1991-12-17 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE , ILLINOIS
TUESDAY . DECEMBER 17 , 1991
I . CALL TO ORDER
Ch . Richard Heinrich called the meeting to order at 8 : 12 P . M .
on Tuesday . December 17 . 1991 at the Village Hall , 50 Raupp Blvd .
II . ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present : J . Paul , B . Entman , H . Fields , L . Windecker ,
L . Arbus and R . Heinrich . QUORUM .
Commissioners Absent : M . Kearns
Bidg . Dept . Liaison : Edward Schar , Deputy Building Commissioner
Village Board Liaison : William Reid , Trustee
Village Attorney : Tom Dempsey
III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES
November 19 , 1991 - Motion to approve was made by Com . Windecker and
seconded by Com . Entman . Correction - Page Two :
Motion was seconded by Com . Windecker .
not Com . Lewandowski .
Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman , Fields , Windecker , Heinrich
NAY - None
ABSTAIN - Arbus
Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . 1 abstention
J" BUSINESS
A . 583 Carriage Way Drive . Elaine Stevens
Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 02e , pertaining to :
Area , Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations
Elaine Stevens was sworn in and the Public Hearing Notice was
read . Three variances are requested :
1 . Encroach ten feet ( 10 ' ) into the required rear yard
2 . Encroach one foot ( 1 ' ) into the required side yard
3 . One foot , three inches ( 1 ' 3 " ) to bring the principal
structure into conformance with the zoning ordinance
Mrs . Stevens summarized the reasons for requesting variances :
1 . Provide a larger family room . The house is small
and has no basement .
2 . Mrs . Stevens ' son and daughter live with her .
They have occupied the home for 18 years , like
the area and do not want to leave B . G .
Ch . Heinrich read a letter from Tom Miller , 579 Carriage Way , a
neighbor who lives two houses away . He asked several questions :
1 . Would the extension be 1 -story .
2 . The rear yard slopes . Can the extension be built ?
3 . Will there be a new patio at the rear of the extension?
Mr . Miller ' s letter expressed concern about blocking the open
view of the backyards in the area.
Mrs . Stevens said she discussed the addition with her closest
neighbors , but did not discuss the addition with Mr . Miller .
The addition will be 1-story. The slope of the yard begins
about 3 to 4 feet beyond the proposed addition. There will be
a door on the south side of the addition and that is where
there will be a new patio . It will not be toward the rear .
Ch. Heinrich asked if other alternatives have been considered
and why will the addition extend into the side yard? Could
it be moved more to the south?
Mrs . Stevens said the extra foot would give more room and there
is a window in the dining room so it could not go farther south.
She was willing to agree to eliminate the additional space and
have the addition built flush with the house .
Fred Emshwiller, 585 Carriage Way Drive . the neighbor to the
south, was present . He said he has no objections to the
proposed addition, including the new patio .
Mr . Miller ' s house is two doors away to the north. Mrs . Stevens
said she talked to her next door neighbors to the north and they
do not object to the proposed addition.
Mrs . Stevens said the materials of the addition will match the
existing structure .
Comments from Commissioners :
Com. Paul : Asked if they looked at the possibility of
constructing the addition farther toward middle of the yard?
Mrs . Stevens replied that they want to extend the family room
and keep the dining room as it is .
Mr . Schar explained that the Zoning Ordinance requires a com-
bined side yard of fourteen feet ( 14' ) and the existing
principal structure does not meet this requirement , so a one
foot , three inch ( 1 ' 3" ) variance is needed to make it comply,
not including the one foot ( 1 ' ) side yard variance.
Com. Paul : Said he would prefer to have the addition made
straight so as not to compound the problem any more . He has
no objections since the neighbors to the rear do not object .
Com. Windecker : Would want to eliminate the side yard variance .
Com. Arbus : Asked if the one foot ( 1 ' ) side variance is
eliminated , would there still be room for the fireplace?
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
December 17 , 1991 - Page Two •
A representative from Space Home Improvements was present . He
said it would be possible to relocate the fireplace .
Com. Entman: Had no objections . if the addition is flush with
the house . He has considered Mr . Miller ' s comments , but if the
neighbors to the rear do not object , it should not be a problem.
Com. Fields : Asked Mrs . Stevens if she had talked to the
neighbor directly to the east? The addition would be a total of
eighteen feet ( 18 ' ) closer to them and the rear yard does slope .
They are not here to object . so he has no problem with the
variance .
Mrs . Stevens said she did talk to the people who live two
doors down from the people to the east . She was told that
the proposed addition had been discussed between them and there
were no objections .
Com. Windecker made the following motion:
I move we grant the variance requested by Elaine
Stevens , 583 Carriage Way Drive . for variance of
Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 , pertaining to :
Area , Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations , for the
purpose of constructing an addition that require
the following variations :
1 . Encroach a distance of ten feet ( 10 ' ) into the
required rear yard setback
2 . One foot . three inches ( 1 ' 3" ) to bring the
principal structure into conformance with the
zoning ordinance
Petitioner has agreed to amend the petition on its face
to eliminate the request for a one foot ( 1 ' ) variance
into the side yard . The addition is to be 15 . 6 ' x 18 '
and materials are to match the existing construction in
like kind and quality . The addition is to be constructed
pursuant to plans submitted to and approved by the Village .
