Loading...
1992-07-21 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE , ILLINOIS TUESDAY , JULY 21 , 1992 I . CALL TO ORDER Chairman Richard Heinrich called the meeting to order at 8 : 05 P . M . on Tuesday . July 21 , 1992 at the Village Hall . 50 Raupp Boulevard . II . ROLL CALL Commissioners Present : M . Kearns , J . Paul , B . Entman , L . Windecker , R . Heinrich . Com . Arbus arrived at 8 : 25 PM Commissioners Absent : None Bldg . Dept . Liaison : Edward Schar , Deputy Building Commissioner Village Attorney : Tom Dempsey III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes were approved after the business meeting . IV . OLD BUSINESS A . 440 Foxford Drive , Michael and Kandy Holton Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts Item was Tabled June 16 , 1992 to permit Mr . Holton time to secure letters of approval for a six foot ( 6 ' ) wood privacy fence . Com . Kearns made a motion to remove from Table . Com . Windecker seconded the motion . Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously Letters from the Canterbury Homeowner ' s Association and Dart- moor Homes were read by Chairman Heinrich . Both letters gave approval of the fence but stated some reservations about the benefits it would have in eliminating the noise and dirt from Buffalo Grove Road . A landscape screen was preferred by Dartmoor Homes . Ch . Heinrich said , regardless of the approvals , he did not personally think a six foot ( 6 ' ) fence would solve the problems any better than a five foot ( 5 ' ) fence and a six foot ( 6 ' ) fence would create a wall between the Holtons and the people who purchase the lot next to Buffalo Grove Road . Comments from Commissioners : Com . Paul : Agreed that a landscape screen would be better , but with the letters of approval , he would reluctantly vote for a variance . Mr . Holton said he has already put in over $8 , 000 worth of landscaping . The fence would also permit their 75 pound boxer dog to have some freedom to run. He has had to be leashed up for two years . More landscaping would reduce the size of the yard . There was supposed to be a berm along Buffalo Grove Rd . The neighbors . living to the rear , do not object to the proposed fence . The neighbor ' s lot is higher and they can look down on the patio . A six foot (6 ' ) fence will give the Holtons more privacy. Com. Windecker : Said a five foot (5 ' ) fence will have the same effect on the noise and dirt as a six foot (6 ' ) fence would have . The approval letters only give "back-handed" approval . Com. Kearns : Agreed a six foot (6 ' ) fence would be a wall and when the vacant piece of property is sold , the fence could create a future hardship for the purchasers . Com. Entman: Has not changed his opinion. The height should be five feet (5 ' ) . Ch. Heinrich asked Mr . Holton if he would consider constructing a six foot (6 ' ) fence with the stipulation that the fence would have to be cut down to five feet (5 ' ) after the house , built on the vacant lot , is occupied . There would be a monetary factor . Mr . Holton responded that the wind coming through from Buffalo Grove Road has knocked down trees and the patio furniture has been knocked over . This is another reason for needing a fence . He speculated about the future neighbors not objecting to the six foot (6 ' ) fence . Could he leave it as constructed? Ch. Heinrich replied that a public hearing would be required . It would be necessary for the purchasers to come and give affirmation that the fence was acceptable . The ZBA would also have to vote affirmatively to permit the fence to remain. Com. Entman agreed this stipulation could be a solution. Mr . Holton questioned whether it would be aesthetically pleasing to cut a board-on-board fence down. Mr . Schar said it should not be a problem to cut the fence down and suggested constructing it with two top rails : one at the top and another one foot ( 1 ' ) below. Ch. Heinrich said a variance could be granted for a six foot (6 ' ) fence with the condition that a public hearing would be scheduled for a month or two after the C.O. is issued. The purchasers would have time to decide if the fence is objectionable and would be notified to attend the public hearing . The Commissioners would have the opportunity to see the fence . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 21 . 1992 - Page Two Mr . Holton agreed to the proposal . The Commissioners had no objections . Mr . Dempsey said it was procedurally workable . There were no comments from the audience . Com. Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the request of Michael and Kandy Holton, 440 Foxford Drive , 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 privacy fence along the rear lot and the interior lot line , subject to the following condition: The variance shall terminate sixty (60) days after the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the property directly to the west of 440 Foxford Drive . The petitioner must apply for a new variance OR lower the fence to five feet (5 ' ) within the sixty (60) day period following the date of the Certificate of Occupancy for the property directly to the west of the subject property. The proposed fence will not be detrimental to the public health , safety and welfare . The fence will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood . Com. Paul seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Kearns , Entman, Paul , Windecker and Heinrich NAY - None ABSTAIN - Arbus (arrived during discussion) Motion Passed - 5 to 0 , 1 abstention. Findings of Fact Attached . Permit may be issued in 15 days , after August 6 , 1992 . B. 300-350-400 E. Dundee Road Grove Terrace Condominiums Entrance Signs Sign Code , Section 14 . 20 . 010 - Residential Districts Sign Code , Section 14 . 20 .070 - Ground Signs Item was Tabled June 16 , 1992 to permit placement review by the Public Works Department in relation to underground utilities . Com. Windecker made a motion to remove from Table . Com. Kearns seconded the motion. Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 21 . 1992 - Page Three Mr . Fred Arkush was sworn in. He represented the Grove Terrace Condominium Association, 400 E. Dundee Road (H- 520-0049 and W - 272-1237 ) . Mr . Arkush and Mr . Michael Williams of Saturn Signs , 830-9 Seton Court , Unit C , Wheeling , IL (520-9009) met with the Village Engineer and another gentlemen (possibly Ray Rigsby) last week . Boards had been placed in accordance with the original site plan and the Water Department had marked the water main. The signs would not be in the marked area and they were told the proposed location of the signs was not a problem. Mr . Schar said he has not been contacted by Dick Kuenkler and has not received approval of any site plan. Mr . Dempsey said the ZBA can recommend a variance , based on hardship , with placement subject to confirmation by the Village Engineer . Mr . Arkush said there are existing brick piers that do not interfere with any underground utilities . These small signs , mounted on wood posts , will be next to them pursuant the preliminary plan. Regarding the proposed setback of the signs , Mr . Schar said both sections of the Sign Code pertaining to setback in resi- dential districts and distance between signs were published. The Commissioners had no questions or comments . There were no questions from the audience . Com. Paul made the following motion: I move we recommend that the Village of Board of Trustees grant the request made by Grove Terrace Condominiums , 300-350-400 East Dundee Road , for variance of Sign Code , Section 14 . 20 . 010 pertaining to Residential Districts , and Sign Code . Section 14 . 20 . 070 , pertaining to Ground Signs , for the purpose of constructing two (2) ground signs less than 250 feet apart and closer than 25 feet from the property line , in accordance with the Site Plan that was submitted with the application. Variance is subject to the Village Engineer ' s written statement that there is no obstruction of any existing utility. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Kearns . Entman. Paul , Windecker . Arbus and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. An ordinance will be prepared and the item may be placed on the agenda for the August 3 , 1992 meeting of the Village Board . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 21 . 1992 - Page Four B. 4 Belaire Court , Kenneth and Marisa Duke Review of proposed patio of Unilock Pavers Mr . Heinrich announced that this was not a public hearing . Kenneth and Marisa Duke were granted a variance July 16 , 1991 with a condition that they return to the ZBA for a review of if they added a patio anywhere on the lot . Mr . and Mrs . Duke were present . Mr . Duke requested a 200 square foot patio to be constructed of Unilock paving stones on a gravel base embedded in sand on a gravel base to allow for the maximum amount of water drainage possible . A two foot (2 ' ) unpaved area will be left between the patio area and the foundation of the house to allow additional drainage from the guttering system. The Village Engineer ' s Review , dated June 9 , 1992 , states : "We have reviewed the proposed construction which will not affect the area drainage . " Two neighbors were present . Ms . Karen Uhren, 760 Bernard Drive has a drainage problem with her property. She had objected to the construction of the addition because it could allow more water to drain into her yard . There was not much snow or rain this year and the flooding was worse . She said the water stayed in her yard all winter and froze . The ice did not melt until March ( 1992) and when it did the water ran off into her neighbors yards . This did not happen before the addition was constructed. Ms . Uhren expressed concerned that the proposed patio would affect the drainage even more . The water has rotted the