Loading...
1992-08-18 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes Page Two - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA - August 18 , 1992 E . 1264 Dayton Road , Robert and Benita Einhorn Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 Purpose : To permit the existing 5 ' 4 " wood privacy fence to remain as constructed . F . 271 Thompson Boulevard , Barry and Leslie Isaacson Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 Purpose : Construction of a six foot ( 6 ' ) wood privacy fence that would extend past the building line along Buffalo Grove Road . G . 2911 Sandalwood Road , Mario and Pamela Fidanzi Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 Construction of a screen room that would encroach a distance of five feet , six inches ( 5 ' 6" ) into the required forty foot (40 ' ) rear yard setback . H . 5 Weidner Court North , Wayne and Frances Killen Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 Purpose : Construction of a five foot (5 ' ) wood picket fence that would extend -past the building line along Weidner Road . I . 649 Raintree Court , Daniel and Debra Croft Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 Purpose : Construction of an addition that would encroach a distance of thirteen feet ( 13 ' ) into the required forty foot ( 40 ' ) rear yard setback . VI . ANNOUNCEMENTS VII . ADJOURNMENT Prepared by : Bldg . Dept . Liaison Edward Schar Deputy Building Commissioner For : Richard Heinrich , ZBA Chairman "The Village of Buffalo Grove, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, requests persons with disabilities who require certain accommodations to allow them to observe and/or participate in this meeting or have questions about the accessibility of the meeting or facilities, contact the ADA Coordinator at 459-2518 to allow the Village to make reasonable accommodations for these persons." ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE , ILLINOIS TUESDAY , AUGUST 18 , 1992 I . CALL TO ORDER Chairman Richard Heinrich called the meeting to order at 8 : 02 P.M. on Tuesday , August 18 . 1992 at the Village Hall , 50 Raupp Boulevard . II . ROLL CALL Commissioners Present : M. Kearns , J . Paul , L. Windecker and R. Heinrich. QUORUM PRESENT . Commissioners Absent : B. Entman and L. Arbus Bldg . Dept . Liaison: Edward Schar , Deputy Building Commissioner Village Engineer : Richard Kuenkier Village Board Liaison: Bruce Kahn, Trustee Village Attorney: Tom Dempsey III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 21 , 1992 - Motion to approve as submitted was made by Com. Windecker and seconded by Com. Paui . Roll Call Vote : AYE - Kearns . Paul , Windecker and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Minutes of July 21 , 1992 were approved . ANNOUNCEMENT: Ch. Heinrich announced that in order for a variance to be granted it is necessary to have four (4 ) affirmative votes . Since there are only four (4 ) Commissioners present . any time during the hearing , petitioners may ask to have their hearing Tabled until next month. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. 4 Belaire Court , Kenneth and Marisa Duke Review of proposed patio of Unilock Pavers The Dukes were granted a variance on July 16 . 1992 with the condition that they submit plans for any patio to the ZBA for approval . The Item was Tabled on July 21 , 1992 to give the objectors time to consult with the Village Engineer regarding the effect the proposed patio will have on the drainage . The petitioners . Kenneth and Marisa Duke . 4 Belaire Court , were present . The objectors Mrs . Karen Uhren , 760 Bernard Drive and Mr . Frank Schuster , 5 Belaire Court were also present Mr . Richard Kuenkier . Village Engineer , was present and said there would not by any impact on the drainage if the proposed patio is constructed . After he met with Mrs . Uhren he submit- ted a memo ,. dated July 28 , 1992 , stating : "Her position is that any increase in runoff is not acceptable . She did suggest that if the patio were designed in such a way to minimize runoff (much as paving blocks with sand filled joints between them) , the improvement may be reasonable . ' Mrs . Uhren said she has talked to Mr . Kuenkier many times and has met with the Village Trustees about the continuing drainage problem at the rear of her property . She objects to the solid surface type of patio being proposed by Mr . and Mrs . Duke because it will cause more water to drain off into her back- yard . She would not have a problem with a paver patio that has wider spaces between the blocks , but she understands that the proposed Unilock Pavers are tightly joined . Mr . Duke described the construction of Unilock System . The pavers are laid on a seven inch ( 7 " ) bed of sand and gravel , and they are spaced so they do not form a solid surface like poured concrete . Their contractor assured them there will more than adequate drainage through and around the bricks . The patio is at ground