Loading...
1992-04-17 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE , I LLIIVO I S TUESDAY , APRIL 21 , 1992 I . CALL TO ORDER Commissioner Jay Paul called the meeting to order at 8 : 15 P . M . on Tuesday , April 21 . 1992 at the Village Hall , 50 Raupp Boulevard . Com . Paul announced that it takes a minimum of four ( 4 ) affirmative votes for a variance to be granted . Ch . Heinrich was expected . II . ROLL CALL Commissioners Present : t.; . Paul . H . fields . L . Windecker , L . Arbus Ch . Richard Heinrich arrived at 9 : 25 P . M . Commissioners Absent : M . Kearns and D . Entman Bldg . Dept . Liaison : Edward Schar , Deputy Building Commissioner Village Attorney : Tom Dempsey Village Board Liaison : William Reid , Trustee I I , APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioners 17 , 1992 - Commissioners not present to approve . Motion to Table was made by Com . W i ndecker and seconded by �- Com . Arbus . Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously While waiting for Chairman Heinrich ' s arrival , Com . Arbus commented about the fence that was constructed along Cumberland Lane at the corner of Fabish Drive . Mr . Ross Ben3oya , 50 Fabish Drive , was granted a variance of the Fence Code on March 17 , 1992 , for the purpose of constructing a five foot ( 5 ' ) wood fence that would be no closer than five feet ( 5 ' ) to the sidewalk along Cumberland Lane . However , a three foot ( 3 ' ) board - on- board fence has been constructed and it appears to be approximately fifty feet ( 50 ' ) in length . The Fence Code permits three foot ( 3 ' ) ornamental fences not more than thirty feet ( 30 ) of continuous length , but it does not specify how far apart the sections must be . The fence constructed along Cumber - land Lane has two ( 2 ) posts about every eighteen feet ( 18 ' ) but the posts are only about two inches ( 2 " ) apart and fence appears to be continuous . Along the rear property line , the fence is five feet in height and it has been tapered at a right angle to meet the three foot ( 3 ' ) fence . Therefore , for a short distance , the height of the fence goes beyond the variance that was granted , i . e . the distance to be no closer than five feet ( 5 ' ) from the sidewalk along Cumber - land Lane . ' The petitioner seems to have circumvented the authority of the Zoning Board of Appeals . The Code should be more specific . Mr. Dempsey said the definition of Ornamental Fence would have to be amended to include a specific break distance every thirty feet (30' ). If the fence is not in compliance. and if the property owner does not remove the illegal section, a citation can be issued. The Housing Court can order the section to be removed. Another option would be for the petitioner to apply for another variance Mr. Schar said the permit application will be reviewed and if the fence is not incompliance, the situation will be addressed when a final inspection is made. Chairman Heinrich arrived during the above discussion. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. 153 Lilac Lane, Ilya Golod Fence Code, Section 15.20.040 - Residential Districts Construction of 5'6" fence, past the building Motion to remove from Table was made by Com. Fields and seconded by Com. Arbus. Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously. Mr. Ilya Golod was present. He has requested a variance for the purpose of constructing a 5'6 wood fence that would extend past the building line along Armstrong Drive. On March 17, 1992, the item was Tabled to permit Mr. Golod to discuss the Line-of-Sight Review submitted by the Village Engineer. A new plat of survey was submitted showing the proposed fence to be located ten feet from the sidewalk, angled to conform with the Village Engineer's February 28, 1992 Line-of Sight Review, Mr. Kuenkler reviewed the revised Line-of-Sight Review, and sent a memo dated March 30, 1992 that states: "The revised fence location conforms to our suggested location. Ch. Heinrich reviewed the minutes of the previous public hearing which state that the Commissioners present had been in agreement that the fence should be constructed in line with the existing fence at 151 Lilac Lane (neighbor to the rear). He asked why Mr. Golod would not want to construct the fence in line with the neighbor's fence? Mr. Golod responded that he would lose the use of more of his back yard space. He plans to construct a deck and shed so he would need the extra space. He will keep the existing patio. Ch. Heinrich computed the size of the existing rear yard to be approximately 2,100 square feet and only about 210 square feet would be lost if the fence was in line with the neighbor's fence which is fifteen feet six inches (15'8" ) from the sidewalk. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 21, 1992 - Page Two Ch. Heinrich commented that Mr . Golod ' s personal use of the property for a patio , deck and shed would not constitute a hardship for the purpose of granting a variance . He would agree \•./ with the Commissioners ' opinions that the fences should line up. Mr . Golod described the existing bushes on his property line . They would block the fence. He conceded that they are deciduous bushes , so they will only have foliage part of the year . Mr . Golod also referred to the fence across Lilac Lane that is only five feet (5 ' ) from the sidewalk. Comments from Commissioners : Com. Paul said that if the fences are not lined up . uniformity would be lost , and it would be detrimental to the neighborhood . The fence would be unsightly and it will be several years before the bushes are high enough to hide it , even in summer months . Com. Windecker said he has not changed his opinion. The fence should be five feet (5 ' ) in height , lined up with the neighbor ' s fence . The height could be tapered up to meet the neighbor ' s fence because of the difference in the swale . He recalled that the variance for the fence across the street was permitted be- cause the lot is adjacent to the parking lot of a commercial building . Com. Arbus said he looked at the property again and it is still his opinion that the fences should be in line . Com. Fields said he agreed the fence should be five feet (5 ' ) in height and it would not look appropriate if it was not lined up with the neighbor ' s fence . Without foliage on the bushes , the yard is visible . Mr . Golod asked the Commissioners if they thought a three foot (3 ' ) fence would look nice next to the five foot (5 ' ) fence? Ch. Heinrich informed Mr . Golod that he can construct a fence in compliance with the Fence Code if he chooses to do so , or he can amend his petition to request a five foot (5 ' ) fence that would be lined up with the existing fence , and in conformance with the Village Engineer ' s Line-of-Sight Review. He explained the option of appealing a negative decision to the Village Board of Trustees . Mr . Golod asked for a vote on his petition as submitted. Comments from the audience: Mrs . Rosenfield , 618 Armstrong , was present and stated she would want to see the fence in line with the neighbor ' s fence . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 21 , 1992 -- Page Three Com. Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the request of Ilya Golod , 153 Lilac 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 board fence , a distance of ten feet ( 10 ' ) from the sidewalk along Armstrong Drive , and angled to join the neighbor ' s fence at the rear lot line , a distance of five feet six inches (5 ' 6" ) , following the Line-of-Sight indicated on the Plat of Survey attached to the Village Engineer ' s February 28 , 1992 revised review. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be affected and the fence would not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare . Mr . Dempsey confirmed that the motion is correctly stated and negative votes would indicate the fence is detrimental to the essential character of the neighborhood . Com. Paul seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - None NAY - Fields , Paul , Windecker , Arbus , Heinrich Motion DENIED - 5 to 0 . Ch. Heinrich gave Mr . Golod instructions for filing a written appeal within 15 days . The next Village Board meeting is to be scheduled for May 4 , 1992 . B. 1305 Witney Lane , Terry and Debra Berlow Fence Code , Section 15 . 20.040 - Residential Districts Construction of 6 ' fence along rear property line Motion to remove from Table was made by Com. Arbus and seconded by Com. Windecker . Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously. The item was Tabled to permit the petitioner to advise her neighbors of the exact description of the fence . They want to construct a six foot (6 ' ) board-on-board fence along the rear property line. Mr . and Mrs . Berlow were present . Mrs . Berlow said she has now talked to all their contiguous neighbors and none of them object to the proposed fence . She described their rear yard. From their patio to the rear property line , the grade drops more than two feet (2 ' ) . A six foot (6 ' ) fence will appear to be about four feet (4 ' ) high from their patio . The grading of the yards behind them is too high and the houses are much higher . No comments from the audience . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 21 , 1992 - Page Four Comments from Commissioners : Com. Fields - Also has a rear yard that slopes and there is only a picket fence , so it looks like one large yard . He looked at the yard and understands the circum- stances , but is generally opposed to six foot (6 ' ) fences . He wanted to hear the other Commission- er ' s comments . Com. Paul - Did not object to a six foot (6 ' ) fence . The yards are deep enough and the houses are higher so the fence will not create a wall effect . Com. Windecker - No objections . He looked at the property again and the contour of the yard is unique . Com. Arbus - Usually opposes six foot (6 ' ) fences but there are valid reasons for permitting the variance . The scalloped board-on-board style will not create a wall effect and the neighbors have no objections . Com. Fields - Asked the Berlows what benefits the six foot (6 ' ) fence will give them if they can still see the neighbor ' s patio . Mrs . Berlow said the fence will give them a little more privacy. Com. Fields - Had no objections . Ch. Heinrich - No objections . Com. Paul made the following motion: I move we grant the petition of Terry and Debra Berlow, of 1305 Witney Lane , pursuant to Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 , pertaining to Residential Districts . for the purpose of constructing a six foot (6 ' ) , board- on-board fence along the rear property line , tapering to five feet (5 ' ) along the interior property lines . Said fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare . The public hearing notice was discussed and the plat of survey was reviewed . Mr . Dempsey agreed the plat of survey indicates the petitioner intended to taper the fence along the interior property lines . It was left up to the ZBA' s discretion to decide if the public hearing notice is acceptable . A poll was taken: AYE would allow the tapering of one section along the interior lot lines . Roll Call Vote : AYE - Arbus . Windecker , Paul , Fields , Heinrich NAY - None By vote of 5 to 0 - Tapering along the interior property lines to be allowed . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 21 , 1992 - Page Five Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Fields , Paul , Windecker , Arbus , Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 5 to 0. Findings of Fact Attached . Permit may be issued after 15 days (May 7 , 1992) . V. NEW BUSINESS A. 575 Coventry Court , Mark and Sheryllynn Silvers Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts Construction of 6 ' foot fence along 67 ' of east property line . The public hearing notice was read. Mark and Sheryllynn Silvers were sworn in. Mrs . Silvers explained that they have a six foot (6 ' ) fence along Aptakisic Road (rear property line) and because the yard slopes , it will be helpful to have the six foot fence continued along the east property line a distance of 67 feet . The fence would eliminate noise from the traffic on Buffalo Grove Road. There are trucking companies nearby and stones are thrown into the yard . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Fields - Said he is acquainted with some of the Silver ' s neighbors . He discussed the fence with them and none of them have any objections . Since the adjoining property is owned by the Park District , none of the neighbors will be directly affected . He has no objections . Com. Paul - No objections . The height difference will not be noticed because the area is so open. Com. Windecker - No objections . Com. Arbus - No objections . No comments from the audience . Com. Arbus made the following motion: I move we grant the request of Mark and Sheryllynn Silvers , for variance of the Fence Code , Section 15 . 20. 040 . pertaining to Residential Districts , for the purpose of constructing a six foot (6 ' ) board-on-board fence along the east property line for a distance of sixty-seven feet (67 ' ) tapering to five feet (5 ' ) . Construction of said fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare . Com. Fields seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Paul , Windecker , Arbus , Fields , Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 5 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued after 15 days (May 7 , 1992) . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 21 , 1992 - Page Six B. 512 Crown Point Drive . Jeffrey Penteris Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 - Pertaining to : Area . Height . Bulk and Placement Regulations : Purpose : Construction of a screen room that would encroach a distance of 11 . 66 ' into required 35 ' rear yard setback The public hearing notice was read. Mr . Jeff Penteris was sworn in. He summarized their reasons for requesting a variance : 1 . The screen room will provide an additional play area for their three young daughters , ages 8 months , 2 years and 4 years . 2 . It will provide a shaded area during the summer months because the rear yard faces the west . 3 . They like the house and neighborhood ( schools , church and recreational facilities . Buffalo Grove is close to his place of employment . 4 . It would be too expensive if they had to move . Mr . Penteris said they have spoken to all their neighbors . The screen porch will be constructed with the same exterior siding as the house and the exterior wood will be painted white to match the house . Comments of Commissioners : Com. Paul - No objections because the property backs up to a park and the screen porch will not have a detrimen- tal effect on any neighbors . Com. Windecker , Com. Arbus , Com. Fields , and Ch. Heinrich had no objections . There is no problem with lot coverage . No comments from the audience . Com. Fields made the following motion: I move we grant the petition of Jeffrey C. and Anne M. Penteris , 512 Crown Point Drive , for variance of Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 .020 , pertaining to Area , Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations , for the purpose of constructing a 12 ' 6" x 18 ' screen porch at the rear of the house that would encroach a distance of 11 . 66 ' into the required 35 ' rear yard setback . Unique circumstances having been demonstrated , said addition will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood . Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Paul , Windecker , Arbus , Fields . Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 5 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued after 15 days (May 7 . 1992) . Petitioner was advised to submit permit application and construction plans . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 21 , 1991 - Page Seven C. 505 Newtown Drive , David Hoffman Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts Construction of 6 foot fence along rear property line The public hearing notice was read. Mr . David Hoffman was sworn in. He presented photographs and summarized the reasons for requesting a variance for the purpose of constructing a six foot (6 ' ) fence along the rear property line : 1 . The rear property line abuts Prairie View and Marie Avenue , a partial gravel road , is used by his neighbor as a driveway. 