Petitioner has exhibited hardship and unique circumstances .
The proposed addition will not be detrimental to the essen-
tial character of the neighborhood .
The Village Engineer ' s Drainage Review, dated Nov. 4 , 1991 ,
states that no alteration of the grade is allowed within
five feet (5 ' ) of any swale , any rear or any side lot line .
Com. Arbus seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman, Fields , Paul , Arbus ,
Windecker and Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached .
Permit may be issued in 15 days - January 2 , 1992 .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
December 17 , 1991 - Page Three
B. 56 Carlyle Lane , David and Edith Feltman
Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts
David Feltman was sworn in and the Public Hearing Notice was
read . Mr . Feltman summarized the reasons for requesting a
variance of the Fence Code for the purpose of constructing a six
foot (6 ' ) fence that would extend past the building line at the
corner of Carlyle Lane and Brandywyn Lane :
1 . Brandywyn Lane is an increasingly busy street
and the Feltmans have a 10 month old son who
will need the protection of a fenced in yard .
2 . The Feltmans also have two dogs and the fence
will confine them.
3 . There is a large farm across Brandywyn Lane ,
in the unincorporated area. Wind blows dirt
and debris into their yard .
The Village Engineer submitted two line-of-sight reviews .
One , dated December 2 , 1991 , states : "The fence should be
relocated as shown so as not to restrict the desired line-of-
sight . The abutting driveway is not affected , although the
fence should be setback five feet (5 ' ) from the sidewalk . "
The second , dated December 10 , 1991 , amends the December 2nd
review. It states : "Since the abutting property' s driveway is
not affected , the fence could be closer to the sidewalk (5 ft . )
We would suggest an absolute minimum of two (2) feet . "
Ch. Heinrich asked Mr . Feltman if he has discussed the fence
with his neighbor to the west on Brandywyn (to the rear )?
Mr . Feltman responded that he has discussed the fence with all
his neighbors personally except the farm owners . There were no
objections .
Robert and Susan Binetti , 54 Carlyle Lane , direct neighbors
to the north were present . Mr . Binetti said they were not
contacted personally. They received the Village letter .
Mr . Feltman said flyers were put into mailboxes . He spoke
personally with the Cohens across the street at 47 Carlyle
and the two neighbors to the rear .
Mr . and Mrs . Binetti were shown a plat of survey and informed
that the request is for a six foot (6 ' ) stockade fence that
would encroach into the side yard past the building line .
Mr . Feltman explained that after they got the first line-of-
sight drawing from the Village Engineer , they relocated the
fence from the front of the garage to the back of the garage ,
so it will not be angled .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
December 17 , 1991 - Page Four
Mr . Feltman said it is his understanding that because he has a
corner lot there is a thirty foot (30 ' ) building restriction
along the side of his house . He requested a six foot fence for
privacy because there are many joggers and pedestrians that use
Brandywyn and they could look over a five foot (5 ' ) fence .
He also has future plans to put a swimming pool in the yard .
He is willing to compromise with the Village on the style of
fence .
Mr . Binetti recalled that before the Feltman' s house was built
the developer had left a large dirt pile on the corner and it
obstructed the line-of-sight .
Mr . Feltman said he was aware the dirt pile was there before
the sidewalk was put in and it was very close to the street .
Now there is a parkway plus the sidewalk plus two feet (2 ' )
Mrs . Binetti objected because this would be the only fence
along Brandywyn and the fence would block their view. She
agreed that the height would not affect the view if there is
going to be a fence there .
Ch. Heinrich said the benefits of having the fence would be
that it would also fence their yard and they would be seeing
the smooth side because it is a Fence Code requirement .
Comments from Commissioners :
Com. Paul said he observed that the area is very open and the
sidewalk is extra wide . His recommendation would be to set
the fence back twenty feet (20 ' ) . The Feltmans have a very
large back yard and they would not be penalized if they were
to keep the fence back so the area is kept open. He under-
stands the reasons for requesting a six foot (6 ' ) fence .
Mr . Feltman responded that because fences are so expensive ,
they are not the first thing people want when they purchase
a new house . Their situation is different because of the dogs .
Only the houses along Brandywyn Lane have the dirt problem
caused by the wind blowing across from the farm. He said the
size of the yard would be affected if they were to have to
give up twenty feet of property , it would mean giving up about
one-half of the side yard , particularly if they put a pool in
back of the house . The only play area left is the side yard .
Ch. Heinrich calculated that the lot, is very large . There is
sixty-six feet (66 ' ) from the house to the rear lot line . He
said it is a purchaser ' s responsibility to research the Codes
before purchasing property and know what the restrictions are .
Mr . Feltman responded that within a 1-mile radius of his house .
there are many fences , mostly along Buffalo Grove Road , that
have fences closer than two feet from the sidewalk .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
December 17 , 1991 - Page Five
Ch. Heinrich informed Mr . Feitman that Buffalo Grove Road is a
major road and fences are permitted up to the rear lot line .