level and there is a buffer of about three feet (3 ' ) next to the house . Water from their guttering system has been channeled back to the house , between the patio and the foundation, away from Mrs . Uhren' s property . `./ It was Mr . Kuenkler ' s opinion that water falling on the Unilock Pavers will not be absorbed by the sand and gravel because they have tight joints . Water wiii run off . Ch. Heinrich stated the reason for the ZBA ' s concern about the drainage problem in the area is why the condition was attached to the variance . They want to avoid having any more impervious substance in the Duke ' s backyard that will stop water from staying on their property and cause it to flow out the back . It was his opinion that the proposed Unilock system will have drainage off of it but he does not believe it will cause any additional flooding in the back . Comments from Commissioners : Com . Paul : Said the proposed system is better than solid concrete , but he agreed it will have fairly tight joints and there will be some drainage off of it . There are probably better systems available , but regardless of what material is used , the ground can only take so much water . He agreed with Mr . Kuenkler ' s statement that the proposed patio will not affect the existing drainage pattern. Even grass will only take so much water , so during torrential rains there will be flooding . After a dry spell , the ground can absorb some water , but once it has absorbed what it can, then it will run off and the patio will not make any difference . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS August 18 . 1992 - Page Two Mrs . Uhren contended that water stays in her yard for weeks and months . The more water that is there . the longer it stays and begins to overflow into her neighbor ' s yards . Ch. Heinrich said the amount of water is based on the amount of rain , not the amount of run off from the neighbors yards . Com . Paul explained that when you sprinkle the lawn, the water can be absorbed , but during a torrential rain, the patio will not have a big impact . Mr . Kuenkler agreed with Com . Paul because the area that contributes to the problem cannot be compared to the run off from the small patio area that is being proposed . He said a storm sewer is needed to correct the problem. Slight changes in the grading of the surrounding yards may improve the situation. but a storm sewer is the only real solution. Ch. Heinrich suggested that the Village could put in a storm sewer and pay for it by special assessment of the residents in the surrounding area . This is a continuing problem . If a storm sewer had been put in by the developer , the prices of the houses would have been greater , because they would have paid for the drainage system. Trustee Kahn recalled the discussion the Village Board had when the variance was initially brought to them for approval . Trustee Reid , who was very familiar with the area , had stated he believed Village Staff should look at this situation , not with relation to the single yard issue , but because so many of the yards have been regraded and the whole area is involved . Com . Windecker : Confirmed that two sides of the proposed patio will be open, the third side will have a three foot (3 ' ) space between it and the house . The fourth side will be connected to the steps that lead into the addition. He did not see any real problem with the 200 square foot patio because the problem is bigger than the patio . Com. Kearns : Said he sympathized with the Duke ' s desire to have a patio , but from the standpoint of creating more hardship for Mrs . Uhren , it has been stated that there will be some runoff . It was the ZBA' s intent not to contribute any further to the system as it exists . He agreed that the Village should assess the problem , and would want to wait to see what can be done to relieve the situation , and them reconsider the patio . Mr . Kuenkler said most of the surrounding properties drain toward Mrs . Uhren' s backyard . He thought that the necessary equipment could be brought into Mrs . Uhren' s backyard and that the cost of a storm sewer on her property would be approxi- mately $4 ,000 . Other drains could be put in. at more expense , but the swale could be redefined and that would help . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS August 18 . 1992 - Page Three Mr . Schuster said he has flooded on two occasions since the Duke ' s additions were constructed and this has surprised him . Mr . Kuenkler said Mr . Schuster ' s situation is different than Mrs . Uhren' s . He will arrange a meeting to discuss the matter . After discussing the issues at length, Ch. Heinrich said the ZBA should not act upon the matter until after something has been done to correct the entire situation. He agreed with Mr . Kuenkler and Com . Paul that the proposed patio would not add any appreciable difference in the amount of water drainage . Mr . Dempsey said the ZBA should make an affirmative motion and if it is denied , the Duke ' s can appeal the decision to the Village Board . Only a majority vote is necessary because it is not a motion to grant a variance . Com. Paul made the following motion: I move we grant the request of Kenneth and Marisa Duke , 4 Belaire Court , for the purpose of constructing a patio with Unilock Pavers . Com . Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Paul and Windecker NAY - Kearns and Heinrich Motion DENIED by Tie Vote of 2 - 2 . The Dukes were advised of `.J their right to appeal the decision to the Village Board by submitting the request in writing , to Mr . Frank E. Hruby , Jr . , Director of Building and Zoning , within 15 days . Mr . Kuenkler was asked to prepare a recommendation for the Village Board by August 31 , 1992 . He agreed to the request . B. 39 Chestnut Terrace , Larry and Marla Cherner Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 32 . 020 , Pertaining to : Location of Accessory Buildings and Structures This item was Tabled on July 21 , 1992 because the petitioners were not present at the public hearing . Larry and Marla Cherner were sworn in and the public hearing notice was read. Mr . Cherner summarized their reasons for requesting a shed attached to the side of the building that would project in front of the midpoint on the east side of the principal building: 1 . They want to be able to park two vehicles in the garage without having to contend with clutter of bikes , etc . 2 . They want to avoid having to hang things from �./ the roof of the garage and take them down, etc . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS August 18 , 1992 - Page Four 3 . There is no other convenient place on the lot for a shed . There is a sidewalk along the side of the garage that leads to the patio . If a shed is placed at the rear of the lot . it would mean taking the bikes and toys across the grass . Mr . Cherner said he has talked to ail his neighbors and none of them object to the proposed shed . The materials will match the house , same style roof and siding , etc . . There were no neighbors in the audience . Comments from Commissioners : Com . Kearns : Determined the required side yard for R-4 is 10% of the lot width . The lot is 70 ' wide at the building line so the setback is seven ( 7 ) feet . He asked how wide the shed will be and if there is a restriction of how far it can go past the mid-point of the house? Mr . Cherner said there is a sidewalk about two feet ( 2 ' ) from the side of the house and the shed will be constructed in that area . It will not be noticeable and will only be the width of hold a bike . This is the reason it was constructed past the mid-point of the house . The shed could only be about six feet ( 6 ' ) in length if it is limited to the mid-point of the house . Mr . Dempsey said there is no restriction how far past the mid- point of the house that the shed could be constructed . This would be a recommendation to the Village Board of Trustees . Com . Kearns : Said he has no objections as long as the neighbor to the east does not object . Com . Paul : No objections . Com . Windecker : Asked if the dimension on the plat is correct? It shows the shed to be 3 ' x 16 ' with the sidewalk 3 ' from the side of the house . Mr . Cherner looked at the plat and agreed the width of the shed would be three feet ( 3 ' ) . The correct dimensions are 3 ' x 16 ' . Com . Kearns made the following motion : I move we recommend to the Village Board of Trustees that the variance requested by Larry and Marla Cherner , 39 Chestnut Terrace , of Zoning Ordinance . Section 17 . 32 . 020 , pertaining to Placement of Accessory Buildings and Structures , be granted for the purpose of constructing a attached storage shed , 3 ' x 16 ' that would project in front of the mid-point on the east side of the principal building . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS August 18 . 1992 - Page Five Hardship having been established , the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood . Com . Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Kearns , Paul , Windecker and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. An ordinance will be prepared and the item will be placed on the Agenda of the August 31 , 1992 Village Board Meeting . Permit may be issued after 15 days - September 3 , 1992 . V. NEW BUSINESS A. 2120 Brandywyn Lane , Gregory and Tamsin Steffens Fence Code . Section 15 . 20 . 040 - 6 ' fence past the building line Mr . Gregory Steffens was sworn in. The Public Hearing Notice was read . Mr . Steffens summarized the reasons they requested a variance to construct a six foot (6 ' ) wood privacy fence that would extend past the building line along Buffalo Grove Road : 1 . Traffic noise along Buffalo Grove 2 . Privacy The fence will match and be connected to the existing six foot (6 ' ) fences along the rear yards abutting Buffalo Grove Road. This is the last house in the subdivision and none of the neighbors will be affected by the proposed fence . Li The Village Engineer ' s Review , dated August 3 . 