Loading...
1991-06-18 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE , ILLINOIS TUESDAY , JUNE 18 , 1991 I . CALL TO ORDER Chairman Richard Heinrich called the meeting to order at 8 : 05 F . M . on Tuesday , June 18 , 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 . QUORUM . Commissioners Absent : None Bldg . Dept . Liaison : Edward Schar , Acting Deputy Building Commissioner Village Attorney : Tom Dempsey III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 21 , 1991 - Motion to approve was made by Com . Kearns and seconded by Com . Entman . Correction : Page One , Approval of Minutes of April 16 , 1991 - Roll Call Vote should read that Com . Paul and Com . Heinrich ABSTAINED ( Not NAY ) . Roll Call Vote : AYE - Paul , Kearns , Entman . Fields . Windecker and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Minutes of April 16 , 1991 were approved as corrected . IV . BUSINESS Item D . 111 St . Mary ' s Parkway - Chairman Heinrich announced that the petitioner , Steven Raymond requested that the petition be withdrawn . There were no neighbors or objectors present . A . 1409 Margate Drive , Bruce and Stephanie Constant Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 20 . 030 . I . 5 . - Pertainint to : Building Height , Bulk and Lot Coverage - Placement of A/C . Mrs . Stephanie Constant was sworn in and the public hearing notice was read . She summarized the reasons for requesting a variance to permit the A/C unit to remain in the side yard facing Stanton Drive : 1 . A deck has been constructed at the rear of the house and there is no other location for the A/C unit . 2 . The Constants are moving in 2-1/2 weeks and the house is up for sale . They do not want any outstanding zoning problems to hinder the sale . Mrs . Constant explained that the Building Department notified them last year that the A/C location was in violation. When they asked about applying for a variation, they were advised that there were similar violations and the whole issue was being considered . They were told that they would be informed when a decision was made but they have not heard anything . Ch. Heinrich asked Mr . Schar to clarify the situation. Mr . Schar responded that during construction of the last phase of Old Farm Village , several A/C' s were installed without permits . The residents were asked to relocate them, and if they cannot be moved away from side yards , they will be applying for variances . The Code specifically excludes corner locations for the corner . Comments from Commissioners : Ch. Heinrich: Said he had no problem with the petition. Com. Paul : No problem , under the circumstances . Requested some shrubs for screening . Mrs . constant agreed. The is sufficient distance between the A/C and the sidewalk so noise will not affect anyone . Com. Windecker : Agreed with stipulation for screening and asked how the C.O. was issued before the A/C was installed . Mr . Schar replied that it is not unusual for Air Conditioners to be installed after the final inspection has been made . Sometimes , the purchasers have them installed . Ch. Heinrich: Asked if the house has been sold? Mrs . Constant answered that this is a corporate move and the company will purchase the house if it is not sold by July 12th , but only if all violations are cleared up . Com. Kearns : Agreed with the landscaping suggestion. Asked if the Code specifies a distance requirement? How many other similar violations are there? Can the Corporate Authorities grant them? Mr . Schar responded that there could be 6 other violations . Ch. Heinrich said the Zoning Ordinance would have to be re- written if multiple variances were to be granted by ordinance . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 18 , 1991 - Page Two Com . Entman: Agreed with the need for landscaping. The loca- tion of the A/C will not interfere with anything . There is enough room from the sidewalk . Com . Fields : No objection. Agreed landscaping should be included. Suggested Lexington be notified in writing and should be fined . Ch. Heinrich: Expressed the opinion that Lexington could be required to pay for landscaping if they made the mistake . Mrs . Constant stated the A/C was installed by them privately. They just did not know the Code requirements . Mr . Dempsey suggested notifying Lexington that they will be responsible for obtaining variances for any A/C that was installed incorrectly . The permit files could be checked . Ch. Heinrich said the situation must be resolved . He asked Mr . Schar to have the Director , Frank Hruby , to call him. It was determined that the A/C is probably not installed over the building line . It is located next to the chimney . Com. Kearns made the following motion. : I move we grant the petition of Bruce and Stephanie Constant , 1049 Margate Drive , for variance of Zoning Ordinance , Sec . 17 . 40 . 