Loading...
1991-08-20 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE , ILLINOIS TUESDAY , AUGUST 20 , 1991 I . CALL TO ORDER Chairman Richard Heinrich called the meeting to order at 8 : 08 P . M . on Tuesday , August 20 , 1991 at the Village Hall , 50 Raupp Boulevard . II . ROLL CALL Commissioners Present : M . Kearns , J . Paul , B . Entman , H . Fields , L . Windecker , L . Arbus and R . Heinrich ( Lee A . Arbus was appointed Aug . 19 , 1991 ) Commissioners Absent : None Bldg . Dept . Liaison : Edward Schar , Acting Deputy Building Commissioner Village Attorney : Tom Dempsey III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES Com . Windecker made a motion to approve . Com . Paul seconded the motion . Correction noted , Page 1 - III . Should read : Roll Call Vote to approve June 18 , 1991 ( not June 16 , 1991 ) minutes as amended . Roll Call Vote to approve July 16 , 1991 minutes as corrected : AYE - Paul , Entman , Windecker and Heinrich NAY - None ABSTAIN - Kearns , Fields and Arbus Motion Passed - 4 to 0 , 3 abstentions . Minutes of July 16 , 1991 approved . IV . BUSINESS A . 1551 Countryside Drive , Eric and Anne Galla Fence Code . Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts Five foot ( 5 ' ) arched picket fence past building line The Public Hearing Notice was read . Mr . Eric Galla was sworn in . He summarized the reasons for requesting a variance of the Fence Code in order to construct a fence past the building line to a distance five feet ( 5 ' ) from the sidewalk along Country- side Drive : 1 . To have more space in the back yard and side yard for his small child and dog for playing . etc . 2 . They would like to have the additional space to have room for a swimming pool in the future 3 . They purchased a corner lot to have as much space as possible . He was not aware of the restrictions . Ch. Heinrich observed that the lot is very large and there is a distance of fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) between the house and the building line . Mr . Galla agreed that the lot is large and he would maintain the area outside the fence , but use of the area would be lost . Mr . Galla said he has discussed the fence with all the neighbors with the exception of the people to the west . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Paul - The area is very open and he would like to keep it that way. A fence at the building line would give the Gallas a generous back yard. He suggested a fair compromise would be fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) from the sidewalk , but not five feet (5 ' ) as requested . There is no line-of-sight problem for cars . Mr . Galla agreed to the compromise and said the fence would be an arched semi-private , picket fence with one inch ( 1 " ) spaces . Com. Windecker - Asked if cars ever cut across the lot? Mr . Galla said that in the winter cars sometimes cut through the whole side yard. He has seen tire tracks but has never actually seen any vehicles , so he has never called the police . Com. Windecker responded that a fence fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) from the sidewalk would not prevent cars from cutting through the yard. Com. Arbus - No comment . Com. Kearns - The yard is much larger than is usually found on a corner lot , and he would agreed that the fence should not be closer than fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) to the sidewalk . Com. Entman - Agreed that the lot is extremely large and a fence along the building line would give a good back yard . Even though it is not necessary to prove hardship , he would not approve a fence closer than fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) to the sidewalk . The fence will match all the neighbors ' arched picket fences . Com. Fields - Agreed that the distance of fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) to the sidewalk would be acceptable . He asked how the fence would be attached to the neighbors ' fence? ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS August 20 , 1991 - Page Two Mr . Galla said there would be a post next to the neighbors ' and then the fence would go out past the building line and down Countryside Drive returning to the rear of the house just past the gas meter . Com. Fields said the fence would appear to be a five foot (5 ' ) wall if it is extended and suggested it should be dropped down to four feet (4 ' ) extending out and along the sidewalk? Mr . Edward Kahn, 1556 Countryside Drive , was present . He lives directly across the street . The driveway faces the side of the Galla' s house . He does not know the Gallas and he is only here for aesthetic reasons . He understood the original proposal was only five feet (5 ' ) from the sidewalk. He bought his lot for the open space . He does not oppose the height or style of the fence along the building line . It will be an obstruction to him if it is closer than fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) to the sidewalk . Ch. Heinrich - Said that visually, the fence would appear the same from the building line or fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) from the sidewalk . Ch. Heinrich - Personally could not support any variance , because the rear yard is larger than most yards on corner lots . Com. Arbus - Asked for a description of the fence . Mr . Galla said it would be a cedar picket , with the top of the arch five feet (5 ' ) , and one inch ( 1 ' ) spaces between pickets . Ch. Heinrich indicated that if the Gallas put in a pool , they would have to have a fence four feet (4 ' ) in height , and Com. Fields ' suggestion of four feet at the top would be about three and one/half feet at the low point and would not be sufficient to meet the code requirement . Mr . Galla expressed his opinion that the fence would not look as good if it was a different height than his neighbor ' s fence . Com. Windecker agreed that the fences should match in height and style . A Poll was taken to determine if five feet (5 ' ) would be an acceptable height? Com. Kearns - Yes to 5 feet Com. Paul - Yes to 5 feet Com. Entman - Lower than 5 feet Com. Fields - Lower than 5 feet Com. Windecker - Yes to 5 feet Com. Arbus - Lower than 5 feet Ch. Heinrich - 5 feet at building line , no variance . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS August 20 , 1991 - Page Three Mr . Galla questioned whether his property value would be lowered if his fence was lower than the other fences in the neighborhood? Ch. Heinrich could not answer specifically , because technical- ly , any time changes are made to property , some potential buyers will be eliminated , i . e . some people do not want a fence at all . Com. Fields asked Mr . Galla if a height of four and a half feet to the top of the arch would be acceptable? Mr . Galla responded that he was willing to amend his petition to whatever the ZBA agreed would be a reasonable compromise. A poll was taken: Com. Kearns - Yes to 4-1/2 feet Com. Paul - Yes to 4-1/2 feet Com. Entman - Undecided Com. Fields - Yes Com. Windecker - No , 5 feet would keep the uniformity and that is what the ZBA has done in the past . Com. Arbus - Abstain Ch. Heinrich - No variance Village Engineer ' s Line-of-Sight Review dated August 5 , 1991 states : "There is no particular sight distance in this instance as this is a curve in the road , not an intersection. No driveways are present abutting this proposed fence . " Discussion followed . The Commissioners basically agreed that the lot is very large and with the building line fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) past the house , there is adequate room for a big pool . There is no actual hardship or need for extra space . Com. Fields proposed a compromise that would permit a five foot (5 ' ) fence to be constructed a distance of five feet (5 ' ) past the building line and twenty feet (20) ' from the sidewalk . Mr . Galla agreed to amend his petition. A poll indicated the Commissioners agreed and Mr . Kahn also agreed . Com. Fields made the following motion: I move we grant the petition of Eric and Anna Galla , 1551 Countryside Drive , for variance of Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 , pertaining to Residential Districts , for the purpose of constructing a five foot (5 ' ) arched spaced picket fence that would extend not more than five feet (5 ' ) beyond the building line . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS August 20 , 1991 - Page Four Said fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare . Said fence will not be detrimental to the essential character of the neighborhood. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Kearns , Paul , Entman, Fields , Windecker and Arbus NAY - Heinrich Motion Passed - 6 to 1 . Findings of Fact Attached . Permit may be issued in 15 days - September 5 , 1991 . B. 180 Selwyn Lane , Daniel and Gloria Chambers Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts The Public Hearing Notice was read . Daniel and Gloria Chambers were sworn in. Mr . Chambers explained that they had a four foot (4 ' ) fence and when it needed replacing, they did not know that a permit was required . They also were not aware of the five foot (5 ' ) height limitation because there are so many six foot (6 ' ) fences in Cambridge . They have a pool and the extra height gives them more security . They were reported to the Building Department after they constructed the six foot (6 ' ) fence . When they came in to apply for a permit , they were informed that the fence required a variance . Mr . Chambers said that before the fence was put up , he talked to the neighbors on either side and they had no objections . The fence is the same on both sides and they have received many compliments . Com. Paul - Commented that if the neighbors do not object , he can understand that the fence would not only provide safety for the pool , but that it would give the neighbors privacy from the pool activities . Mr . James Payne , 190 Selwyn Lane , (neighbor directly east of the Chambers) was present . He said the fence is very nice looking. He confirmed that he was informed it would be six feet (6 ' ) high before it was built and he has no objections . Com. Windecker - Asked who constructed the fence? Mr . Chambers responded that a friend from Chicago helped him put it up . He has not done other work in the Village . Com. Arbus - No comment . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS August 20 , 1991 - Page Five Com. Kearns - No objections as long as the neighbors approve . Com. Entman - Observed that there is a five foot fence (5 ' ) to the rear that is covered by taller bushes . He asked why the sign was not in the yard? Mrs . Chambers said that kids were moving it to another neighbors ' yard and she finally left it down. Mr . Dempsey said the Village requirements were fulfilled by publishing the notice and sending letters . There is no provision for policing the signs after they are put up. Com. Entman said the fence is attractive and hardly visible . No objection. Com. Fields - Asked when the fence was put up and when the permit application was filed? Mr . Chambers said they constructed it in early July and came in about two weeks later to apply for the permit . Mr . Schar confirmed the date on the permit is July 28 , 1991 . Com. Fields said he would not consider a six foot (6 ' ) fence if it was not already in place , but under the circumstances he would not object . `/ Com . Entman made the following motion: I move the petition of Daniel and Gloria Chambers , 180 Selwyn Lane , be granted a variance of Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 .040 , pertaining to Residential Districts , for the purpose of constructing a six foot (6 ' ) privacy fence along the interior lot lines . Said fence having been constructed pursuant to plans and specifications approved by the Village . Petitioners have exhibited that the proposed fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. Com. Kearns seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Kearns , Paul , Entman, Windecker , Arbus and Heinrich NAY - None ABSTAIN - Fields Motion Passed - 6 to 0 , 1 abstention. Findings of Fact Attached . Permit may be issued in 15 days . September 5 , 1991 . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS August 20 , 1991 - Page Six V. ANNOUNCEMENTS A. Ch. Heinrich reminded the Commissioners of the Special ZBA Public Hearing scheduled for Thursday, August 29 , 1991 . The two items on the Agenda are Blockbuster Video Wall Sign at Woodland Commons and an in-ground swimming pool at 421 Caren Drive , that would exceed the 20% rear yard coverage limitation. B. The Village Board did not vote to overrule the ZBA decision concerning the variance granted Mr . and Mrs . Kenneth Duke at 4 Belaire Court , for an addition at the rear of the house. Because of the uniqueness of the vote , the variance was granted . VI . ADJOURNMENT Com. Kearns made a motion to adjourn. Com. Entman seconded . Voice Vote was AYE Unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9 : 10 P.M. Respectfully submitted , r 1 , Shirley Bates ZBA Recording Secretary sb ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS August 20 , 1991 - Page Seven