1992 , states : "The proposed location is acceptable . " Com. Kearns , Paul and Windecker had no comments or objections . There were no comments from the audience . Com. Windecker made the following motion. I move we grant the request of Gregory and Tamsin Steffens 2120 Brandywyn Lane , for variance of the Fence Code . Section 15 . 20 . 040 , pertaining to Residential Districts , for the purpose of constructing a six foot (6 ' ) wood privacy fence that would extend for a length of 94 feet and be located a distance of 24 feet from the sidewalk along Buffalo Grove Road , as indicated on the plat of survey submitted with the application. Hardship having been established , the proposed fence will not be detrimental to the public health safety and welfare Com. Paul seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Kearns , Paul . Windecker and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . Permit may be issued after 15 days - September 3 , 1992 . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS August 18 . 1992 - Page Six B. 868 Saxon Place , Madeline Haff Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - 6 ' fence past the bldg . line. Mr . George Haff , husband of Madeline Haff , was sworn in. The Public Hearing Notice was read . Ch. Heinrich recalled that there was an existing six foot (6 ' ) wood privacy fence along Dundee Road when the Haffs purchased the lot . He asked Mr . Haff if the fence had to be removed in order to construct the house? Mr . Haff responded that the fence did not have to be removed . It could have been repaired , but they wanted a new fence to go with their new house . The fence was discussed when the ZBA granted the variance permitting construction of the house and he thought it was understood by everyone that a fence was going to be constructed in the same location. Mr . Dempsey said when a fence is taken down a new variance is necessary to replace it . Ch. Heinrich commented that when the variance for the house was published , it probably should have included a fence variance . Mr . Haff said the fence will match and tie in to the Cambridge On The Lake fence along his rear lot line , pursuant to the Village Engineer ' s Review , dated August 18 , 1992 , which states : "He (Mr . George Haff ) agreed to limit his fence to 77 ' . At that length, it could be located 3-1 /2 feet from the property line (6-1/2 feet from the existing sidewalk) . " Comments from Commissioners : Com. Kearns : No objection if the petition is amended to agree with Dick Kuenkler ' s Review . Com. Paul : No problem with the fence except a stockade fence will not match the Cambridge fence which is a open steel fence . He suggested a scalloped fence would look better . Mr . Haff said the entire Cambridge fence along the interior lot lines is a straight stockade fence , but he agreed to construct an arched wood fence . He wants a nice looking fence . Com. Windecker : No problem. Mr . Dempsey asked what the height of the fence would be where it returns to the house and what is that distance? Mr . Haff thought the fence would look better if it was six feet (6 ' ) in height and the distance is about sixteen feet ( 16 ' ) but there will be a gate , so it will be about 13-1/2 feet long . No questions or comments from the audience . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS August 18 , 1992 - Page Seven Com . Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the request of Madeline Haff , 868 Saxon Place , for variance of the Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 , pertaining to Residential District , for the purpose of constructing a six foot (6 ' ) solid cedar arched fence that would extend past the building line for a length of 77 feet from the west property line along Dundee Road and be located a distance of 3-1 /2 feet from the property line (6-1 /2 feet from the exist- ing sidewalk) and returning a distance of 13-1/2 feet toward the house along Saxon Place , as indicated on the plat of survey submitted with the application. The essential character of the neighborhood will not be affected and the fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare . Com . Paul seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Kearns . Paul , Windecker and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . Permit may be issued after 15 days - September 3 , 1992 . C. 200 Stanton Drive . Perry and Celene Bakrins Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - 5 ' fence past the bldg . line Perry and Celene Bakrins were sworn in. The Public Hearing Notice was read. Mr . Bakrins summarized their reasons for requesting a variance for the purpose of constructing a five foot (5 ' ) wood privacy fence that would extend past the building line along Margate Drive : 1 . They have 2 small children and a dog . The fence would provide privacy and security. 