2 . The neighbor is in the construction business . He parks large vehicles and machinery in the yard, as well as a boat , gravel piles and cement mixer . 3 . A 6 foot fence will only partially block the view but it will help. Ch. Heinrich commented that since the property is in Prairive View , there is nothing Buffalo Grove can do to remedy the situation. He has seen the yard and has no objections to the proposed fence . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Fields : Asked Mr . Dempsey if there is anything that can be done through Lake County? Mr . Dempsey responded that he is not familiar with any regula- tions that would require the clean-up of the yard. Com. Fields : No objections . Com. Paul : No objections . Com. Windecker : No objections . Com. Arbus : No objections . No comments or questions from the audience . Com. Arbus made the following motion: I move we grant the request of David Hoffman, 505 Newtown Drive , for variance of Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 , pertaining to Residential Districts , for the purpose of constructing a six foot (6 ' ) board-on-board cedar fence along the rear property line . Petitioner having demonstrated that the fence will not be detrimental to public health, safety and welfare . Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Fields , Paul , Windecker , Arbus , Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 5 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued after 15 days (May 7 , 1992) . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 21 , 1992 - Page Eight D. 518 La Salle Court North. Gregory Lagunov Fence Code . Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts Fence extending 20 feet past the building line at the corner of La Salle Court North and La Salle Lane The Public Hearing Notice was read and Gregory Lagunov was sworn in. He summarized the reasons for requesting a variance : 1 . They have a very active 5 year old son and the fence will keep him from the street . 2 . The fence will provide privacy and give them more use of the rear yard . The Village Engineer ' s Review, dated March 30 . 1992 , states : "The limiting factor at the intersection is the principal structure itself . The fence should be setback to avoid any encroachment into the desired line-of-sight . The abutting property is a far side driveway and the fence should be setback five feet (5 ' ) from the sidewalk. " Ch. Heinrich explained the Village Engineer ' s drawing and he noted that there is also a covenant for Serendipity Fences that restricts the height to four feet (4 ' ) or 4-1/2 feet if arched. Fences must also comply with the Village Ordinances . Mr . Lagunov said the fence would scalloped to match their neighbors . They have discussed the fence with their neighbors and none of them objected to the proposed fence . Comments from the audience : Mrs . Jackki Friedman, 516 La Salle Lane , and Mrs . Jordan. 514 La Salle Lane , were present . Mrs . Friedman said she was not informed of the fence by mail and the Lagunovs did not discuss the fence with her . She presented photographs of the property and explained that their common driveway would be obstructed by the fence . The street curves and they would not be able to see past the fence . It would be dangerous for children on skateboards and bikes . Mrs . Friedman also objected to the fence because it would be in her front yard . She would not object to a fence along the building line . Mrs . Jordan said she is only objecting to the obstruction of the line-of-sight . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Paul : Agreed the fence would be in Mrs . Friedman' s front yard and would block the view. He suggested that the fence should be located at least fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) from the sidewalk - not five feet (5 ' ) ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS �� April 21 , 1992 - Page Nine Ch. Heinrich said moving the fence back from the sidewalk would eliminate the safety factor . Com. Windecker : Agreed the fence should be setback at least fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) and suggested that it be located at the point where the Village Engineer ' s line-of-sight crosses the proposed location at the front of the duplex . Com. Arbus : Said he observed the house across La Salle Court has a fence that appears to be ten feet ( 10 ' ) past the building line and this fence should be no closer . The safety factor is most important , but is also important to consider how a fence will affect neighbors because this affects the welfare of the community. His initial opinion was to locate the fence fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) from the sidewalk , but he will not vote for any variance until the petitioner and Mrs . Friedman have reached a reasonable compromise . He generally favors some variance . When people purchase property , they do not expect to have automatic variances granted . Com. Fields : Confirmed that the fence would be solid to match the neighbor ' s fence and Mrs . Friedman said she had no objection to this style . Mr . Fields