Typically the ZBA has limited side yard fences and has not
permitted them to be as close as the original request or even
the five feet (5 ' ) . He is concerned about the affect the
proposed fence would have on the neighbors to the rear .
Mr . Feitman responded that this neighbor has put in a bush line
closer than the fence he is requesting . There are a number of
corner fences within a mile radius with fences closer to the
sidewalk than he is requesting . He does not know their circum-
stances and they are not six foot (6 ' ) fences . He was aware of
the restrictions of the Fence Code when he bought the house ,
and if the fence is kept as far back as Com. Paul proposed , he
would not only have to cut the lawn area , but he would have to
deal with the dirt that blows across the street .
Ch. Heinrich said the farm will not be there forever and houses
will some day be constructed on that property.
Mr . Feltman asked why the ZBA differs from the Village
Engineer ' s review?
Ch. Heinrich stated the Zoning Board not only considers the
Village Engineer ' s Line-of-Sight Review , but also determines
whether proposed fences will alter the essential character of
the neighborhood . In his opinion, a six-foot (6 ' ) stockade
fence extended out to a distance of two feet (2 ' ) or five feet
(5 ' ) from the sidewalk would alter the essential character of
the neighborhood .
Mr . Feitman confirmed that there is no limitation or permit
necessary to have a bush line two feet from the sidewalk and
asked if the ZBA would object to his planting bushes with a
fence inside the bush line that would be lower than the bushes?
The bushes would not confine their dogs to the yard .
Com. Paul observed that bushes could die leaving the fence out
to the sidewalk . It is the responsibility of the ZBA to con-
sider all aspects of the situation, such as the house being
sold and the bushes removed.
Mr . Feltman said they need the fence for privacy because they
plan to put a swimming pool in the yard . He questioned what
difference the size of the lot has to do with aesthetics and
the character of the neighborhood?
Mr . Dempsey responded that there is no precedence involved
in discussing a fence variance . Each situation is handled
individually on a case by case basis . The decision of the
ZBA is determined by the presentation of the facts and whether
or not a fence variation is warranted depends on how it will
affect the public health, safety and welfare of the area.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
December 17 , 1991 - Page Six
Com. Windecker asked Mr . Feltman if the fence between the houses
would be six feet (6 ' ) in height? The answer was "yes . "
Com. Windecker said he would not support a six foot (6 ' ) fence
along the side lot lines because it would not be appropriate for
the aesthetics of the area. The ordinance only requires a four
foot (4 ' ) fence with a swimming pool . The fence would have to
be set back more than five feet (5 ' ) from the sidewalk .
Mr . Feltman persisted in questioning why the aesthetics of the
area are a determining factor when other residents with very
similar hardship reasons have been granted variances . He said
he makes that assumption based upon conversations he has had
with people who have gotten variances . He did not attend any
other public hearing.
Com. Arbus said that as the newest member of the ZBA, he has
observed that each fence variance is considered individually.
One of the consistent standards has been the maintenance of
the aesthetics of the Village . As he drove through the
neighborhood when looking at the subject property, he recalled
a similar lot on Countryside Drive in the Windfield subdivision
where the petitioner was permitted to have a four foot (4 ' )
picket fence about fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) from the sidewalk . This
was next to a field with a big dirt hill . He could not support
this six foot (6 ' ) fence because there is no compelling reason
to believe that a six foot (6 ' ) fence would be better than a
five foot (5 ' ) fence with regard to the wind blowing the dirt .
Since he has been on the ZBA, he cannot recall any variance
being granted two feet (2 ' ) to five feet (5 ' ) from the sidewalk .
He would approve a five foot (5 ' ) fence , somewhere in the area
of fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) to twenty feet (20 ' ) from the sidewalk ,
but no closer , because of the danger and the aesthetic welfare
of the neighborhood.
Mr . Feltman said the height of the fence is not as important as
the distance to the sidewalk . He would compromise on height ,
but he would not build a fence fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) from the
sidewalk . He would build an eight :soot (8 ' ) or nine foot (9 ' )
bush line . He said he finds it baffling that the members of the
commission would find that less offensive than a well-kept five
foot (5 ' ) or six foot (6 ' ) fence . He will not violate the ZBA' s
decision.
Com. Entman said he is not convinced that the petitioner has
indicated real hardship , but the standard does not require
tremendous hardship. The petitioner ' s letter states several
reasons for wanting the fence and it also states two aspects
of the fence , i . e. height and placement . With regard to the
the issue of the farm . he is not convinced that a six foot (6 ' )
fence would be much better than a five foot (5 ' ) fence for the
purpose of getting relief from the dirt blowing from the farm.
He has not heard anything that convinces him that the position
of the fence should be up to the sidewalk . He agrees with the
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
December 17 , 1991 - Page Seven
issue of the safety of the child , he has heard nothing to
indicate that a six foot (6 ' ) fence , nor the placement of the
fence , would prevent a child from running out into traffic .
These are not relevant reasons for granting a six foot (6 ' )
fence close to the sidewalk . With regard to the issue of the
bush line , it would probably be more pleasing than a fence
which would give a walled city effect . The Village has police
power to handle the bushes if they become problem. It is his
opinion that there is no need for a six foot (6 ' ) fence and he
would not approve one . Regarding placement . he is opposed to
a fence being close to the sidewalk . He is open to discussion
with regard to distance but he would agree it should be within
the parameters discussed earlier . He believes that aesthetics
are certainly a part of public health, safety and welfare .
