Loading...
1991-10-15 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE , ILLINOIS TUESDAY , OCTOBER 15 , 1991 I . CALL TO ORDER Chairman Richard Heinrich called the meeting to order at 8 : 11 PM on Tuesday . October 15 , 1991 at the Village Hail , 50 Raupp Blvd . II . ROLL CALL Commissioners Present : M . Kearns , J . Paul , B . Entman , L . Windecker , L . Arbus and R . Heinrich . Commissioners Absent : H . Fields Bldg . Dept . Liaison : Edward Schar , Acting Deputy Building Commissioner Village Board Liaison : William Reid , Trustee Village Attorney : Thomas Dempsey III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 24 , 1991 - Com . Kearns made a motion to approve . Com . Windecker seconded the motion . It was noted that Trustee William Reid attended the meeting . Roil Call Vote : AYE - Kearns . Entman . Paul , Windecker . Arbus and Heinrich . NAY - None Minutes of Sept . 24 . 1991 approved and will be placed on file . IV . OLD BUSINESS A . 1554 Countryside Drive , Darrell and Donna Chelcun Zoning Ordinance . Section 17 . 40 . 020 Variance of 10 ' _into rear yard setback _._for_addi_tion Com . Kearns made a motion to remove from Table . Com . Windecker seconded the motion . Voice Vote : AYE - Unanimously Darrell Chelcun , 1554 Countryside Drive , had asked for the variance to be Tabled in order to consult with the Village Engineer about removal of the tie wall that has been con- structed within the swaie area . He has talked with Richard Kuenkier and has agreed to remove and relocate the tie wall . but he has been advised by his landscaper that the proper time to move shrubbery would be in March . He would have ail the work done at one time . Ch. Heinrich advised Mr . Chelcun that removal of the tie wail would be made a condition of the variance . Work must be started within six months from the date the variance is valid . Allowing for the fifteen ( 15 ) day appeal period , if building plans are approved , the permit could technically be issued after October 31 , 1991 , so the work would have to begin by April 30 , 1992 . Mr . Chelcun understood Ch. Heinrich ' s directions and agreed . The Commissioners were polled and there were no objections . No questions or comments from the audience . Com . Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the petition of Darrell and Donna Chelcun , 1554 Countryside Drive , for variance of Zoning Ordinance . Sec . 17 . 40 . 020 , pertaining to Area . Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations . for the purpose of constructing an addition at the rear of the house that would encroach a distance of ten feet ( 10 ' ) into the required rear yard setback . Materials are to match the existing construction in like kind and quality. Addition to be constructed pursuant to plans submitted to and approved by the Village of Buffalo Grove . Petitioner has exhibited hardship and unique circumstances . Condition: In conjunction with the addition , the swale is to be restored . The tie wall with the plantings can be relocated to the five foot (5 ' ) mark where it becomes a landscape detail not effecting drainage , as outlined in the Village Engineer ' s Report . dated Oct . 2 , 1991 . The proposed addition will not be detrimental to the essential character of the neighborhood . Com . Paul seconded the motion. Mr . Dempsey cautioned the petitioner that the variance is only good for six months . If construction is not started before April 30 . 1992 . application for a new variance will be required . Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman , Kearns , Paul , Windecker . Arbus and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . Permit may be issued October 31 , 1991 . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 15 , 1991 - Page Two Ch . Heinrich advised the audience that the Village looks at ail proposed construction and the drainage patterns . Where the swale has been altered , it will be necessary to restore it to the original condition. The ZBA will be making this a condition of all future variances to assure compliance . V . NEW BUSINESS A. 229 Cottonwood Road , Terry Weber Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 32 . 020 , Pertaining to : Location of Accessory Buildings and Structures Construction of garage exceeding 20% rear yard coverage Terry Weber , 229 Cottonwood Road , was sworn in and the public hearing notice was read . Mr . Weber summarized the reasons for requesting a variance : 1 . He has lived in the house eleven ( 11 ) years and because it does not have a garage . he must store his vehicles and equipment for his aluminum siding business outside . 2 . He has been storing some of the equipment under the deck but it deteriorates , because of exposure to the weather . 