1992-05-19 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE , ILLINOIS
TUESDAY . MAY 19 , 1992
%4../
I . CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Richard Heinrich called the meeting to order at 8 : 20 P . M .
on Tuesday , May 19 , 1992 at the Village Hall , 50 Raupp Boulevard .
II . ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present : M . Kearns , L . Windecker , L . Arbus and
R . Heinrich . QUORUM .
Commissioners Absent : J . Paul and B . Entman
Bldg . Dept . Liaison : Edward Schar , Deputy Building Commissioner
Village Attorney : Tom Dempsey
Ch . Heinrich announced that it takes four ( 4 ) affirmative votes to
grant or recommend a variance . Since only four ( 4 ) Commissioners
are present , any petitioner may ask to have their request Tabled
until more Commissioners are present .
III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES_
Postponed until after the Business meeting .
Iv . OLD BUSINESS
A . 518 La Salle Court North . Gregory and Tatyana Lagunov
Fence Code . Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts
Motion to remove from Table was made by Com . Kearns and
seconded by Com . Windecker . Voice Vote was AYE Unanimously .
On April 21 , 1992 , the petition for a fence beyond the building
along La Salle Lane at the corner of La Salle Court North and
La Salle Lane was Tabled because a neighbor Mrs . Jakki Friedman
at 516 La Salle Lane objected to . the proposed location . Time
was given for the parties to discuss the situation and reach an
agreement .
Mr . and Mrs . Lagunov and Mrs . Friedman were present .
Ch . Heinrich reviewed the situation and recalled that it was
the ZBA Commissioner ' s consensus of opinion that the fence
should be set back about fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) from the sidewalk .
Mrs . Friedman said they have discussed the situation and she
would agree to have the fence twelve and a half ( 12- 1 /2 ) feet
from the sidewalk .
When Ch . Heinrich suggested an even number of twelve feet ( 12 ' )
or thirteen feet ( 13 ' ) , Mrs . Lagunov said she would prefer
thirteen feet ( 13 ' ) . The extra foot really meant a lot to her
because it would give her son more safe area in which to play .
Mrs . Friedman reluctantly agreed and asked if she could attach
a fence to the Lagunov' s extended fence? She was told that she
would not be able to put a fence past the front building line
of her house because it would be in her front yard. At this
point , Mrs . Friedman disagreed and a long discussion followed .
Comments from Commissioners :
Com . Arbus : In general . he does not approve of fences that are
in neighbor ' s front yards . and he respects Mrs . Friedman' s
right to object . He will not vote to allow a variance without
her consent , but he asked her to be reasonable , because the
Lagunovs do not have much of a rear yard .
Com. Windecker : Observed from the plat of survey that a fence
along the Lagunov ' s building line would not obstruct the view
from Mrs . Friedman' s front yard .
Mrs . Lagunov asked why the property across the street has a
fence ten feet ( 10 ' ) past the building line and they cannot
have a similar one?
Mrs . Friedman affirmed that there is a fence across the street .
She expressed concern about the possibility of not being able
to sell her house with a fence extended into her front yard .
She added that she does want to be reasonable .
Ch. Heinrich asked to see the plat of survey of Mrs . Friedman' s
property at 516 La Salle Lane . Because of the way La Salle
Lane curves , Mrs . Friedman' s front door and windows face away
from the Lagunov ' s property. A fence past the Lagunov' s build-
ing line will not obstruct the view from Mrs . Friedman ' s house .
Com. Kearns : Observed that Mrs . Friedman' s side yard is so
wide that a fence extending past the Lagunov ' s building line
will not appear to be in her front yard .
Mrs . Friedman commented that they purchased the lot because
there would be enough room in the side yard for a pool .
Ch. Heinrich suggested to Mrs . Friedman that a fence could be
built along her building line and if she wanted to connect it
to the end of the Lagunov ' s fence . a variance for only a very
short portion would be required . A fence built thirteen feet
( 13 ' ) from the Lagunov ' s building line would give them an
additional 520 square feet , increasing their yard about 1/3 .
Com. Arbus suggested a variance of ten feet ( 10 ' ) from the
building line . The other Commissioners agreed . Mrs . Friedman
also agreed .
Ch. Heinrich informed Mr . and Mrs . Lagunov of their options and
after due consideration they agreed to amend their petition.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
May 19 , 1992 - Page Two
Com. Windecker made the following motion:
I move we grant the request of Gregory Lagunov ,
518 La Salle Court North, for variance of the
Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 , pertaining to
Residential Districts . for the purpose of
constructing an arched cedar fence four feet
six inches (4 ' 6" ) , at its highest point . Fence
shall be located a distance of sixteen feet ( 16 ' )
from the sidewalk along La Salle Lane pursuant to
their amended petition.
