for the safety of
their children, for privacy and for the confinement of their
dog. Their request is made as taxpayers in B.G. who want to
maximize the use and value of their property. Their neighbors
will still have a open view of the development .
Ch. Heinrich commented that the Zoning Board considers the
unique circumstances of each situation and do not base any
decision on
precedence .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
August 21 , 1990 - Page Two
Comments from Commissioners:
Com. Entman - No further comments . (On July 17th, had stated
he preferred 15 feet from sidewalk and open picket style .
Com. Kearns - The Torgovnik' s garage and driveway would be
next to the fence and the view would be obstructed. He
suggested angling the fence away from the neighbors and then
adding some shrubs for screening. Both parties paid a premium
for corner lots and the view is important . He would prefer
the fence to be set back about 12 feet from the sidewalk and
was agreeable with a board-on-board privacy fence .
Ch. Heinrich said that suggestion to angle the fence would not
make much difference to him with respect to the neighbor ' s
objection to the loss of open space .
Com. Lewandowski - Would support the original petition, and
the reasons given (safety and privacy) were sufficient to
warrant a variance . The house is very close to the building
line. He would prefer the setback to be 15 feet .
Com. Fields - Clarified that Mr . Ybarra had been willing to
the 15 foot compromise. Considering the effect of a board-on-
board style and Mr . Torgovnik ' s objections , the 15 foot
distance would be acceptable.
Ch. Heinrich stated that the ZBA looks at the petitioner ' s
`./ needs , considers any objections , and balances these factors
with the community' s requirements . His preference would be
the open picket style , set back 15 feet from the sidewalk ,
but Mr . Ybarra has presented convincing arguments for a
solid fence and he would not object .
Mr . Ybarra said he would agree to the 15 foot setback , if
the board would permit the board-on-board style and so amended
his petition.
Commissioners Kearns , Lewandowski , Fields and Ch. Heinrich
agreed to accept the compromise. Com. Entman concurred with
the 15 foot setback but preferred open picket style.
There were no comments or questions from the audience.
Com. Lewandowski made the following motion:
I move we grant the petition requested by
Lawrence Ybarra, 218 Vintage Lane , for a
variance of the Fence Code , Section 15 . 20.040 ,
pertaining to Residential Districts , for the
purpose of constructing a five foot (5 ' ) ,
board-on-board fence, that would extend past
the building line at the corner of Vintage Lane
and Claret Drive.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
August 21 , 1990 - Page Three
Said fence to be no closer than fifteen feet ( 15 ' )
to the sidewalk.
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.
Com. Fields seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote: AYE - Kearns , Fields , Lewandowski
and Heinrich
NAY - Entman
Motion Passed - 4 to 1 . Findings of Fact Attached.
The permit may be issued in 15 days.
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. 40 Bernard Drive , Algirdas J. and Sieglinde Tiskus
Fence Code , Section 15 . 20. 040 - Residential Districts
The Public Hearing Notice was read. Mr . and Mrs . Tiskus
were sworn in. Mr . Tiskus explained the reason they are
requesting a revision of the variance that was granted on
July 17 , 1990. They had agreed to construct the fence
inside the easement area along the rear lot line , but upon
reconsideration of the fact that they would be giving up the
use of that portion of the yard. They are reapplying for a
variance to construct the fence along the lot line .
The Village Engineer ' s Review, dated August 8 , 1990 ,
states : "No obstruction is created for the intersection by
the proposed fence. The abutting property is near side
driveway, and the fence should be set back five feet (5 ' )
from the sidewalk along with the 6 ' x 6 ' corner which will
provide adequate vision. "
Ch. Heinrich stated that the request is reasonable.
Comments from Commissioners:
Com. Entman - No problem.
Com. Kearns - No problem.
Com. Lewandowski - No objection.
Com. Fields - No objection, if the neighbor does not object .
Ch. Heinrich - No problem. Asked Mr . Tiskus if he agreed to
amend the petition, per the Village Engineer ' s recommenda-
tion, that the fence be set back five feet (5 ' ) from the
sidewalk . [The original variance was granted four feet (4 ' )
from the sidewalk , but six feet (6 ' ) from the rear lot line. ]
Mr . Tiskus agreed to amend the petition.
