Loading...
1992-03-17 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes ZONING BOARD 01 APPEALS VILLAGE OF BCFFALO GROVE . ILLINOIS i U LSDA Y . MARiii 17 . i ;i 2 I . LALL TO ORDER in the absence of Chairman R:- chard Heinrich , the meeting was called to order and chaired by Commissioner Michael Kearns at 8 : 07 P . M . on 'i uesday . March 1 7 . 1992 at the Village iia l l . 50 Raupp Boulevard . I I . ROLL CALL Commissioners Present : ,,i . Kearns . u . Eastman , L . Windecker . L . Arbus Commissioners Absent : R . Heinrich . 6 . Paul . H . Fie ds Bldg . Dept . Liaison : Ed Schar . Deputy isuilaing Commissioner Village Attorney : - om Dempsey 1 1 i . APPROVAL Of MI _ U l ES February 18 . 1. 992 - Motion to Table made by Com . Windecer anc seconded by Com . Lntman . Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously January 21 . i992 -- Motion to Table made by Com . windecker and seconded by Com . Ar bu s . voice Vote - AYE unanimously Note regarding item C . that was Fabled on February 18 . 1992 : Zale Groves . Inc . withdrew the request for a variance for the purpose of constructing a house at 2754 Sandalwood Lane . Lot 309 . Ch . Kearns announced that it takes a minimum of four ( 4 ' ) affirma- tive votes for a variance to be granted . Since only four ( ) Zoning Board Commissioners are present , if any petitioners want to nave their item Tabled until April 21 . i '92 . they can so request any time during the hearing . if a motion is denied , petitioners may apneal to the Village Board of Trustees . iV . BUSINESS a . i53 Lilac Lane . Ilya Goiod fence Lode . Section 15 . 2u . O4u - Residential Districts 5 ' e solid wood fence , 22 ' past the bui i c: in al ong Armston ' Dr . The Public Hearing Notice was read and Ilya Golod was sworn in . The Village Engineer ' s Line-of -Sight . dated February 26 . i9 2 . states : The proposed fence should be altered to be behind the desired line-of - sight . Inc abutting property ' s driveway is not affected . • Mr . o i 0d sale. Mr . in chard kuenk l er . v i i i age Lng ineer . told him tne i ine--of-s i gnt cou l e; be moved forward to permit construction of the fence at the location requested . which is twenty-to feet past the Puliding fine alone Armstrong Drive at tne corner of Armstrong Drive and Lilac ane . en. Kearns informed :it . that since the i. ul Laing Department was not given any revised crawing from the \' i 1 i Qe inc"i Beer . Inc', Zoning Doard of Appeals cannot change The line-of -sight . "ir . Uo i od summarized his reasons for requesting a variance : 1 . i raf i i c is very neavy at the corner . Mr . Kuenh l er urovided the following traffic counts on Armstrong : a . From east to west - i , iuu cars clai i v b . From west to east - 2 . u u u cars daily More than j . o0u cross the intersection every day out Armstrong is termed a collector street . not a major street and Goes not qualify for a six foot ( 6 ` ) fence . 2 . The family has six ( 6 ) people . Iwo ( 2 ) are senior citizens wno spena a lot of time in the rear are. . and tney would i ike more privacy . 3 . They have two < 2 ) children who need the safely of a fence . ' omments from Commissioners : om. Arius - Agree a traffic a i one Armstrong fi i`-e is neavy . Inere is an existing fence abutting the petitioner ' s yard that appears to be a five foot. l i solid cram fence extending a scut ten feet ( 10 ' ) past the building fine along Armstrong criVe . iI Mr . Good is permittea to construct_ a fence twentv-two feet ( LL ) past the building line . if wi l i nave to log each to meet ine ne icnoor s fence . lie wou: .i prefer to nave the fences lined up together . 'his would give the petitioner a good sizes: vary W 1 h the privacy and safety he is seeking . lie wou l G also l i lie tne fences to be the same height . Mr . uoioa referred to the photographs that were submitted with the variance documents . i hey show a six foot ( e " ) solid wood fence across Lilac Lane that extends almost to the sidewalk , Ch. Kearns explained that the circumstances of each petitioner are aiscussecl apart from other variances that have been grantee . Mr . Uoioc:i explained that the elevation of his neighbor ' s yard is about two feet i 2 ' I higher than his varca . so the fence height will not appear to be uif fBrent . he aid not know taat ne shout d ask Mr . Kuenic i er for a signed revised i. ine.-oi -s lgft drawing . LV_N liva L't AI'1'LALS March i . 