1992-02-18 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes LUG 1:Nu BOARD OF APPEALS
VILLAGE U1' BUFFALO GROVE . ILLINOIS
1 ULSDA.Y , 1' LBxlJAt{,1 l b . .112
i . CALL TO ORDLR
in the absence of Chairman Ricnara Heinrich . the meeting was chaired
by commissioner i`ncnael Kearns . He called tne meeting to order at
8 : 05 P . M . on Tuesday . February 18 . 1992 at Chippers ( the Golf Course
Restaurant ) 48 Raupp Boulevard . The meeting was originally sched-
uled to be held in the Lower Level Conference Room of the Village
Hall but was changed to Chippers because of scheduling conflicts .
All parties were notified by mail . the notice was published in the
Buffalo Grove Herald and signs were posted at the Village Ha l I .
II . ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present : M . Kearns . J . Paul . h . Fields .
L . Windecker and L . Arbus QUORUM .
Commissioners Absent : R . Heinrich and B . Lntman
Bldg . Dept . Liaison : Edward Schar . Deputy Building Commissioner
village Attorney : Tom Dempsey
Village Board Liaison : wiiliam Reid could not be present because
the Village Board was meeting at the same
time . ( Monday . Feb . 17 was Presidents Day . )
TT
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
January 21 . 1992 - Ch . Kearns recommended tabling the minutes until
Ch . Heinrich is present . Com . Windecker made a motion to table .
Com . Paul seconded the motion . Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously .
IV . BUSINESS
A . 56 Carlyle Lane . David and Edith Feitman
fence Code . Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts
The Public hearing Notice was read . David Feitman was sworn in .
He summarized the reasons for requesting variance of the Fence
Code for the purpose of constructing a five foot ( 5 ' ) fiat board
wood fence a distance of fifteen feet ( i5H from tne sidewalk
along tsrandywvn Lane at the corner of tsrandywyn and Carlvie :
i . They have two ( 2 ) small children and a dog . The fence
will provide security and privacy .
2 . !here is a farm directly across Brandvwyn Lane and
the wind blows dirt and debris into the side yard .
Mr . Feitman recalled that on December 17 . 1991 he petitioned for
a six foot ( 6 ' ) fence that would be constructed five feet ( 5 ' )
from the sidewalk and the petition was denied by the ZBA . lie
appealed the decision to the Village Board on January 5 . 19y2
and the Trustees upheld tne Zoning Board of Appeals - decision .
At the December 17 . i991 Zoning Board meeting . the Commissioners
indicated that they would approve a five foot ( 5 ) pence
constructed a aistance of fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) from the sidewalk .
The fence would start at tne rear of the garage as recommended
by the Village Engineers Review - December 2 , 199i .
Comments by Commissioners :
Com . Paul - No problem . height and location acceptable .
Com. Windecker - Confirmed style of fence would be dog-eared .
straight board with higher posts . No problem .
Com. Arbus - No questions and no problem .
Com . Fields - Asked Mr . Feitman if he would consider an open
picket fence? Response was : Not at fifteen feet ( i 5 ' ) from
the sidewalk . ' Com. Fields said he knows the farm does create a
problem with dirt . etc . . but no one knows how long the farm will
be there . It is a difficult decision because a solid fence will
diminish the open space ana will remain even if houses are built
across the street . :ie asked that a poll be taken.
Com . Paul . Com . Windecker . Com . Arbus and Cr. Kearns agreed that
the farm has caused a problem ana they would approve the fence .
No questions or comments from tne audience .
�./ Com , Windecker made the following motion :
1 move we grant the request of David and Edith Feitman .
56 Carlyle Ln. , for variance of Fence Code . sec . 15 . 20 . 040 .
pertaining to Residential Districts , for the purpose of
constructing a five foot ( 5 ' ) fiat board wood fence that
would be located fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) from the sidewalk
along Brandywyn Lane . as indicated on the plat of survey
submitted along with the application.
The essential character of the neighborhood wiii not be
affected and said fence wiii not be detrimental to the
public health , safety and welfare .
Com . Paul seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote : AYE - Paul . Windecker , Arhus and Kearns
NAY - None
ABSTAIN - Fields
Motion Passed - 4 to O . 1 abstention.
Findings of Fact Attacned .
