Loading...
1990-10-16 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE , ILLINOIS TUESDAY , OCTOBER 16 , 1990 I . CALL TO ORDER Chairman Richard Heinrich called the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting to order at 8 : 03 P . M . on Tuesday , October 16 , 1990 at the Village Hall , 50 Raupp Boulevard . II . ROLL CALL Commissioners Present : J . Paul , B . Entman , R . Lewandowski , H . Fields , L . Windecker and R . Heinrich . QUORUM PRESENT . Commissioners Absent : M . Kearns Bldg . Dept . Liaison : Edward Schar , Housing and Zoning Inspector Village Attorney : Tom Dempsey Village Board Liaison : Sid Mathias , Trustee III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 18 , 1990 - Deferred because of commissioner ' s absence . �. BUSINESS A . 960 Port Clinton Court West - Gene and Kathy Zmuda Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts The Public Hearing Notice , published Sept . 26 , 1990 , was read and the petitioner , Gene Zmuda , was sworn in . Mr . Zmuda described the situation : They own the last house in Buffalo Grove next to Long Grove . When they purchased the house , they were told that the area to the rear would be left open space , but it was zoned for 5 acre lots and a house was built with a 1 /4 mile long road leading to the driveway . Mr . Zmuda stated the reasons for requesting a variance of the Fence Code for the purpose of constructing a 6 foot privacy fence along part of the rear property line : 1 . Lights from cars using the driveway shine into their family room . 2 . Their 4 year old son plays in the wooded area to the rear and runs into the road area , so a fence would give him some protection . They tested different fence heights , and found that a 6 foot fence would block the car lights better than a 5 foot fence . Mr . Zmuda presented photographs of the area and said there is a row of thin trees between the road and their lot line . He has not talked to the Long Grove neighbor about the fence . The fence will not extend the full length of the property line and will be a cedar board-on-board . The Village Engineer ' s Line of Sight , dated October 2 , 1990 , states : "There does not appear to be any floodway on the property ; however , the floodplain elevation extends to approximately 686 . 00 . all construction must be at an elevation greater than 686 . 00 . " There were no questions or comments from the audience . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Fields : Asked why five feet (5 ' ) is not high enough? Mr . Zmuda explained that they tested the height with a 5 foot high board from the family room and it was as if there was nothing there . The 6 foot is necessary to keep the lights from shining into the house . Com. Entman: Asked how they determined the distances from the north and south lot lines? Mr . Zmuda responded that the back of the lot is very wooded and they want to keep the open look as much as possible . Com. Paul : Commented that only the Zmudas will see the fence . It will not affect anyone else? He saw no problem. Com. Lewandowski and Com. Windecker had no objections . Ch. Heinrich: Asked Mr . Schar if fences were prohibited in any areas other than the golf courses at Fiore? Mr . Schar replied that he knew of none , except along B.G. Rd. Com . Lewandowski made the following motion: I move we grant the request of Gene and Kathy Zmuda , 960 Port Clinton Court West , 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 part of the rear lot line , per attached plat of survey (Exhibit B) . The essential character of the neighborhood will not be affected and the fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare . Com. Windecker seconded the motion. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 16 , 1990 - Page Two Ch. Heinrich informed Mr . Zmuda that the finished side of the fence would have to be toward the driveway, but the fence style , board-on-board , is the same on both sides . Roll Call Vote : AYE - Fields , Entman, Paul , Lewandowski , Windecker and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in 15 days (October 31 , 1990) . B. 7 Whitehall Court , Richard and Judy Mednick Fence Codes , Section 15 . 20.040 - Residential Districts Richard Mednick was sworn in and the Public Hearing Notice was read . He summarized the reasons for requesting a six foot (6 ' ) wood stockade fence along the side lot lines and returning to the house : 1 . There is an existing chain link fence that they want to replace with a wood fence . When they learned that the Fence Code only permitted a 6 foot fence along the rear property line they decided that it would be more aesthetically pleasing to have a 6 foot fence surrounding the yard than to have part 6 foot and part 5 foot . 2 . They are private people and like to entertain in the back yard . A 5 foot fence does not prevent people from looking into the yard . 3 . They want a 6 foot fence for better security. Mr . Mednick added that a six foot (6 ' ) fence will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood . He has talked to their neighbors on one side . The couple has 3 children and they do not object . Ch. Heinrich said the ZBA has typically not granted variances for six foot (6 ' ) fences along the sides because they tend to create walls between yards . They have permitted fences to be tapered from six feet (6 ' ) down to five feet (5 ' ) for aesthetic reasons . There were no questions or comments from the audience . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Paul : Not convinced that a 6 foot fence is needed . He agreed that only on rare occasions , when there are unique circumstances , has the ZBA granted 6 foot side yard fences . Com. Lewandowski : Referred to the petitioner ' s letter and commented that the additional foot would not enhance privacy and security. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 16 , 1990 - Page Three Com. Windecker : Since there is an existing 4 foot chain link , he did not believe that a six foot (6 ' )fence would not offer more privacy and security than a five foot (5 ' ) fence . Com. Entman: Agreed with other commissioners comments that there is no real need for the additional height . Com. Fields : If uniformity is the question , then the fence could be brought down to five feet (5 ' ) along the rear lot line . A six foot (6 ' ) fence would alter the neighborhood and he could not support the request . Ch. Heinrich: Would not support the request because circum- stances do not warrant it , but would agree to permit a taper- ing of the fence from six feet (6 ' ) to five feet (5 ' ) , using the length of an eight foot section. Mrs . Mednick said she would agree with this compromise and Mr . Mednick said they would amend the petition on its face . Com. Fields made the following motion: I move we grant the petition of Richard and Judy Mednick , 7 Whitehall Court , as amended on its face , to permit variance of the Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 , pertaining to Residential Districts , for the purpose of constructing a wood stockade fence that would taper from six feet (6 ' ) to five feet (5 ' ) on each interior side lot line within the first eight foot (8 ' ) section from the six foot (6 ' ) portion of fence . Commercial property to the rear allows a six foot (6 ' ) fence along the rear lot line . The fence would not be detrimental to the public health , safety and welfare and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood . Com. Paul seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Windecker , Lewandowski , Paul , Entman, Fields and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in 15 days (October 31 , 1990) . C. 715 Mayfair Court South, Charles and Debra Kehm Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 .040 - Residential Districts Charles Kehm was sworn in and the Public Hearing Notice was read . He summarized the reasons for requesting a six foot (6 ' ) wood fence that would extend past the building line at the corner of Mayfair Court South and Mayfair Lane : ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 16 , 1990 - Page Four 1 . At the northwest corner of the house , the building line comes to about one foot ( 1 ' ) from the side of the house , and they want to put a sidewalk from the front of the house to the patio in the back yard . A variance of ten feet ( 10 ' ) would permit room for a gate into the back yard . 2 . The reason for six foot (6 ' ) height is because they are located on a corner lot , with Mayfair Lane being a through street , the traffic and noise are disturbing. The fence will also give them more privacy . 3 . They have a small child (expecting another) and the fence is needed for safety and protection. 4 . The house to the rear is about a foot higher and the six foot (6 ' ) fence would provide more privacy. The Village Engineer ' s Line-of-Sight Study, dated October 2 , 1990 states : "No obstruction is created for the intersection by the proposed fence . The abutting property is a far-side driveway. " Ch. Heinrich questioned how heavily traveled Mayfair Lane will be since it is an interior artery. Mr . Kehm presented a subdivision plat and described their plans to add a sidewalk to the back yard. They considered a five foot (6 ' ) fence , but prefer the extra foot for added privacy from pedestrians along Mayfair Lane . • Comments from the audience : 1 . Leonard Jensky , 665 Mayfair Court South - lives directly across the court and he objected to construction of a fence that would block the green area between the sidewalk and the house . There are only three houses on courts off of Mayfair Lane that do not front on Mayfair Lane so there is a wide green space all the way down. The house at 725 Mayfair Lane , next door to the petitioner is not yet occupied , so Mr . Jensky spoke about the possibility of these neighbors being dissatisfied with the proposed fence. Mr . Jensky also commented about the selection of a corner lot without knowing what the restrictions are . 2 . Mr . Islam, 680 Mayfair Lane - directly across from the court . He does not understand the need for a fence beyond what is permitted . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 16 , 1990 - Page Five Mrs . Kehm said that when they designed their sidewalk they decided that access to the yard from the front of the house would be move convenient that running the walk around the corner with a gate on Mayfair Lane . They are only requesting 10 feet , not a great distance into the required setback . Ch. Heinrich commented that 10 feet is much wider than a gate . Com. Paul estimated that 5 to 6 feet would accommodate a gate. Mr . Kehm said they talked with their neighbors and have heard no objections . They do not want to generate problems and they would be willing to lower the fence to five feet (5 ' ) . They do plan to construct a fence on that side of the house to protect their children and they plan to plant shrubbery in front of it . 3 . The owner of 675 Mayfair Court South was present and and stated his objection to the six foot (6 ' ) height . Ch. Heinrich asked Mr . Jensky how he felt about allowing enough room for a gate alongside the house? Mr . Jensky said he would prefer having the gate on Mayfair Ln. He said there were other neighbors who objected , but could not come to this hearing . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Paul : Said when he pulled his car into the driveway of the house next door , he observed that any fence will look like a wall , but he thought that the width of a gate would be fair . He would prefer the gate in the front for the safety of the children, because if they ran out the open gate , they would not be running toward the busier street . To deny the width of the gate , would diminish the value of the property. There is a wide parkway and the sidewalk , so there is still an open space and the landscaping will be helpful . He suggested a 5 foot variance , keeping the fence 25 feet from the sidewalk , giving enough room for 2 posts and a gate . Com. Lewandowski : Considering the petitioner ' s needs and the neighbors ' concerns , he would support a five foot (5 ' ) variance to accommodate a gate and a sidewalk. Com. Windecker : Agreed to a variance of five feet (5 ' ) . Com. Entman: Agreed with Com. Paul ' s comments and would agreed to a variance of five feet (5 ' ) with landscaping . Com. Fields : Proposed an alternative and suggested permitting a variance of ten feet ( 10 ' ) into the setback , but drop the height to a four foot (4 ' ) open picket style fence . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 16 , 1990 - Page Six Mr . Kehm did not agree with this proposal because it would not give them the desired privacy. Ch. Heinrich explained that the Kehms had the option of amending their request or asking the ZBA to vote on the original petition. Mr . Kehm said they would amend their request to five feet (5 ' ) from the building line and he did not object to landscaping being made a condition, if they did not have to plant until spring . The fence would be a five foot (5 ' ) board-on-board. Com. Paul made the following motion: I move we grant the petition of Charles F. and Debra Kehm, 715 Mayfair Court South, for variance of the Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 .040 , pertaining to Residential Districts , for the purpose of constructing a 5 foot high board-on-board fence , along Mayfair Lane , no more than 5 feet from the corner of their house , for the purpose of putting in a gate , and landscaping shall be provided the full length of the fence on Mayfair Lane . The fence shall be a consistent distance from the sidewalk, approximately following it ' s curve . Said shrubbery shall be planted no later than June 1 , 1991 . The fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare . Com. Lewandowski seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Entman, Windecker , Lewandowski , Paul and Heinrich NAY - Fields Motion Passed - 5 to 1 . Findings of Fact Attached . Permit may be issued in 15 days (October 31 , 1990) . Ch. Heinrich informed the objectors that if they wish to appeal the decision to the Village Board , such notice must be sent in writing to the Director of Building and Zoning within 14 days of this date , October 16 , 1990 . D. 1157 Devonshire Road , Fred and Maureen Wolff Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 Area, Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations Maureen Wolff was sworn in and the Public Hearing Notice was read . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 16 , 1990 - Page Seven Com. Fields said that the Wolffs are his neighbors and they are socially acquainted , but this will not impair his judge- ment in this situation. Mrs . Wolff summarized the reasons for requesting a variance for the purpose of constructing an addition that would encroach a distance of 7 feet into the required rear yard setback: 1 . Since they purchased the house nine years ago , their family has increased in size from 3 members to 5 members and they need a larger kitchen. 2 . The laundry room is located in the basement and there is from 3 to 5 loads of laundry to do daily so it will be more practical to have the room on the first floor . Mrs . Wolff said she has talked to her neighbors about the addition and there are no objections . The materials will match the existing house as to colors , shingles , etc . The Village Engineer ' s Review, dated October 2 , 1990 states : "The proposed addition will not alter the existing drainage pattern.-" There were no questions or comments from the audience . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Paul : No problem. The house backs up to the retention basin. Com. Fields : He has talked with some of the neighbors and he has heard no negative comments . Com. Entman: Concurs with Com. Paul about the retention basin. He added that there are no windows on the house to the west that would face the addition and the shrubbery around the patio will screen it . He verified that the Wolffs have looked at other houses , but cannot afford to move within the Village and they want to remain in B.G. Com. Lewandowski and Com. Windecker : No problems . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 16 , 1990 - Page Eight Com. Entman made the following motion: I move we grant the petition of Fred and Maureen Wolff , 1157 Devonshire Road , for variance of Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 , pertaining to Area , Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations , be granted for the purpose of constructing a 1 story addition at the rear of the house that would encroach a distance no greater than seven feet (7 ' ) into the required rear yard setback . Materials to match the existing construction, in like kind and quality. Addition to be constructed pursuant to plans and specifications submitted to and approved by the Village . Petitioner having exhibited unique circumstances , the addition will not be detrimental to the essential character of the neighborhood . Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman, Fields , Paul , Lewandowski , Windecker and Heinrich NAY - None ftd Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in 15 days (October 31 , 1990) . V. ANNOUNCEMENTS None . VI . ADJOURNMENT Com. Entman made a motion to adjourn. Com. Lewandowski seconded the motion. Ch. Heinrich adjourned the meeting at 9 : 12 F.M. Respectfully submitted , r Shirley Bate Recording Secretary sb ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 16 , 1990 - Page Nine