There were no questions or comments from the audience.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
August 21 , 1990 - Page Four
Com. Kearns made the following motion:
I move we grant the petition of Algirdas J. and
Sieglinde Tiskus , 40 Bernard Drive , for variance of
Fence Code , Section 15. 20.040 , pertaining to
Residential Districts , for the purpose of constructing
a five foot (5 ' ) wood privacy fence five feet (5 ' ) from
the sidewalk along Navajo Trail , with a 6 foot x 6 foot
angled corner at the rear property line. (See Survey. )
[The previous variance was for a five foot (5 ' ) wood fence
to be located four feet (4 ' ) from the sidewalk and six
feet (6 ' ) inside the property line] .
Said fence will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety and welfare; and the essential character of the
neighborhood will not be affected.
Com. Lewandowski seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote: AYE - Entman, Kearns , Lewandowski ,
Fields and Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 5 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached.
Permit may be issued in 15 days .
B. 855 Aspen Drive , Eric and Pam Murgatroyd
Fence Code , Section 15 . 20.040 - Residential Districts
The Public Hearing Notice was read and Eric Murgatroyd
was sworn in. He summarized the reasons for requesting a
variance to be construct a fence past the building line at the
corner of Arlington Heights Road and Aspen Drive to replace
an existing dilapidated fence.
The fence would be eight feet (8 ' ) high along Arlington
Heights Road , tapering down to six feet (6 ' ) on both side lot
lines because they are also affected by the traffic. The
speed limit on Arlington Heights Road is 45 mph. and there is
an immense amount of noisy traffic day and night . The grade at
the rear lot line is much lower that the road bed, so the
effect of a five foot (5 ' ) fence would be 3-1/2 to 4 feet in
height . There is no privacy for them because their house ,
which fronts on Aspen Drive is also situated at the entrance
to the subdivision, Arlington Heights Road and Carlton Place.
On May 30 , 1990 , the ZBA granted this same variance , but
he had specifically agreed to construct a scalloped , board-
on-board style fence. He was advised by the fence contractor
that a solid wood fence would be stronger and provide a better
noise barrier . When he talked with Jim Sylverne , he was
advised that he could not change the fence style. The time
limitation for the variance expired , and he has reapplied .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
August 21 , 1990 - Page Five
The Village Engineer ' s Review, dated May 12 , 1989 , stated:
"The proposed fence would be located ten feet ( 10 ' )
east of the west property line . If so, no conflict
with the necessary sight distance is created . "
Copies of photos of the existing fence were included in the
packet and the hardship letter has been clarified to request a
solid wood fence that would be 8 feet high along Arlington
Heights Road , tapering down to 6 feet high on both sides of
the property, and located in the same position as the existing
fence ,about two feet (2 ' ) past the building line at the corner
of Arlington Heights Road, Carlton Place and Aspen Drive .
Ch. Heinrich commented that the two fence styles are not
essentially different . Mr . Schar agreed.
Comments from Commissioners:
Com. Lewandowski - Recalled that the scalloped fence was a
compromise to granting the eight foot (8 ' ) height . The road
grade is lower , but not two feet (2 ' ) lower .
Mr . Murgatroyd responded that there are eight foot (8) fences
along Lake/Cook Road , where the grade is higher that the road.
Com. Fields - No problem with the request .
Com. Kearns - No problem with the request .
`/ No questions or comments from the audience.
Com. Fields made the following motion:
I move we grant the request of Eric and Pam Murgatroyd ,
855 Aspen Drive , for variance of the Fence Code ,
Section 15 . 20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts ,
for the purpose of constructing an eight foot (8 ' )
solid wood privacy fence to be located in the same
position as the existing fence [eight feet (8 ' ) along the
rear lot line , tapering to six feet (6 ' ) along the two
side lot lines , extending about two feet (2 ' ) past the
building line] .
Said fence will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety and welfare .
Com. Lewandowski seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote: AYE - Entman, Kearns , Lewandowski ,
Field and Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 5 to 0. Findings of Fact Attached.
Permit may be issued in 15 days .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
August 21 , 1990 - Page Six
C. 511 Thorndale Drive , Neil and Debra Ann Freeman
Fence Code, Section 15 .20 . 040 , Residential Districts
The Public Hearing Notice was read. Debra Ann Freeman,
511 Thorndale Drive , was sworn in. She referred to the
booklet of photographs that was submitted illustrating
other corner fences that extend past building lines .