2 . They have a very long side yard and the fence will only extend about half the length of the yard . 3 . They want the fence to be aesthetically pleasing so they selected a scalloped top . There is a lot of landscaping in front and will put in more bushes to screen the fence . The house is the last on Margate Drive and there are not many neighbors but they have talked to all of them. The neighbors to the north do not object . The Millers (neighbors to the rear) are selling their house and were concerned about a fence blocking the view from the front , so the fence will be tapered on a 45 degree angle with landscaping in front . Mrs . Karen Miller , 1417 Margate Drive , was present . She said they have sold their house . She would have no problem with the fence if they were staying , but the purchasers questioned whether Margate Drive was ever going to be opened up to Half Day Road and if so , would there be enough clearance? ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS August 18 , 1992 - Page Eight Mr . Schar said he was not aware of any proposal to open it up . Trustee Kahn recalled that the cul-de-sac was left open at the end . but to the best of his knowledge there are no plans for a development at this time . Ch. Heinrich commented that with the way the fence is being tapered . there shouldn' t be a problem. He asked how the seventeen foot ( 17 ' ) distance was chosen? Mr . Bakrins described the three trees in the yard and said they want the fence to be just inside the second tree , so the fence would probably be closer to thirteen feet from the sidewalk . They plan to screen the fence as much as possible . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Windecker : Observed that the neighbor to the rear has a fence along the building line . Why not line up with it? Mr . Bakrins replied that they want more room in the rear yard and there is a playground set right at the building line and they want to enclose it . He offered to change the style to four foot (4 ' ) open picket fence if they could go ten feet ( 10 ' ) from the sidewalk . Mr . Schar said measurements shown on the plat seem to be incorrect . There is a 30 ' building line . Mr . Bakrins ' measurements total 27 feet and there is an additional 1 foot to the sidewalk . The total should be approximately 31 feet from the building line to the sidewalk . Ch. Heinrich observed that if the fence is fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) from the sidewalk , it would be about half way and this is consistent with what the ZBA has been granting . Com. Windecker : Said , given this fact , he had no objections to the fence . Com. Paul : Agreed there are not many neighbors and the way the fence will be angled is good . If the variance is not granted , the petitioners would be losing a substantial part of the yard . Com. Kearns : Commented he likes the angled corners and the proposed landscaping . He had no objections to the fence . Com. Windecker asked if the fence would have the same angle at each end? Mr . Bakrins said that is their intention, but they want to have the angle follow the sidewalk . The fence will be constructed on site and the existing landscaping should cover it . Ch. Heinrich asked Mr . Schar if the angle could be left up to the discretion of the Building Department . Answer : "Yes . ' ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS August 18 , 1992 - Page Nine The Village Engineers Review , dated August 3 . 1992 . states : ' he limiting factor at the intersection is the Principal structure itself . " Com . Windecker made the following motion : I move we grant the request of Perry and C. e l ene Ba = r .ins . 200 Stanton Drive • for variance of the Fence Code . Section i5 . 20 . �� r y - �. �, F ,. . o - � 4o , pertaining �, o Residential Districts . � r. z or the purpose of constructing a five foot ( 5 ' ) wood privacy fence that would be located a distance of fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) from the sidewalk along Margate Drive . tapering in !^� end /�� determined fi Y� � 1 T�1 _ in the field 1 �! *� the time p g at each end as de e1 mined �. he 1 ie l C.d L t, ime of installation and based on the discretion of the Building Department , as indicated on the plat of survey submitted with the appi ication . The essential character of the neighborhood will not 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 , Paul , Windecker and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . Permit may be issued in 15 days - September 3 . 1992 , _ { j� T _ _ _ t 1. 1r P 1 • i V L i o y� n .1 o i 1 1 ✓ i r i ` t . A /La, t..� i a nn d Linda A i 2 i tD �/ n ``J Zoni Section 17 . 4 () . 020 and additions 1 V4�1 1 Front rear 1 ,a u i and Linda A i i i p o n e 7 T7 e r } �.� o r r� i r � -'f e -. �--+ contractor , }� � i lJ' � •_./ 1 i l i i.i • i l l r✓ .L i Mike^ Freeze . L ti i !J Z 1 A } � i i,� . _ \ _1 1 C 1 1 1 _i r/ 1 .� • i L . was atso h/ L Z {� 6 i nc lieSJ 1 l 1 -.Notice S r ea 1 - r f^� r"' . 