Loading...
1992-10-20 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE , ILLINOIS TUESDAY , OCTOBER 20 , 1992 I . CALL TO ORDER Chairman Richard Heinrich called the meeting to order at 8 : 13 P . M . on Tuesday , October 20 , 1992 at the Village Hall , 50 Raupp Boulevard . II . ROLL CALL Commissioners Present : B . Entman , L . Windecker , L . Arbus and R . Heinrich QUORUM . Commissioners Absent : J . Paul and M . Kearns Bldg . Dept . Liaison : Edward Schar , Deputy Building Commissioner Village Attorney : Thomas Dempsey Village Board Liaison : William Reid , Trustee III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES Postponed until after the business meeting . IV . OLD BUSINESS A . 55 West Dundee Road , Buffalo Grove Car Care Sign Code , Section 14 . 40 . 020 , Prohibited Signs Installation of a Manual Changeable Copy Sign Item was Tabled on September 15 , 1992 . Motion to remove from Table was made by Com . Entman and seconded by Com . Windecker . Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously . Mr . Ted Wilk , General Manager of Buffalo Grove Car Care , and Mr . Art Holland , Holland Design Group , Inc . , 1090 Brown Street , Wauconda , IL 60084 ( 526-8848 ) were sworn in . The Public Hearing Notice was read . Mr . Holland stated the variance is being requested for economic reasons . The existing sign has spaces for changing gas prices , but gas sales are not the primary business operation . 90% of the service rendered at the station is automobile repair work and the car wash . There are self service gas pumps available . The station would benefit from having the lower section of the sign modified so that it would relate to the services that are offered , i . e . oil change , shock absorbers , mufflers , etc . and the car wash . The sign would also be used to offer specials to the public , such as Ladies Day and Senior Citizen Day . Mr . Wilk confirmed that the size and placement of the sign will not be changed . They cannot make a profit selling gas so they want to change the gas pricing portion of the sign to a copy message center . Ch. Heinrich commented that one of the problems with changeable- copy signs is that letters can fall off and/or be blown off , keeping the sign in disrepair . How will this be prevented? Mr . Wilk said they will have zip locks on the letters so they cannot be dislodged . Mr . Holland confirmed his statement to the Appearance Commission that a mechanical locking (fail-safe) system will be installed over the copy boards so there can be no tampering of the letters. The owners and employees are at the site daily to guarantee that the sign will always be maintained in an orderly fashion. Ch. Heinrich asked what impact the sign would have on business? Mr . Wilk said they lost business when they took the changeable- copy sign down a few years ago in compliance with the Sign Code . Ch. Heinrich asked what other means of advertising is used? Mr . Wilk said they use flyers , direct mail and newspaper ads . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Entman: No problem with the proposal because they are not changing the existing sign, but he would want it maintained. Com. Windecker : Confirmed that the copy board would be three (3) rows of 8" letters . No problem as long as there is security covering over the face of the sign to prohibit tampering. Com. Arbus : Questioned why the Sign Code prohibits changeable- copy signs and if permitted , what condition would apply? Such a sign could be profitable to many other businesses in town. Ch. Heinrich responded that changeable copy signs were prohib- ited so that there would not be a proliferation of them. It is necessary to have AC and ZBA recommendation to the Village Board for approval . A unique circumstance exists in that the business is located across the street from the Mobil station which is there to pump volume . Another reason changeable-copy signs are prohibited is because they can become unsightly without proper maintenance. Com. Arbus : Was concerned because of the blanket statement in the Sign Code but , based on Ch. Heinrich' s explanation and experience , he is satisfied the criteria has been met . Mr . Schar stated all signs are routinely inspected every two years , but there is on-going surveillance to ensure maintenance . Voluntary compliance is sought before any action is taken. Ch. Heinrich said maintenance can be a condition of the variance ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 20 , 1992 - Page Two Com. Windecker made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board of Trustees `•/ that variance of the Sign Code , Section 14 . 40. 020 , requested by Buffalo Grove Car Care , 55 W . Dundee Road , be granted that would permit the construction of the ground sign face change as requested . Specifically, three (3) rows of changeable eight inch (8" ) letters with a security cover will replace the existing gas pricing portion. The sign must be maintained at all times to the satisfaction of the Building Department . Variance is granted pursuant to Sign Code , Sec . 14 . 44 . 