1991-05-21 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE , ILLINOIS
TUESDAY , MAY 21 , 1991
I . CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Richard Heinrich called the meeting of the Buffalo Grove
Zoning Board of Appeals to order at 8 : 04 P . M . on Tuesday ,
May 21 , 1991 at the Village Hall , 50 Raupp Boulevard .
II . ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present : M . Kearns , J . Paul , B . Entman , H . Fields ,
L . Windecker and R . Heinrich .
Commissioners Absent : None .
Com . Ronald Lewandowski resigned because of
business reasons . He could not devote the
time it required to prepare for meetings .
Also present :
Bldg . Dept . Liaison : Edward Schar ,
Acting Deputy Building Commissioner
Village Attorney : Tom Dempsey
Village Board Liaison : William Reid , Trustee
III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES
April 16 , 1991 - Com . Entman made a motion to approve .
Com . Fields seconded the motion .
Correction - Page Fifteen , Paragraph 7 should read :
" Com . Fields and Com . Windecker "
( Com . Lewandowski was not present . )
Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman , Fields , Kearns and Windecker
NAY - Paul and Heinrich
Motion Passed - 4 to 0 , 2 abstentions
IV . OLD BUSINESS
A . 550 Mayfair Lane , Alden and Karen Stiefel
Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts
The petition was Tabled on April 16 , 1991 . The Stiefels
are not present and they have had a privacy fence constructed
along the building line . Mr . Dempsey said the petition will
die if they do not appear before the end of this meeting .
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. 499 Gregg Lane , Dan and Julie Harrington
Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020
Pertaining to Area , Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations
Purpose : Construction of Attached Garage
The Public Hearing Notice was read . Dan and Julie Harrington
were sworn in. Mr . Harrington summarized their reasons for
requesting a variance for the purpose of constructing an
attached garage that would encroach a distance of two feet (2 ' )
into the required side yard setback :
1 . Safety reasons - The existing driveway is on a
steep grade and cars have rolled when it is icy.
The Harringtons have young children and they want
to prevent an accident .
2 . They want to have a garage and the ground at the side
of the house is flat .
Mr . Harrington said they have discussed the proposal with most
of their neighbors and have spoken to others who have stopped
by to ask about the public hearing .
The existing garage will be used as a family room with steps
going up the grade . They can use the additional living space .
Susan and Terry Wagner , 180 Mohawk Trail , the most affected
neighbors were present and stated they have no objections .
The materials for the garage will match the existing structure .
Comments from Commissioners :
Com. Paul : No objections . He noted the Village Engineer ' s
Review , dated May 6 , 1991 , states :
"Since the construction is proposed within four feet (4 ' )
of the property line , particular care needs to be taken
to restore and preserve the existing drainage. The
existing apron on Gregg Lane should be removed and the
parkway restored . "
Mr . Harrington agreed to these conditions .
Com. Kearns : Asked if the area in front will be landscaped
and if there have been any drainage problems?
Mr . Harrington responded that as soon as the new garage is
finished , they will remove the driveway , build the steps and
landscape . There have not had any drainage problems .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
May 21 , 1991 - Page Two
Com . Fields , Com. Entman and Com. Windecker : No objections if
the neighbors do not oppose the proposal and if all Village
requirements are met .
Com. Windecker made the following motion:
I move we grant the request of Dan and Julie Harrington,
499 Gregg Lane , for variance of the Zoning Ordinance ,
Section 17 . 40 . 020 , pertaining to Area , Height , Bulk and
Placement Regulations , for the purpose of constructing an
attached garage that would encroach a distance of two feet
(2 ' ) into the required side yard setback .
Materials are to match the existing structure in like kind
and quality. Addition to be constructed pursuant to plans
and specifications approved by the Building Department .
Condition: The existing apron on Gregg Lane must be
removed and the parkway restored. The drainage along the
property line next to the new garage must be restored and
preserved .
Petitioner has demonstrated hardship and unique circum-
stances . The proposed construction will not be detri-
mental to the essential character of the neighborhood .
Com. Kearns seconded the motion.
Mr . Dempsey had no questions or comments .
Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman, Fields , Kearns , Paul ,
Windecker and Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached .
Permit may be issued in 15 days (June 5 , 1991 ) .