1; JG - i'age: Iwe Com . Winuecker - Agreed with Com . -irbus . opinion that, the fence should be five feet ( :C ' ) in sleight any: be lined up with the neighbor ' s fence , staying behind the i ine-of-slgnt . He could taper the fence up to meet the neighbors height . Com . Lntman - Agreed with Com. : rbus and Com . tcindecker : The line-of-sight must re followed and tne fence could taper up . Ch . Kearns - Summarized the Commissioners comments and asked Mr . Goiod if he wanted to amend his petition or table until April 21 . i992 in order to discuss tne line-of-sight review with Mr . Kuenk l er . the Village i Hsi ineer . Mr . Gol od said he would like to have the request Tabled . There were no comments from the audience . Com . Arous said he would like nave the height of the neighbor ' s fence verified . Ch . Kearns asked Mr . Scnar to have the height of tne ne i gnc,or fence measured ana have the Village Lngineer include dimensions on future line-of-sight drawings . Com . Windecker made a motion to fable until April 2i . Com. Arhus seconded the motion. Voice Vote : AIL - Unanimously \./ rs. 1 3 1 4 W i tney Lane . Marvin ana Lisa Somlo fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 04U - Residential Districts Six foot ( 6 ' ) solid , dog-eared fence that would extend a distance of twenty-five feet past the building line along Chompsonblvd . at the corner of Thompson Blvd . and Whitney Ln. The Public Hearing Notice was read . Marvin and Lisa Somlo were sworn in . Mr . Somlo summarizes their reasons for requesting a variance of the Fence Code : 1 . Future improvements of their property include tee installation of a swimming pool in the side yard . The pool would connect with the existing deck . 'hey have put a folding deposit clown in anticipation of having the variance granted . They do not want any liabilities because of a 0001 . The pro- posed six foot ( e ' ) fence will deter kids from core n into the yard when they are not at home . z . ine fence Wilt pr off-1ue greater ; reedo1:i ()r ine 1r sa.moye Clog that has been confined to a aog run . Kids cutting througn the yard ik, to tease the dog . se they have gotten some ' barking tickets . the fence will prevent this problem and the six foot ( 6 ' ) height wii deter the uog from ,jumping out of the yard . ZONING ISUARlJ Of Art'LAL Marcn 11 . i492 - Page inree 3 . Thompson Boulevard is going to be extendea and Westchester II construction trucks are aireaay coming through. The fence will provide the privacy they need from the added traffic as well as permit them to use as much or their property as possible . 4 . Their neighbors are also planning to fence in their yards and have no objections to the proposed fence . The Village Engineer ' s Line-of-Sight Review , dated Fcb . 28 . 19'ci:2 states : The proposed fence should be altered to be behind tne desired iine-of-sight . the abutting property ' s driveway is not affected . Mr . Somio said he discussed the review with Mr . Kuenkier . and the line-of-sight was amended slightly . A copy of the new line- of sight was mailed to him , but the Building Department was not informed of the change . Mr . Kuenkler told Mr . Somio that setting the fence back six feet (6 ' ) from the sidewalk , instead of the requested five feet (5 ' ) . would not make any significant difference because the intersection at ihompson Boulevard is wider than the surrounding intersections . Ch . Kearns informed Mr . Somio that the Zoning Board of Appeals cannot accept Mr . Kuenkier ' s revised line-of-sight drawing because a copy was not submitted to the Building Department . Mr . and Mrs . Somio agreed that the difference between the Village Engineer ' s original line-of-sight drawing and the revised line-of-sight was very insignificant . They did not object to using the February 28 , 192 review . It is more important to have the fence so they can plan for the pool . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Entman: Asked if there was a survey showing tne proposed pool location? After looking at the drawing . : om . r_ntman observed that the pool . as shown. crosses the building line . He said the area is open and there are not many other fences along the street . tie aisl ikes six foot ( r ' ) fences and would not want to see any fence five feet ( 5 ' ) from the sidewalk . There is no assurance that the pool will ever be installed . if and when it is . the Village rules regarding safety must be observed . Com_ _Windecker : Asked where the fence would be located rela- tive to the line-of-sight , ? Mr . Somio responded the fence would come straignt across to intersect with the Village Engineer ' s Line-of-Sight Review . Com . Windecker : After the petitioners stated they would not consider an open picket fence , recommended a five foot ( 5 ' ) _ solid fence . ten feet ( 10 ' ) from the sidewalk and squared off wnere it meets the Village Engineer ' s diagonal line-of-sight . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 17 . - age i-our Com. Arbus : Said he observed the property for some time and the house is set at a very unique angle on the lot . He noes not like to see wailed off corners . The ZBA has been consistent in keeping Thompson Boulevard oven down to Weiland Road by limiting fences a distance of ten feet ( 10 ' ) to fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) pack from the sidewalk . it would be preferabie if the fence was board-on-board . or open picket . but considering the possibility of the pool . he understood the request for a solid fence . He agreed with Com . Windecker ' s recommendation of a five foot ( 5 ' ) solid fence set back ten feet ( 10 ' ) from the sidewalk . Mr . Somlo presented photographs . Some of the existing landscap- ing would be cut off if the line-of-sight is followed . They want the fence to be straight . not angled . Ch . Kearns : Observed that the line-of-sight would still be intersected on an angle if the fence is set rack ten feet ( 1U ' ) . There are no absolute figures on the plat and tne distance would have to be calculated accurately. He agreed that tne height of the fence should be five feet ( 5 ' ) . Regarding liability . he said pool manufacturers have ways of preventing accidents and the Village has rules that must be observed . Com . Lntman said the side yard is open and very :arge . He observed that if the fence is set back from the sidewalk fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) . it could be brought straight across from the house to the line-of-sight and the pool area would still be enclosed . Mr . Somlo described some of the surrounding property and said one neighbor is splitting the cost of the fence (along their common lot line) and the neighbor to the rear has indicated that he will put up a lower fence out to the sidewalk . Mrs . Somlo commented that the area is an open because of the way the street curves . Their side yard is the neighbor ' s rear yard . They paid a premium for the corner lot and they want to have as much use of it as possible . Com . Windecker commented that the ZBA Commissioners have viewed the property and it is their responsibility to protect the investments of both the petitioners and surrounding property owners . Purchasers are aware of the location of the house on the lot and should be aware of zoning laws . the Commissioners base their decisions on public health , safety and welfare including what is good for tne neighborhood . Mr . Somlo said they were aware of the configuration of the yard and were familiar witn the zoning laws when they purchased the property . in their opinion . the openness of the area woulo not be affected . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 17 . 1 : 2 - Page five ;n . Kearns explained that when a variance is necessary , the Zoning Board of Appeals considers each petition on its own merits . In his opinion . if the fence is solid . it should be set back fifteen feet ( i5 ' ) . The yard would still be spacious and the area would be kept open. Mr . Somio said he would not agree to construct the fence fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) from the sidewalk because the pool would not fit into the area that is left inside . so they would have to appeal . it may be worth their while to settle the contract for the pool . Ch . Kearns informed Mr . and Mrs . Somio of their options : i . Table until more members of the GSA are present . 2 . Amend the petition. 3 . Ask for a vote on the original petition. Ch. Kearns added that if the motion is denied . they can appeal . Mr . and Mrs . Somio discussed the options and said they would like to come to an agreement . they amended the petition on its face and requested a five foot ( 5 ' ) solid dog-eared fence to be constructed ten feet ( 10 ' ) from the sidewalk . No questions or comments from the audience . Com . Windecker made the following motion : `./ I move we grant the petition of Marvin and i_. sa Somio . 