Mrs . Freeman described the photographs of their property.
Their neighbors have an open picket fence and the Freemans
want to continue this fence along Pauline Avenue , one ( 1 )
foot from the sidewalk. Their situation is unique in that
if a fence is constructed at the building line , 5 feet from
the house , "their lot would look chopped . "
A more important reason for needing a fence is to provide
safety and protection for their child (and any future
children) . Pauline is a heavily traveled through street
between Route 83 to Weiland Road .
The Village Engineer ' s Line-of-Sight Review, dated 8/8/90 ,
states :
"No obstruction is created for the intersection
by the proposed fence. "
Mr . Kuenkler recommends :
. . . that the fence be set back from the sidewalk . "
Ch. Heinrich observed that the circumstance is unique in that
the abutting property is a rear yard condition.
Comments from Commissioners :
Com. Kearns : No questions . No problem.
Com. Entman: Confirmed that the proposed fence would be the
same style and height as the neighbor ' s existing fence. It
will be connected to the neighbor ' s fence , and continue that
line to the rear of the house. No problem.
Com. Lewandowski : No questions or comments . Would support
the request .
Com. Fields : No problem.
Ch. Heinrich: Agreed that the proposed location is best .
Comments from the audience :
Mr . Ronald H. Friedman, 744 Highland Grove Drive , asked what
hardship reasons were given for the request .
Answer : Safety of the Freeman' s son and aesthetics.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
August 21 , 1990 - Page Seven
Ch. Heinrich responded that the circumstances are unique in
that if a fence was constructed farther from the sidewalk
would detract from the character of the neighborhood.
Tom Dempsey, Village Attorney, stated that proven hardship is
not necessary for a variance of the Fence Code. The only
criteria is that the fence will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety and welfare .
Com. Lewandowski acknowledged that he is acquainted with
Mr . Friedman, and added , "This will not affect his decision. "
Mr . Friedman stated his objections :
1 . Amberly is an attractive subdivision and
this would be the only fence along Pauline.
2 . The petitioner used to own a large , boisterous
and troublesome German Shepherd . If the dog is
allowed in the yard with a fence only one ( 1 ) foot
from the sidewalk , problems could be caused to
people walking down the sidewalk.
Mrs . Freeman described Mr . Friedman as a former , not very
friendly, neighbor . She added that they have a dog run along
the whole side of the house and the dog is not allowed to run.
Ch. Heinrich observed that there is a problem with the dog in
the yard with, or without , the fence, so this issue is not
relevant . Fences are set back a minimum distance of one ( 1 )
foot for the protection of pedestrians and children on
bicycles . Pauline is a very busy street .
Mr . Friedman stated that the Freemans are entitled to a fence ,
he objects to its location being so close to the sidewalk.
Ch. Heinrich commented that the spaced picket style of the
fence will retain the openness of the area, and this is the
determining factor in his decision to grant the variance .
The fact that it will link up with the neighbor ' s existing
picket fence is an aesthetic factor , and the decision is
not based on precedent .
Com. Entman made the following motion:
I move we grant the petition of Neal and Debra
Ann Freeman, 511 Thorndale Drive , for variance
of the Fence Code , Section 15 . 20.040 , pertaining
to Residential Districts , for the purpose of
constructing a 5 foot , open picket fence with
two (2) inch spaces , that would be setback one
( 1 ) foot from the existing sidewalk, extending past
the building line along Pauline Avenue.
Petitioner has exhibited unique circumstances
and has demonstrated that the proposed fence will
not be detrimental to the public health, safety
and welfare .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
August 21 , 1990 - Page Eight
Com. Kearns seconded the motion.
Com. Entman added a clarification to the motion:
The proposed fence will run from a line connecting
to the existing fence and will extend to the rear of
the house.
Com. Kearns seconded the amendment .
Roll Call Vote: AYE - Lewandowski , Fields , Kearns ,
Entman and Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 5 to 0. Findings of Fact Attached.
Permit may be issued in 15 days.
Ch. Heinrich advised Mr . Friedman of his right to appeal
the ZBA' s decision to the Village Board within 15 days , by
submitting an objection in writing to Mr . Frank Hruby, Jr . ,
Director of Building and Zoning.