B. 5 Weidner Court , Michael and Vicky Axthelm
Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 .040 - Residential Districts
The Public Hearing Notice was read . Vicky Axthelm was sworn in
and she summarized the reasons for requesting a variance of the
Fence Code that would permit construction of a four foot (4 ' )
open picket fence that would extend past the building line to
a distance of three feet (3 ' ) from the sidewalk along Weidner
Road:
1 . For the safety and protection of their 19 month old
son. Traffic at the corner of Weidner Road and
Bernard Drive is very heavy.
2 . There is a tree , with a swing attached , in the side
yard outside the building line and they want to keep
the tree enclosed.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
May 21 , 1991 - Page Three
3 . Most of the rear of the lot is a drainage area
for the block and the only dry area is outside
the building line .
4 . There is a access door on the side of the house
that the Axthelms want to have enclosed .
Mrs . Axthelm said she has spoken to all their neighbors and
there have been no objections . The fence will match the
neighbor ' s fence . She also agreed to amend the petition on
it ' s face to agree with the Village Engineer ' s Line-of-Sight
Review , dated May 3 , 1991 , which states :
"The fence should be set back five feet (5 ' )
from the sidewalk. "
There were no comments from the audience .
Comments from Commissioners :
Com. Paul : The landscaping is very nice and the four foot
(4 ' ) open picket style fence will not block the view of any
neighbors . The fence would hardly be seen from any direction.
Com. Kearns and Com. Windecker had no objections .
Com. Fields and Com. Entman agreed the landscaping is
beautiful , but they would prefer to have the fence located
ten feet ( 10) from the sidewalk . The side door and tree would
still be enclosed . There is no obstruction and the yard would
be a good size .
Mrs . Axthelm said she would not object as long as the tree
is within the enclosure .
Ch. Heinrich said the ZBA usually tries to keep fences ten
feet ( 10 ' ) from sidewalks , but since this fence is open and
low , he had no problem with it being five feet (5 ' ) from the
sidewalk . There are unique circumstances . The open style is
for safety , not privacy , and the rear of the yard is not level .
Ch. Heinrich polled the Commissioners . Only Com. Fields
objected to the fence being five feet (5 ' ) from the sidewalk .
Com. Paul made the following motion:
I move we grant the petition of Michael and
Vicky Axthelm, 5 Weidner Court , pursuant to Fence
Code , Section 15 . 20.040 , pertaining to Residential
Districts , for the purpose of constructing a four foot
(4 ' ) high, open picket fence that would extend five
feet (5 ' ) west of the sidewalk along Weidner Road .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
May 21 , 1991 - Page Four
Said fence would not be detrimental to the public
health, safety and welfare .
Com. Kearns seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman, Kearns , Paul ,
Windecker and Heinrich
NAY - Fields
Motion Passed - 5 to 1 . Findings of Fact Attached .
Permit may be issued in 15 days .
C. 515 Bradley Road , William and Dena Graham
Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts
The Public Hearing Notice was read . William and Dena Graham
were sworn in. Mr . Graham summarized their reasons for
requesting a variance of the Fence Code for the purpose of
constructing a 5 foot red cedar , dog ear , solid fence that
extend past the building line at the corner of Bradley Road
and Vernon Lane:
1 . The corner is quite busy and they want safety
for their expected child and other children.
2 . The house is across from the detention pond .
3 . The rear yard would be very small if the fence
was located at the building line .
Mr . Graham agreed to amend the petition on its face and
locate the fence in accordance with the Village Engineer ' s
Review, dated May 6 , 1991 , which states :
"An obstruction is created for the intersection
by the proposed fence . The proposed fence should
be located behind the line-of-sight by the principal
structure . . . . the fence should be set back five feet
(5 ' ) from the sidewalk . "
Mr . Graham presented and described some pictures of the lot .
The street curves and the pictures showed there would not
be a line-of-sight problem if the fence is located about
fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) past the building line , returning at the
rear of the house .
Comments from the audience :
Mr . Scott Lasky, 765 Vernon Lane (south of the Grahams) said he
opposes the fence because it would obstruct the view of cars
on Vernon Lane . If a car is coming down Bradley there could
be an accident . He objected to the five foot (5 ' ) solid fence .
Com. Heinrich explained the revised location eliminates any
line-of-sight problems . He asked the Bradleys if they would
considered a lower and more open type of fence?
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
May 21 , 1991 - Page Five
Mr . and Mrs . Graham said they really want some privacy from
the apartments and from the traffic at the corner . Other
fences in the subdivision are solid fence . They were willing
to consider a board-on-board or closely spaced picket fence .
Comments of Commissioners :
Com . Paul said he viewed the property and drew the fence about
15 feet from the sidewalk. in the identical location as shown
on the Graham ' s revised plan. He would prefer an open picket
style with some landscaping for privacy. He told Mr . Lasky
that there would be no line-of-sight problem.