3 . A garage will make his property value increase , should he sell the house . 4 . He has been renting a storage area . and a garage would eliminate the monthly expense . Mr . Weber said White Pine Ditch runs behind his yard and he is aware that the floodplain map shows the property to be located in the flood plain , but : The Village Engineer ' s Review , dated October 2 . 1991 , states : "The proposed addition will not alter the existing drainage pattern. The issue of the floodplain relates to the incorrect showing of this property being in the flood plain. We have sent material to IDOT-DWR requesting that they amend the maps . We expect this to be done , but have advised the petitioner that a permit could not be issued until the maps are revised . " Mr . Schar said he has been advised by Dick Kuenkler that IDOT is sending a letter and it is expected very soon. Mr . Weber said he has talked to all his neighbors and there have been no objections . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 15 , 1991 - Page Three Mr . Weber indicated that he hoped to begin construction before frost . He plans to construct the garage to match the house , using the same shingles . siding , etc . Comments from Commissioners : Com . Kearns : Asked what percentage over the 20% can be granted by the ZBA. The request is for 355 feet over the 20% . Ch. Heinrich said the Village Board would grant a variance by ordinance and the ZBA can make a recommendation for any amount . Com . Kearns : Asked if the proposed garage would store most of the business equipment? "YES . " Com. Entman: Saw the equipment that is stored under the deck , two vehicles and a trailer . Will all this fit into the garage? Mr . Weber replied that he stores his motor cycle in the trailer now. The proposed garage is 24 ' x 26 so it should be large enough to accommodate everything . Com . Paul : Has no problem with the variance and added that a concrete driveway will be an improvement to the property and to the neighborhood . fir.../ Com . Windecker : No comments or objections . Com . Arbus : No comments or objections . No comments or questions from the audience . Com . Paul made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board of Trustees that the variance requested by Terry Weber , 229 Cottonwood Road , pursuant to Zoning Ordinance , 17 . 32 . 020 , pertaining to Location of Accessory Buildings and Structures , be granted . Variance would permit construction of a garage that would exceed the 20% rear yard coverage limitation. Condition imposed : Receipt of the letter from IDOT-DWR recognizing the fact that the floodplain map is incorrect . Hardship having been demonstrated , the proposed construction will not be detrimental to the character of the surrounding neighborhood . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 15 . 1991 - Page Four Com. Kearns seconded the motion. Roll Call : AYE - Entman, Kearns , Arbus , Wi decker , Paul and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . This item will be on the November 4 . 1991 Village Board Agenda . Permit may be issued after Village Board approval provided the letter from IDOT DWR has been received . B. 1370 Mill Creek Drive . Gerald Colbert Zoning Ordinance . Section 17 . 32 . 020 Construction of screened porch exceeding 20% rear yard coverage limitation Gerald Colbert , 1370 Mill Creek Drive , was s orn in and the public hearing notice was read . Mr . Colbert summarized the reasons for requesting a variance for the pu pose of con- structing a screened porch that would exceed the 20% rear yard coverage limitation: 1 . They could construct a 7 ' x 8 ' screened porch at the rear of the house and that would be too small for a picnic table . 2 . They have had a pool for about 12 years . It is 16 ' x 32 ' = 365 sf . and a shed that is 8 ' x 6 = 48 sf . totalling 560 sf . The proposed porch would exceed the 20% permitted coverage by approximately 111 sq . 4 . They could not afford to construct an addition before this time and do not want to move to a different house now. The Village Engineer ' s Review , dated Oct . 2 , 1991 , states : "The proposed addition will not alter the existing drainage pattern It was noted that the rear of the property was previously filled (with previous pool construction?) . The tie wall and fill should be removed and relocated five feet ( 5 ' ) back from the property line . " Mr . Colbert explained that when the pool was constructed , twelve years ( 12) ago . he called the Village and was told he could put in black corrugated piping , which he did . When Mr . Colbert talked with Dick Kuenkler this afternoon, he was advised that the tie wall must be removed and he has agreed to relocate it to the five foot mark . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 15 . 