1 . 7:.�1 J. �. 1 w.,' � 11 e summarized the reasons f o r r e L a e; s t i ` �v'a r i anc s it hP front and r e :� ryard setback : They want to construct a i0 x i6 addition at the rear of the house thatwould reau i re a . T en foot ( E U ' ) variance . It would enlarge the kitchen area and family room . .f.� . They also want to expand the area over the garage by adding a bathroom . a bedroom and enlarging an exist - - ing bedroom . This would require a two loot , six inch ( 2 6 ) variance in ordercantilever l everr over for the C; a �: , :=� � the garage meet the required twenty five toot ( 2 ' ' ) y setback . 3 . They have two small b vs and need more living space . including an oil -ice Tor Mr . Al i ibone " s work . 4 • They like the neighborhood and prefer to stay in this r 4- h ahotse L1 1 Move . 7.0�` 1Nf1- BOARD Q1 APPEALS Mr. Freese presented drawings of the proposed additions and said the materials will match the existing house. Mrs. Allibone submitted a statement. signed by their neighbors on each side (Rossmans at 517 Crown Point Drive and Migdows at 521 Crown Point Drive). saying they do not object to the plans. There is a bike path to the rear of the house. There were no comments from the audience. Comments from Commissioners: Com. Kearns: Asked if the variance is not granted, would the Aiiibones have a financial hardship if they have to move? Mr. Allibone replied that they would probably have to relocate farther out in order to afford a larger house, but they prefer to stay in Buffalo Grove. Com. Paul: No objection. The front variance will not be noticed and there is sufficient of room at the rear. Mrs. Allibone commented that there is a deck in the rear and half of it will be removed in order to build the addition. Com. Windecker: No problem. Com. Kearns made the following motion: I move we grant the request of Paul and Linda Allibone, for variance of Zoning Ordinance. Section 17.40.020, pertaining to Area. Height. Bulk and Placement Regulations for the purpose of constructing additions that would encroach a distance of 2.5 feet into the required 25 feet front yard setback and a distance of 10 feet into the required thirty foot (30') rear yard setback. Hardship having been established. the proposed additions will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Kearns, Paul . Windecker and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to O. Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in 15 days. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS August 18, 1992 - Page Eleven E. 1264 Dayton Road , Robert and Benita Einhorn Fence Code . Section 15 . 20 . 040 - 5 ' 4- privacy fence to remain Ch. Heinrich stated he is acquainted with the Einhorns , but this will not affect his decision in the matter . Robert and Benita Einhorn, 1264 Dayton Road . were sworn in and the public hearing notice was read . Mr . Einhorn explained the reason they are requesting a variance : 1 . When they went to purchase a five foot (5 ' ) fence , they could only find six foot (6 ' ) sections , which they were told could be cut down. The fence was constructed with three (3 ) main rails so they cut off nine inches (9 ' ) from the bottom . If they cut off the top of the fence . they would have had to cut off the decorative part . that cost extra , so they decided to apply for a variance . 2 . One side of the rear yard faces the street , so they need the additional height for privacy . 3 . The grade of the rear yard drops about 2 to 2-1/2 feet from the house to the rear lot line . Comments from Commissioners : Com . Paul : The fence looks good the way it is . It would be a hardship on the Einhorns if it had to be cut down. Com . Windecker : Asked the height of the fence on the west side . Mr . Einhorn said it is the same height . but a different style . Com. Kearns : : No problem. Ch. Heinrich: No problem. Agreed with Com. Paul . There were no comments from the audience . Com. Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the request of Robert and Benita Einhorn, 1264 Dayton Road , for variance of the Fence Code . Section 15 . 20 . 040 . pertaining to Residential Districts , for the purpose of permitting a 5 ' 4'' wood privacy fence to remain as constructed and indicated on the plat of survey submitted with the application. The essential character of the neighborhood will not be affected and the fence will not be detrimental to the public health . safety and welfare . Com. Paul seconded the motion. Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . Permit will be official in 15 days - September 3 , 1992 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS August 18 , 1992 - Page Twelve F . 27i Thompson Boulevard . Barry and Leslie Issacson Fence Code . Section 15 . 20 . 