010 , Sub-section A: Economic hardship and unique circumstances having been demonstrated for the business to continue at this location. The sign is to be constructed according to plans and specifications submitted to and approved by the Village . Com. Entman seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman, Windecker , Arbus , 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 Village Board Agenda for Monday , November 2 , 1992 . Permit may be issued after 15 days - November 5 , 1992 . V. NEW BUSINESS A. 200 Stanton Drive , Perry and Celene Bakrins Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 .040 - Residential Districts Request for a 5 ' wood fence past the building line ; and Zoning Ordinance, Section 17 . 40 . 020 - Area , Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations for the purpose of bringing the existing principal structure into conformance with the Zoning Ordinance . Perry and Celene Bakrins , 200 Stanton Drive , were sworn in. The Public Hearing Notice was read. Ch. Heinrich asked for an explanation of the erroneous spot survey. Mr . Schar responded that the surveyor made a mistake on the spot survey and it was not discovered until after the fence posts were installed and found to be too close to the sidewalk . Mr . Bakrins explained that the surveyor must have used two different scales : 1 " = 30 ' on one side of the house and 1 " = 20 ' on the other side of the house . This resulted in one corner of the house being 8 ' 6" past the building line . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 20 , 1992 - Page Three The house was constructed by Lexington Development Corporation in 1987 and the surveyor submitted a spot survey at the time . The Bakrins purchased the house in July 1992 and when the property was resurveyed , the discrepancy was detected . Ch. Heinrich confirmed that the variances are to bring the house into conformance with the ordinance and to permit the fence to be constructed where the posts have been installed . Mr . Bakrins confirmed that the fence posts are lined up with the second of three trees in the side yard just as they desired when they appeared before the ZBA on August 18 , 1992 . Mr . and Mrs . Bakrins had requested a variance for a fence to be constructed 20 ' from the building line but agreed to amend their petition and were granted a variance for the fence to be located 15 ' from the sidewalk . This distance was based on the survey that indicated the building line was thirty feet (30 ' ) from the property line . The ends of the fence were to be angled . Com. Windecker asked who changed the measurement from 15 ' feet from the sidewalk to 12 ' 6" in violation of the variance? He recalled that it took a long time to convince him to agree to permit the fence to be 15 ' from the sidewalk. He made the motion and objected to the proposed variance . Mr . Bakrins said they assumed the survey was correct and , based upon the measurement of 1/2 the distance between the 30 ' build- ing line and the property line , they agreed to construct the fence 15 ' feet from the sidewalk because they believed this distance would line up with the second tree . Com . Windecker asked when the placement error was discovered? Mr . Schar said the Building Department went out and measured the distance in response to a caller . The Bakrins were notified that they could not construct the fence without the approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals , so they were rescheduled . Ch. Heinrich agreed the fence company should have measured from the sidewalk . If the house had been shifted sideways on the lot , the required side yard setbacks would have been met . The lot is very large and the size of the rear yard did not change . The Bakrins acknowledged that they were more concerned with being in line with the tree and being fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) from the building , so they did not measure from the sidewalk. The fence contractor also assumed the plat of survey was correct and did not measure from the sidewalk . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 20 , 1992 - Page Four Comments from Commissioners : Com. Windecker : The fence should be 15 feet from the sidewalk . Com. Arbus : Was not present on August 18th, but the ZBA has definite reasons for granting fences and he understands that mistakes are made. He would not want the Bakrins to be out $900 . to have the fence posts moved . The Bakrins may not be responsible for the estimated cost . He asked if any other neighbors have complained? Mrs . Bakrins remarked that the cost does not include restoration of the yard. The fence posts are cemented into the ground and the lawn would be destroyed if they have to be moved . They have talked with all their neighbors . The Millers at 1417 Margate objected and they are moving . Com. Arbus : Said he would not have given the Bakrins more than 15 feet , but under the circumstances , would approve the 12 ' 6" . Com. Entman: Was not present on August 18th, but since it is the surveyor and the fence company who are