1314 Witney Lane , for variance of the Fence Code . Section 15 . 20 . 040 . pertaining to Residential Districts . for the purpose of constructing a five foot ( 5 ' ) solid . dog-eared wooden privacy fence along Thompson Boulevard , that would be located ten feet ( 10 ' ) from the sidewalk . pursuant to the plat of survey indicated by the Village Engineer ' s Line-of-Sight . The essential character of the neighborhood would not be affected and the fence would not be detrimental to the public health. safety and welfare . Com . Arbus seconded the motion and asked Mr . Dempsey what action the Village Board can take if the motion is denied? Mr . Dempsey replied that the Village Board has the options of accepting , rejecting . modifying or remanding the petition back to the Zoning Board of Appeals . Roil Call Vote : AYE - Arous NAY - Lntman . Windecker . Kearns Motion Denied - 3 to 1 . Findings of Pact Attached , The Somios were informed that a written appeal must be submitted to Mr . Frank E . Hruby . Jr . . Director of Building and Zoning . within fifteen ( 15) days . The next Village Board meeting is scheduled for Monday . April b . 12 . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 17 . i32 - Page Six C . ii3U5 Witnev Lane . ferry Beriow Fence Code . Section 15 . 20 . 040 --- Residential Districts 6 toot boars -onboard fence along the rear property fine The Public Hearing Notice was read . Mrs . Debra Beriow was sworn in. She said tne reason they are requesting a variance is because the rear part of their property slopes down and a five foot ( 5 ' ) fence would not give tnem enough privacy . the fence would taper to five feet ( 5 ' ) along the interior property fines . Comments from Commissioners : Com . Windecker - Confirmed that the property does slope at the rear and a six foot ( 6 ' ) fence would equate to five feet ( 5 ) along the sides . he had no problem with granting the variance . Com. Arhus - Disclosed tnat he is a triena ana business associate of Martin Stern . 130=1 Bidden Lake Drive . the contig- uous neighbor to the rear . This w= ii not effect nis decision . The petitioner ' s rear yard is sloped so much that it they constructed a fence back to where tne lane is level . it would cut off about halt of their back yard . -There is one other fence in the area ana he wonaers what other TenCeS may he constructed . He is usually against six foot ( h ' ) fences . but in this situa- tion . it will only appear to be five feet ( 5 ' ) . He asked if they have talked with their neighbors on either side of the Sterns . and if they object? They wi l i be most affected . Mrs . Berlow responded that she has only spoken with the Sterns , They have known that there was going to be a fence . but they have never discussed the height . She aid not believe tne fence will appear to be a wail . but Inc one Toot ( 1 ' ) wi l i make a big difference to them . especially when they are on their patio . Ail contiguous neighbors were notified of the height by mai i . None of them contacted the Berlows and none of them arc present . Com . Lntman - Said his only concern is about the surrounding property owners who are on that land . A six toot t : ' ) fence will seem like a wait to them . lie rea .i izes that tne berlows do not nave much of a usabie l of . but he was not convinced that a six foot ( b ) fence wilt give tnem enougn relief . To get any privacy they wou l a need an e i eht foot ( 6 ' ) fence -and he would tie against that . Ch. Kearns - Would not object to the proposed fence , but since com . Lntman may vote against i t . Ch . i earns informed Mrs . i-7;er ► ow tnat she has the option of appealing a denial . or Tabling until April 21 . 1992 . when more Commissioners may be Present . ibis would give her time to discuss the proposal with neighbors . Mrs . Beriow opted to -fable ana agreed to inform her neighbors . Com . Windecker made a motion to fable until April 21 , 1992 . Com . Arbus seconded the motion. voice Vote - AFL Unanimously ZONING BOARD OF APPLALS March 17 . 1' 92 - Page Seven D . 5u Last I aci sh Drive . Ross Benjoya fence Code . Section 1.5 . 20 . 040 -- Residential Districts II__I t . fence . 