Permit may be issued after fifteen ( i 5 ) days . on Mar:;h. 5 . 1 392 .
ZONING BOARD OF A TEi LS
February 16 . 1992 - rage iwo
B. 1516 Jersey Court , Thomas and Stacey Seidi
Fence Code . Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts
The Public Hearing Notice was read . fom Seidl was sworn in and
he summarized the reasons for requesting variance of the Fence
Code for the purpose of constructing a five toot ( ' ) spaced
picket fence that would extend a distance of fifteen feet 15 )
past the building line along Thompson Boulevard . at the corner
of Thompson Boulevard and Jersey court :
1 . They have 2 small children and the fence
would provide security and safety .
2 . Thompson Boulevard is heavily traveled and
the fence would provide privacy .
3 . They plan to have a dog and the fence would
confine it to the property for exercise .
4 . The fence will be stained to match the house
and landscaping will be added to compliment
the property
The Village Engineers Review , dated February 5 , 1992 states :
" the limiting factor at the intersection is the
principal structure itself .
Mr . Seidl said he was not aware of the Fence Code restrictions
regarding corner lots when he purchase the property .
Comments from Commissioners :
Com . Windecker : No comment .
Com. Paul : Asked if the ne ighi)or to the rear is present . 'No . '
Observed that the area is very open and the rear
yard is large . He suggested the fence should be
constructed fifteen feet ( 1 5 ' ) from the house (which
is a definite point ) instead of fifteen feet ( 15 ' )
from the building line . Liked open picket style .
Mr . Seidi agreed with Com . Paul ' s recommendation to construct
the fence about thirteen feet ( 13 ' ) from the building line .
Com . Fields : Thanked Mr . Seidl for proposing an open picket
fence and suggested measuring from the sidewalk
which is also a fixed point , but he agreed with
Com . Paul ' s suggestion after it was clarified .
The sidewalk curves and the fence is straight .
Com . Arbus : Recalled a previous fence in the same proximity
that was granted a ten foot ( 10 ' ) variance from
the house (which was at the building line ) . he
wanted to be consistent in keeping open space .
The rear yard is large .
LONIIrb BOARD CT APPEALS
February 18 . 1992 - Page Three
Ch. Kearns : Recalled a fence on Sandhurst that was board-on-
board . not open picket . He agreed the rear yard
is large . but it backs up to a rear yard .
A poll was taken: 10 feet or 15 feet from the house?
Com . Windecker - 15 '
Com . Paul - 15 '
Com. Fields - 15
Ch. Kearns - 15 '
Com . Fields - Agreed 15 from the house is closer to what
he prefers . so no objection.
Mr . Seidl amended the petition on its race and requested that
the fence be constructed a distance of fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) from
the corner of the building as opposed to the building line .
He also affirmed that he has talked to all his neighbors about
the proposed fence .
There were no questions or comments from the audience .
Com . Paul made the following motion:
I move we approve the petition of Thomas M . and
Stacey A. Seidl . 1516 Jersey Court , for variance of
Fence Code . Section 15 . 20 . 040 pertaining to
Residential Districts . for the purpose of
constructing a five foot ( 5 ' ) high spaced picket
fence that would extend fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) south
of the southeast corner of the house .
Said fence would not be detrimental to the public
health , safety and welfare .
Com. Windecker seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote : AYE - Fields . Paul , irindecker , Kearns
N A Y - None
ABSTAIN - Arbus
Motion Passed - 4 to O . 1 abstention .
Findings of Fact Attached .
Permit may be issued after 15 days - March 5 , 1J02 .
C. 2754 Sandalwood Road , Lot 309 at Woodlands at Fiore Unit 3
Zale Groves . Inc . - Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 .
Pertaining to Area, Height . Bulk and Placement Regulations
The Public Hearing Notice was read . Ms . Christy Wiege _ . Project
Engineer , represented Zaie Groves . Inc . . 100 Lexington Drive .
Buffalo Grove . IL. She was authorized by Port Clinton Develop-
ment Corp . , 2300 North Western Avenue , Chicago . IL 60547 . in a
letter . dated January 22 . 1992 .