1991 - Page Five He will contract with the landscaper and have the tie wall relocated at the time he has the ground removed in order to put in the floor joists . It is more economical to have all the work done at one time . Mr . Kuenkler did not object . Mr . Schar said he and Mr . Kuenkler kept missing each other ' s phone calls . so he could not verbally confirm any agreement . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Entman: No questions and no objections . Com . Kearns : Asked why they want a screened porch now, has family size increased , and have they talked to their neighbors on the NE side? Mr . Colbert responded that they do not enjoy being out in the sun now and it ' s not healthy ; their children are in college and are not home much of the year ; and they have talked to their neighbors . There have been no objections . Com. Kearns said the yard is large enough, so no problem. Com . Paul : No comments and no objections . Com . Windecker : No comments and no objections . Com. Arbus : No problems , if the neighbors do not object . Ch. Heinrich: No objections . This will be a recommendation to the Village Board . Commented that the porch will be all screens so it will not be used in winter . Confirmed that the shingles will match the house . No questions or comments from the audience . Com. Kearns made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board of Trustees that the variance requested by Gerald L. and Judith C . Colbert . 1370 Mill Creek Drive , pursuant to Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 32 . 020 . pertaining to Location of Accessory Buildings and Structures , be granted . for the purpose of constructing a screened porch that would exceed the 20% rear yard coverage limitation. The proposed construction will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood . Contingent with this request is the condition imposed by the Village Engineer ' s letter , dated October 2 , 1991 , stating that the tie wall and fill be removed and relocated five feet (5 ' ) back from the rear property line . Work to be done at the time the screen porch is constructed . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 15 . 1991 - Page Six Screen porch will not exceed 12 ' x 14 ' and the petitioner has demonstrated unique circumstances . Com . Windecker seconded the motion. Mr . Dempsey informed Mr . Colbert that this item will be on the Village Board Agenda on November 4 . 1991 and construc- tion must be started no later than May 4 , 1992 . Roll Call Vote : AYE - Paul , Windecker , Arbus , Kearns . Entman and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . Permit may be issued after final Village Board approval . C . 131 Thompson Boulevard , Dale and Paulette Kolcz Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 Construction of roof over part of existing deck Dale Kolcz was sworn in and the public hearing notice was read . Mr . Koicz summarized the reasons for requesting a variance of the zoning ordinance for the purpose of con- structing a roof over part of the existing deck that would encroach into the required rear yard setback : 1 . There are no mature shade trees in the back yard and the Kolcz ' s have a small daughter who cannot play on the deck because it is too hot in summer . 2 . The roof will only cover one-half ( 1 /2) of the deck . They have discussed the proposed roof with their neighbors and there have been no objections . Mr . Schar confirmed that the deck can encroach into the rear yard setback , but with the roof it becomes an accessory structure . The required rear yard setback if forty feet . Ch . Heinrich commented that the addition of the roof will not change the character of the neighborhood . Comments from Commissioners : Com . Paul : No problem . The addition of the roof will look like a part of the house . The situation is unique . Because of the configuration of the lot , it almost looks like a front yard , but it actually a rear yard . Com . Windecker : Asked if the materials will match the house? Mr . Kolcz responded , "Yes . " ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 15 , 1991 - Page Seven Com . Arbus : The does not know the petitioner , but he lives within 250 feet and received written notice of of the hearing. From his rear yard . he can look directly into the Kolcz ' s back yard . He said he thought it would be inappropriate for him to comment or vote on the decision. Ch . Heinrich asked Com. Arbus if he has any objections? Com . Arbus described the view from his back yard now . He can see about four (4) blocks down and cannot visualize how the deck will look with a roof over it . The trellis did not block anything . From the diagram , the roof of the deck will be below the second story windows , but it will change the view . Com . Kearns : No problem and no comments . Com. Entman: No problem. Agreed this is a unique lot with a large side yard . The proposal will not affect any immediate neighbors . No comments from the audience . Com . Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the request of Dale and Paulette Kolcz , 131 Thompson Boulevard , for variance of the Zoning Ordinance . Section 17 . 40 . 020 , pertaining to Area , Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations , for the purpose of constructing a roof over the deck that would encroach into the required rear setback , according to the plans attached . Materials are. to match the existing structure in like kind and quality. Addition of the roof to be constructed pursuant to plans submitted to and approved by the Village of Buffalo Grove . Petitioner has exhibited hardship and unique circum- stances . The proposed construction will not be detrimental to the essential character of the neighborhood . Com. Entman seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Paul , Windecker , Kearns , Entman and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 5 to 0 , 1 abstention. Findings of Attached . Permit may be issued after 15 days (October 31 , 1991 ) . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 15 . 1991 - Page Eight D. 901 Silver Rock Lane . Laurence and Hollis Goldsmith Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts Laurence Goldsmith was sworn in and the public hearing notice was read . He summarized the reasons for request- ing a four foot (4 ' ) chain link fence that would extend past the building line at the corner of Silver Rock Ln. and Shady Grove Drive : 1 . The corner is very busy and is used as a turn-around for school buses . The fence would provide security for their small daughter . Mr . Goldsmith' s 9 year old son spends the summers with them and the fence would be for his safety. 2 . They have a Golden Retriever and want to have a dog run next to the house . The fence would also enclose their side door . 3 . There is a line of apple trees along Shady Grove and the fence would prevent access to the trees by neighboring children . The Village Engineer ' s Review , dated October 2 , 1991 . states : The proposed fence location would reduce the sight distance at the intersection the fence should be setback five feet ( 5 ' ) from the sidewalk . At this setback , the fence could be extended from the rear of the house . II the fence is preferred to extend from the midpoint of the house , it should be setback ten ft . ( 10 ' ) from the sidewalk . Mr . Goldsmith asked if they could construct the dog run about ten feet ( 10 ' ) out from the side of the house and then extend it out to five feet ( 5 ' ) from the sidewalk , making it L-shaped? Ch. Heinrich stated the ZBA must comply with the Village Engineer ' s recommendations . He added that he would prefer to have the fence more squared off at the 10 foot distance . Comments from Commissioners : Com . Paul : Observed that if the fence is set back five feet ( 5 ' ) it would be in line with one of the trees . He suggested a fifteen foot ( 15 ' ) setback from the sidewalk and run straight back . The existing trees and bushes partially obstruct the view and the fence five feet ( 5 ' ) in would make it worse . Com . Windecker : No questions or comments . Com . Arbus : Stated five feet (5 ' ) is too close to the side- walk and agreed with Com . Paul ' s suggestion . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 15 , 1991 - Page Nine Com . Kearns : Agreed to a fifteen foot ( 15 ' ) setback . Com. Entman: Agreed to a fifteen foot ( 15 ' ) setback . No comments from the audience . Mr . Goldsmith amended his petition to construct the fence a distance of fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) from the sidewalk , starting approximately from the middle of the house . He said he has talked to his neighbors across Shady Grove Lane and there have been no objections . Com . Entman made the following motion: I move we grant the petition of Laurence and Hollis Goldsmith, 9►01 Silver Rock Lane . for variance of Fence Code . Section 15 . 20 . 040 , pertaining to Residential Districts , for the purpose of constructing a four foot ( 4 ' ) chain link fence that would extend past the building line at the corner of Silver Rock Lane and Shady Grove Lane . Condition: The fence is to be constructed in compliance with the amended petition; that said fence shall start at a mid-point of the house along Shady Grove Lane and extend toward Shady Grove Lane a distance no closer than fifteen Lid feet ( 15 ' ) from the sidewalk . Petitioner has exhibited that the proposed fence and variance will not be detrimental to the public health , safety and welfare . Com. Arbus seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Paul , Windecker . Arbus . Kearns , Entman and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . Permit may be issued after 15 days - October 31 . 