030 , pertaining to Building Height , Bulk and Lot Coverage , for the purpose of locating an Air Conditioning unit in the side yard facing Stanton Drive . Said A/C Unit is to remain at the present location, not past the building line on Stanton Drive . Said A/C Unit is to be surrounded by landscaping to minimize any visibility from Stanton Drive . Hardship having been established , and said variation will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood , nor will be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare . Com. Fields seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Paul , Windecker , Entman, Fields NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . Permit may be issued in 15 days , July 5 , 1991 . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 18 , 1991 - Page Three B. 4 Belaire Court , Kenneth and Marisa Duke Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 - Construction of Addition Kenneth and Marisa Duke were sworn in and the public hearing notice was read . Mr . Duke summarized their reasons for requesting a variance for the purpose of constructing an addition that would encroach a distance of 10 feet into the required rear yard setback : 1 . Since they moved into Buffalo Grove 9 years ago , they have had 2 children and additional living space . They hope to add a family room at the rear of the house . 2 . They plan to enlarge the garage to make a mud room entrance into the house , but this space does not require a variance . 3 . They cannot afford to move into a larger house in B.G. and they want to remain in the Village . Ch. Heinrich asked the Dukes if they have considered any other alternatives , such as making the family room behind the garage? Mrs . Duke replied that they do not like the usual floor plan for the front addition because the kids would have track through the carpeted family room to get to the kitchen. Mr . Duke added that , because of the cul-de-sac , if they added to the garage , they would set the house in front of the other houses . They have also considered adding a second story to the house but that too is cost prohibitive . The configuration of the lot makes it difficult to add to the house except at the rear . The side yard is wide enough , but they do not want to have the family room off the living room and near the bedrooms . They have discussed the proposed addition with their neighbors and some of them are present . The Schusters , 5 Belaire Court , did not like the idea of extending the garage toward the front . Mrs . Uhren, 760 Bernard , is directly to the rear , is concerned with drainage because there is a standing water problem now. The proposed addition would actually take up less space than the existing patio . The Village Engineer ' s Review , dated June 11 , 1991 states : "The proposed addition will not alter the existing drainage pattern. " Comments from the audience : Mrs . Karen Uhren, 760 Bernard Drive , said the Dukes did come to inform her about the proposed construction and she is concerned because so many of her neighbors have added to filled in and/or added to their property , causing her yard and crawl space to be very wet at all times . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 18 , 1991 - Page Four Mrs . Uhren said she was told by Mr . Kuenkler , Village Engineer , that the area is a water table and that increases the amount of water that stands in her yard . She wants assurance that the proposed addition is not going to increase the drainage problem . She said the foundation is cracked and the crawl space is always flooded . She suggested soil tests . Ch. Heinrich explained that since the Dukes already have a concrete patio , the addition will not change the pattern of water flow. He said the Village Engineer will make sure that the contour of the land is not changed so that water is directed toward someone else ' s property. Mrs . Uhren said the proposed addition will be very close to her fence . She looked at the drawings and asked if they are going to landscape . Additional bushes could cause more flooding . She came to express her concern, so the Village would be aware of her feelings , in case the addition cause more of a water problem. She does not want to stop the Dukes from improving their house . Mr . Frank Schuster , 5 Belaire Court , said he objects to the addition because the addition in front would block the view from the front of his house and from the backyard , all he would see would the addition and storage shed . He stated that Mrs . Uhren' s lot does have a flooding problem . Ch. Heinrich asked the Dukes if they would consider moving the storage shed because the addition would increase the amount of land coverage on that corner of the lot . Mr . Duke said the Schusters would not see much of the addition because there is a line of heavy bushes . The storage shed was there when they bought the house and he said it could be moved . Com. Paul asked if there is a swale between the houses? Mrs . Uhren responded that a swale used to be there , but many of her neighbors have filled it in, including the previous owners of the Duke ' s house . The Dukes have recently added dirt to their lot . She has talked to the Village many times because there is no flow at all . Mr . Duke said they did fill in the space left when they had a tree removed that was there when they bought the property. It was not a good tree because it had many roots growing all over the yard . The fill did not add to Mrs . Uhren ' s situation. Mr . Schar said he was told by Mr . Kuenkler that the situation has developed over a number of years and the only solution would be for all the neighbors to work together to reestablish the original drainage pattern. `./ ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 18 . 