The fence will not affect the essential character
of the neighborhood and will not be detrimental
to the public health, safety and welfare .
Com . Kearns seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote : AYE - Kearns . Windecker , Arbus , Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached.
Permit may be issued in 15 days on June 4 , 1992 .
B. 910 Ridgefield Lane , Hemant N. Brahmbhatt
Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 32 . 020 - Accessory Buildings
Motion to remove from Table was made by Com. Windecker and
seconded by Com. Kearns . Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously .
On March 17 . 1992 , the petitioner , Hemant Brahmbhatt , was
granted a variance of 3 ' 6" into the required rear yard setback
for the purpose of constructing an addition at the rear of the
house , with the condition that "plans for any future storage
shed be submitted to the ZBA for review and approval . "
Mr . Brahmbhatt submitted plans for a 10 ' x 12 ' storage shed .
He said they need one at least that large because their house
has no basement and they only have a one car garage . They have
a family of five and need storage space for five bicycles , plus
various other items .
On May 17 , 1992 Mrs . Carol Butz , 920 Ridgefield Lane came to -
the public hearing and objected to the location of the storage
shed in the northwest corner of Mr . Brahmbhatt ' s yard because
it would block the view from her back yard . Mrs . Butz was
notified by mail of this public hearing .
Mr . Brahmbhatt stated that he discussed the proposed shed with
Mr . and Mrs . Butz . They told him to construct whatever size
shed he wanted and said they were not going to attend this
meeting.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
May 19 , 1992 - Page Three
Comments from Commissioners :
Com. Kearns had chaired the ZBA meeting on March 17 , 1992 . He
\„,./ recalled that Mr . Brahmbhatt originally requested a 12 ' x 14 '
shed and was informed that he could construct an 8 ' x 10 ' shed
without a variance . Mrs . Butz did not object to the addition
or the deck , but she did would not agree to permit a shed in
the proposed location in the northeast corner of the yard
because of the wall effect . Com . Kearns said he had no
objections to the proposed shed .
Com. Windecker recalled that Mrs . Butz also objected to the
12 ' height of the proposed shed. He looked at the site again
and there are very tall shrubs in the Butz ' yard that will
completely obstruct their view of the shed except in winter .
He does not object to the proposed shed.
Com. Arbus asked the height of the proposed shed? Answer was :
"Between 10 and 11 feet . " Com. Arbus had no objections .
Com. Windecker made the following motion:
I move we recommend to the Village Board of Trustees
that a variance be granted to Hemant N. Brahmbhatt ,
910 Ridgefield Lane , pursuant to Zoning Ordinance ,
Section 17 . 32 . 020 , pertaining to Accessory Buildings ,
for the purpose of constructing a 10 ' x 12 ' storage
shed that would exceed the 20% lot coverage limitation.
Petitioner having demonstrated hardship and unique
circumstances , the proposed construction will not
alter the essential character of the neighborhood .
Shed to be similar to the drawing submitted with the
application and located per the site plan submitted
with the application.
Condition: Pursuant to the Village Engineer ' s drainage
review , dated March 6 . 1992 , that states : "No swale
should be altered to restrict the flow of water . "
Com. Kearns seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote : AYE - Arbus , Kearns , Windecker , Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached .
An Ordinance will be prepared and submitted to the Village
Board for approval on Monday , June 1 , 1992 . Permit may be
issued on Thursday , June 4 , 1992 .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
May 19 , 1992 - Page Four
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. 165 N. Arlington Heights Road , Pivar Computing Services
Sign Code , Section 14 . 20 . 020 - Office and Research District
Mr . Gary Pivar , President of Pivar Computing Services ; and
Mr . John Johnson, C. Johnson Sign Company , 9615 Waveland Ave . ,
Franklin Park , IL 60131 , were sworn in. The Public Hearing
Notice was read . Mr . Pivar explained the reason for request-
ing a variance of the Sign Code is for the purpose of
constructing a 2 ' x 6 ' ground sign in front of the building at
165 North Arlington Heights Road in the Buffalo Grove Business
Park because clients are having difficulty locating the
office . Many of them are from the city or come from out of
state and they only come one time .
Pivar Computing Services is a computer programming company.
They move information from one type of computer to another .
They do about 25 jobs a day with about 10 clients coming
from this local area. There are 23 people working for the
company. They have been in business for six (6 ' ) years and
now , after expansion, occupy 700 to 800 square feet which is
about 30% of the building.
Comments from Commissioners :
Ch. Heinrich: It is a small identification sign. No problems .