20 f t . -past the__.building line along Cumberland Ln• The Public hearing Notice was read . Mr . Ross Benjoya was sworn in . he summarized the reasons for requesting a variance : 1 . The fence wi T i provide safety and protection for their young children. 2 . The rear yard is very small and they want to expand their usable yard space . The Village Engineer sent two Tine-of -sights . the first one . dated March 2 . 1 9 92 . states : . . . tne limiting factor at the intersection is the ;principal structure itself . inc abutting property is a tar side driveway and toe fence should be set ba:.k five feet ( 5 ' ) from the sidewalk . An amended i ine-of-signt drawing . dated March i. �2 . states : The five foot ( 5 ' ) setback has been regularly suggested but is not related to line-of-sight . which is not necessary for a ar side driveway- . We would suggest an aosoiute minimum of two feet ) . Mr . Ben.loya ' s request was for a five foot < 5 ' ) board-on-board fence from the rear corner of the garage along Cumberland Lane . to oe constructed one foot ( 1 ' ) from the sidewalk . Comments from Commissioners : Com . Windecker : There is not much room in the rear yard . but would not agree to a fence any closer than five feet ( 5 ' ) from the sidewalk . Mr . Benjoya presented some pnotographs . his neighbor . on the corner directly across the street , was granted a variance for a solid five foot ( 5 ) fence three feet ( 3 ' ) from the sidewalk . The house next door has a far side driveway . the same as the petitioner ' s . Mr . i3enjoya said that wniie each request is considered separately . i t seems . from what he has heard . that some precedence nas been set . Com . Arbus : Agreed the usan i e yard as vcry sma l i . He asked if the fence would be constructed inside or outside the existing row of busnc- s : Mr . Benjoya said he would put the fence immediately inside the bushes and that is why a distance of three feet ( 3 ' ) from the sidewaik is important . ( 'The requested one foot ( i ' ) was not correct . ) if the fence is five feet ( 5 ' ) from Inc sidewalk . he w i i i lose two feet ( 2 ' ) of usable space . he would keep the bushes cut even with the fence . The fence will prohibit the bushes from growing any farther pack . ( cont. ' d ) \-J LUti INd BUAaD UI i'PLhLS March 17 . i992 -- Page Eight here are bushes growi rg from the sidewalk along Cumeer l a no Ls ne to the garage that he plans to relocate to fill in the open spaces in the existing row along the fence . Com . Arbus : the bushes are attractive . but they need some room to grow . and he agreed that the -fence should be five feet ( o ' ) from the sidewalk . lour feet ( ) would be the minimum ne would consider and the fence could go up to the front of the louse . Mr . Benjoya Guest Toned why the contiguous neighbor ' s fence is not considered as a precedent ? Ch. Kearns did not specifically recall the unique circumstances that were presented by the neighbor . but that is the reason each petition is taken independently . Com. Entman: tiecaiied that the neighbor ' s lot is unique in relation to his contiguous neighbors property . They had a smaller rear yard and rea : iy needed the additional space . He observed that even though the abutting neignbors: have a tar side driveway . the proposed fence is actuallygoing in their front yard . Also . from the standpoint of safety . he could not support a fence closer than five fee: ( 5 : from the s idewa i k . Kids riding bikes or just jostling around could be injured . Mr . Benjoya responded that these neighbors, Mr . and Mrs . Kruse . 957 Cumberland Lane . know wnat he is proposing and they do not. object . ihev are friends and have asked that a gate be put in the back for access . regarding the safety issue . no works in an emergency room and has seen more injuries related to shrubbery along sidewalks than have been related to fences , but he had no data to substantiate this . Ch. Kearns : Said the ZBA considers safety as part of the criteria for a fence variance . He asked for verification that the petition originally asking for the fence to be one foot ( i ' from the sidewalk was incorrect? Mr . Benjoya said this was incorrect . He intended to ask for three feet ( 3 ' ) . (Note : the sidewalk is inside the lot line . ) He so amended his petition on its face . Ch. Kearns : Explained the options to Mr . Benjoya : Ask for the variance to be Tabled until April list or amend the petition. Since Lam . Arhus would ce