ZONING BOARD OF APPALS
February i8 , 1992 - Page Four
Ms . Wiegei was sworn in and summarized the reasons for
requesting a variance :
1 . Lot 309 is the last single family lot for
sale in the Woodlands of Fiore Unit 3 . It
is in the Fairway Lstates section and backs
up to the golf course .
2 . A freeze list was developed in 1988 that
conformed with the Buffalo Grove Monotony Code
and originally models 2800 and 3400 were excluded
from construction on Lot 309 . However . in 1900 ,
when Models 604 and 614 were added to the list of
homes to be sold at Doubietree . the freeze list
was not updated to reflect that #6 4 would not
fit on Lot 309 .
3 . The lot was sofa in October 1901 and when the plat
of survey was prepared , it was noted that the house
would not meet the required forty foot ( 40 ' ) rear
yard setback . A variance of 5 ' 6 is requested .
4 . The purchasers are not financially able to change
models . The contract could be cancelled and a spec
house could be constructed , but the only model that
would meet the Monotony Code would be 3100 B or C .
which would be more expensive .
5 . Zale has three model houses for sale on the same
street and since they are closer to the Woodland
Commons Shopping Center , it is preferable to satisfy
the current buyers than to build a spec house .
It was recalled that one other variance was granted in this sub-
division when the surveyor made an error and the foundation was
staked about 4-1 /2 feet into the front yard setback .
Comments from Commissioners :
Com. Paul : Said the situation is unusual and since the lot Is
on the golf course . it is a good place to make a
mistake . He saw no problem with the variance .
Com . Windecker : Agreed the situation is unique and the reasons
are plausible . He has no problem with this
variance because the lot backs up to the golf
course . but he reprimanded Zale for requiring
multiple variances with multiple excuses . i . e .
surveyors errors . the Woodland Commons signs
and now it is the Sales Staff that has erred .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
February 18 . 1992 - :'age Five
Com. Fields : Asked if there has been any response from the
Village or the Golf Course . -No . - Sale he agreed
with Com . k'indecker ' s comments . He said that it
the house was built in conformity with the reauir-
ea rear yard setback and the owner later applied
for a similar variance . he would not object . he
noted that the survey shows a fireplace and a bay
window . is this an additional encroachment?
Ms . Wiegel responded that the bay window is cantilevered . but
she could not recall if the purchasers opted to have a fireplace
She did not have a copy of the contract with her . She asked if
a fireplace could be added at a later time .
Zaie petitioned for a variance for 5 ' 6 " but Mr . Dempsey stated
that an additional 2-1 /2 to 3 feet would have to be considered
because the variance is for the required rear yard setback of
the principal structure . A variance for 5-i/2 feet was publish-
ed and if it is granted . an additional variance would be requir-
ed in order to add a fireplace at a later date . An alternative
would be to Table the request and republish for 8 feet .
Com. Windecker commented that the chimney slab is usually poured
with the foundation and that would also be an encroachment . He
proposed Tabling until ail the facts are known.
Com . Fields agreed . He would prefer to Table until the situa-
tion can be clarified .
Ms . Wiegel said the contract was signed on October i2 . 1951 with
delivery promised in the Spring of 1991 . She asked if a
variance could be granted for the 5-1 /2 feet so they can start
the house and then if there is to be a fireplace they will
reapply for a variance the additional distance?
Com . Arbus : Inquired if the lots to the east and west of Lot
309 are under contract?
Ms . Wiegel responded that both lots have been sold and both
houses are under construction.
Com . Arbus did not oppose the variance because the house is on
the golf course , but he expressed concern about the adjacent
neighbors line of sight . The house on Lot 309 would cut off
the open view . so ail the contract purchasers should be mad=
aware of the situation . He would prefer to Table .
Mr . Dempsey said that the ZBA can make disclosure to the
contract purchasers a condition of a variation. Zaie is the
legal owner of the property and was under no obligation to
notify the contract purchasers .
ZONING BOARD OF APPLALS
February 18 . 1992 - Page Six
Ch. Kearns commented that . in the past , the Zoning Board has
required contract purchasers to be made aware of any variance
that is attached to their property. They should realize that
any other additions to the rear of the house would be limited
and this could be detrimental to the future sale of the home .