Com. Windecker : Drove through the Business Park and did not
see any other ground signs . There could be many other similar
requests .
Mr . Johnson said that Hamilton Partners is very particular
about approving signs . He is acting as Hamilton Partner ' s
agent . Other major tenants were granted variances for similar
identification signs , i . e . J. C. Penny and Dow Corning , but
they have moved and the variances terminated . The sign will
match the other Buffalo Grove Business Park signs .
Com. Arbus : Said when he drove through the park , he did not
have any problem finding the location. He did not see any
other signs , but he senses Pivar ' s need for identification.
Mr . Dempsey confirmed that while each petition is considered
separately , but he advised the ZBA to be consistent when
reviewing the reasons given for seeking a variance .
Com. Arbus : Would agree to recommend a variance with documen-
tation that this is a major tenant who has expanded in this
location. He would not want to see a large number of signs .
Com. Kearns : Asked about existing Pivar Computing signs?
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
May 19 , 1992 - Page Five
Mr . Pivar responded that he has a sign on the door and on the
directory sign. Both have about 2-inch letters . He said that
messenger services have also had problems locating the office .
Com. Kearns : Has no objection because it is internally located
within the Business Park . Mr . Pivar has been in the location
for several years and has expanded . He expressed concern about
getting a number of signs , but said that future petitioners
would have to meet similar guidelines .
There were no questions or objections from the audience .
Com. Arbus made the following motion:
I move we recommend to the Village Board of Trustees
that Hamilton Partners , represented by John Johnson,
be granted a variance of Sign Code , Sec . 14 . 20 . 020 ,
pertaining to Office and Research Districts , for the
purpose of permitting a ground sign for Pivar Comput-
ing Services , 165 N . Arlington Heights Road , in the
Buffalo Grove Business Park .
The sign to be as depicted in Exhibit A, which was
provided with the application. Sign to be of the
same characteristics as the existing Hamilton signs .
Petitioner has demonstrated that :
�../ 1 . The literal interpretation and strict application of
the provisions and requirements of this title would
cause undue hardships to the sign user because of
unique or unusual conditions pertaining to the
specific building or parcel or property in question:
Petitioner having stated under oath that customers
and messenger services have complained they are
unable to locate the place of business , and
2 . The granting of the requested variance would not
be materially detrimental to the property owners in
the vicinity; and
3 . The unusual conditions applying to the specific
property do not apply generally to other properties
in the Village ; and
4 . The granting of the variance will not be contrary to
the general objective of this title of moderating the
size , number and obtrusive placement of signs and the
reduction of clutter .
Com. Windecker seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote : AYE - Kearns , Windecker , Arbus , Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached.
An Ordinance will be prepared and submitted to the Village
Board of Trustees for approval on Monday , June 1 , 1992 . Permit
may be issued on June 4 , 1992 . Mr . Johnson is to provide a
letter of approval and agency from Hamilton Partners before
a permit is issued .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
May 19 , 1992 - Page Six
B. 635 Buckthorn Terrace , Larry and Robin Walovitch
Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 20 . 030 - Building Height , Bulk
and Lot Coverage ; Purpose : Placement of Air Conditioner
Mrs . Robin Walovitch, 635 Buckthorn Terrace , was sworn in and
the Public Hearing Notice was read. Mrs . Walovitch explained
that they were granted a variance for the construction of an
addition. The air conditioner has to be moved and if it is
placed in the rear yard , it will take up some of the remaining
space . If it is located on the east side , inside the fence ,
there will not be sufficient ventilation, so they are request-
a variance to locate the unit on the east side of the house ,
outside the fence , facing the street . It will be within the
building line . They have a row of bushes along that side of
the house . They will remove one of them and replace it with
the air conditioning unit .
Mrs . Walovitch has informed all her neighbors across the street
and none of them object .
Comments from Commissioners ;
Ch. Heinrich observed that they have a 29 foot side yard . He
had no objections and said other similar requests will be made .
Com. Kearns asked if they plan to screen the air conditioner?
Mrs . Walovitch said that if they surround the A/C with bushes ,
it will not look very good and they would also cut off the air .
Com. Kearns said he did not object .
Com. Windecker : No objections .
Com. Arbus : No objections .
Com. Kearns made the following motion:
I move we recommend to the Village Board of Trustees
that a variance be granted Larry and Robin Walovitch,
635 Buckthorn Terrace , of Zoning Ordinance ,
Section 17 . 20 . 030 , pertaining to Building Height ,
Bulk and Lot Coverage , for the purpose of installing
an air conditioning unit in the side yard on Buckthorn
Terrace , as indicated on the plat of survey, submitted
with the application.