D. 1047 Rose Boulevard , Michael and Bonita Feldman
Fence Code , Section 15 . 20.040 - Residential Districts
The Public Hearing Notice was read. It states the purpose of
the variance is to construct a 6 foot wood fence along the
rear property line.
Michael Feldman was sworn in. He stated the Public Hearing
Notice is incorrect They are requesting a variance for the
purpose of constructing a six foot (6 ' ) fence along the rear
lot line and also along the interior lot line. There is no
separation between their property and the Westridge Townhomes
in Arlington Heights. The fence is needed to keep people and
dogs out of their yard. Pedestrians , cyclists , etc. cross
Rose Boulevard to reach the Ridge Plaza Shopping Center and
constantly use their yard for access.
Their yard is graded about one foot ( 1 ' ) lower at the rear
so the six foot (6 ' ) height is necessary for privacy.
Their neighbors , the Grossmans at 1409 Rose Boulevard , have a
six foot (6 ' ) fence and there are several other six foot (6 ' )
fences on the south side of Rose Boulevard.
They do not know the Kims at 1405 Rose Boulevard , but if there
is no fence between the houses , people will go around the east
side of the house and continue to invade their privacy.
Mr . Feldman said they intended the application to be for a six
foot (6 ' ) fence along the interior lot line also. The plat
was so marked, but no direct statement was made in the letter .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
August 21 , 1990 - Page Nine
Ch. Heinrich explained that since the Public Hearing Notice
was specifically for rear lot line , the ZBA does not have the
authority to grant the additional variance. They can grant
the six foot (6 ' ) variance along the rear property line and
a five foot (5 ' ) fence can be constructed along the interior
property line. The neighbors have not been given proper
notification, so there would have to be republication for
the September 18 , 1990 meeting.
Mr . Feldman responded that they would prefer to have the six
foot (6 ' ) height for privacy and for aesthetic reasons. He
agreed to wait until the September public hearing.
Com. Fields asked what they planned to do about the utility
boxes in the corner of the lot? If they are enclosed, the
utility companies have the right to remove the fence in order
to have room to work on the lines .
Mr . Feldman was advised to consider this possibility and make
a decision before the September 18th public hearing.
Mr . Paul Grabowski , a Ridgewood resident was present . He said
he wanted to be certain that the fence would be located on the
petitioner ' s property line . He was shown the plat of survey
and had no objections .
Com. Kearns made a motion to Table until Sept . 18 , 1990 .
Com. Fields seconded the motion.
Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously.
This item will be first on the Agenda under OLD BUSINESS.
E. 970-990 South Buffalo Grove Road - Cambridge Plaza West
Sign Code , Section 14. 20.070 - Ground Signs
Sign Code , Section 14. 20.030 - Business Districts
The Public Hearing Notice was read. Mr . Maurice Lenchner ,
property owner , was sworn in. He stated that the proposed
placement is the best location for the sign because it marks
the entrance to the shopping center and apartments . The
tenants need the sign for identification and direction.
The proposed sign will be four feet (4 ' ) in height and will be
four feet (4' ) from the ground . It requires a variance
because it will be closer than the required ten feet ( 10 ' )
from the property line and closer than 250 feet (250 ' ) from
the next ground sign. which is the Schwinn Bike Shop.
Mr . Lenchner said the proposed sign would be 3 feet from the
sidewalk and that is the same distance as the Schwinn sign.
The Appearance Commission reviewed the sign on May 10 , 1990
and recommended approval of a variance.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
August 21 , 1990 - Page Ten
The Village Engineer ' s Review, dated August 9 , 1990 , states :
"We have reviewed the line-of-sight requirements at the
subject location. We recommend that the sign be set back
ten feet ( 10 ' ) from the property line. "
Some photographs were presented and discussed. Ch. Heinrich
asked Mr . Schar where the property line was located and if he
knows why Mr . Kuenkler recommends the full ten foot (10 ' )
required setback?
Mr . Schar estimated the property line to be inside the side-
walk and explained that , from Mr . Kuenkler ' s line-of-sight
drawing, there appears to be an obstruction for cars going
north on B. G. Road. He added that the required 250 foot
distance and the ten foot ( 10' ) setback could be met if the
sign was moved to the south, within grassy area.