Com . Paul said the contiguous buyers should be notified of the
variance and he agreed the matter should be Tabled . The ZBA
is being asked to grant a variance of 5 ' 6 of the total 13 : 4'
( 1 /3 of 40 ft . ) that could be permittea . This would limit the
size of any future addition. such as a porch, and it could also
have an impact on the 20% rear yard coverage limitation
Ch. Kearns explained the options : Table or make a motion to
deny the petition on the basis that not enough information is
available . He advised Ms . Wiegei to Table and she agreed .
No comments from the audience .
Com. Fields made a motion to Table until March 17 . 1992 .
Com . Paul seconded the motion .
Roil Call Vote was AYE Unanimously
Mr . Dempsey recommended that Ms . Wiegel provide the Village
with the names and addresses of all the contract purchasers
so they can be notified in writing . They will be invited to
attend the next public hearing .
D. 2925 Sandalwood Road . Michael and Vera Murphy
Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020
Pertaining_ to__Area , height_i Bulk and Placement regulations
The Public Hearing Notice was read . Michael Murphy was sworn in
and he summarized the reasons for requesting a variance for the
purpose of constructing an addition . 22 feet wide x i4 feet in
depth . that would encroach a distance of ten feet ( i0 ' ) into the
required rear yard setback :
1 . Mrs . Murphy has had skin cancer and the doctor
recommended that she not be exposed to the sun.
2 . The addition will be a screened porch and
because the lot angles only part of it will
encroach the full ten feet into the setback .
Mr . Murphy said he has informed all his neighbors and their only
concern was that they could keep the -bocci ball " area. .
Comments from Commissioners :
Com . Arbus : Asked about the construction of the porch and
commented that the most affected neighbors live
to the rear on blue Ash .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
February 18 , 1'a92 - Page Seven
Mr . Murphy said the porch wiii have white aluminum siding . that
matches the house , about half way up . then screened windows with
a transom top . The narfields and the Gottiiebs . on issue Ash .
are friends who were informed and they do not object .
Com . Arbus commented that the structure is large and the zoning
for R-3 requires more rear yard space . but if the neighbors do
not object . neither does he .
Com. Entman: There is open space and the porch is mostly
windows . so he does not object .
Com . Paul : The proposed addition will have minimal impact
on the area and the portion of the neighbor ' s
house most affected has no windows . so he has no
problem with the variance .
Com . Windecker : No comments and no objections .
Ch. Kearns : Because of the configuration of the rear yard .
only one end of the structure requires a 10 ft .
variance and since the neighbors have not
objected . he had no objections .
No comments from the audience .
Com . Windecker made the following motion:
\./ I move we grant the variance requested by Michael and
Vera Murphy , 2925 Sandalwood Road . for variance of
Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 , pertaining to
Area , Height . Bulk and Placement Regulations , for
the purpose constructing an addition 22 ' in width by
14 ' in depth that would encroach a distance of 10 '
into the required 40 ' rear yard setback .
Materials are to match the existing construction in
like kind and quality . Addition to be constructed
pursuant to plans submitted and approved by the
Village of Buffalo Grove .
Petitioner has exhibited hardship and unique circum-
stances . Proposed aaaition will not be detrimental
to the essential character of the neighborhood .
The homeowner should be advised that no alteration
to the grade is allowed within five feet ( 5 ' ) of any
swale or side lot line . per Village Engineer ' s Review .
dated February 5 . 1992 .
Com . Paul seconded the motion .
Roll Call Vote : AYE - Arbus . Fields , Paul , Windecker , Kearns
N A Y - None
Motion Passed - 5 to O . Findings of Fact Attached .
Permit may be issued after 15 days - March 5 . 1992 .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
February i8 . 1992 - Page Eight
E . 545 Chatham Circle . Harry and Heike Holm
Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 . Pertaining to :
Area , Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations____
The Public Hearing Notice was read . Harry and Heike Holm were
sworn in. Mrs . Hoim summarized their reasons for requesting a
variance for the purpose of constructing an addition at the
front of the house that would extend a distance of five feet
(5 ' ) into the required twenty-five foot ( 25 ' ) front yard
setback ; and for constructing of a garage addition that would
extend six feet (6 ' ) north of the present structure :
1 . The family needs more living space , especially
the kitchen area . They are constructing a second
story addition and would like to increase the size
of the kitcnen by extending into the front setback .
2 . Their house is a split level model . The lot is
bounded by five ( 5 ) other houses , so the best place
to add on is to the front .