Com. Windecker : No objection to the revised location or to a
solid , or board-on-board , fence with landscaping.
Com. Kearns said he is opposed to solid fences that block a
neighbor ' s front yard , even though the neighbors have a far
side driveway and there are no objectors present . He asked if
the Grahams would consider setting the fence back or lowering
it along the rear property line and raised along Vernon Ln. ?
Mr . Lasky commented that he came because he is concerned with
both aesthetics as well as safety, and opposed any fence that
would obstruct his view from his lawn or backing out from his
garage . Even though the Grahams would have a small yard , there
is a large open area across the street that is soon to be a
park . He purchased his lot because of the open view.
Com. Fields observed that Vernon Lane is the entrance to the
Windsor Ridge subdivision and , because of the way the street
curves , headlights will be a problem. He recommended setting
the fence back fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) and changing the style to a
four foot (4 ' ) picket . Corner lots do present problems and he
opposes the five foot (5 ' ) board-on-board or solid fence .
Com. Entman also opposes a solid fence . The neighbor along the
rear lot line will be affected and he would agree that a four
foot (4 ' ) picket fence set back fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) would
enclose the yard , give the Grahams a larger yard and address
the safety issue adequately.
After considering the commissioners comments the Grahams said
they would amend their petition. They asked if they could have
the option of having a scalloped or arched picket fence with
narrow spacing and to have it four feet (4 ' ) in height at the
lowest point? They also agree to have the fence set back
fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) from and parallel to the sidewalk .
Mr . Lasky said this proposal is more reasonable .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
May 21 , 1991 - Page Six
Com. Fields made the following motion:
I move we grant the petition of William and
Dena Graham , 515 Bradley Road , for variance of
Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 , pertaining to
Residential Districts , for the purpose of
constructing a four foot (4 ' ) red cedar , open
picket style fence that would extend beyond
the building line , not closer than fifteen feet
( 15 ' ) from the sidewalk at the corner of
Bradley Road and Vernon Lane . As the fence
runs toward the north, it shall not cross the
Line-of-Sight Study performed by the Village
Engineer .
Fence style per the exhibit submitted -
Master Halco , Red Cedar with Decorative Crown
Top or Red Cedar with Decorative Scalloped Top.
The low point being no lower than four feet (4 ' )
in height and the high point being no higher than
four feet , six inches (4 ' 6" ) .
Said fence will 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 , Paul , Entman, Fields
and Heinrich
NAY - Kearns
Motion Passed - 5 to 1 . Findings of Fact Attached .
Permit may be issued in 15 days (June 5 , 1991 ) .
Ch. Heinrich informed Mr . Lasky of the provision to
appeal the ZBA' s decision in writing to the Director of
Building and Zoning within 15 days .
D. 748 St . Mary' s Parkway, Richard Goodman
Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts
The Public Hearing Notice was read . Adrienne Goodman and her
son-in-law, Tim Sokorsky were sworn in.
Mrs . Goodman summarized the reasons for requesting an eight
foot (8 ' ) solid fence along the rear lot line and a six foot
(6 ' ) solid fence along the side lot lines :
1 . The lot backs up to Lake Cook Road (with the
Village park in between) and the noise from
traffic is very disturbing .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
May 21 , 1991 - Page Seven
2 . The yard slopes to the rear and there is a
7 to 7-1/2 foot difference in grade from the
house down to the road .
3 . Children (ages 6 , 3 and 1 ) are playing in the
yard and there is a pool in the rear yard .
4 . The 3-year old is in a special school for speech
delay and would not be able to call for help if
someone entered the yard .
5 . There are tall bushes along both sides of the
yard . Mrs . Goodman said she has talked to all
the neighbors and there have been no objections .
There were no comments or objections from the audience .
Ch. Heinrich said similar variances have been granted in
the past . There were no objections from the Commissioners .
Com. Entman made the following motion:
I move the petition of Richard A. Goodman,
748 St . Mary ' s Parkway for variance of the
Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 , pertaining to
Residential Districts , for the purpose of
constructing an eight foot (8 ' ) wood stockade
fence along the rear lot line and a six foot
(6 ' ) wood stockade fence along the side lot
lines , be granted , with the condition that the
fence be installed pursuant to the regulations
of the Village of Buffalo Grove .
Fence to be located according to the survey
attached as an exhibit to the petition.