040 - 6 foot fence past bldg . line Leslie and Barry Isaacson, were sworn in and the public hearing notice was read . Mr . Isaacson summarized their reasons for requesting a variance : 1 . They need a six foot ( 6 ' ) fence for privacy and relief from the traffic noise on Buffalo Grove Road. 2 . They have two small children. The fence will be for their safety and protection. 3 . They have a large dog . The fence will confine him and will give him room to run. 4 . There is a six foot fence along the rear yards that abut Buffalo Grove Road and the Isaacsons will match this fence along their side yard lot line . 5 . They would have a very small , irregularly shaped rear yard if they construct a fence at the building line . The Village Engineer ' s Review , dated August 3 , 1992 . states : "No fence should be provided within 25 ' of the lot corner . " Mr . Isaacson had no objection to this location and said the fence would return to the house at this point . Ch. Heinrich observed that if a fence is permitted to be extended that far , it will be a front yard fence . The ZBA has never allowed any fence to be in front of the house . Mr . Isaacson wanted to construct the fence from the end of the garage to the side lot line . There is a side door and a dog run on the side of the garage that he would like to enclose . Com. Paul remarked that this is the first house in the West- chester II development and , in his opinion , a fence would not look good if it was that close to the corner . After discussion, the Commissioners and the petitioners . agreed that the fence could extend just past the dog run and angle to Buffalo Grove Road . The length along Buffalo Grove Road would be 184 feet and the fence will match the Scarsdale fence . A plat of survey was marked and labeled Exhibit A. The Issacsons only have one contiguous neighbor . There were no comments from the audience . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS August 18 , 1992 - Page Thirteen Com . Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the request of Barry and Leslie Isaacson 271 Thompson Boulevard , for variance of Fence Code . Section 15 . 20 . 040 , pertaining to Residential Districts , for the purpose of constructing a six foot (6 ' ) wood privacy fence that would be located past the building line , extending an approximate length of 184 feet along Buffalo Grove Road , tapered as indicated on Exhibit A. Said fence will match the existing fence along B. G . Road . The essential character of the neighborhood will not 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 , Paul , Windecker and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . Permit may be issued after 15 days - September 3 , 1992 . G. 2911 Sandalwood Road . Mario and Pamela Fidanzi Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 - Screen room at rear Mrs . Pamela Fidanzi , 2911 Sandalwood Road . was sworn in. The contractor , Bob Dutzi of Armcor Construction . was also present . `./ The public hearing notice was read . Mrs . Fidanzi described their lot and summarized the reasons for requesting a variance : 1 . They would like a screen room to increase their enjoy- ment of the outdoor environment without insects . etc . 2 . Without the variance the porch would be too small to meet the needs of their growing family. They have one child and expecting their second . 3 . The porch will improve the property and increase its value . Mr . Dutzi presented drawings of the proposed porch and said it will match the existing house (same siding , same shingles) and will be constructed on a slab for stability . It will not have heat or windows . Mrs . Fidanzi said she has talked with her nearest neighbors and they have no objections . There were not comments from the audience . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS August 18 , 1992 - Page Fourteen Comments from Commissioners : Com . Kearns : Confirmed the family- would suffer financial hard- ship without the variance because they would have to move to a house that would meet their needs . Com. Paul : No problem . There is considerable space between the houses and there is a lot of landscaping . Com. Windecker : No problem. Com. Kearns made the following motion: I move we grant the request of Mario and Pamela Fidanzi . 2911 Sandalwood Road , for variance of the Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 , pertaining to Area , Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations , for the purpose of constructing a screen room that would encroach a distance of 5 ' 6 into the required forty ( 40 ' ) rear yard setback . Hardship having been established , the proposed screen room will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Kearns . Paul . Windecker and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . Permit may be issued after 15 days - September 3 , 1992 . H. 5 Weidner Court North , Wayne and Frances Killen Fence Code . Section 15 . 20 . 040 - 5 ' fence past the bidg . line Mrs . Frances Killen was sworn in. The public hearing notice was read . Mrs . Killen summarized their reasons for requesting a variance : 1 . They have a i-1f2 year old child and are expecting a second child in November . The fence would provide security for the children from the heavy traffic at the corner of Weidner Road and Bernard Drive . 