Com. Entman said he walked back into the curve of the parking
lot and there seemed to be plenty of room. He added that the
the sign would have better exposure if it was moved to the
south. In his opinion, the existing sign is in the worst
possible location.
Mr . Lenchner responded that all his tenants agree the best
exposure for the sign is near the driveway. If it is moved
south, it would be near the end of the lot and too close to
the parked cars . The evergreen trees would block the sign
4 from the south.
Com. Entman recommended a position next to one tree in the
photo. Referring to the site plan, he thought that there are
many better places on the parkway to locate the sign and not
lose any visibility.
Ch. Heinrich agreed that , according to Mr . Kuenkler ' s drawing ,
there is a line-of-site problem with the existing sign. The
ZBA cannot grant a variance in conflict with the Village
Engineer ' s recommendation. If the sign is located fourteen
feet ( 14 ' ) to the south and ten feet ( 10 ' ) from the property
line , it would comply with the Sign Code . The sign would
have to be set back ten feet ( 10 ' ) , or a new line-of-sight
review would have to be submitted by the Village Engineer . If
an accident occurred ecause of the sign, Mr . Lenchner would be
liable.
Mr . Lenchner said he had staked the sign out in different
positions and decided to seek the variance . He said he would
like time to consider the options and discuss the situation
with Mr . Kuenkler . He asked for the hearing to be Tabled.
Com. Kearns moved to Table until September 18th.
Com. Fields seconded the motion. Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously
This item will be second under OLD BUSINESS.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
August 21 , 1990 - Page Eleven
F. 414 Chateau Drive , Joel and Marilyn Greenwald
Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40.020
Pertaining to Area, Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations
The Public Hearing Notice was read and Joel Greenwald was
sworn in. He summarized the reasons for requesting a variance
of ten feet ( 10 ' ) for the purpose of constructing a glass and
screened patio enclosure at the rear of the house :
1 . The house is located next to the retention pond ,
which is a mosquito breeding area
2 . Mr . and Mrs . Greenwald are both extremely
sensitive to insect bites and the patio enclosure
would
allow them to enjoy the outdoors without being
bothered by mosquitoes , etc .
The addition would be constructed upon a wood deck and it
would not be heated. The roof would be aluminum honey-combed
insulated panels . He submitted a FELDCO brochure.
Mr . Schar confirmed that the construction would be reviewed to
assure that it meets the Village Codes. There are other
similar structures in the Village .
The Village Engineer ' s review, dated August 8 , 1990 states :
"The proposed addition will not alter the existing
drainage pattern no alteration of the grade is
allowed within five feet (5 ' ) of any rear or side lot
line . "
Comments by Commissioners :
Com. Lewandowski had observed the neighbor ' s similar addition
and said he had no objections .
Com. Fields had observed the detention pond and that the deck
is completed. He asked if the construction of the deck is
safe for the construction. Answer : "Yes . "
Com. Entman commented that the lot is large and is right next
to the retention pond , but there is no home on either side
that would be affected. The addition would be nice.
Com. Kearns - Asked Mr . Greenwald if the variance was denied ,
would purchasing a new home create a financial hardship?
Mr . Greenwald responded that he is not in a financial position
to build a new home.
There were no questions or comments from the audience.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
August 21 , 1990 - Page Twelve
Com. Lewandowski made the following motion:
I move we GRANT the petition of Joel and
Marilyn Greenwald , 414 Chateau Drive , for
variance of the Zoning Ordinance ,
Section 17 . 40.020 , pertaining to Area ,
Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations ,
for the purpose of constructing a patio
enclosure at the rear of the house that
would encroach a distance of ten feet ( 10 ' )
into the required rear yard setback.
Construction should conform to the Code , in
keeping with plans approved by the Building
Department .
Hardship having been demonstrated . The
proposed addition would not alter the
essential character of the neighborhood .
Com. Entman 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 .
G. 761 Shady Grove Lane , Jerry L. and Elizabeth Price
Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40.020
Pertaining to Area , Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations
The Public Hearing Notice was read . Jerry Price was sworn in.
He summarized the reasons for requesting a variance for the
purpose of constructing an addition at the rear of the house
that would encroach a distance of seven (7) feet into the
required rear yard setback :
1 . They want to take down an existing structure
that is unsound to construct a laundry room
and screened in patio .