He understands Mr . Feltman' s desire to utilize his yard .
Com. Fields observed that if the petitioner ' s neighbor to the
rear wanted a fence it would require a variance for the side
yard along Brandywyn also . Seemingly , the petitioner has
indicated that his top priority is to have a fence as close to
the sidewalk as possible . Without a variance , a three foot ( 3 ' )
ornamental fence could be put up , but Mr . Feltman rejected this
option. Com. Fields asked Mr . Feltman if he would consider a
four foot (4 ' ) open picket fence ten feet from the lot line .
Mr . Feltman said this would not be sufficient for a pool . Ten
feet from the lot line is approximately 1 /3 the side yard
distance .
\''1 Com. Fields calculated that without a variance the yard would
be slightly over 5 ,000 feet ( 1/8 of an acre) and substantially
larger than most rear yards . The lot size is slightly over
1/3 of an acre and he understands Mr . Feltman' s desire to want
to get the maximum use out of the lot .
Com. Fields asked if a five foot ( 5 ' ) fence fifteen feet ( 15 ' )
from the lot line would be acceptable? The answer was "no. "
Com. Fields said landscaping is not as offensive as a wall that
is built close to the lot line . He could not support a six foot
(6 ' ) fence .
Mr . Feltman commented that he is hearing the main reason for
opposing his preferred fence is aesthetics and not that the
fence would be a danger .
Ch. Heinrich explained how aesthetics relates to the welfare of
the neighborhood . Each area of Buffalo Grove is unique and each
set of circumstances is unique . A fence two feet (2 ' ) to five
feet (5 ' ) from the sidewalk is not warranted and would be
detrimental to the essential character of the neighborhood .
Mr . Feltman said he thought the people of the neighborhood
should determine what is offensive to the essential character of
that neighborhood.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
December 17 , 1991 - Page Eight
Mr . Dempsey said it is the responsibility of the Zoning Board
to enforce the Fence Code . They must make a determination
whether a fence is detrimental to the public health, safety and
welfare when granting a variance . Mr . Feltman can put up a five
foot (5 ' ) fence along the building line and no one can stop him,
but no one is legally entitled to a variance unless they
demonstrate to the Zoning Board of Appeals that it would not be
detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare .
Com. Paul commented that the neighborhood goes beyond the people
who were give written notice of the public hearing . People who
use Brandywyn to drive through there every day and who may be
very upset to see a row of fences two feet (2 ' ) or five (5 ' )
from the sidewalk , especially those who have spent a lot of
money to have a nice neighborhood .
Com . Entman cautioned Mr . Feltman not to confuse lack of
objection with approval .
Mr . Feltman asked if it would make a difference if he brought
people in to give their approval?
Ch. Heinrich said it would not make a difference to him, because
it is his charge to determine to the best of his ability, using
his twenty years (20) of experience , whether a fence meets the
criteria. A fence five feet (5 ' ) feet from the sidewalk is not
warranted in this case .
Mr . Feltman said he would like to reach an acceptable conclusion
and asked if it would be acceptable to the ZBA if he put in a
bush line along Brandywyn? He would still need a variance along
the rear lot line up to the bush line.
Ch. Heinrich said this was not acceptable to him. He would
agree with a fence fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) from the sidewalk along
Brandywyn. He does not have a problem with a six foot (6 ' )
fence along Brandywyn, but would want the fence to be five feet
(5 ' ) to the north abutting other property. Many people have
been asked to taper their fences and this could be done .
Mr . and Mrs . Binetti were still in the audience and said the
height is not the main issue , but they would prefer the fence
abutting their yard to be five feet (5 ' ) .
Com. Paul observed that if a fence was extended from the build-
ing line out toward the sidewalk , it would be seen by people
traveling from the west to the east .
Mr . Feltman asked for the board to be polled to determine if
a compromise could be reached.
Com. Paul : 5 ' fence - 15 ' from the sidewalk , or a
6 ' scalloped down to 5 ' - 20 ' from the sidewalk
Com. Windecker : 5 ' fence - 15 ' from the sidewalk
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
December 17 , 1991 - Page Nine
Com. Aubus : Agreed with Com. Paul
Com. Entman: Would support Com. Paul ' s alternatives , but
not 6 ' feet between the abutting property
Com. Fields : Not 6 feet . Would permit a 5 ' board-on-board
with 1 " spaces - 15 ' to 20 ' from the lot line
Ch. Heinrich agreed with the consensus of fifteen feet ( 15 ' )
from the sidewalk and five feet (5 ' ) in height . Personally,
he could vote for a 6 ' fence scalloped down to 5-1/2 ' .
Mr . Feltman confirmed that if he agreed to amend his petition on
its face he would lose his right to appeal . His decision was
not to amend the petition, so he can appeal .
Ch. Heinrich informed Mr . Feltman of his appeal rights to
the Village Board and subsequent to their decision, if the
ZBA decision is upheld , further appeal can be made to Circuit
Court . He can also petition for a different variance .