responsible , he recommended that the petitioner pursue recovery of the damages from one or both companies . Regardless of the obvious error on the original survey , the fence should be constructed pursuant to the variance with the distance measured from the sidewalk . Ch. Heinrich verified that the new survey, Exhibit A-1 , is ftd correct . The fence posts are installed 12 ' 6" from the sidewalk with the building line shown to be 30 ' from the property line. He agreed that the Bakrins have recourse with both the fence company and the surveyor . Mr . Bakrins contended that if he has the fence constructed 15 ' from the sidewalk , he will be giving up yard space . The posts are where he wants the fence to be . There is a playlot in the corner of the yard. They have waited two months for a fence that they need for the safety of their two children. Ch. Heinrich explained that the position of the sidewalk has not changed and the encroachment of the house only extends a short distance into the required side yard setback, so the yard is the same as it would have been if the fence had been constructed in accordance with the variance that was granted . The lot is only affected by a small corner of the house and the fence is located behind the house just as shown on both surveys . Com. Windecker maintained that the posts are 17 ' 6" past the house . If they had been positioned half way between the 30 ' building line and the lot line , there would have been 15 ' feet in each direction, or 15 ' from the sidewalk . They are 2 ' 6" past the 15 ' distance that was granted. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 20 , 1992 - Page Five The Bakrins contended that the fence is closer to the corner of the house because of the gross error on the part of the surveyor They put the fence where they said they were going to put it even though the numbers do not jibe . Ch. Heinrich repeated his explanation that nothing has changed . The size of the lot has not changed. The total lot coverage has not changed. The sidewalk has not changed . The distance to the swing set is the same . The fence posts have been installed 2 ' 6" closer to the sidewalk then the Zoning Board of Appeals specifi- cally stated in the variance . Just because mistakes have been made , the Zoning Board and the Village should not be expected to change the decision. The fence company should relocate the fence posts in accordance with variance : 15 ' from the sidewalk . Mr . Bakrins said they feel like they are being punished because they cannot keep the fence where they want it . He said they understand the fence is not in compliance with the 15 ' but it is 6 ' 6" closer to the house than if would have been if the survey had been accurate . Mr . Dempsey advised Ch. Heinrich that a vote should be taken on the variance as proposed. If denied , the petitioners can appeal to the Village Board and state the reasons for their request . The Village Board can overturn the ZBA decision. Mr . Dempsey also announced to the audience that it takes four (4) affirmative votes in order for a variance to be granted. Since only four (4) Commissioners are present , any petitioner may ask to have their variance Tabled until the November meeting The Bakrins considered this option, but since it would take more time , they asked that a vote be taken. They had assumed that under the circumstances , they would be granted a new variance . Com. Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the request of Perry and Celene Bakrins , 200 Stanton Drive , for variance of the Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 , pertaining to Area , Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations , for the purpose of bringing the existing principal structure into conformance with the Zoning Ordinance , as indicated on the plat of survey , Exhibit A-1 , submitted along with the application. Unique circumstances having been demonstrated , the proposed structure will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare . Com. Entman seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman, Windecker , Arbus , Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 20 , 1992 - Page Six Com. Arbus commented that this is the first time he will be voting for a variance when the other Commissioners are against it . He stated his feelings concerning people who have a variance granted , have fence posts put in where they want them and then come back to the ZBA thinking the mistake could be rectified . He has no reason to believe the Bakrins did anything intentionally , but since he has been a ZBA Commissioner , a specific point has always been made that fences are measured from the sidewalk. Com. Arbus made the following motion: I move we grant the request of Perry and Celene Bakrins , 200 Stanton Drive , for variance of 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 along Margate Drive a distance of 12 ' 6" from the sidewalk , as indicated on the plat of survey, Exhibit A-1 . Petitioners having demonstrated that said fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare . Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Arbus NAY - Entman, Windecker and Heinrich Motion DENIED - 3 to 1 . Findings of Fact Attached . Petitioners were advised that in order to have an appeal heard by the Village Board of Trustees on November 2 , 1992 they should state their request in writing to Frank Hruby, Director of Building and Zoning . No fee is required . The Bakrins must appear at the Village Board meeting . If the Village Board upholds the ZBA decision, the next step is the Circuit Court , or they can refile and come back to the Zoning Board of Appeals . Mr . Bakrins stated his intention to fight for what he thinks should be done because of the gross error on the survey. They feel like they have been victims of circumstance . Ch. Heinrich responded there was also a gross error on the part of the fence company and he cannot , in good conscience , change the variance to permit the fence to be constructed as requested . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 20 , 1992 - Page Seven B. 611 Lyon Court , Allan and Barbara Schwarz Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 Construction of addition into rear yard setback Allan and Barbara Schwarz , 611 Lyon Court were sworn in. The Public Hearing Notice was read . Mr . Schwarz informed the ZBA that they have decided not to construct the fireplace . A fireplace is a permitted projection and does not affect the variance . Mr . Schwarz summarized their reasons for requesting the variance : 1 . They have one child and plan to have more children. They like their neighbors and the schools , etc . 2 . They need more living space , but they cannot afford a new house in Buffalo Grove . They have informed all their neighbors and none of them object . The 1-story addition will match the existing structure : same siding , roof , etc . They originally requested a 14 foot addition, but when Mr . Schar informed them the Zoning Ordinance would only permit 1/3 of the required 35 foot rear yard , they changed their request to encroach a distance of 11 . 66 feet . Joseph and Judy Stoll , the neighbors who share the common wall of the duplex at 609 Lyon Court could not be present , but they signed a petition stating they do not object . Mrs . John Ross , 613 Lyon Court and Victoria Laures , 615 Lyon Court were present and stated they do not object to the proposed addition. They do not want the Schwarz ' to move . Mr . Robert Burke , 1560 Brandywyn Lane , was also present . His property abuts the petitioner ' s property to the rear and he was informed of the petition through the mail . He was not personally contacted and objects to the proposed addition. He has seen the plans and he objects for aesthetic reasons . He has a 2 bedroom ranch style home and the duplexes are 3-bedroom 2-story homes . Future homebuyers would perceive the Burke' s yard as small because the proposed addition would be too close . Mr . Schwarz responded that there is a difference is size now. The 2-bedroom houses are about 1 , 200 sf . and his house is approximately 1 ,600 sf . Ch. Heinrich commented that property values are not affected by additions that encroach into rear yard setbacks . Mr . Burke ' s perception of the distance is a personal objection. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 20 , 1992 - Page Eight Comments from Commissioners : Com . Entman: Verified the size of the existing house to be 1 , 586 sf . and the addition will be a 345 sf . family room . He asked the Schwarz ' if they looked at other houses? Mr . Schwarz said they lost a bid of $160 ,000 on a smaller house that was not in good condition. They also looked at new houses in Vernon Hills that cost $189 ,000 . The value of their house is approximately $144 ,000 to 149 ,000 . The addition will cost $22 ,000 and their combined payments will be less than if they were to purchase the new house in Vernon Hills . They prefer to stay in Buffalo Grove . Com. Windecker : Verified that the deck will be reduced in size . The addition will start at the edge of the house and be connect- ed to the deck . He had no objection to the variance . Com. Arbus : Does not object to the variance , but he is sensitive to neighbor ' s opinion that the addition will affect him personally. When people purchase property, they do so with the belief that certain ordinances will be upheld . How- ever , people should be reasonable and he would like to see if the situation can be resolved. There is a lack of communication There are only four ZBA Commissioners present and it is possible that the other Commissioners would feel differently. Ch. Heinrich agreed that neighbor ' s opinions are respected but he does not believe the proposed addition will be detrimental to the neighborhood . Since four votes are required , the petitioner ' s have the option of Tabling the request until the next meeting , November 17th, when more Commissioners will be present , or a vote can be taken on the petition as requested . If denied , the petitioners can appeal to the Village Board . If the variance is granted , Mr . Burke has the right to appeal . Mr . and Mrs . Schwarz considered their options and chose to come back on November 17 , 1992 , so they can discuss the situation with Mr . Burke because they do not want to cause a neighborhood problem. Motion to Table until November 17 , 1992 was made by Com. Entman and seconded by Com. Windecker . Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 20 , 1992 - Page Nine C. 1109 Devonshire Road , Satish and Smruti Sura Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts Five foot (5 ' ) fence past the building line. Satish and Smruti Sura were sworn in. The Public Hearing Notice was read . Mr . Sura summarized their reasons for requesting a variance for the purpose of constructing a five foot (5 ' ) wood fence that would extend past the building line along Devlin Road : 1 . They have no privacy. The grade of the property at the rear lot line slopes down greatly. 2 . They cannot sell the house because of there is no fence to enclose the yard. 3 . The Village Engineer ' s Review, dated October 5 , 1992 , will not permit a fence within a radius of 25 ' of the property corner . They have a landscaped island that would not be enclosed if the fence is constructed outside the 25 ' radius and the yard would be too small . There is a fence directly across the street that is not angled that much. Ch. Heinrich explained the Zoning Board and the Village cannot allow a fence where there is a safety issue . What the Village Engineer ' s Review states is final . The house across the street is not relevant , because a different line-of-sight prevails . If an accident occurs , the Suras and the Village could be liable . Mr . Schar said the fence across the street was constructed in 1984 with a variance . The Commissioners discussed the size and configuration the yard would be if the fence is constructed on the angle pursuant to the Village Engineer ' s Review. They agreed the yard would look much smaller and the feeling of open space would be lost . Mrs . Sura said families with small children are looking at the house but they will not consider buying it without a fence because of lack of privacy , safety , etc . There is also a lot of traffic noise because of the steep slope to the rear . Their children are older , so they do not personally need a fence . Ch. Heinrich observed that the lot is small and the most he would be willing to grant would be fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) from the sidewalk , angled as shown on the Village Engineer ' s Review. The 'Suras responded that would only be ten feet ( 10 ' ) past the building line and would make a really small yard . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 20 , 1992 - Page Ten Comments from Commissioners : Com . Windecker : Agreed the fence could be fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) from the sidewalk . Added the fence across the street is probably closer to the sidewalk because it does not block traffic from either direction. Com. Arbus : Would not object to fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) from the sidewalk but the angle would be very long. He would have been willing to go closer to the sidewalk because of the size of the yard and the slope at the rear . It is a unique situation in that , aesthetically , any fence will make the yard look smaller . Ch. Heinrich agreed that a fence will emphasize the size of the lot because all the open area would be lost . It would be a mistake for the Village to permit the proposed fence . The purpose of variances is not to assist in the sale of property. It would be possible to grant a variance for an eight foot (8 ' ) fence along the rear lot line and taper it to five feet (5 ' ) or six feet (6 ' ) along the side lot line . He asked the Suras if they would consider this compromise? The Commissioners agreed they would permit an eight foot (8 ' ) fence along Route 83 and if the yard was enclosed , it would be safer but not larger . A fence will provide safety for children. and the landscaping will look nice on the corner . Ch. Heinrich said it would be necessary to republish for the fence height and recommended Tabling until November 17 , 1992 . The Suras would be responsible for the republishing fee . The Suras agreed to wait and reconsider the side yard location. The realtors have advised them that a fence would be helpful . Mr . Dempsey advised the ZBA to Table this request regarding the side yard , republish a new petition for the rear height not encroaching into the radius , charge the Suras for the additional cost and notify the neighbors . Mr . Heinrich directed Mr . and Mrs . Sura to inform their realtor , Century 21 , that a representative should be present at the next public hearing . Com. Windecker made motion to Table until November 17 , 1992 . Com. Arbus seconded the motion. Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 20 , 1992 - Page Eleven D. 375 Newtown Drive , Scarsdale Development , Ltd . Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts Six foot (6 ' ) wood fence past the building line Mr . Charles Friedman, authorized representative of Scarsdale Homes , 40 Skokie Blvd . , Suite 615 , Northbrook , IL 60062 (205-0220) was sworn in. The public hearing notice was read . Mr . Friedman summarized the reasons for requesting a variance : 1 . The fence will improve the site and act as a traffic buffer along Weiland Road . 2 . The fence will match the existing fences on Weiland , but this is a side lot line , not a rear lot line . Ch. Heinrich confirmed that the property to the south abuts Marie Avenue in Prairie View and is currently unimproved . He has no objection to the variance . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Entman: Confirmed the distance will be no closer than one foot ( 1 ' ) from the sidewalk. The fence will be connected to and will match the existing fence . Com. Arbus : No objections and no comments . Com. Windecker : Asked if pressure treated wood was used for the abutting fences? Mr . Friedman was uncertain if the other fences on Weiland Road are pressure treated wood or cedar . He thought the fence they put in at the back of Parkchester was cedar , but the price of cedar is high and they would prefer to use treated wood . Ch. Heinrich had no preference and said if the property has been sold the purchaser may want to select the material . Mr . Friedman said there is no buyer but they are nearing the completion of the subdivision and a fence will improve the aesthetics of the property. He has been directed to proceed with the variance because people with children want fences . Ch. Heinrich recommended the fence to be six feet (6 ' ) high along Weiland tapered to five feet (5 ' ) high from the road to the house . Mr . Friedman agreed and said it would look better that way. The Village Engineer ' s Review, dated October 5 , 1992 states : "The proposed location is acceptable ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 20 , 1992 - Page Twelve Com. Entman made the following motion: I move the petition of Scarsdale Development Ltd . , owner of the property located at 375 Newtown Drive , model on Lot #1 at Parkchester Estates , be granted a variance of Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 , pertaining to Residential Districts , for the purpose of constructing a six foot (6 ' ) wood fence past the building line along Weiland Road with the following conditions : 1 . The fence is to be constructed no closer than one foot ( 1 ' ) from the sidewalk 2 . Portion of the fence from the house to Weiland Road to be no more than five feet (5 ' ) in height , tapered to meet the six foot (6 ' ) fence. 3 . Fence to be constructed and located pursuant to plans and specifications approved by the Village , per Exhibit A, attached to the petition. Petitioner having exhibited that the proposed variation and placement of the fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare . Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Arbus , Windecker , Entman, Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Face Attached. The permit may be issued in 15 days , after November 5 , 1992 . E. 270 Thompson Boulevard , Scarsdale Development , Ltd . Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts Six foot (6 ' ) wood fence past the building line Mr . Charles Friedman, authorized representative of Scarsdale Homes , 40 Skokie Blvd . , Suite 615 , Northbrook , IL 60062 (205-0220) was sworn in. The public hearing notice was read. Mr . Freedman summarized the reasons for requesting a variance: 1 . For traffic noise abatement and privacy from Buffalo Grove Road . 2 . The fence would add aesthetic value to the property. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 20 , 1992 - Page Thirteen Ch. Heinrich asked if there would be a fence along the rear lot line? Mr . Friedman responded that there is nothing to the rear except a field that may be part of the Didier farm. It is probably unincorporated property , but Scarsdale does not own it . Mr . Schar said there is a creek along there . The lot may be in the flood plain and if so , there will not any building there . Ch. Heinrich observed that the proposed fence would look like a large billboard and would it would be a mistake to construct it . It will be a strip of fence in the middle of nowhere , attached to nothing , leading to nothing . The model should sell with or without out a fence and purchasers may not want a fence . Mr . Friedman agreed the house could be sold but there are only 13 houses on this cul-de-sac and the fence will complete the entrance to the Westchester II subdivision. If the purchasers have children, they will want a fence and can have it completed . The Commissioners agreed with Ch. Heinrich that it would be better to wait until the house of sold and let the purchasers apply for a variance . Com . Entman said he was amenable to a fence if it will help the developer but the proposed fence is unnecessary. Com. Arbus observed that if a buyer wanted to fence the entire yard , a variance would be necessary for the part that extends past the building line . Mr . Friedman asked if the variance would be viable if the whole yard is