fence posts so the fence has been weakened. Mr . Duke described the gutter system on the addition and he said that he took about two inches (2" ) of dirt from along the rear lot line of his yard to permit water to flow back into their yard . They also removed the shed and that area is also lower than Ms . Urhen' s property. The Dukes did not have any flooding . Mr . Duke added a comment about the unsafe condition of Ms . Uhren' s fence . It has always been dangerous . Mr . Frank Schuster , 5 Belaire Court , said the flooding occurs because of the condition of the swale . He had water seepage last year and that has not happened for many years . Ch. Heinrich said the swale is the main cause of the problem in the whole area. The ZBA could not proceed to make a decision without more specific advice from the Village Engineer . The matter will be Tabled until August 18 , 1992 and Mr . Kuenkler will be asked to come . The Dukes cannot put in the patio . Com. Paul make a motion to Table until August 18 , 1992 . Com . Kerns seconded the motion. Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously Mr . Schar was advised to inform Mr . Kuenkler that Mrs . Uhren would like to meet with him and that he should come in August . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 21 , 1992 - Page Five V. NEW BUSINESS A. 140 Pauline Avenue , Scott and Amy Polokow �.! Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 - Screen Porch Scott Polokow was sworn in and the public hearing notice was read . Mr . Polokow summarized the reasons for requesting a variance of 3 . 78 feet into the required forty foot (40 ' ) rear yard setback for the purpose of constructing a 15 ' x 15 ' screen porch: 1 . Their two children are allergic to mosquito bites . 2 . The family would like to be able to enjoy the outdoors without having to use insect repellents . The neighbors have been informed and they do not object . Com. Windecker said the Polokow' s property borders his and he will abstain from voting. He added that he has no objections . No other neighbors were present . Mr . Polokow said the porch will be constructed with cedar siding and will have a gable roof with shingles to match the house . It will probably have crank out windows with screens . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Paul : No problem with variance . There is considerable room to the rear and the request is reasonable . Com. Arbus : No problem. The fence is screened with evergreens . Com. Kearns : No objections . They could build a 15 ' x 11 ' screen room with no variance and the 40 ' setback is large . Com. Entman: No objections . Com. Kearns made the following motion: I move we grant the request being made by Scott and Amy T. Polokow, 140 Pauline Avenue , for variance of Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 , pertaining to Area, Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations , for the purpose of constructing a screen porch that would encroach a distance of 3 . 78 feet into the required forty foot (40 ' ) rear yard setback . Hardship having been established , the proposed addition will not be detrimental to the essential character of the neighborhood. Com. Arbus seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman. Kearns . Paul , Arbus , Heinrich NAY - None ABSTAIN - Windecker Motion Passed - 5 - 0 , 1 abstention. Findings of Fact Attached Permit may be issued in fifteen ( 15) days , August 6 , 1992 . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 21 . 1992 - Page Six B. 51 Mc Henry Road , Shoney' s Restaurant (Formerly Wag ' s) Sign Code . Section 14 . 20 . 030 - Wall Signs Placement of a sign on the north elevation. Mr . Nick Ginaris was sworn in. He is construction manager and authorized representative of Lunan Family Restaurants , 4247 George Street , Schiller Park , IL (678-2032) . The Public Hearing Notice was read . Mr . Ginaris explained the conversion of the Wag ' s Restaurants to Shoney ' s . They will be making a substantial investment in remodeling each building . It is important that they have a strong signage program , including the replacement of the existing Wag ' s sign on the north elevation. The Appearance Commission reviewed and recommended a variance for the proposed sign on June 11 , 1992 . This is a minor change that will not adversely affect the property or the shopping center . Mr . Dempsey explained that a variance is necessary because the business is changing owners and this is considered to be a new sign, not just a face change . The Commissioners had no questions , comments or objections . There were no questions from the audience . Com. Entman made the following motion: I move we recommend that the Village Board of Trustees ►� grant the request of Lunan Family Restaurants , for variance of Sign Code , Section 14 . 20 . 