Com. Arbus said he drove past the property two times and did
not see a sign posted on the property.
Mr . Feltman said that the sign was placed on Carlyle and after
the wind blew it down several times , left it face down.
Com. Fields made the following motion:
I move we grant to petition of David and Edith Feltman,
56 Carlyle Lane , for variance of Fence Code ,
Section 15 . 20 . 040 , pertaining to Residential Districts ,
for the purpose of constructing a six foot (6 ' ) fence
that would extend past the building line at the corner
of Carlyle Lane and Brandywyn Lane .
Petitioner requests a variance to build the six fence
(6 ' ) fence to within two feet (2 ' ) of the sidewalk
along the building line and along the interior lot
lines .
Said fence would not be detrimental to the public health,
and welfare of the neighborhood and would not alter the
essential character of the neighborhood .
Com. Paul seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote : AYE - None
NAY - Paul , Windecker , Arbus . Entman,
Fields and Heinrich
Variance DENIED - 6 to 0 . because the fence would be detri-
mental to the public health, safety and welfare of the
neighborhood ; and would alter the essential character of the
neighborhood . Findings of Fact Attached . Mr . Feltman was
informed that a written appeal must be sent to the Zoning
Administrator , Frank Hruby , within 15 days - Jan. 2 , 1992 .
He will be notified when to appear before the Village Board .
The Corporate Authorities can overturn a ZBA decision by 2/3
majority vote , with further appeal to the Circuit Court .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
December 17 , 1991 - Page Ten
C. 885 Vernon Court South, Isai and Sara Glickstein
Fence Code . Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts
Isai Glickstein was sworn in and the Public Hearing Notice was
read . Mr . Glickstein summarized the reasons for requesting a
variance of the Fence Code to permit construction of a six foot
( 6 ' ) solid board fence that would extend past the building line
at the corner of Dundee Road . Vernon Lane and Vernon Ct . South:
1 . The house is next to Dundee Road and the
developer built a fence along the rear lot
line next to Dundee Road . He would like to
extend the fence to within five feet (5 ' ) of
the side walk .
2 . A fence will help abate noise from traffic
on Dundee Road
3 . A fence will give them privacy and protection
4 . They want to have the most use of their property
The Village Engineer ' s Review , dated December 2 , 1991 , shows
the sight distance . Further , Village ordinance does not allow
encroachments greater than three feet (3 ' ) in height (above curb
height ) within forty-five feet (45 ' ) of the corner curb lines .
Mr . Glickstein said he understood this and that is why he would
angle the fence from the building line west to five feet (5 ' )
from the the sidewalk . He is only one neighboring house and
they the fence will be good for them also .
Ch. Heinrich said he could not approve a six foot (6 ' ) fence
that close to the sidewalk , but he could support a five foot
(5 ' ) fence off Vernon Lane fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) from the sidewalk .
This would give them fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) beyond the house .
Comments from Commissioners :
Com. Paul : Agreed with Ch. Heinrich' s suggestion and added that
the angled section from Dundee Road toward Vernon Lane could be
a transition piece from six feet (6 ' ) down to five feet (5 ' ) ;
Com. Windecker : Also agreed and said he would want the height
of the fence between the houses to be five feet (5 ' ) . He added
that it would not have to be tapered here .
Com. Arbus : Noticed that many of the houses in the subdivision
have corner lot fences , but they are constructed at the building
lines , which is a credit to the neighborhood. However , this
house , being just off Dundee Road , warrants special considera-
tion and he could support a fence ten feet ( 10 ' ) from the side-
walk , without altering the essential characteristics of the
neighborhood . He would support the five foot (5 ' ) height and
fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) from the sidewalk is acceptable .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
December 17 , 1991 - Page Eleven
Com. Fields : Agreed the lot is unusual . He confirmed that the
fence would be solid board-on-board and agreed with a five foot
(5 ' ) fence fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) from the sidewalk . Note : The
sidewalk appears to be outside the lot line .
Ch. Heinrich explained to Mr . and Mrs . Glickstein that the ZBA
consensus of the Zoning Board was that a variance could be
granted for a five foot (5 ' ) fence constructed fifteen feet
( 15 ' ) from the sidewalk , with a tapered transition section.
This would give them the privacy they are seeking and eliminate
the noise .
The Glicksteins hesitated to amend their petition so Ch. Hein-
rich explained their right to appeal to the Village Board .
Mr . and Mrs . Glickstein discussed this option and agreed to
amend the petition on it face to request a five foot (5 ' ) solid
fence that would be constructed fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) off the
sidewalk along Vernon Lane , with a transition piece to be
tapered from six feet (6 ' ) down to five feet ( 5 ' ) angled from
Dundee Road west to Vernon Lane . They withdrew the request for
a six foot (6 ' ) fence on the east lot line where a height of
five feet ( 5 ' ) is permissible .
Com. Paul made the following motion:
I move we ;rant the variance requested by Isai and
Sarah Glickstein, 885 , Vernon Court South, for
variance of Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 , pertaining
to Residential Districts for the purpose of constructing
a five foot (5 ' ) solid wood privacy fence that would
extend past the building line a distance of fifteen
feet ( 15 ' ) east of the sidewalk along Vernon Lane .
with a transition section from six feet (6 ' ) down
to five feet (5 ' ) on a diagonal at the southwest
corner of the lot .