1991 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 15 , 1991 - Page Ten E. 77 Woodridge Lane , Robert Ciar Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts Five foot (5 ' ) scalloped picket fence past the building line Robert Clar was sworn in and the public hearing notice was read . Mr . Clar summarized the reasons for requesting a variance : 1 . He and his wife expect to have a family and they want to get a dog so they will need a fence , including a dog run, for safety and protection. 2 . They have a corner lot and both adjoining neighbors have scalloped picket fences . The proposed fence will match the neighbors ' fences . It is not a privacy fence , but will have 2-1 /2 inch spaces . 3 . They have a row of bushes along Dunhill Lane and originally requested the fence to be located just outside the bushes about three and a half (3-1/2 ) feet from the sidewalk . Mr . Clar talked with their neighbors across the street (Koibers at 818 Dunhill Lane) and they thought the fence would be right next to the sidewalk . He received the Village Engineer ' s Review , dated 10/2/91 , and it states : "The limiting factor at the intersection is the principal structure itself . The abutting property is a near-side driveway and he recommended the fence be set back ten feet ( 10 ' ) from the sidewalk . Mr . Clar said these neighbors have a four foot (4 ' ) fence up to the building line . From the end of the driveway to the original three and a half foot ( 3-1/2 ' ) distance from the sidewalk and that would leave about eighteen ( 18 ' ) for backing out . Mr . Clar requested that the fence be permitted to be seven feet from the sidewalk just behind the bushes and this would give the neighbors a distance of approximately twenty-one feet (21 ' ) for exiting the driveway. If the fence was ten feet ( 10 ' ) from the sidewalk , it would not look as nice aesthetically because it would leave a three foot (3 ' ) gap between the fence and the bushes . The bushes are already about five feet (5 ' ) high so they will soon hide the fence . Ch . Heinrich observed that there is no real line-of-sight obstruction and did not see a problem if the fence was seven feet (7 ' ) back . Mr . Schar said he thought the Village Engineer ' s reference was related to the near side driveway . . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 15 , 1991 - Page Eleven Mr . Clar said that these neighbors have no objections to the fence and has agreed that the fences could be joined . Com. Entman suggested the petition be Tabled until the Village Engineer can be informed and see if his recommenda- tion can be changed . Mr . Dempsey agreed Mr . Kuenkler would have to amend his re- view in order to grant a variance closer than ten feet ( 10 ' ) from the sidewalk . Steven Kolber , 818 Dunhill Lane , was present and inquired about the location. After he was shown the plat , he said he had no objections if the fence was behind the bushes . Mr . Clar noted that there is a similar fence around the corner (at Dunhill and Somerset ) that is only five feet (5 ' ) from the sidewalk . Ch. Heinrich explained that the ZBA considers the circum- stances in each petition and different issues are involved . It is the driveway that is in question here . He gave Mr . Clar the option of constructing the fence at the ten foot ( 10 ' ) distance . or Tabling the petition until November so the Village Engineer can be consulted for advice . Mr . Clar asked if the fence could be located farther toward the front of the house along Dunhill or would it have to jog back to ten feet ( 10 ' )? Ch. Heinrich said the Village Engineer should also be con- sulted about this proposal because there could be a line-of- sight problem from the other direction. Mr . Clar asked if the Village Engineer does not change his recommendation, can he proceed to construct the fence ten feet ( 10 ' ) from the sidewalk? When he was informed "NO. " he agreed to return in November . Com . Entman made a motion to Table until November 19 , 1991 . Com . Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman, Kearns , Paul , Windecker , Arbus and Heinrich NAY - None Petition of Robert Clar was Tabled until November 19 , 1991 . It will be the first item on the Agenda . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS �✓ October 15 , 1991 Page Twelve F . 