1991 - Page Five Ch. Heinrich said the drainage issue is important and the ZBA could not take any action until it has been resolved . He asked Mr . Schar to request a complete drainage review from the Village Engineer be submitted in writing , including his recommendations for restoring the original swale . Scott Svetic , Space Homes , 365 W. Northwest Hwy. , Palatine , IL (392-9200 said that his company has done many similar projects in the Strathmore Subdivision and some of the lots have the same problem of standing water . Their contract with the Dukes includes a gutter system. Ch. Heinrich recalled that when the Levitt Homes were built , the drainage requirements were not the same as they are today and if people had not have changed the existing swales , the problem would not be as severe as it is . Mrs . Uhren commented that she understood the problem was originally caused by the developer and she does not want to stop the Dukes from having their addition. but she does want the water drainage problem remedied . Mr . Svetic said that they have been able to solve some of the problems by directing the water , by the use of gutters and downspouts . so that it flows out the sides of the property and into the storm sewers . Ch. Heinrich said the public hearing would have to be continued until July 16 , 1991 . He asked that a representative of the Engineering Department be present to give advice . Ch. Heinrich informed Mr . and Mrs . Duke that they would be responsible if the water problem was going to be aggravated by the addition. He also advised them that aesthetics and placement the existing shed would be discussed on July 16th. There is too much coverage in that corner and the drainage situation may be helped if the shed is moved . Com. Paul asked the Dukes to reconsider locating the addition elsewhere . He suggested switching a bedroom or something. Ch. Heinrich asked that the gutter system be described . Motion to Table until July 16 , 1991 was made by Com. Windecker and seconded by Com. Entman. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Windecker , Paul , Kearns , Entman, Fields and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 5 to 0 . It will be the first item on the ZBA July 16 , 1991 agenda and all parties will be notified . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 18 . 1991 - Page Six C. 477 Satinwood Terrace , Michael Sterling Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts Construction of 6 foot fence past the building line Michael and Ava Sterling were sworn in. The Public Hearing Notice was read . Mr . Sterling summarized their reasons for requesting a variance : 1 . They need a wood privacy fence , 48 feet in length, from the rear corner lot line to a point just a few feet past the building line along Buffalo Grove Road . They have a patio area at the rear of the house that is elevated so they need the additional height (6 ' ) . 2 . They are on a corner lot so they need a variance to construct the fence past the building line . Mr . Sterling explained that there is a row of bushes that was planted by the developer (Zale) along the rest of the side lot line , but some of these bushes have died . They are requesting a fence that would be one foot ( 1 ' ) from the sidewalk . It will tie into and match the existing fences along Buffalo Grove Rd . The Line-of-Sight Study , dated June 10 , 1991 states : "The fence does not conflict with the desired line-of-sight . " There were no objections from the Commissioners . They concurred that the fence would give privacy and would be a noise barrier . Com. Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the petition of Michael Sterling , 477 Satinwood Terrace , for variance of the Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 , pertaining to Residential Districts , for the purpose of constructing a wood privacy fence that would extend past the building line along Buffalo Grove Road , as indicated on the plat of survey that was submitted with the application. Said fence will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare . Com. Paul seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Fields , Entman, Kearns , Paul , Windecker and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . The permit may be issued in 15 days , July 5 , 1991 . D. 111 St . Mary' s Parkway , Steven and Linda Raymond Fence Code - Variance was withdrawn by petitioners . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 18 , 1991 - Page Seven F . 887 Deerfield Parkway , Motorola Lighting , Inc . Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 48 . 020 . F . 