3 . They do not want to move . They like the neighbor-
hood and children' s schools . It would be too
expensive to purchase a new home in Buffalo Grove .
4 . They have had two more children since they
purchased the house .
Comments from Commissioners :
Com. Windecker : Asked if the addition would match the
existing structure?
Mr . Hoim explained that the entire house will be re-sided and
re-roofed with the goal of having it look brand new.
Com . Paul : Asked if they had plans and if they have considered
going out toward the rear?
Mr . Holm responded that they have gotten bids from four' ( 1 )
contractors . None of them would give them any drawings without
signing a contract , so they are waiting to see if the variance
will be granted .
Mrs . Holm said that because the house is a split- level model ,
alternatives are limited , and ail four ( 4 ) contractors suggested
going out toward the front .
Com . Paul had no problem with the proposed garage addition but
it will bring the structure to within twenty feet ( 20 ' ) of the
sidewalk and close up the surrounding area .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
`./ February 18 . 1992 - Page Nine
Mrs . Holm said they have discussed the proposed addition with
all their neighbors and there have been no objections . The
houses down the street do not seem to be set back as far as
their ' s is now . so the addition will not look out of place .
There were no calls or letters of objection received by the
Building Department .
Com . Fields : Asked if there are any similar variances granted
in their neighborhood?
Mr . Holm responded that other additions have been built making
the houses U-shaped . There are no windows on the side of the
neighbor ' s house facing the addition. He presented a sketch of
the proposed addition and it has attractive picture windows .
Com . Fields said the windows make a big difference and he was
not opposed to the variance .
Com . Arbus : Commented that the lot is uniquely shaped and asked
if the deck on the south side of the house is
screened .
Mrs . Holm said the deck was there when they purchased the house
and they screened-in a small area of it .
Com . Arbus said the proposed additions will enhance the property
and substantially improve the neighborhood . No problem .
Ch. Kearns referred to the Village Engineer ' s Drainage Review .
dated Feb . 5 , 1992 . Mr . Kuenkier recommends ' that the wood ties
be removed from the north side of the yard and the swage area be
cleaned up . " Ch. Kearns explained the purpose of the swales .
Mrs . Holm said she has some flower beds but they do not affect
the drainage . They agreed to discuss the matter with the Vil-
lage Engineer , Mr . Kuenkler . and comply with his recommendation .
Ch. Kearns had no objections to the proposed additions .
Com . Paul does not like to have the encroachment of the front
yard , but he agreed the lot is unique . There is not much alter-
native and the additions will definitely increase the value of
the property and improve the neighborhood . He did not object .
Mr . Dempsey advised that the motion contain a condition
regarding the swale . Before the Building Department issues a
permit , the Village Engineer should state . in writing , that the
petitioners have complied with his recommendations .
Mr . Schar said the Building Department will follow uo on the
Village Engineer ' s recommendations .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
February 18 , 1992 - Page Ten
Com . Fields made the following motion:
I move we grant the variance requested by
Harry and Heike Holm . 545 Chatham Circle , for
variance of Zoning Ordinance . Section 17 . 20 . 040 ,
pertaining to Area . Height . bulk ana Placement
Regulations . for the purpose of constructing an
addition that would extend six feet ( 6 ' ) into
the front yard , five feet ( 5 ' ) of said addition
will encroach into the required twenty-five foot
( 25 ' ) front yard setback ; also , construction of a
garage addition that would extend six feet (6 ' )
north of the present structure . Addition would
cause the side yaras to total 1 . 18 feet less than
the required fourteen foot ( 14 ' ) combined side yards
and encroach a distance of . 38 of one foot ( 1 ' ) into
the required minimum six foot ( 6 ' ) side yard .
Petitioners having shown unique circumstances related
to the structure and the lot , the variation would not
alter the essential character of the neighborhood .
A condition of this variance is the requirement that
the petitioner address the concerns of the Village
Engineer regarding removal of the wood ties from the
north side yard and the swale area to be cleaned up.
Compliance shall be confirmed in writing to the Building
Department .
Com . Windecker seconded the motion.
Roll Caii Vote : AYE - Windecker . Paul . Arbus . Fields . Kearns
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 5 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached .
Permit may be issued after 15 days - March 5 , 1992 .
Petitioners were advised that the variance is good for six
months and the permit should be picked up within that time .
F . Mobil Oii Station . 10 West Dundee Road
Sign Code . Section 14 . 20 . 030 - Business Districts
Dunkin' Donut sign on the west elevation of the building
The Public Hearing Notice was read . Stuart Shore , Director of
Marketing for Mobilmedia Corporation was sworn in. He explain-
ed the proposed joint venture between Mobil Oil and Dunkin '
Donuts to sell donuts and coffee at 18 stations in the area .
The donuts will not be made at the stations , but a section of
the buildings will be designated for the sale of the product .
There will be an appropriately dressed Dunkin ' Donuts attendant .
not associated with the gas station , on site to assist patrons
purchase of donuts . It will not be a help yourself " counter .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
February 18 , 1992 - Page Eleven
Mr . Shore said the business license will reflect the fact that
two businesses will be conducted at the same location. It is
imperative to the success of the Dunkin' Donuts business that
signs be permitted on the building for identification.
The Appearance Commission reviewed the pylon sign and wail signs
on January 23 , 1992 . The pylon sign face change and the wall
sign on the east elevation were permissible and the Appearance
Commission recommended that they be approved by the Village
Board . The wall sign on the west elevation requires a variance
and the Appearance Commission so recommended . It will be the
standard Dunkin ' Donuts corporate sign. The size of the
sign is 3 ' x e ' with the standard Dunkin ' Donuts colors : white
background with raspberry and orange copy . It will be lighted .
No exterior building construction will be required . The Mobil
Oil Pegasus disc will be moved to the north end of the building
so that the Dunkin' Donut signs will be closer to Dundee Road
and closer to the entrance of the building .
Comments from Commissioners :
Com. Paul : Asked if the word ' featuring" will be on the sign
as shown on the building sketch? No . Only Dunkin'
Donuts . ' No problem with variance .
The Pegasus discs were deemed to be architectural features when
the building was constructed and Mr . Dempsey said this would not
change .
Com . Windecker : No problem .
Com. Fields : Asked what hours Dunkin' Donuts will be in
operation and how long will the illuminated
signs be left on? ''The same hours as the
station is open and the signs will be on the
same timer . No problems .
Com . Arbus : Noted that the sign on the west elevation will be
blocked by the car wash and will not be seen until
a car enters the station . No objections .
Ch. Kearns : Agreed the sign will not be visible from the street
or from the neighboring property.
Ch. Kearns informed Mr . Shore that the Zoning Board will make
a favorable recommendation to the Village Board of Trustees .
Mr . Schar said the item will be sent to the Village Board on
March 16 . 1992 , after the 15 day waiting period . He advised
Mr . Shore that , per a memo from the Village Manager , representa-
tives from Mobil Oil and Dunkin ' Donuts be present make a
presentation and to answer questions the Trustees may have .
Mr . Shore said Mobil had no problem waiting to go through the
normal procedures .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
February i8 . 1992 - Page Twelve
corn . Arbus made tne following motion:
i move we recommend to tne village Board of Trustees
approval of tne reauest made by Mobiimedia corporation
on behalf of Mobil Oil tnat variance be granted of
Sign code . Section 14 . 20 . U3u . pertaining to Business
Districts . for the purpose of permitting a Dunkin '
Donut wail sign on tne west elevation of tne oui lding
at iu West Dundee Road .
Sign to be 3 feet nigh by e feet wide . pursuant to
plans that were submitted with the application.
Petitioner having demonstrated that the requirements
of Chapter 14 . 44 . pertaining to Variances and Appeals .
Section 14 . 44 . 010 , Sub-section A have been met .
Com . Fields seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote : AYE - Paul . kindecker , Fields , Arbus , Kearns
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 5 to U . Findings of tact Attached .
item will ue sent to the Village Board on March lb . iU92 .
V . ANNOUNiEMEN i S
None .
VI . ADJOURNMENT
Qom . Arbus made a motion to adjourn .
Com . fields seconded the motion.
Ch. Kearns adjourned the meeting at 10 P . M.
Respectfully submitted .
Shirley Bates
Recording Secretary
sb
ZONiNG BOARD OF APPEALS
tebruary 18 . - Page inirteen