They have discussed the proposed addition with their neighbors
and there have been no objections .
There were no comments or questions from the audience.
Comments from Commissioners :
Com. Kearns asked if the proposed addition would match the
basic construction of the house? Answer was Yes .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
August 21 , 1990 - Page Thirteen
Com. Kearns asked if denial of the variance would result in
financial hardship if the family had to move out of Buffalo
Grove? Answer - Yes
Com. Entman - No problem since the new addition will be the
same size as the existing structure.
Com. Lewandowski - No problem with the request .
Com. Fields - The distance between the petitioner ' s house and
the neighbor ' s house to the rear is short , but since there is
already a similar addition, he does not object .
The Village Engineer ' s Review, dated August 8 , 1990 states :
The proposed addition will not alter the existing
drainage pattern.
. . . no alteration to the grade is allowed within five feet
(5 ' ) of any rear or side lot line , or any established
drainageway; some regrading of this project may be
required to preserve the existing drainage pattern
depending on the elevation of the addition. "
Com. Kearns made the following motion:
I move we GRANT the petition of Jerry L. and
Elizabeth K. Price , 761 Shady Grove Lane , for
variance of the Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40.020
for the purpose of constructing an addition at the
rear of the house that would encroach a distance of
seven (7) feet into the required rear setback.
Construction of the said addition to match the
roof line and siding of the existing structure .
Hardship having been established , the said structure
will not be detrimental to the essential character
of the neighborhood.
Condition: Investigation by Village Staff to assure
that no drainage problem occurs , and if such a problem
occurs , it will have to be improved .
Com. Entman seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote: AYE - Fields , Lewandowski , Kearns ,
Entman and Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 5 to 0. Findings of Fact Attached.
The permit may be issued in 15 days .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
August 21 , 1990 - Page Fourteen
H. Lot 5 , Williamsburg Estates on Old Arlington Heights Road
Lincolnwood Construction Company
Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40. 020
Pertaining to Area, Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations
The Public Hearing Notice was read. The following
representatives were sworn in:
1 . Carl Kupfer , President of Spaceco, Inc.
2 . Alan Tobin of Lincolnwood Construction Co. ,
Beneficiary of Trust #1950 , First State Bank &
Trust Company of Park Ridge
Mr . Kupfer stated that as the builder and developer of
Williamsburg Estates , he is owner of 12 of the lots and he has
an option to purchase Lot 5. The development is single family
homes and the subdivision was approved by the Village Board in
May of 1990 . There are six (6) different models with a
colonial theme , priced from $200 ,000 to $300 ,000.
Mr . Kupfer distributed some diagrams of four (4) plot plans
and said the reason a variance is necessary is because of the
configuration of the lot .
Diagrams of four (4) plot plans were distributed. When the
plat was presented to the Plan Commission, they requested that
the northern lot line on Lot 5 be considered a side yard , per
Figure #1 , which is taken from the Buffalo Grove Zoning
Ordinance 17 . 12-1 .
The matter was submitted to the Building Commissioner for
interpretation and it was his opinion that this illustration
(#1 ) is not correct and the yard should be considered a rear
yard, imposing upon the lot two rear yard conditions .
One of which meets the standard thirty foot (30 ' ) setback and
the other only twenty feet (20' ) . It would be necessary to
build a much smaller house on the lot that would meet the
required setbacks . The proposed house is a 2-story with
approximately 1 ,200 square feet of living space on the first
floor with a garage.
The Plan Commission gave two alternate interpretations :
Depicted in Figure #2 , the thirty foot (30' ) rear yard is
measured from an extended line parallel to rear lot line that
is ten foot (10 ' ) wide.
Ch. Heinrich said this interpretation is not valid .
Figure #3 depicts two (2) thirty foot (30' ) rear yards .
A house limited to that size would not be consistent with the
character of Williamsburg Estates . Lot 5 is 7 , 214 square feet
which is the minimum size for the zoning category R-5A.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
August 21 , 1990 - Page Fifteen
Lot 5 is adjacent to a detention basin which the Village will
maintain. The parking/storage of Clifford Chrysleris to the
north and the recreational area of the Mill Creek Condos is to
the east .
Mr . Kupfer requested a variance of ten feet ( 10' ) into the
required rear yard setback. Denial of the variance would
create an unbuildable lot and cause financial hardship.