3 . Installation of Trash Compactor The public hearing notice was read and Mr . Don Kaczmarek was sworn in. Com. Fields stated he has a financial interest in one of the neighboring properties and excused himself from the discussion. Mr . Kaczmarek is Facility Manager , Motorola Lighting Inc . 887 Deerfield Parkway , Covington Corporate Center , Buffalo Grove , IL 60089 (708) 215-6300 . He testified as agent for the property owners , Hiffman Shaffer Anderson and Associates . Mr . Kaczmarek said Motorola Lighting Inc . is a new company and they need a compactor to dispose of corrugated material and other refuse that will accumulate . They do not want to take up any of the existing dock areas so they are proposing to locate the compactor at the rear of the building where it would encroach a distance of four feet (4 ' ) into the required rear yard setback . The movable box of the compactor will be set upon a concrete pad . They have not yet shipped any of the product but their plans call for expansion in 2 - 3 years and the variance would only be necessary for that length of time . The surrounding property was described . It was noted that the location of the proposed compactor is between the building and the railroad. It would not be visible from any roadway or residential property. Landscape screening would not be necessary. Comments from Commissioners : Com. Paul - The site is ideal and is the best location for the compactor . No objections . Com. Windecker - Observed that a driveway will have to be built out to the compactor pad. Com. Kearns - Asked when the compactor would be used? Mr . Kaczmarek responded that they have 1 shift working , but a 2nd shift will start soon and there is the possibility of a 3rd shift . Most deliveries would be made during the 1st shift and that is when the compactor would be used. It will not be noisy because only the box will be outside . The machinery will be inside the building with hoses going to the outside where a shroud will be built to cover the unit . The trash hauler will pull the box out and replace it with an empty box . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 18 , 1991 - Page Eight Com. Entman - Stated that he has been a member of the firm that has represented Hiffman Shaffer Anderson Associates but this association will not affect his decision in this matter . No objections . Com. Fields - No comment . There were no comments from the audience . Com. Paul made the following recommendation to the Village Board of Trustees : I move that the petition of Motorola Lighting Inc . 887 Deerfield Parkway , pursuant to Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 48 .020 . F. 3 . pertaining to Rear Yard Bulk Requirements , be granted a variance for the purpose of installing a trash compactor that would encroach a distance of four feet (4 ' ) into the required rear yard setback . Financial hardship having been established , the property cannot yield a reasonable return without the variance and said compactor will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood . Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman, Kearns , Windecker , Paul and Heinrich NAY - None Abstain - Fields Motion Passed 5 to 0 , 1 abstention. Findings of Fact Attached . Recommendation will be placed on the July 1 , 1991 Village Board Agenda. Permit may be issued in 15 days - July 5 , 1991 . G. 2867 Whispering Oaks Drive , Zale Groves , Inc . Lot 924 - Unit 15 , Woodlands at Fiore Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 - Principal Structures Mr . Frank Duda , Surveyor , 327 Village Drive , Carol Stream , IL 60188 , (708) 665-0001 and Joe Cohen, Land Development Manager for Zale Groves , Inc . , 100 Lexington Drive , Suite 100 , Buffalo Grove , IL 60089-6931 (708) 537-9191 were sworn in. The public hearing notice was read . Ch. Heinrich read a letter of objection from Miles L. Hlavin, 2832 Whispering Oaks Drive , Lot 856 , across the street from the subject property. Objections were that the driveway would be shortened , resulting in more cars being parked on the street and making it difficult for Mr . Hlavin to exit his driveway. Secondly , the 25 ' 6" setback would have a negative appearance on the subdivision because it would be out of line with the next house and this would lower property values . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 18 , 1991 - Page Nine Mr . Duda explained that the reason a variance was requested is because the house was incorrectly staked and the foundation poured on Lot 924 will encroach a distance of 4 ' 6" into the required front yard setback of 30 feet . To remove the foundation would cost approximately $8 , 000 to $10 , 000 and this would be a financial hardship to Mr . Duda personally. The main part of the house , the garage and the living quarters above the garage would encroach 3 ' 6" and the slab stoop has a roof that encroaches another foot making the total encroachment 4 ' 6" . Mr . Duda responded to Mr . Hiavin' s objections . He said that if the house had been positioned correctly behind the building line there would not be sufficient room for an additional car to be parked in the driveway unless it was parked over the sidewalk and , secondly, because of the location on the cul-de- sac , any adjoining house would be about 100 feet away from this house and would not appear to be out of line . A plat of the entire subdivision was reviewed . Mr . Cohen said the house is under contract and the purchasers have been notified of the variance . Ch. Heinrich informed Mr . Cohen that the ZBA requires a letter of approval signed by the purchaser as part of the variance . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Paul - The lots are all very large and all the houses are very close to the front building lines . It seemed that the houses across the street are setback about 40 feet . He could not approve a variance , even though there is an economic hardship. The houses are expensive and the subdivision would be more attractive if there was more open space . Mr . Duda responded that the houses are built close to the front building lines so that the rear yards are larger . Ch. Heinrich agreed that people do want as much rear yard as possible for recreation and entertaining. Mr . Cohen said this is a #604 Model , 2 , 500/3 , 000 sf . and the base price is about $300 ,000 . It is a Doubletree "top of the line" house , but there are some larger estate lots . He added that Zale supports the variance and does not think the house will appear to be too close to the front of the lot because of the horseshoe shape of the cul-de-sac . Com . Kearns - Even if the house was built correctly , it would have been in front of the next house , because of the curve . He agrees that the houses are to close to the front building line , but he does not object to the variance . He does not like to have builders coming in with many requests of this nature . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 18 , 1991 - Page Ten Mr . Cohen responded that this is the first time that Zale has come before the Zoning Board for a variance of this type . Com. Entman - Agrees with Com. Paul that considering the size of the lot warrants a deeper front setback , but the Village approved the distance , and under the circumstances , he would not oppose the variance . The objector ' s view will not be greatly affected by the variance . Com . Entman has represented parties who have purchased Zale ' s houses , but this will not affect his decision in this matter . The petitioner has exhibited an exception that he can support . Com. Fields - Agrees with the comments made by the other commissioners . He asked if there is a contract purchaser for Lot #923 . Mr . Cohen said the lot is under contract , but the purchaser ' s have not been notified that there is a variance on Lot 924 . Ch. Heinrich asked that the purchaser of Lot 923 be notified of the variance and that written approval be submitted to the Building Department within 15 days . ' Com. Fields stated he would have preferred a larger setback , but under the circumstances , he would support the variance. Ch. Heinrich - Agrees that he would prefer not to have to Ld grant variances for front yard setbacks , but the purchaser will be getting a larger rear yard with more usable space . He recalled a previous incident when Hoffman Homes was denied a number of similar variances and he cautioned the petitioners that the Zoning Board might not be so lenient in the future . There were no comments from the audience . Com. Fields made the following motion: I move we grant the petition of Zale Groves , Inc . variance of Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 , pertaining to Area , Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations , for the purpose of constructing a single family residence upon an existing foundation laid on Lot 924 , 2867 Whispering Oaks Drive , that would encroach a distance of four feet , six inches (4 ' 6" ) into the required front yard setback , with a condition that the contract purchasers of the' subject lot and Lot 923 be notified of this proceeding , and of the variance , by certified mail , return receipt requested . Failure to respond in writing within 15 days shall be deemed a waiver of any objection. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 18 , 1991 - Page Eleven Petitioner has demonstrated hardship and unique circumstances . The proposed construction will not be detrimental to the essential character of the neighborhood. Com . Kearns seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Windecker , Kearns , Entman, Fields and Heinrich NAY - Paul Motion Passed - 4 to 1 . Findings of Fact Attached. If no written objections are received , construction may resume in 15 days - July 5 , 1991 . H. 322 Stillwell , Jeffrey and Wendy Orlowski Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 36 . 