vi1 ins to vote aftirmat. ively 107 five feet ( 5 ' ) from the sidewalk . does Mr . Benjoya agree Mr . Benjoya asked for clarification of toe fence roue res7.r1c- tions for a three foot ( s ' ) i ence Mr .. Sonar informed nim that it is permissible to ccnstruct a three ioot ( 33 ) fence cast the builainQ line if it is inter- ruptec wi to a space every thirty feel. ( 3(, - ) . LUN 1N UAHU Ot APF'LAi. March 1 / . - Page Nine Mr . Benjoya expressed disappointment with The proceedings because he feels his request is reasonable and as a taxpayer he should nave the same rights as his immediate neighbor . lie said his hand was forced and ne had no choice except to accept the Board ' s ruling . he amended nis petition for a five feet ( 5 ' ) board-on-boara r ence to be setback five feet t 5 ' irom the sidewai . Com . w indecker reminded Mr . Benjoya tnat he is not being f orcec. . He has tne option to 'labile . Mr . Benjoya commented that it the same three Commissioners are present in April . tney will still be unhappy with his request and he would be in the same position . He cannot bring any further information without risking being more argumentative . so he affirmed his amendment to construct a fence five feet ( 5 ' ) from the sidewalk . Com . Arbus asked if relocating the busnes should be made a condition of the variance? The answer was No because the ZBA does not want to impose any hardship on the petitioner . No questions or comments from the audience . Qom . Arbus made the following motion : I move we grant the petition . as amended . oy Ross and Aerie Benjoya . 50 Last fabish . for variance of the fence code . sect ion 15 , 20 . O iu . pertaining to Residential Districts . for the purpose of constructing a five foot ( 5 ' ) board-on-board fence that would be no closer than five feet ( 5 ) from tne north edge on tne sidewalk . Funning parallel to the sidewalk along Cumberland Lane . and extending to the rear property fine . Petitioner having demonstrated hardship and unique circumstances , the variance would not be detriments: to the public health . safety and welfare . nor alter the essential character of the neighborhood . Com . icindecker seconded the motion. Roil Cali Vote : AYE - Lntman . Arbus . 'hindecker and Kearns NAY - !None Motion Passed - ',i to u . Findings of Fact Attached . fhe permit may be issued in fifteen ( i 5 ) ciayi - April 2 . ZONING BOARD OF Ai'PLAL M a r c n 17 . i y i 2 - i'age let. h . 2i Whitehall Court , timothy Doyle Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 - Pertaining to : Area . Height . Bulk and Placement Regulations 10 feet into required rear yard setback for addition The Public Hearing Notice was read . Ch . Kearns said he has known Mr . Doyle personally for 20 year . but this will not hinder his decision in the matter . Mr . Timothy Doyle was sworn in. He summarized his reasons for requesting a variance : 1 . the family room is too smai : to accommodate his family of eight (when they are all home ) . 2 . He has more room in front and to the side . but the rear yard . where he proposes to construct the addition , is just over thirty feet ( 30 ' ) to the rear lot line . Comments from Commissioners : Com . Entman: Confirmed that the existing family room is to be enlarged and said he had no problem with the request . Mr . Doyle said he has not contracted anyone to construct the addition. He will do some of the work himself with the help of friends . He wanted to get the variance before spending money . Com . Windecker : Confirmed that the addition will be one ( 1 ) story with a gabled roof and will match the exiting structure . Com . Arbus : Asked Mr . Doyle if he has discussed the proposed addition with the neighbors to the rear who will be most affected? Response : Yes and they have no objections . Ch. Kearns : Asked if there will be a door at the rear of the addition? Mr . Doyle replied "no . They do not want this to be a traffic area . There will be windows on all three sides with a large (6 ' ) window across the rear . The width 17 ' 1 " is the interior measurement and the outside may be wider . The Commissioners had no objections and there were no comments from the audience . Com . Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the petition of Timothy and Cecilia Doyle . 21 Whitehall Court . for variance of the Zoning Ordinance . Section 17 . 40 . 