Hardship having been demonstrated , the variance will
not alter the essential character of the neighborhood
and will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety and welfare .
Com . Windecker seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote : AYE - Arbus , Windecker , Kearns , Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed : 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached.
An Ordinance will be prepared and submitted to the Village
Board for approval on Monday , June 1 , 1992 . Permit may
be issued on June 4 , 1992 .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
May 19 , 1992 - Page Seven
C. 542 Patton Drive , Jeff and Barbara Littlefield
Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts
Mr . and Mrs . Jeff Littlefield were sworn in. The Public
Hearing Notice was read . Mr . Littlefield summarized their
reasons for requesting a variance :
1 . They were aware of the size of the yard when
they purchased the property . but observed a
fence at the corner of Bradley and Patton that
extends to the sidewalk . They thought they
could have a similar fence that would increase
the size of their yard .
2 . They need the fence for the safety of their
two young children and to confine their dog .
3 . After receiving the Village Engineer ' s memo
recommending the fence be set back five feet
(5 ' ) he would agree with the recommendation
and would also change the style from five foot
(4 ' ) board on board to four foot (4 ' ) chain
link for the portion requiring a variance .
Mr . Littlefield said they informed all their neighbors of the
proposed fence and none of them objected.
A second memo from the Village Engineer , dated May 12 . 1992 .
states : "Our previous memo for the subject proposal was in
error . The petitioner ' s driveway in effect a near-side
driveway , and the fence should be setback ten feet ( 10 ' ) from
the sidewalk . "
Ch. Heinrich said he would not object to a four foot (4 ' ) chain
link fence if it was set back ten feet ( 10 ' ) from the sidewalk .
There is a visual line-of-sight problem for the Littlefields
and there is a safety factor for children playing in the area .
Mr . Littlefield presented photographs of the existing wood
fence at Patton and Bradley .
Ch. Heinrich commented that it could have been put up before
the Fence Code was put into effect . The ZBA would not have
granted a fence up to the sidewalk .
Mr . Dempsey stated that if the existing fence should be
replaced , it would have conform with the Fence Code .
Comments from Commissioners :
Com. Windecker : Because of possible liability , he would
only approve a variance for a chain link fence ten feet ( 10 ' )
from the sidewalk .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
May 19 , 1992 - Page Eight
Com. Arbus : This appears to be a front yard fence , but there
is no rear yard at all , and the only space is to the side .
He did no object to a four foot (4 ' ) chain link fence ten feet
( 10 ' ) from the sidewalk .
Com . Kearns : Agreed with the consensus of the Commissioners .
Mr . Littlefield agreed to amend his petition and requested a
four foot (4 ' ) chain link fence located ten feet ( 10 ' ) from
the sidewalk.
Com. Windecker made the following motion:
I move we grant the request of F . Jeffrey and
Barbara Littlefield , 542 Patton Drive . for
variance of the Fence Code . Section 15 . 20 . 040 .
pertaining to Residential Districts , for the
purpose of constructing a four foot ( 4 ' ) chain
link fence that would be located ten feet ( 10 ' )
from the sidewalk along Hawthorne Drive .
Fence to be constructed pursuant to the Village
Engineer ' s recommendation that the fence be set
back at least ten feet ( 10 ' ) . Petitioner agrees
to amend his petition and locate the fence as
indicated on the plat of survey attached to the
Village Engineer ' s amended Line-of-Sight Review.
Petitioner having demonstrated unique circumstances ,
the essential character of the neighborhood will no
be affected and the fence will not be detrimental
to the public health , safety and welfare .
Com. Kearns seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote : AYE - Kearns . Windecker . Arbus , Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached .
Permit may be issued in 15 days on June 4 , 1992 .
D. 477 Satinwood Terrace . Michael and Ava Sterling
Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts
Michael Sterling was sworn in and the Public Hearing Notice
was read . Mr . Sterling explained that he would like to add two
five foot (5 ' ) high sections of wood fence to connect up with
the existing six foot (6 ' ) fence along Buffalo Grove Road . His
neighbor has constructed a fence that bisects the lot along the
rear . The neighbor ' s yard is an eyesore . The proposed fence
will screen the view and will provide privacy from B. G. Road .
The ZBA Commissioners had no objections .
There were no comments from the audience .
There is no line-of-sight problem .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
May 19 . 1992 - Page Nine
Com. Arbus made the following motion:
I move we grant the request of Michael and
Ava Sterling, 477 Satinwood Drive , for variance
of the Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 , pertaining
to Residential Districts , for the purpose of
constructing a five foot (5 ' ) wood fence that
would extend past the building line at the corner
of Satinwood Terrace and Buffalo Grove Road , as
indicated on the plat of survey submitted with
the application.