030 . F , 4 . Purpose : Widening of Driveway on Raupp Boulevard Ch. Heinrich stated he is acquainted with Mr . & Mrs . Orlowski , but this will not affect his judgement in this matter . The Public Hearing Notice was read . Jeffrey and Wendy Orlowski were sworn in. Mr . Orlowski summarized the reasons for their request to widen the driveway to accommodate their 3-car garage : 1 . They were permitted to replace a 2-car garage with a 3-car garage , and were informed that the zoning ordinance was being amended to permit wider driveways . The amendment passed , but their lot does not qualify because it does not meet the minimum lot width and setback requirements . Mr . Schar explained that the Zoning Ordinance requires the lot width to be 80 feet but it is 75 feet , and the front yard setback is not to be less than 30 feet , but it is only 25 feet . Ch. Heinrich observed that the ordinance was written based upon the larger lots that were plated in subdivisions to the north. Mr . Orlowski responded that the garage has always faced Raupp Boulevard and the lot width on that side is 120 feet . The garage 'is setback a distance of 35 feet from the sidewalk . His neighbors do not like the appearance of the driveway and would prefer to have it wider . The Orlowskis have a race car that they cannot back into the garage without driving on the grass and this is making ruts . They want their property to be attractive to the neighbors and to the Village . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 18 , 1991 - Page Twelve Comments by Commissioners : Com . Heinrich: No objections . Com . Paul : No problems . Because Raupp Boulevard traffic is heavy , from the safety point of view, he would prefer to have the cars moved off the street as quickly as possible . Com. Windecker : Asked what material would be used? (Answer : Entire driveway will be concrete . ) No objections. Com. Kearns : Has noticed the construction and said it has been an improvement . The driveway will look better if it is straightened out . Mr . Orlowski commented that their garage has prompted other neighbors to upgrade their property . Com. Entman: Agreed that it would be beneficial to get the cars off of Raupp Boulevard and the driveway will be located on the widest part of the lot . No problem with the petition. Com. Fields : Agreed with the Commissioner ' s comments . No objections . No comments from the audience . Mr . Dempsey advised the Zoning Board that this is not an authorized variation and should be a recommendation to the Village Board of Trustees . An ordinance will be written. Com. Entman made the following recommendation to the Village Board : I move that the petition of Jeffrey L. and Wendy L. Orlowski , 322 Stillwell Drive , for variance of the Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 36 . 030 . F. 4 . pertaining to Parking Regulations , Access , Design and Maintenance , for the purpose of widening the driveway, be granted , with the following conditions : #1 - That said driveway be constructed pursuant to plans , specifications and materials as approved by the Village of Buffalo Grove ; and #2 - The location of the driveway to be in accordance with the survey submitted and approved by the Village . Said driveway to be of concrete . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 18 , 1991 - Page Thirteen Petitioners having exhibited unique circumstances , the proposed variation will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood . Com. Kearns seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Windecker . Paul . Kearns , Entman, Fields and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . Recommendation will be on the July 1 , 1991 Village Board Agenda . The petitioners were advised to be present . Permit may be issued in 15 days - July 5 , 1991 . V. ANNOUNCEMENT The Zoning Board of Appeal ' s authority to vary the 20% lot coverage restrictions in Section 17 . 20 . 030 . I . was discussed . There have been requests for decks that would exceed the 20% limit because of other rear yard structures i . e . additions , pools , sheds , etc . One family has a definite hardship because the deck is needed for moving a disabled parent out to the pool for therapy. Mr . Dempsey said that Section 17 . 52 . 040 , Authorized Variations - Zoning Board of Appeals - does not specifically provide for variance of lot coverage . �./ Ch. Heinrich said that the ZBA has granted variances of the permit- ted 20% amount of rear yard coverage . Since the zoning ordinance has been amended several times , it is possible that a drafting error has occured . If research of the original text reveals that to be true , then a text amendment could be needed . Ch. Heinrich recalled discussing the issue and that restrictions are necessary to prevent overuse of the land . The exact percentage that was to be allowed could not be recalled , but about 10% (permitting 30% lot coverage) would be reasonable . Further review determined that , pursuant to Section 17 . 52 . 050 - Corporate Authorities , lot coverage could be varied by ordinance , on a case by case basis . VI . ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn was made by Com. Kearns and seconded by Com. Windecker . Ch. Heinrich adjourned the meeting at 10 . 15 P.M. Respectfully submitted , Shirley Bates , Recording Secretary ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 18 , 1991 - Page Fourteen