020 . pertaining to Area , Height . Bulk and Placement Regulations . for the purpose of constructing an 11 ' x addition at the rear of the house that would encroach a distance of ten feet ( 10 ' ) into the thirty foot ( 30 ' ) required rear yard setback . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 1 i . 19ii2 - Page Eleven Materials of the addition are to match the existing structure in like kind and quality . Addition is to be constructed pursuant to plans submitted to and approved by the Village of Buffalo Grove . including the Village Engineer ' s stipulation that no alteration of the grade is allowed within five feet ( 5 ' ) of any swaie or any rear or side lot line ( February 28 . 1992 review) . Petitioner having exhibited hardship and unique circum- stances . the proposed addition will not be detrimental to the essential character of the neighborhood . Com . Arbus seconded the motion. Foli Call Vote : AYE - Entman . Arbus . Windecker and Kearns NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . findings of Fact Attached . Permit may be issued in fifteen ( 15 ) days - April 2 . 1992 . Mr . Doyle was advised to submit plans to the Building Dept . F . 910 Ridgefield Lane . Hemant Brahmbhatt Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 . pertaining to : Area . Height . Bulk and Placement Regulations . Purpose : Addition - 3 ' 6 into the rear yard setback Zoning Ordinance , Section i7 . 32 . 020 - Accessory Buildings Purpose : Construction of a deck and shed exceedi _ 20%_ The Public Hearing Notice was read . Note : The total area of ground coverage will exceed the maximum 20% rear yard coverage limitation by 71 square feet . not 52i square feet . as published . Mr . Hemant Brahmbhatt was sworn in and summarized the reasons for requesting a variance : 1 . The house , purchased 15 years ago has three bedrooms and no basement . [ne Branmbhatts have had 3 children and Mrs . Brahmbhatt ' s parents will soon move in with them . 2 . They want to enlarge their family room and add two bedrooms . This addition will require a variance of 3 ' 6 into the thirty foot ( 30 ' ) rear yard setback . 3 . They also want to construct a 20 ' x 15 ' creek and a 14 ' x 12 ' storage shed in the rear yard . The storage shed will be located 5 feet from the side and rear lot lines and will be constructed on a concrete slab . There will be approximately 9 ' 6" between the corner of shed and the corner of the addition. it would be 12 ' high. 4 . Raupp Memorial Park is directly to the rear of the property . Mr . Brahmbhatt presented a diagram of the existing landscaping on his property . the park property and his neighbor ' s property . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 17 . 1992 - Page Twelve 5 . the addition will be 1-story and the materials wili match the existing structure . Mr . Branmbhatt said he has informed cote of his immediate neighbors of the plans . The neighbors on the west side do not object . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Arbus : Commented that they are using a lot of the rear yard but the property does back up to the park . if the neighbors do not object . it is beneficial to improve property . The neighbor to the west was present . Mrs . Carol Butz lives at 20 itidgef i e i d . and she expressec concern about the size . height and location of the shed . She does not object to the variance required for the addition , but the addition and the shed will create a solid wall effect from her back yard . Mrs . Butz said she has . iooked at the nearest existing sheds . They are about 6 feet in height and one of them is next to the garage . not in the rear yard . The Butz ' s have 6 foot bushes along their rear lot line but they are only in bloom half of the year . She did not express any desired height . but would prefer that the proposed shed is located against the house . Mr . Brahmbhatt explained the landscape diagram that includes their neighbors bushes . which are actually 8 ' - in height . and other bushes on the Butz ' s along the rear property line that will obstruct their view of the park . There arc tail evergreen trees on the Village property . so a very small portion of the Hsu t z ' s view will be changed by the shed . Com . Arbus : informed the petitioners how important is is that neighbors are not affected by variances . it is very difficult to come forward and express objections . fhe problems must ae worked out because