843 Horatio Boulevard . Wayne Friedman Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts Six foot ( 6 ' ) wood privacy fence to remain as constructed Wayne and Debbie Friedman were sworn in and the public hear- ing notice was read . Ch. Heinrich asked if the Friedmans had a permit to have the fence constructed? Mr . Friedman explained that J . T . & Sons Construction applied for the permit and picked it up . (Permit No . L-18091 was issued June 26 . 1991 for a five foot ( 5 ' ) fence and a deck . ) The contractor told them it was permissible to construct a six foot (6 ' ) fence so that is the way it was built . Had they known a variance was necessary , they would have applied for it in June . Mr . Friedman summarized their reasons for requesting the variance in order to have security because : 1 . Their rear property line abuts a bike path that is next to the retention pond . A park is also going to be built next to the pond . 2 . They have a hot tub spa on the deck . The fence will help prevent people from entering the yard . 3 . They have a 7-month baby daughter . The fence will prevent her from getting out of the yard . The fence will not be an obstruction because there are no homes behind their property. Weiland Road is beyond the pond . The fence has been constructed about 1-1 /2 feet in- side the property line . A 5 f t . fence would be easy to :;r ; . climb over but a 6 ' fence will offer necessary protection. not only for their child , but for other people who might rty�yY� attempt to enter the yard and the hot tub . They have informed all their neighbors and there have been no objections . One neighbor is applying for a similarAPI" variance . (Next agenda item . 837 Horatio - Stupe l 1 ) Ch. Heinrich asked if the spa and deck have been inspected and asked for a description of the fence . �.... Mrs . Friedman responded that they have complied with all the Building Department ' s requirements but they have not called -.;,tu for a final re-inspection. The fence is a board-on-board .r..r= with 1 /4" to 1 /2" spacing between the boards . 1MRIPb Ch. Heinrich commented that the spacing is very narrow and ` the fence would be considered a privacy fence . He asked _ how far the swing set is from the fence . NME44:: Mrs . Friedman said it was about 3 or 4 feet . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 15 , 1991 - Page Thirteen Comments from Commissioners : Com . Paul : No problems . If the retention basin was not there the lot would abut Weiland Road where a six foot (6 ' ) fence would be is permitted , so it is a reasonable request . Com . Windecker : No objection. Most fences in the area are six feet ( 6 ' ) and the fence is attractive . Com . Arbus : Has a problem approving a variance . He agrees a 6 foot fence does give more security than a 5 foot fence , but a 7 foot fence gives more security than a 6 foot fence and an 8 foot fence more security than a 7 foot fence , etc . The next door neighbor is coming in and other neighbors could conceivably come in with similar requests . He suggested ail residents with lots bordering a retention basin be granted the right to have a 6 foot fence . Ch. Heinrich responded that this could not be done because each variance request must be considered with its own cir- cumstances . Does Com . Arbus object to the fence? Com. Arbus said he does not object because of the proximity of the retention basin. The fence is attractive and he understands the safety issue . but he does not think kids could jump a five foot (6 ' ) fence from the bike path. Mrs . Friedman said that only their lot and the Stupeii ' s lot back up to the retention pond and without it they could have a six foot (6 ' ) fence without a variance . Mr . Friedman added that the bike path encourages kids to be near their property. He has seen kids swimming in the pond at night , and they want to prevent them from entering the yard . i Ch. Heinrich agreed that retention ponds are illegally used for swimming and fishing . Com . Kearns : No objections based on the location of the retention pond . bike path and future park . _ No precedent will be set for future requests , Com . Entman : Understands the circumstances . The property , :,;, ,,Y.. is graded up toward the house and the fence a --�- is about ten feet ( 10 ' ) from the bike path. No other residents will be affected because the property is so far away from Weiland Rd . He would not consider giving carte blanche variances . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS �../ October 15 . 1991 - Page Fourteen Com . Entman asked for clarification of the August 22 . 