Fence to be constructed pursuant to the Village Engineer ' s
Review with the condition that the fence remain outside
the forty-five foot radius as shown.
Petitioner having demonstrated unique circumstances ,
said fence would not be detrimental to the public
health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood.
Com. Windecker seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote : AYE - Fields , Entman, Paul , Windecker ,
Arbus and Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached .
Permit may be issued in fifteen days - January 2 , 1992 .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
December 17 . 1991 - Page Twelve
D. Commerce Center , Lot 26 on Hastings Drive - Seth Pines
Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 48 . 020 - Industrial Dist . Lot Area
Mr . Seth Pines , the prospective developer of the property and
authorized agent for the property owner , was sworn in. The
Public Hearing Notice was read . The ZBA will make a recommenda-
tion to the Corporate Authorities because the property is zoned
Industrial . Mr . Pines is subdividing the property, known as Lot
26 on Hastings Drive in the Commerce Center , and is requesting a
variance to permit one lot to have less than the minimum one
hundred feet ( 100 ' ) property frontage . He can have greater
success developing the property as two smaller lots instead of
one large lot . Lot 26 is comprised of approximately 3-1/3 acres
and he proposes to sub divide the property so that the lot to
the south would be 1 . 33 acres and the lot to the north would be
2 acres . From a marketing perspective , it is more feasible to
develop the property into two buildable lots .
Procedurally , after the variance is granted , a new sub-division
plat can be drawn up and submitted to the Village Engineer for
approval .
Ch. Heinrich noted that the plat of survey shows a detention
area of . 72 acres on the 1 . 33 acre lot and he asked Mr . Pines
if it is possible to meet the requirements?
Mr . Pines said there is an existing storm water detention
easement and a storm water detention pond that will not be
altered. On the proposed 1 . 33 acre lot , there is sufficient
parking for 22 cars and a 10 , 000 square foot building with 50%
office space and 50% warehouse space . The front yard setback
requirement of 25 feet and the side and rear setbacks of 15 foot
can all be met .
Mr . Pines said he can build a 20 ,000 square foot building on the
2 acre lot . The street frontage has been angled to achieve the
100 foot requirement and more buildable square footage for the
south lot and not compromise the street frontage . The north lot
will have street frontage of 95 . 43 feet if a variance is
granted . He proposes to construct one-story office/warehouse
type buildings consistent with the existing Commerce Center .
Mr . and Mrs . Robert Van Ornum, 449 Carman Avenue , were present .
Their property is next to the bike path just north of the
Industrial Park and they were aware of the adjacent zoning . The
proposed construction is not a problem , but they are concerned
about the appearance and maintenance of the area next to the
bike path.
The Zoning Ordinance' requires the building to be a distance of
sixty feet (60 ' ) from the residential property and a there is a
required buffer area which could be a fence or natural vegeta-
tion screen.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
December 17 , 1991 - Page Thirteen
E. Michael ' s Chicago-Style Red Hots
340 Half Day Road at Woodland Commons
Sign Code , Section 14 . 20 . 030 - Business Districts
Second wall sign on the south elevation
Michael Hoffman, owner of the business , was sworn in and the
Public Hearing Notice was read . Mr . Hoffman explained that he
is in the difficult position of having a lease agreement with
The Zale Group that permits the second wall sign on the south
elevation of his store location, but has found it necessary to
seek a variance in order to be in compliance with the Village
Sign Code . The Michael ' s lease is dated August 29 , 1990 .
Ch. Heinrich responded that the Village ' s interpretation of
the Sign Code does not permit the second wall sign, and when a
similar situation developed with Blockbuster Video , public hear-
ings were held before a variance was granted .
Mr . Hoffman said the location (with higher rent) was chosen
because it appeared to be a corner lot , and the second sign was
promised . The sign permitted by the Sign Code is on the west
elevation and is only visible to people traveling east on Half
Day Road , so a sign on the south elevation is necessary to
attract customers traveling west on Half Day Road . He wants to
abide by the city codes and his plight with Zale is a separate
issue . He presented photographs of the sign on the west eleva-
tion of the building and requested a variance for an identical
wall sign on the south elevation.
Mr . Hoffman said there was also a misunderstanding about the
size of the sign that would be permitted on the west elevation
and he consented to a reduction in height from thirty-six (36)
inch letters to thirty (30) inch letters .
Ch. Heinrich asked Mr . Hoffman if he would have selected a sign
on the south elevation if he had known that only one sign would
be permitted? Does he feel the sign on the west elevation is
crucial? "Word of mouth" is very effective advertising.
Mr . Hoffman responded that he would have chosen a different
location if he had known he could only have one sign. The sign
facing west is secondary , but it is necessary for visibility
from the shopping center . For initial public contact , they
wanted double exposure .
Com. Windecker recalled the testimony given by the Zale repre-
sentative at the Blockbuster hearing was that "no other spaces
have been given a similar right , " i . e . to have two signs .