fenced? He asked if there is a Village requirement for this to be done? He does not have the authority to amend the petition. He asked if the request could be Tabled? Ch. Heinrich agreed to Table . If they want to submit a new plat of survey and request a different variance , it can be republished for a later date , November 17th or December 15th. He suggested moving the front of the fence to the mid-point of the house , similar to the fence at 271 Thompson Boulevard . Mr . Friedman agreed to consult the developer and return on November 17 , 1992 . Ch. Heinrich advised Mr . Friedman that Scarsdale should notify the Building Department if they want to wait longer and it will be continued . Mr . Friedman will be sent a Nov. 17th Agenda. Com. Windecker made a motion to Table until November 17 , 1992 . Com. Arbus seconded the motion. Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 20 , 1992 - Page Fourteen F . 85 St . Mary ' s Parkway, William Sturm Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 32 . 020 Accessory Buildings and Structures ; Purpose : Construction of storage shed into side yard setback and project in front of the midpoint of the principal structure . Variance also required to bring existing garage into conformance with the Zoning Ordinance William Sturm , 85 St . Mary' s Parkway , was sworn in and the public hearing notice was read . He presented photographs of an existing shed . He explained that after he replaced an old shed with a 10 ' x 10 ' wooden storage shed , he was informed by the Building Department that it did not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance . He had constructed the new shed in the side yard and it cannot be moved over far enough to meet the side yard requirement . He is going to remove the new shed and wants to construct an 8 ' x 10 ' shed that complies with all the Codes . He needs a variance to construct the shed a distance of six feet , eight inches (6 ' 8" ) from the side lot line and to permit it to be located in front of the midpoint of the principal structure . The Village Engineer ' s Drainage Review, dated October 6 , 1992 states : " It would be desirable to locate the shed five feet (5 ' ) from the property line to allow for drainage . It appears that the recent regrading has enhanced the drainage in the immediate area. " The Zoning Ordinance requires a 6 ' 8" setback . Mr . Sturm said his neighbors helped him construct the existing shed and they do not object to its location. He has secured all necessary permits to permit removal of the existing shed with a crane and move it on a flatbed to the home of a buyer . The house has no basement . One side of the garage is used for his car . The other side for projects and his son' s toys . The shed will be used for lawn and garden equipment , snow blower , etc . The new shed will be 8 ' 6" in height and the roof will be pitched north and south for drainage . Ch. Heinrich cautioned Mr . Sturm not to store combustibles in the shed because of the proximity to the house . He had no problem with the variance . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Windecker : No problem with the variance . Com. Arbus : No problem, the home is very nice looking . Com. Entman: No problem , since the neighbors do not object . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 20 , 1992 - Page Fifteen Com. Arbus made the following motion: I move we grant the request of William Sturm , 85 St . Mary ' s Parkway, for variance of the Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 32 . 020 , pertaining to Location of Accessory Buildings & Structures , for the purpose of permitting a storage shed that would encroach a distance of 3 . 3 feet into the required ten foot ( 10 ' ) side yard setback and project in front of the midpoint of the principal structure. I also move that we grant the request for a variance for the purpose of bringing the existing garage into conformance with the Zoning Ordinance . Plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances and the proposed variations will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood . Com. Entman seconded the motion. Findings of Fact Attached . Permit may be issued in 15 days - November 5 , 1992 . Note : The garage required a variance because it is less than ten feet ( 10 ' ) from the house . VI . ANNOUNCEMENTS 1 . Minutes of September 15 , 1992 - Motion to approve as submitted was made by Com. Arbus and seconded by Com. Windecker . Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman, Windecker , Arbus , Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . 2 . Ch. Heinrich announced that a former ZBA Commissioner , Herman Hefler has been reappointed and he will fill Com. Fields vacancy. VII . ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn was made by Com. Windecker and seconded by Com. Entman. Voice Vote : AYE - Unanimously Ch. Heinrich adjourned the meeting at 9 : 10 P.M. Respectfully submitted , rS4t;V%-2.E. aGl‘dtla Shirley Batecj Recording Secretary ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 20 , 1992 - Page Sixteen