030 , pertaining to Business Districts , for the purpose of installing a Shoney ' s wall sign, subject to the following conditions : 1 . Sign to be constructed according to plans and specifications submitted to and approved by the Village ; 2 . Sign to be located per the site plan submitted with the application for variance ; 3 . Sign to be granted a variance pursuant to Sign Code , Section 14 . 44 . 010 , Sub-section B. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Kearns , Entman, Paul , Windecker , Arbus and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . An ordinance will be prepared and this item may be placed on the agenda of the August 3 , 1992 meeting of the Village Board . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 21 , 1992 - Page Seven C. 267 Melinda Lane , Roger Kujawa Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 32 . 020 �./ Mr . Roger Kujawa was sworn in. The Public Hearing Notice was read . Mr . Kujawa summarized the reasons for requesting a variance for the purpose of constructing an attached garage that would encroach a distance of seven feet (7 ) into the required rear yard setback : 1 . There is no garage and cars have had to be parked on the stone driveway next to the house . 2 . The variance would permit construction of a two car garage and the driveway will be paved . 3 . One vehicle is a 3-year old pickup truck and the sun has oxidized the top of the cab causing it to deteriorate so it has decreased in value . 4 . Kids throw rocks from the driveway. Mr . Kujawa said he has talked to all his neighbors and none of them object . The materials of the proposed garage will match the existing structure . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Kearns : No objections . There is adequate space . Com. Entman: No objections . It is a hardship not to have a garage . Com. Paul : No problem with request . Com. Windecker : Asked if the shed will be removed? "No . " Com. Arbus : No problem. Garage will add substantially to the property. No questions or comments from the audience . Com . Arbus made the following motion: I move we grant the request of Roger Kujawa 267 Melinda Lane , for variance of the Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 , pertaining to Location of Accessory Buildings and Structures , for the purpose of constructing a garage that would encroach a distance of seven feet (7 ' ) into the required thirty foot (30) rear yard setback . The roof of the garage is to follow the same roof line and is to be constructed with materials that match the house . The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances and the proposed construction will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Com. Paul seconded the motion. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 21 , 1992 - Page Eight The Village Engineer ' s Review , dated July 6 , 1992 , states : " It (the proposed addition) will not affect the existing drainage pattern. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Kearns , Entman, Paul , Windecker , Arbus and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . Permit may be issued in 15 days (August 6 , 1992) . D. 555 Mayfair Lane , Stanley and Stacy Rosen Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts Stanley and Stacy Rosen were sworn in and the Public Hearing Notice was read . The Village Engineer ' s July 6 , 1992 Review , states : "The fence should be moved five feet (5 ' ) to the east to avoid impacting the corner vision. " Mrs . Rosen said they received the review and said they would construct the fence wherever it would be permitted to enclose as much of their yard as possible . Their neighbors were granted a variance to construct a fence ten feet ( 10 ' ) from the sidewalk and the fences would look better if they were in line . Mr . Schar had scaled the plat and recommended that the fence be constructed sixty-five (65 ' ) from the rear lot line . Com. Paul calculated the fence could be seven feet (7 ' ) from the rear corner of the house . Mr . Rosen summarized their reasons for requesting a variance : 1 . The fence would provide safety for their two (2) small children. 2 . They have a small tramboline in the yard and the fence would keep other children out of the yard and prevent liability. There were no questions or comments from the audience . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Paul : Had no objection to the ten foot ( 10 ' ) distance from sidewalk , but said he observed several different types of fences in the neighborhood . He would prefer a chain link , but a picket fence is better than a solid fence . Mrs . Rosen explained that there are two different types of fences in her rear yard : ( 1/2 is a chain link and 1 /2 is a six foot (6 ' ) wood fence) . They missed the cutoff date for the June 16 , 1992 ZBA meeting or they would have applied for a variance at the same time , but not for a chain link fence . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 21 , 1992 - Page Nine Com . Arbus : Agreed with Com . Paul ' s comments about the many different types of fencing in the surrounding area. Chain link would look better , but he understands their reasoning and would not object to the proposed picket fence . Com. Kearns : Agreed a chain link fence would keep the area open and ask what kind of top the fence will have? Mr . and Mrs . Rosen said they prefer an open picket type with one inch ( 1 " ) spaces with a scalloped dog-eared top. They will add some landscaping in the future . Com. Kearns : No objections . Com . Entman: Observed that there are no other fences that extend out along Hawthorne but there is a transition from the old development and the new Windsor Ridge development . With the chain link fence already extending ten feet ( 10) past the building line , this fence will not detract from the neighborhood . The picket fence will be more attractive . Ch. Heinrich: Said he prefers a wood fence over a chain link and open picket is better than solid. There were no questions or comments from the audience . Com. Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the request of Stanley and Stacy Rosen, 555 Mayfair Lane , for variance of the Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 , pertaining to Residential Districts , for the purpose of constructing a five foot (5 ' ) wood picket fence that would extend past the building line a distance of ten feet ( 10 ' ) from the sidewalk along Hawthorne Road . The fence will be seven feet (7 ' ) from the rear corner of the house . Unique circumstances having been demonstrated , the proposed fence would not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare . The Village Engineer ' s Review , dated July 6 . 1992 , states : "The fence should be moved five feet (5 ' ) to the east to avoid impacting the corner vision. " Com. Paul seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Kearns . Entman, Paul , Windecker , Arbus and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . Permit may be issued in 15 days , after August 6 , 1992 . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 21 , 1992 - Page Ten E. 39 Chestnut Terrace , Larry and Marla Cherner Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 32 . 020 - Residential District Mr . and Mrs . Cherner were not present to testify, so at the end of the meeting , Mr . Dempsey advised the ZBA that they could Table the hearing or " let it fall " (cancel it ) and the Cherners would have to reapply. Com. Windecker made a motion to Table to August 18 , 1992 . Com. Paul seconded the motion. Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously F . 410 Claret Drive , Kenneth and Johanna Mosbergen Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 , Residential Districts Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 32 . 020 - Location of Accessory Buildings and Structures - 6 ' fence and swimming pool past the building line at the corner of Claret Dr . and Lakeview Dr . Mr . and Mrs . Mosbergen were sworn in and the Public Hearing Notice was read . Mr . Mosbergen summarized their reasons for requesting the variance : 1 . They need the fence for privacy because they are planning to construct a swimming pool next year . 2 . The fence would provide space for their dog and cat to exercise without being leashed . After considering the aesthetics of other neighborhood fences , they have reconsidered the height of the fence along Lake View Drive and amended the petition to request a five foot (5 ' ) wood privacy fence . They have decided to construct the pool nine- teen inches ( 19" ) into the ground. They requested a variance to construct the fence a distance of fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) from the sidewalk which is the same distance from the sidewalk as the fence directly across the street . Ch. Heinrich commented that this is a very unique lot with the largest part of the lot in front of the house . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Kearns : No problem , but noted that the fence would be very close to the front of the house and asked why? Mr . Mosbergen replied that they want to enclose the two (2) window wells for security. The utility boxes would be outside the fence . Com. Entman: No objections . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS `./ July 21 , 1992 - Page Eleven Com Paul : Said the five foot (5 ' ) height is better . The lot is so open, the fence will have minimal impact on the neighborhood . The house appears to be the second house from the corner . The way the street curves also reduces the impact of the fence . The driveway next door is on the far side , so the fence will not affect the line-of-sight . Com. Windecker : Asked how long the variance is valid if the pool is not constructed at this time? Mr . Schar explained that the variance is good for six months (6) months and if the permit is issued within this period . construction can begin anytime within six (6) months , technically extending the time for almost one ( 1 ) year . Com . Arbus : Said he would prefer the fence to be twenty feet (20 ' ) away from the sidewalk but then the pool would be very close to the fence . Mr . Mosbergen replied that the proposed fence would enclose the existing trees and would permit room for additional shrubbery. The exact pool location has not been determined . There will not be a fence around the decking of the pool . Mr . Mosbergen said they have informed their neighbors of their plans and none of them objected to the fence or the pool . There were not questions or comments from the audience . Com. Paul made the following motion: I move we grant the request of Kenneth H. and Johanna Mosbergen, 410 Claret 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 privacy fence that would extend a distance of fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) past the building line along Lakeview Drive ; and variance of Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 32 . 020 , pertaining to Location of Accessory Buildings and Structures , for the purpose of installing a swimming pool that would extend approximately five feet (5 ' ) past the building line along Lakeview Drive . Unique circumstances having been demonstrated . the proposed fence will not be detrimental to the public health safety and welfare and the proposed pool will not alter essential character of the neighborhood . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 21 , 1992 - Page Twelve The Village Engineer ' s Review , dated July 7 , 1992 , states : "The building is setback substantially from the intersection and the desired line-of-sight is not affected . " Roll Call Vote : AYE - Kearns , Entman, Paul , Windecker , Arbus and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . The permit may be issued in 15 days (August 6 , 1992) . G. 625 Cherbourg Court North, Robert and Sherren Wright Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 20 . 030 , pertaining to Building Height , Bulk and Lot Coverage , Purpose : To construct an additional 180 sq . ft . to the existing 105 sq . ft . deck , totalling 285 sq . ft . Robert and Sherren Wright were sworn in. The Public Hearing Notice was read . Mr . Wright summarized their reasons for requesting a variance : 1 . The existing deck is small and very crowded . 2 . They want to extend it toward the rear where they will have more sun. Mr . Schar explained that this deck was constructed under the original PUD agreement . Certain decks were permitted variances granted by the Village Board . This deck will exceed the permitted lot coverage but the provision of the PUD agreement took into consideration the limited space of the units . The Commissioners recalled granting a similar variance on an interior lot . Other comments : Com. Entman: No objection to the proposed variance . It has been done in the past and the existing deck is small . Com. Arbus : Has no problem with this variance but wondered if it would lead to many other similar requests? Mr . Schar explained the 1991 PUD agreement permitted certain deck sizes by right , some were limited to fixed sizes and the ZBA has the authority to grant variances to others . Com. Kearns , Com. Paul and Com. Windecker : No problems . There were no comments from the audience . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS \.J July 21 , 1992 - Page Thirteen Com. Kearns made the following motion: I move we recommend that the Village Board of Trustees L/ grant the request made by Robert M. and Sherren Wright , 625 Cherbourg Court North, for variance of Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 20 . 030 , pertaining to Building Height , Bulk and Lot Coverage , for the purpose of constructing an additional 180 sq . ft . to the existing 105 sq . ft . deck , making a total of 285 sq . ft . Hardship having been established , granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the essential character of the neighborhood . The Village Engineer ' s 7/6/92 Review, states : " It (the deck) will not affect the existing drainage pattern. " Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman, Kearns , Paul , Windecker , Arbus and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . An ordinance will be prepared and this item may be placed on the agenda of the August 3 , 1992 meeting of the Village Board . H. 2790 Sandalwood Road , Gene and Sandra Wright Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 050 - Golf Course Lots Purpose : Construction of a six foot (6 ' ) wood privacy fence around the spa on an existing deck Gene and Sandra Wright were sworn in. The Public Hearing Notice was read . A letter from next door neighbors , Barry and Sandi Hartstein, 2786 Sandalwood Road , was read . They have no objections to the existing privacy fence. Mr . Wright described the fence . It is six feet (6 ' ) in height and extends ten feet ( 10 ' ) in each direction around one corner of the deck . The yard is located on the 17th tee box of the golf course and golf balls are often hit into the yard . The patio door had to be replaced earlier this year . It would be dangerous to use the spa without the six foot (6 ' ) fence because it would be possible for a ball to hit someone if they were sitting in the spa with their back to the golf course . Mr . Dempsey said this would be a recommendation to the Village Board based on unique circumstances . Mr . Wright explained that when they had the deck and spa built , the contractor was expected to obtain all the proper permits . It was not until the final inspection was made that they were informed that the fence was in violation of the code . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 21 , 1992 - Page Fourteen Comments from Commissioners : Com. Paul : No problem, considering the circumstances and location. Com. Windecker : Commented that there would be a problem if a variance is not granted. Com. Arbus : The request is not for much of a fence , but the ordinance was written to preserve the aesthetics and openness . He reserved comment until he heard the other Commissioners . Com. Heinrich: This is not considered a fence around the yard. The Village permits six foot (6 ' ) fences around other decks . He did not think the ordinance was meant to address this situation and it would cause an undue hardship for home owners . Com. Kearns : Had no problem with the request . He agreed it does impose a hardship by requiring individuals to come in for a variance for this type of privacy fence . Com. Entman: Had no problem and said he would want a similar fence if he lived there . There is a hardship and the fence is not detrimental to the neighborhood . Com. Entman made the following motion: I move we recommend that the Village Board of Trustees grant the request made by Gene G. and Sandra K. Wright , 2790 Sandalwood Road , for variance of the Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 050 , pertaining to Golf Course Lots , for the purpose of constructing a six foot (6 ' ) wood privacy fence around the spa on the existing deck , subject to the following conditions : 1 . The 10 ' x 10 ' existing six foot (6 ' ) fence around the spa on the deck be permitted to remain, if constructed with materials approved by the Village . Petitioners having exhibited unique circumstances , have also exhibited that the proposed variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare . The fence will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Kearns , Entman, Paul , Windecker , Arbus and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 5 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . Permit may be issued in 15 days - August 6 , 1992 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 21 , 1992 - Page Fifteen An ordinance will be prepared and the item will be placed on the agenda of the August 3 , 1992 meeting of the Village Board . Ch. Heinrich advised Mr . and Mrs . Wright to attend the Village Board meeting in the event that the Trustees want to discuss the fence . He also directed that the original photographs be made available at the Village Board meeting. VI . ANNOUNCEMENTS A. Approval of February 18 , 1992 Minutes : Motion to approve as submitted was made by Com. Windecker and seconded by Com . Paul . Roll Call Vote : AYE - Kearns , Paul , Windecker and Arbus NAY - None ABSTAIN - Heinrich and Entman Motion Passed - 4 to 0 , 2 abstentions . Minutes of February 18 , 1992 were approved . B. Approval of April 21 , 1992 Minutes : Motion to approve a submitted was made by Com. Windecker and seconded by Com. Arbus . Roll Call Vote : AYE - Paul , Windecker , Arbus and Heinrich NAY - None ABSTAIN - Kearns and Entman Motion Passed - 4 to 2 , 2 abstentions . Minutes of April 21 , 1992 were approved . C. Approval of May 19 , 1992 Minutes : Motion to approve as submitted was made by Com. Kearns and seconded by Com. Windecker . Roll Call Vote : AYE - Kearns , Windecker , Arbus and Heinrich NAY - None ABSTAIN - Paul and Entman Motion Passed - 4 to 0 , 2 abstentions . Minutes of May 19 , 1992 were approved . D. Minutes of June 16 , 1992 - Correction at top of Page Eleven: "Com. " Singer should be Mr . Singer . Motion to approve as corrected was made by Com. Windecker and seconded by Com. Arbus . Roll Call Vote : AYE - Paul , Windecker , Entman, Arbus , Heinrich NAY - None ABSTAIN - Kearns Motion Passed - 5 to 0 , 1 abstention. Minutes of June 16 , 1992 were approved as corrected. E. When the draft of the revised Sign Code is completed , a date will be set for a special meeting and it will be reviewed . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 21 , 1992 - Page Sixteen VII . ADJOURNMENT Com. Windecker made a motion to adjourn. Com. Arbus seconded the motion Ch. Heinrich adjourned the meeting at 10 : 25 P.M. Respectfully submitted , Shirley Bates , Recording Secretary sb ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 21 , 1992 - Page Seventeen