said that an open fence would give the neighbors more of a view. He would be comfortable with a five to ten foot (5-10 ' ) variance , but the neighbors will have to agree . Ch. Heinrich stated he is acquainted with Mrs . Jacci Friedman, but this will not affect his judgment or decision. He agreed that Mrs . Friedman' s view will be affected and she objects . The fence has to come back to eliminate the obstruction of the line- of-sight from both directions . He would favor some variance , but the situation must be discussed with the neighbors and a compromise reached that is agreeable with all parties . Mrs . Friedman said she may want a fence someday and objected to the way a fence closing off her side yard would have to connect to the Lagunov ' s fence if it goes beyond the building line . She would want the least amount of fence "sticking out" as possible . After more discussion, Ch. Heinrich informed Mr . Lagunov that it is the Commissioner ' s consensus of opinion that no variance can be granted at this time because of the controversy. A variance of approximately ten feet ( 10 ' ) is reasonable and will give the Lagunov' s more private use of their yard . Mr . Lagunov was informed of his options . He agreed to Table until May 19 , 1992 and agreed to discuss the situation with Mrs . Friedman. Motion to Table until May 19 , 1992 was made by Com. Arbus and seconded by Com. Windecker . Roll Call Vote was taken and the motion passed 5 to 0 . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 21 , 1992 - Page Ten E. 932 Providence Lane , Steven R. and Suzanne K. Berkowitz Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 - Area , Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations ; Purpose : Construction of addition that would encroach a distance of 7 ' 6" into required 35 ' rear yard The public hearing notice was read and Steven Berkowitz was sworn in. He summarized the reasons for requesting a variance : 1 . More living space is needed because their girls are growing . They only have a galley kitchen with a small eating area. 2 . The family room is also too small and they have no laundry room. 3 . They are established in the neighborhood and would not want to leave the schools , synagogue , and friends . The neighbors have been informed and they have no objections . The materials will match the existing construction. He present- ed photographs and described the proposed addition. If the deck is constructed , it will be smaller and will surround the tree . Ch. Heinrich had no questions or objections . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Fields : Commented that the area is now very open and the addition will be visible to the neighbors , but there will still be enough space and no neighbors are present to object . Com. Paul : No objections . Com. Arbus : No objections Com. Windecker : No objections . No questions or comments from the audience . Com. Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the request of David R. and Suzanne K. Berkowitz , 932 Providence Lane , for variance of the Zoning Ordinance . Section 17 . 40 . 020 , pertaining to Area , Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations , for the purpose of constructing an addition that would encroach a distance of 7 ' 6" into the required 35 ' rear yard setback. Materials of the addition are to match the existing construction in like kind and quality. Addition to be constructed pursuant to plans submitted to and approved by the Village of Buffalo Grove. The petitioner has exhibited hardship and unique circumstances . The Village Engineer has issued a directive that no alteration of the grade within five feet (5 ' ) of the property or swale is allowed . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 21 , 1992 - Page Eleven The proposed addition will not be detrimental to the essential character of the neighborhood. Com. Fields seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Paul , Windecker , Arbus , Fields , Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 5 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued after 15 days (May 7 , 1992) . Petitioner was advised to submit a permit application and building plans . Mr . Berkowitz inquired about a hole in his next door neighbor ' s yard that was dug about a month ago . It has been covered , but it could be dangerous for kids . Mr . Schar said he would investigate the situation. VI . ANNOUNCEMENTS A. Ch. Heinrich asked when the ordinance changes would be ready for review? Mr . Dempsey and Mr . Schar are working on a total "overhaul " of the Sign Code and the Fence Code . It will take a while longer . B. Mr . Dempsey announced that the Village Board overturned the ZBA' s March 17 , 1992 decision regarding the Somlo fence variance at 1314 Witney Lane . They were permitted to construct the fence , as the petition was amended: a five foot (5 ' ) solid , dog-eared fence located 10 feet past the building line . C. Commissioner Fields announced his resignation effective 4/30/92 . Ch. Heinrich said the Zoning Board would miss him and they were sorry to see him leave . VII . ADJOURNMENT Com. Arbus made a motion to adjourn. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Ch. Heinrich adjourned the meeting at 10 : 28 P.M. Respectively submitted . Shirley Bates Recording Secretary ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 21 , 1992 - Page Twelve