Said fence will not be detrimental to the
public health , safety and welfare .
Com. Kearns seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote : AYE - Windecker , Paul , Kearns , Fields ,
Entman and Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached.
Permit may be issued in 15 days (June 5 , 1991 ) .
E. 901 Highland Grove Drive , Steve and Laura Sulkin
Fence Code, Section 15 . 20. 040 - Residential Districts
The Public Hearing Notice was read . Steve Sulkin was sworn
in. He summarized the reasons for requesting a variance to
construct a five foot (5 ' ) open picket fence that would extend
past the building line at the corner of Highland Grove Drive
and Fabish Drive :
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
May 21 , 1991 - Page Eight
1 . The corner is very busy and Tripp School is
across the street and many school buses stop
at the corner .
2 . The fence is needed for the protection of
their two children, ages 7 years and 9 months .
3 . The fence is needed to contain their standard
size poodle dog.
4 . The yard slopes and the only part flat enough
for a swing set is to the side .
5 . They want to have the side door of the house
within the fenced area.
Mr . Sulkin said he has spoken to his neighbors and there are
no objections . One neighbor has an identical fence with a
variance (2 Fabish Drive - Leslie Cosmos) . They chose an open
picket fence because they want to keep the area open and so
they can see other people in the neighborhood.
The Village Engineer ' s Line-of-Sight Study, dated May 3 , 1991 ,
states : "The abutting property is a near-side driveway , and
the fence should be set back ten feet ( 10 ' ) from the sidewalk . "
It was noted that the sidewalk is within the property line.
Mr . Sulkin agreed to amend the petition and set the fence back
an additional five feet (5 ' ) , so it will be ten feet ( 10 ' ) from
the building line .
Comments from Commissioners :
Com. Kearns repeated his opposition to fences in front yards .
Com. Fields asked if the fence could be lowered to 4 feet?
Mr . Sulkin said the fence would be scalloped so it will only be
4-1/2 feet at the lowest part .
Com. Entman, Com. Paul and Com. Windecker - No objections .
Com. Fields made the following motion:
I move we grant the petition of Steve and
Laura Sulkin, 901 Highland Grove Drive , for
variance of the Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 ,
pertaining to Residential Districts , for the
purpose of constructing a five foot (5 ' ) open
picket fence that would extend past the building
line at the corner of Highland Grove Drive and
Fabish Drive .
Said fence is to be located no less than ten feet
( 10 ' ) from the sidewalk . The fence would not be
detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare ;
and would not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
May 21 , 1991 - Page Nine
Com. Windecker seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote : AYE - Paul , Windecker , Entman,
Fields and Heinrich
NAY - Kearns
Motion Passed - 5 to 1 . Findings of Fact Attached.
Permit may be issued in 15 days (June 5 , 1991 ) .
F. 2 Chestnut Court East , Randall and Debbie Gelb
Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts
The Public Hearing Notice was read. Randall and Debbie Gelb
were sworn in. Mr . Gelb summarized their reasons for
requesting a variance for the purpose of constructing a
4 , 5 and 6 foot board-on-board fence that would extend past
the building line at the corner of Chestnut Terrace and
Prairie Road:
1 . For the safety and protection of their
small child who is cared for at home while
the Gelbs work .
2 . Traffic at the corner is very heavy and the
fence will help alleviate some noise .
The Village Engineer ' s Review, dated May 6 , 1991 , states :
" . . . the proposed fence conflicts with the desired
sight distance , and encroachment is not permitted
within forty-five feet (45 ' ) of the intersection.
The suggested location is shown on the enclosed plan.
If considered , it should be set back five to ten feet
(5 '-10 ' ) from the sidewalk on Chestnut Terrace. "
The Gelbs presented photographs of the property showing
the dedicated area at the corner that has heavy bushes .
They said they would agree with the Village Engineer ' s
recommendation. They would angle the fence straight across
the corner and they agreed to taper it from six feet (6) ' to
five feet (5 ' ) where it is angled behind the bushes .
Ch. Heinrich observed that no neighbors will be affected , so
he would not oppose the fence to be located five feet (5 ' )
from the sidewalk. He added that with Stevenson High School
so close , kids would be cutting across the lot .
Mr . Jeff Arkonis , 4 Chestnut Court East , was present and
said he did not object to the proposed fence and agreed it
should be as close to the sidewalk as possible .
There were no objections from the audience .
Zoning Board of Appeals
May 21 , 1991 - Page Ten
Comments from Commissioners :
Li
Com. Paul , Com. Windecker , Com. Kearns and Com. Entman did not
oppose the five foot (5 ' ) setback.