See : ZBA - July 16 , 1991 minutes)
Ch. Heinrich noted that pg . 18 of the July 16 , 1991 ZBA minutes
states that the flower shop in Bldg. B qualifies for two signs .
The developer has put this petitioner in a difficult position.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
December 17 , 1991 - Page Fifteen
Mr . and Mrs . Van Ornum expressed a preference for natural
vegetation instead of fence , but they would want to have it
maintained by the developer . Ch. Heinrich observed that the
proposed subdivision of the property, with two buildings , will
have less square foot coverage than one larger building , which
would be permitted .
Comments from Commissioners :
Com. Paul : No objections . The proposal will be more beneficial
to the community to have two businesses there than to leave it
undeveloped.
Com. Windecker : No objections .
Com. Arbus : No objections , as long as neighbors do not object .
Com. Fields : Gave a disclosure that through his employment , he
is a competing landlord to what this project would be , but this
would not affect his decision and he has no objection.
Com. Entman: Stated for the record that he has had professional
and personal contact with Lexington Development Corporation, but
this would have no bearing on his decision. He sees no problem
with the proposed variance and said it would be a nice land use .
Com. Arbus made the following motion:
I move we recommend to the Village Board of Trustees
approval of the request made by Seth Pines , Agent for
American National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago as
Trustee under Trust No . 52235 , for variance of Zoning
Ordinance , Section 17 . 48 . 020 , pertaining to Industrial
District Lot Area , for the purpose of permitting Lot 26 in
Buffalo Grove Commerce Center , Unit 2B on Hastings Drive
to have less than the minimum one hundred foot ( 100 ' )
frontage .
Petitioner having demonstrated that the property in question
cannot yield a reasonable return under the existing zoning
conditions . The plight of the owner is due to unique circum-
stances . The proposed variation will not alter the essential
character of the neighborhood .
Conditions imposed: The transitional yard is to be covered
with vegetation subject to approval by the Village Forester and
the Appearance Commission.
Com. Windecker seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman, Fields , Paul , Windecker ,
Arbus and Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached .
This item will be sent to the Village Board on Jan. 6 , 1992 .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
December 17 , 1991 - Page Fourteen
Com . Windecker wondered if there were any other lease agreements
that grant tenants additional signs and what could the ZBA do to
prevent repetition of this practice?
Mr . Hoffman described the proposed sign on the south elevation.
It is identical to the Michael ' s Chicago-Style Red Hots sign on
the west elevation and is consistent with the Woodland Commons
Sign Criteria for the other signs on the south elevation.
Ch. Heinrich said he is not opposed to the variance and agreed
there should be a sign on the south elevation because that is
where traffic will see it , but he asked Mr . Hoffman if he felt
two signs are necessary.
Mr . Hoffman responded they have two entrances and they do want
two signs . That is why he and his partners selected the space .
Com. Paul agreed that the sign on the west elevation is the only
sign that would be seen from the parking lot and from B.G. Road .
He has no problem with the request .
Com. Windecker said he is sympathetic with the petitioner , but
he has a problem setting a precedent .
Com. Arbus is acquainted with Mr . Mankoff (a partner) but this
will not affect his decision. The configuration of the shopping
center is such that there should be a sign on both faces .
Com. Entman said he has personal and professional contact with
The Zale Group , but this will not affect his decision. It is
very important that the developer not put a tenant into such a
situation. The proposed sign is needed and will not interfere
with any of the surrounding residents ' view. He questioned
where the sign would be permitted for Space J-1 to the east?
Com. Fields said he has no problem with the proposed sign.
He commented that when a building is constructed on out-parcel
B, it will block the sign.
Ch. Heinrich said he has no objections to this sign. He asked
the Village Attorney to suggest options for preventing similar
situations from developing in the future .
Com. Entman made the following motion:
I move we recommend to the Corporate Authorities that
the request made on behalf of Zale Group , Inc . by
Michael ' s Chicago-Style Red Hots at 340 Half Day Road ,
Space H-7 , for variance of Sign Code , Section 14 . 20 . 030 ,
pertaining to Business Districts , for the purpose of
erecting a second wall sign on the south elevation at the
Woodland Commons Shopping Center , be granted .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
December 17 , 1991 - Page Sixteen
In addition, pursuant to Sign Code , Section 14 . 44 . 010 ,
pertaining to Variance - Conditions for granting :
The petitioner has shown that there does in fact exist :
1 . The literal interpretation and strict application
of the provisions and requirements of this title
would cause undue and unnecessary hardships to
the sign user because of unique or unusual condi-
tions pertaining to the specific building or
parcel or property in questions ;
2 . The granting of the requested variance would not
be detrimental to the property owners in the
vicinity.
3 . The unusual conditions applying to the specific
property do not apply generally to other
properties in the Village .
4 . The granting of the variance will not be contrary
to the general objective of this title of moderat-
ing the size , number and obtrusive placement of
signs and the reduction of clutter .
The sign is to be pursuant to the plans and drawings
approved by and recommended by the Appearance Commission.
Com. Fields seconded the motion.
Mr . Hoffman asked if the Sign Criteria that was pre-approved by
the Village included this particular signage and if so , why did
ft4, this confusion occur?