property owners ao not expect variances that will change existing conditions . he asked Mr . Brahmbhatt if the shed could oe relocated to the opposite side of the yard or next to the house? A shed in the rear yard would change the view or all the neighbors . Mr . Brahmbhatt responded that they did consider locating the shed on the side of the house . but their water meter . the i' C and the sump pump are there . if the shed is located on the east side of the yard it will be right cut in the open because there are no bushes . fence or screening in that area , and it would cause a greater obstruction of the other neighbor ' s view . lie presented photographs of the rear yard area . coin . Arbus : Suggested reducing the size of the shed in order to reach an agreement with Mrs . Butz . Com . k_indecker : : skeu about the construction of the shed and suggested reducing the height . z_.uiNG BOAR ui rlrTr•ALS March i7 . - rage :'nirteen Mr . Brahmbhatt said the shea would be constructed on site and the materials would match the house . He would reduce the size of the shed to 10 ' x 12 ' and would also reduce the height to 8 ft . He wanted to be agreeable and asked Mrs . Butz if that would be satisfactory? Mrs . Butz replied that the location of the shea is still a problem . Ehev do keep their bushes trimmed . She is concerned with the view from the whole yard in the summer . Trees and bushes are more eye-appealing than a shed . She did not object to the proposed addition and deck . The shed will create a wall . Ch. Kearns : Commented that the ZBA could not approve any change of location unless the other next door neighbor was informed . Com. Arbus : Observed that the 71 sq . ft . overage could be eliminated if the Brahmbhatts reduced the size of the addition or the deck or the shed . Com . Windecker : Calculated they could build a 7 ' x 10 ' shed . Com Entman suggested Tabling the variance would give them time to consider all the issues and reach some agreement . Mr . Brahmbhatt said he would prefer not to wait another month. He would not object to reducing the size of the shed . He would make it 8 ' x 10 ' if that would be agreeable with Mrs . Butz . �./ After considerable discussion . it was decided to Table the Rear Yard Lot Coverage portion of the petition. Com . Arbus so moved . Com. Windecker seconded the motion Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously (4-0 ) . The Brahmbhatts could construct the deck and an 8 ' x 10 ' shed without a variance . but Mr . Dempsey said that a condition of the variance could be to not permit a shed to be constructed without returning to the ZBA for approval . The deck would not require a variance or ZBA approval . Mr . Brahmbhatt understood and agreed to this condition , Com . Entman made the following motion : I move we grant the petition of Hemant and Nayana Brahmbhatt , 910 Ridgefield Lane . for variance of the Zoning Ordinance . Section 17 . 40 . 020 , pertaining to Area , Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations . for the purpose of constructing a 33 ' x 25 ` addition at the rear of the house that would encroach a distance of 3 ' 6 " into the required rear vara setback . ZONING BOARD Or APPEALS March 17 . 1992 - Page Fourteen The 1-story addition is to be constructed pursuant to plans and specifications submitted to and approved \—/ by the Village . Materials are to match the existing structure in like kind and quality . Condition of the variance being that plans for any future storage shed shall be submitted for Zoning Board of Appeals review and approval . Petitioner has proven unique ci:rcumsances and the construction of the addition will not alter the essential character of the nerghbornood . Com . Windecker seconded the motion . Roil Call Vote : AYE - Arbus . Windecker , Entman and Kearns NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to U . Findings of Fact Attached . Permit may be issued in 15 days - April 2 . 1992 . Petitioner was advised to submit construction plans to the Building Department . V . ANNOUNCEMENTS - None VI . ADJOURNMENT Com . Arbus made a motion to adjourn. Com . Windecker seconded the motion. Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously Ch. Kearns adjourned the meeting at 10 : 15 P. M . Respectfully submitted . Shirley Bates Recording Secretary sb ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 17 . 19 2 - Page Fifteen