Com. Fields said he would recommend a ten foot ( 10 ' ) setback
and suggested they bring it forward some .
Mrs . Gelb observed that would not give them any more width and
she would not be able to see children playing in that area.
Com. Fields changed his mind and did not object to five feet
(5 ' ) from the sidewalk.
Mr . Dempsey noted that the portion of the fence along
Prairie Road would not require a variance for six foot
(6 ' ) height .
Com. Kearns made the following motion:
I move we grant the petition requested by
Randall and Debbie Gelb, 2 Chestnut Court East ,
for variance of the Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 .040 ,
pertaining to Residential Districts , for the
purpose of constructing a board-on-board fence
that would extend past the building line at
the corner of Prairie Road and Chestnut Terrace .
Said fence to be five feet (5 ' ) in height , located
five feet (5 ' ) from the sidewalk along Chestnut Terrace ,
per the Village Engineer ' s exhibit .
Said fence to be six feet (6 ' ) in height tapering down
to five feet (5 ' ) in height between Prairie Road and
Chestnut Terrace , and angled so that it does not to
encroach within the forty-five foot (45 ' ) radius
required by Village Ordinance .
Said fence will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety and welfare and will not alter the
essential character of the neighborhood.
Com. Windecker seconded the motion.
Mr . Dempsey said the Gelbs were informed that notice to the
contiguous property owners did not contain the address of the
property. The name was in the letter and agenda was enclosed .
The fence was described in the letter , the corner named , and
there has been a sign on the property for the proper length of
time . The notice was defective , for legal reasons . The Gelbs
have been asked to submit a signed statement from each of the
five contiguous property owners that states they knew of the
public hearing and do not oppose the proposed fence . The
signatures must be obtained before a permit can be issued.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
May 21 , 1991 - Page Eleven
Com. Kearns amended the motion adding the requirement of the
signatures of property owners contiguous to 2 Chestnut Ct . E.
stating they knew the date and time of the public hearing and
they do not object to the proposed fence and variance .
Com. Windecker seconded the amendment to the motion.
Roll Call Vote : AYE - Windecker , Paul , Kearns , Fields ,
Entman and Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached .
Permit maybe issued in 15 days if signatures of contiguous
property owners are submitted to the Building Department .
If the signatures are not submitted , the petition must be
republished for the June 16 , 1991 public hearing and proper
notices must be mailed to contiguous property owners .
G. Woodland Commons - Zale Groves , Inc .
Sign Code , Section 14 . 20 .070 - Ground Signs
Placement of Four Ground Signs on Rt . 22 and Buffalo Grove Rd .
The amount of street frontage and distance between the proposed
ground signs was recalculated ; one sign was repositioned and it
was determined that a variance would not be necessary.
VI . ANNOUNCEMENTS
Old Business , Item A, - 550 Mayfair Lane , Alden Stiefel
Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts
The petitioner did not come to this public hearing .
Com. Fields made a motion to remove the item from Table .
Com. Entman seconded the motion.
Voice Vote : AYE - Unanimously
Com. Entman made a motion to DENY the petition of Alden Stiefel ,
550 Mayfair Lane , for variance of Fence Code, Section 15 . 20 .040 .
Com. Fields seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote : AYE - Windecker , Paul , Kearns , Fields
Entman and Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
May 21 , 1991 - Page Twelve
Li
Mr . Lance Goldberg , 505 Hawthorne , objector to the Stiefel ' s
variance at the April 16 , 1991 ZBA public hearing, was present and
asked if the requested traffic study had been done?
Mr . Schar responded that Chief Mc Cann of the Police Department
has been notifed about the traffic on Hawthorne , but no report has
been received to date .
Mr . Heinrich suggested that Mr . Goldberg call Chief McCann to
discuss the situation.
Com. Windecker made a motion to approve the minutes of Feb. 19 , 1991
as submitted.
Com. Fields seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote : AYE - Kearns , Paul , Fields and Windecker
NAY - None
ABSTAIN - Entman and Heinrich
Motion Passed - 4 to 0 , 2 abstentions
Minutes of Feb. 19 , 1991 approved and will be placed on file .
VII . ADJOURNMENT
Com. Entman made a motion to adjourn. Com. Fields seconded .
Ch. Heinrich adjourned the meeting at 10: 00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted ,
}ajej p3tiY
Shirley Bates
Recording Secretary
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
May 21 , 1991 - Page Thirteen