2 . They have a Irish Wolfhound puppy that will grow to be quite large . The fence will confine him . 2 . They want to enclose the side yard because the rear yard is shallow and the drainage is so bad that the area is always soaked . 3 . A similar variance was granted a year ago . but the previous owner never built the fence and the Killens could not afford to build it until now . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS August 18 , 1992 - Page Fifteen Ch. Heinrich recalled the discussion with the previous petitioner who agreed to construct a four foot (4 ' ) open picket fence located five feet ( 5 ' ) from the sidewalk . He asked Mrs . Killen if she would consider lowering the fence from five feet (5 ' )? Mrs . Killen said she would like a scalloped fence and asked if it could have 4-1 /2 foot high posts and the lowest point would be four feet (4 ' ) high. She has discussed the fence with her neighbors to the rear and they have no objections . They are the only people affected . Com. Windecker , Com. Paul and Com. Kearns : No objections . Com. Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the request of Wayne and Frances Killen. 5 Weidner Court North. for variance of the Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 , pertaining to Residential Districts . for the purpose of constructing a scalloped wood picket fence . 4-1 /2 feet at the post and 4 feet at the lowest point , that would extend past the building a distance of five feet ( 5 ' ) from the sidewalk along Weidner Road , as indicated on the plat of survey submitted with application. The essential character of the neighborhood will not be affected and the fence will not be detrimental to the public health , safety and welfare . Com . Paul seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Kearns . Paul . Windecker and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . Permit may be issued after 15 days - September 3 . 1992 . I . 649 Raintree Court . Daniel and Debra Croft Zoning Ordinance . Section 17 . 40 . 020 - Addition at rear The Crofts were out of town. Mr . Schar confirmed that he was given verbal approval by Mrs . Croft to let their builder represent them . Mr . Craig Harthan of Craiger Construction , was sworn in. After the public hearing notice was read . Mr . Harthan explained that the Crofts asked him to design the screen room because they had one at a previous house and they like to entertain outside . They were informed that a variance was required and they request it for the following reasons : 1 . They screen porch has to connect to the family room . but the rear yard is very irregular and angles . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS August 18 . 1992 - Page Sixteen 2 . The lot backs up to a retention area and there are many insects . 3 . The Crofts have two children. They like the neighborhood and are very active in the community. They do not want to move from Buffalo Grove . Mr . Harthan said the screen porch will match the house . It would have triple track windows , but no heat . The neighbors have been contacted and none of them object and none of them will be affected by the porch. There were no comments from the audience . Comments from Commissioners : Com . Paul : No problem. The house next door has no windows facing the porch and the retention area is to the rear so no one will be affected . Com. Windecker : No problem . Com . Kearns : The retention area creates enough hardship . Com. Kearns made the following motion : I move we grant the request of Daniel and Debra Croft . 649 Raintree Court , for variance of Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 . pertaining to Area . Height , Bulk . and Placement Regulations , for the purpose of constructing an addition at the rear of the house , that would encroach a distance of 13 feet into the required forty foot (40 ' ) rear yard setback . 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 , Paul , Windecker and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . Permit may be issued after 15 days - September 3 , 1992 . VI . ANNOUNCEMENTS A. ZBA Vacancy: Ch. Heinrich asked Trustee Kahn to remind President Mathias that the Zoning Board has had a vacancy for several months and it is important that it be filled quickly. B. Sign Code Review: Because of the Jewish holidays in September and October . he asked that the special meeting be scheduled until after the second week in October . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS August 18 , 1992 - Page Seventeen VIT . ADJOURNMENT Com . Windecker made a motion to adjourn. Com. Paul seconded . Ch . Heinrich adjourned the meeting at 10 : 10 P. M. Respectfully submitted . Shirley Bates . Recording Secretary sb ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS August 18 . 1992 - Page Eighteen