Petitioner having demonstrated that the presence
of this fence would not be detrimental to the
public health, safety and welfare .
Com. Windecker seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote : AYE - Kearns , Windecker , Arbus , Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 4 to 0 .
D. 485 Weidner Road , Ronald Nosko
Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 , pertaining to
Area , Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations
Purpose : Construction of addition that would encroach a
distance of two feet (2 ' ) into the required six foot (6 ' )
side yard setback and variance of the combined side yard
total of fourteen feet ( 14 ' ) .
Mr . Ronald Nosko was sworn in and the Public Hearing Notice
was read . Mr . Nosko explained that they want to enlarge the
kitchen area. The variance will permit them to move the stove
and refrigerator away from the interior wall , remove the wall
and install a counter top between the kitchen and dining room.
He has discussed the proposal with the Andersons who live at
497 Weidner . They would be the most affected and they do not
object .
The addition would be constructed over the existing concrete
slab . Mr . Schar said the slab would not hold the proposed
structure so a foundation would have to be added .
The Commissioners had no objection.
There were no comments or questions from the audience .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
May 19 , 1992 - Page Ten
Com. Kearns made the following motion:
I move we grant the request of Ronald Nosko ,
485 Weidner Road , 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 would encroach a distance of two feet
(2 ' ) into the required six foot (6 ' ) side
yard setback and the remaining side yard
will be less than the required fourteen foot
( 14 ' ) combined side yard .
Hardship having been established , the proposed
addition will not alter the essential character
of the neighborhood .
Com. Windecker seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote : AYE - Kearns , Windecker , Arbus , Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached .
Permit may be issued in 15 days on June 4 , 1992 .
F . 1205 W. Dundee Road , El Torito Restaurant (Que Pasa)
Sign Code , Section 14 . 20 . 030 - Business Districts
Mr . Pete Rock , M-K Signs , 4900 N. Elston Avenue . Chicago , IL
(312) 545-4444 ; was sworn in. He is the authorized agent for
El Torito Restaurants , Inc . in California per letter dated
April 28 , 1992 . The Public Hearing Notice was read .
Mr . Rock requested the Que Pasa sign on the west elevation of
the building at 1205 W. Dundee Road , be changed to El Torito .
All the Que Pasa Restaurants in the Chicagoland area are being
changed . The existing sign is 20 square feet and the new sign
will be approximately 16 square feet .
On May 14 , 1992 the Appearance Commission recommended approval
of the face changes of the ground sign and the wall sign on the
north elevation, and also recommended a variance . The Village
Board approved the ground sign and the wall sign on the north
elevation on May 18 , 1992 .
The Commissioners had no comments or objections .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
�✓ May 19 , 1992 - Page Eleven
Com. Arbus made the following motion:
I move we recommend that the Village Board of Trustees
grant the request of El Torito Restaurants for variance
of Sign Code , Section 14 . 20 . 030 , pertaining to Business
Districts , for the purpose of permitting existing Que Pasa
sign on the west elevation, at 1205 W. Dundee Road be
changed to El Torito , pursuant to the information
submitted with the variance application by M-K Signs , as
agent .
Petitioner having demonstrated that :
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 and unusual conditions
pertaining to the specific building or parcel of
property in question ; and
2 . The granting of the requested variance would not be
materially detrimental to the property owners in the
vicinity, and
3 . The unusual conditions applying to the specific
property do not apply generally to other properties
in the village , and
4 . The granting of the variance will not be contrary to
the general objective of this title of moderating the
size , number and obtrusive placement of signs and the
reduction of clutter .
Com. Windecker seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote : AYE - Kearns , Windecker , Arbus , Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached.
An Ordinance will be prepared and submitted to the Village
Board for approval on Monday, June 1 . 1992 . Permit may be
issued on June 4 , 1992 .
VI . ANNOUNCEMENTS
A. Motion to approve the January 21 , 1992 minutes was made by
Com. Kearns and seconded by Com. Windecker .
Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously. January minutes were approved .
B. Motion to Table the April 21 , 1992 minutes was made by
Com. Arbus and seconded by Com. Windecker .
Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously. April minutes were Tabled .
VII . ADJOURNMENT
Motion to adjourn was made by Com. Windecker and seconded by
Com. Arbus . Ch. Heinrich adjourned the meeting at 10 : 20 P.M.
Respectfully submitted ,
ILL/tc.„_
Shirley Bates
Recording Secretary ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
May 19 , 1992 - Page Twelve