Ch. Heinrich stated the proposed diagram is in keeping with
Figure #1 of the Zoning Ordinance and looking at the placement
of the house on the lot is consistent with past Zoning Board
of Appeals ' interpretations . The rear of the house is con-
sidered the rear yard and the sides of the house are the side
yards . The situation would be different on a corner lot .
Mr . Dempsey said it is his understanding that Mr . Hruby and
Mr . Raysa were in agreement with the interpretation given.
Ch. Heinrich said he understood the situation and agreed that
there is open space all the way around , but he commented that
these houses are large for the lot sizes .
There was a resident of Mill Creek present . He said they have
no objections to the proposed variance.
Comments of Commissioners :
Com. Entman said he observed the area from Mill Creek and
could see no reason why a variance would impinge upon any
other property. He could see the problem if a variance was
denied.
Com. Kearns suggested that prospective buyers should be
informed of that there is a variance on the property.
Ch. Heinrich said this is the usual condition placed on a
variance for the principal building and would, in fact ,
placing a possible undue hardship upon the buyer because he
would be getting something that is substandard. In the
interest of equity, he does not think a variance is necessary.
Mr . Kupfer said he asked Mr . Hruby to comment on the rationale
for his interpretation and he was not able to provide one .
The Ordinance states whatever is not a front or rear yard is a
side yard and irregularly shaped lots can be more than two
side yards . Mr . Hruby did concede that the Ordinance is
unclear and needs to be reworked. The main problem is that
the lot has been recorded as a thirty foot (30' ) side yard.
Ch. Heinrich said the recording could be amended. The ZBA can
recommend that the Village Board issue a certificate of
correction, or a variance can be granted with the condition
that the buyers be informed of the variance.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
August 21 , 1990 - Page Sixteen
Mr . Kupfer and Mr . Tobin agreed upon a variance.
Com. Fields commented that their plight is self-inflicted
because they accepted this subdivision of the property.
This is a unique circumstance , but not a hardship.
Mr . Kupfer responded that it was Mr . Hruby who advised them to
accept the subdivision and apply for a variance.
Ch. Heinrich commented that there is hardship because the
interpretation is erroneous . When disagreements come to the
ZBA regarding interpretation, the ZBA has authority to rule.
Mr . Dempsey said there has been discussion of interpretation
relating to the configurations of lot and Mr . Raysa has been
asked to draft more general language to help define the
illustrations .
Com. Fields made the following motion:
I move we GRANT the petition of Lincolnwood
Construction Company for variance of the
Zoning Ordinance, Section 17 . 40.020 , pertaining
to Area, Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations ,
for the purpose of constructing a single family
residence on Lot 5 of Williamsburg Estates that
would encroach a distance of ten feet ( 10 ' ) into
the required rear yard setback , the rear yard
being the rear yard to the north.
Unique circumstances having been demonstrated ,
the proposed residence will not alter the
essential character of the neighborhood.
The house is to be constructed consistent with
plans submitted and approved by the Building
Department and the adjusted building lines are
to be pursuant to Diagram #4 of Exhibit "A" -
attached to the petition.
Condition: The developer is required to notify
contract purchasers of the variance in writing.
Com. Entman seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote: AYE - Kearns , Entman, Lewandowski ,
Fields and Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 5 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached.
Permit may be issued in 15 days .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
August 21 , 1990 - Page Seventeen
VI . ANNOUNCEMENTS
Minutes of July 17 , 1990 - Com. Entman made a motion to approve.
Com. Lewandowski seconded the motion and noted two corrections :
1 . Top of Page Four - Insert "been" to read:
"Hardship having been demonstrated , "
Page 5 - Sixth line of Com. Lewandowski ' s comment :
Insert "when" to read: "and when there are
unique circumstances , "
Roll Call Vote: AYE - Entman, Lewandowski , Fields , Heinrich
NAY - None
ABSTAIN - Kearns
Minutes of July 17 , 1990 approved as corrected and will be
placed on file .
VII . ADJOURNMENT
Com. Kearns made a motion to adjourn.
Com. Entman seconded the motion.
Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously.
Ch. Heinrich adjourned the meeting at 10: 20 P.M.
Respectfully submitted ,
Shirley B es ,
Recording Secretary
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
August 21 , 1990 - Page Eighteen