1991 Field Inspection Report item about not using the gas grill and about the self-closing gate on the spa . Mrs . Friedman replied that the wind screen was too close to the grill and that has been remedied . The lock has been installed . The deck and the fence are on the same permit so they are waiting the outcome of the fence variance before calling for re-inspection of the deck and fence . It was the contractor ' s mistake by not taking out the proper permit and if the variance is not granted , he will have to come back and cut it down for nothing . Ch. Heinrich advised Mr . Schar that the contractor should be admonished about the permit application and any future work in the Village . Comments from the audience : Mr . Alan Stupell , 837 Horatio Blvd . was present and said he is requesting a variance of the Fence Code for the same reasons . Com . Arbus asked if the Friedmans investigated the Village codes before they planned the spa and fence? Mr . Friedman responded "no" because they hired a contractor . They originally intended to put in a swimming pool , but changed their minds after their baby was born. They feel a hot tub with a locked top is safer . Com . Entman asked if the fence blocks the view of the lake? Mrs . Friedman said they can see the lake from the deck . Com . Paul made the following motion: I move we grant the petition of Wayne and Tf4 Debbie Friedman , 813 Horatio Boulevard , for ;;r variance of the Fence Code . Sec . 15 . 20 . 040 , , pertaining to Residential Districts , for the purpose of permitting a six foot ( 6 ' ) wood privacy fence . KS Said fence would not be detrimental to the public health , safety and welfare . Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman, Kearns , Windecker , Paul and Heinrich G NAY - None M z ABSTAIN - Arbus m,{, r Motion Passed - 5 to 0 , 1 abstention. Findings of Fact Attached . Permit previously issued - reason for variance . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 15 , 1991 - Page Fifteen Com . Kearns left at 9 : 50 P. M. G. 837 Horatio Boulevard . Alan C . and Ardrea J . Stupell Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts Request for a six foot ( 6 ' ) wood privacy fence Alan Stupell was sworn in and the public hearing notice was read . Mr . Stupeli summarized the reasons for requesting variance for the purpose of constructing a six foot (6 ' ) fence : 1 . The retention pond and bike path are to the rear of his property . 2 . There is a proposed park that will be next to the pond . 3 . People come into the yard now , so they want more privacy and safety for their children. The Commissioners had no objections or questions . Com. Arbus repeated his suggestion that the Fence Code be modified to permit six foot ( 6 ' ) fences in all similar circumstances . Com . Entman made the following motion: I move the petition of Alan C . and Andrea J . Stupell , 837 Horatio Blvd . for variance of the Fence Code , Sec . 15 . 20 . 040 , pertaining to Residential Districts , for the purpose of constructing a six foot (6 ' ) wood privacy fence . be granted , per survey attached to the petition. Said fence will match the fence at 843 Horatio Blvd . and will meet along the same line at the rear of the property . ,;`� '`'-` Petitioner has exhibited that construction of the fence and the granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public health . safety and welfare . "'''r�' Com . Windecker seconded the motion. troll Call Vote : AYL - Paul . Windecker , Entman and Heinrich NAY - None . ABSTAIN - Arbus Motion Passed - 4 to 0 , 1 abstention. Findings of Fact Attached . h--vow Permit may be issued after 15 days - October 31 , 1991 . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 15 , 1991 - Page Sixteen V . ANNOUNCEMENTS 1 . A draft of Sign Code revisions is not ready . 2 . Ch . Heinrich proposed changing the authority for granting variances for Accessory Buildings and Structures from the Village Board to the Zoning Board of Appeals . This would require a change of the Zoning Ordinance . Mr . Dempsey informed the ZBA Commissioners that one Sign Code topic will be discussed by the Village Board on Monday , October 21 , 1991 . It is relative to permitting Open House real estate signs in the right -of -way between Noon and 5 PM on Sunday . The size of such signs would be limited to 6 sf . Ch . Heinrich ' s preference would be to wait and have all the Sign Code revisions made at the same time . Mr . Dempsey responded that the Trustees are concerned because of the number of signs that are being placed in the right-of-way in violation of the ordinance . Directional signs are needed and the content of the signs can be controlled if they are permitted during specific hours . He agreed to discuss the matter with Bili Raysa . VI . ADJOURNMENT Com . Windecker made a motion to adjourn . Com . Arbus seconded the motion . Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously . Ch . Heinrich adjourned the meeting at 10 : 00 P . M . Respectfully submitted , -,,o1w*wr: Shirley Bates Recording Secretary .„11111Ar1:} ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 15 . 1991 - Page Seventeen sb