Ch. Heinrich replied that Zale took an interpretation that every
face on the building could be used for a sign, but this is not
in conformance with the Sign Code . This was discovered when
they came in for a sign permit . The Zale Group is now aware of
the Sign Code , but at the time the Michael ' s lease was signed ,
Zale thought they could allow two signs .
Roll Call Vote : AYE - Arbus , Paul , Entman, Fields , Heinrich
NAY - Windecker
Motion Passed - 5 to 1 . Findings of Fact Attached .
This item will be sent to the Village Board on Jan. 6 , 1992 .
Ch. Heinrich and Com. Entman qualified their AYE votes , saying
they did not want to penalize the owner . The Village should
find other ways of affecting The Zale Group.
Mr . Dempsey said there are several legal options that could be
used to prevent The Zale Group from repeating the error of
renting spaces that include signs not permitted by the Sign
Code . He suggested writing a letter asking for copies of
all existing leases to determine if they are promising something
they cannot deliver and informing Zale that they must disclose
what signs are available on each unit .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
ftvel December 17 , 1991 - Page Seventeen
Com. Arbus commented that Village action should be counter-
balanced against the tenant ' s best interests .
Com . Fields suggested requiring Zale to post notice in Space J-1
stating that only one sign is permitted , unless a lease has been
signed stating otherwise .
Mr . Greg Jenkins , Woodland Commons architect , was present . He
said the leases are drawn up by Coldwell Banker and signed by
a Zale representative . Regarding the Blockbuster sign, Zale
had gone to the Appearance Commission for recommendation. He
was at the ZBA public hearing when many Zale residents were
present . They raised a variety of issues that did not have
anything to do with signage and the Zale representative was not
prepared to address landscaping , etc . Mr . Jenkins said a letter
to Zale , requesting copies of leases , would be very appropriate .
Com. Windecker defended his denial and said he specifically
recalls Zale ' s representative stating that only the Blockbuster
space was given the right to have two signs .
LETTER TO ZALE CORPORATION
Ch. Heinrich requested correspondence with regard to the
potential lease for space J - 1 , #322 at Woodland Commons .
He drafted the following letter :
Based on the inaccurate testimony given at the August
public hearing by a representative of The Zale Group
and the fact that at this point , the Village may again
be put into a position of correcting a situation created
by The Zale Group. The Zale Group must be notified
that they are only entitled to one ( 1 ) sign on space
J - 1 , #322 and the Village should request copies of
any lease in advance , pertaining to space J - 1 , #322
prior to coming in for a variance so see if there is
a representation in that lease stating that two (2)
signs are permissible and that store can have two (2)
signs . The owner of the store can petition the ZBA for
a variance , but it cannot be contracted with two signs .
After review of future Woodland Commons signs , Ch. Heinrich
said to record the ZBA interpretation of the Sign Code is
that Out Parcel B would be entitled to one wall sign facing
Half Day Road .
F . Riverwalk - Construction Sign Extension
Timothy G. Beechick , Partner with Hamilton Partners , Inc . ,
1130 Lake Cook Road , Buffalo Grove , IL 60089 (459-9225)
was present and he requested a one year extension of the
Riverwalk Development Sign at the corner of Milwaukee Avenue
and Lake Cook Road .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
December 17 , 1991 - Page Eighteen
that this is the final extension or athat
Mr . Beechick was informedto file
w
the Village can grant . It would be necessary
drto keep it up . He
variance in November of 1992 if they
agreed and noted that construction of the overpass should begin
next fall .
is 72% leased and they are still
Mr . Beechick said the building monumental signage •
working with Zenith to agree upon permanent
in listed on the sign every few months and
New tenants are being is changed .
permits are secured before nthnuedgnncopy
1992 .
for this practice to be co
Com. Windecker made the following motion:
sign permit
I move we extend the Riverwalk marketing
period of one
as requested by Hamilton Partners
year from the expiration date on the permit .
Com. Arbus seconded the motion.
Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously .
Com. Entman stated he
has had personal and professional c tact
with Hami
lton Partners , but this did not affect hisdecision.
V . ANNOUNCEMENTS
Briefing , given by William Raysa , will be
Mr . Dempsey said a LegalBoard of Appeals meeting .
scheduled for the January 21 , 1992 Zoning
fences and signs should be revised to include
detarmore
Criteria statementfo changing the essential
definite regarding
the neighborhood
as it relates to Health, safety and welfare .
Ch. Heinrich also noted how unusual it was for the Village eEn Engineer
to change his line-of-sight review (56 Carlyle Lane)
sidewalk he
an
nevers
recommended a fence to be SOatl off sur the vey should be marked to
The plat interior collector street .
only.
show the actual line-of-sight
advisedMr
the ZBA that when a discussion sibeing extendedd
the Commis epolled , and the petition of
Commissioners should be
his right to appeal .
VI . ADJOURNMENT Com. Arbus
was made by Com. Fields and secondeddbyt 1m. 50 bu
Voi en toof a- AYrn The meeting was add
PM.
Voice Vote - AYE unanimously .
Respectfully submitted ,
1.°9%.# 1°11 (30*-1"0-'
Shirley Bates
Recording Secretary ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
December 17 , 1991 - Page Nineteen