Loading...
1993-01-19 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE , ILLINOIS TUESDAY , JANUARY 19 , 1993 I . CALL TO ORDER Chairman Richard Heinrich called the meeting to order at 8 : 10 P .M. on Tuesday , January 19 , 1993 at the Village Hall , 50 Raupp Blvd . II . ROLL CALL Commissioners Present : M. Kearns , J . Paul , B . Entman , L . Arbus , H . Hefler and R. Heinrich QUORUM. Commissioners Absent : L . Windecker Bldg . Dept . Liaison : Edward Schar , Deputy Building Commissioner Village Attorney : Tom Dempsey Village Board Liaison : Bruce Kahn , Trustee III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 17 , 1993 - Motion to approve as submitted was made by Com. Kearns and seconded by Com. Arbus . Roll Call Vote : AYE - Kearns , Paul , Entman , Arbus , Hefler , Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Minutes of November 17 , 1993 approved and will be placed on file . IV. BUSINESS A. 1109 Devonshire , Satish and Smurti Sura Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 8 ' fence/Mc Henry Road and 5 ' fence past bldg . line The Public Hearing Notice was read . Mr . and Mrs . Sura were sworn in with their realtor , Ms . Valerie Fuson, Gateway Equities , Century 21 , 1157 N . Arlington Heights Road , B . G . Mr . Sura requested an eight foot (8 ' ) stockade fence along Mc Henry Road because the road is lower than their rear yard and they have no privacy . The fence will also provide safety . They requested a five foot ( 5 ' ) fence past the building line along Devlin Road as far as the Commissioners will permit. They agreed to construct the fence subject to the Village Engineer ' s Line-of-Sight Review, dated October 5 , 1992 , which states : "No fence should be allowed within twenty-five ( 25 ' ) of the property corner . " Mr . Sura added that they cannot sell their property without a fence . Ms . Fuson confirmed this and said they had an offer in November but the people backed out because there was no fence . She asked if the fence could be angled past the 25 ' restricted area? Ch. Heinrich said this was possible and asked Ms. Fuson if such a fence would make the house more marketable? Ms. Fuson replied that a fence will help because Mc Henry Road is slated to be widened and if the yard is enclosed, people will at least have a safe place for their children to play. Ch. Heinrich commented that a fence along Devlin Road at the building line will accentuate the size of the yard. He under- stands that a fence along Mc Henry Road will eliminate some noise, but he suggested no fence along Devlin Road. Mr. Sura said people cut through the yard and a small fenced-in area is better than no fence at all. He asked if they could construct the fence. eight feet (8 ' ) past the building line and ten feet (10 ' ) from the rear of the house. Comments from Commissioners: Com. Paul: Said the eight foot area would permit room for a gate and a shed even though the area is small. No objection. Com. Arbus: No objection to the request, if that' s what the Suras want, but thought the fence would look better if was con- structed straight back from the house to the rear property line. Com. Kearns: No objection. Asked if the Suras talked to their neighbors? Only one neighbor is affected and no objectors have come. Com. Entman: Said he wanted to help the petitioners sell the house and the yard can be enclosed. Purchasers may prefer to have a small rectangularly shaped yard with a nice side yard, rather than the proposed irregular shape, but he would not object to the proposal. Com. Hefler: No comment. A Poll was taken - 5 ' or 8 ' from the building line angled in conformance with the Village Engineer' s Review: All Commissioners agreed the fence could be 8 ' past the building line. Mr. and Mrs. Sura agreed to amend the petition. The fence is to be: 8 ' in height along rear property line, angled outside the 25 ' radius from the corner of the lot, tapering to 5 ' in height a distance of 8 ' from the building line along Devlin Road and 10 ' from the rear of the house. The plat of survey was revised. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS January 19 , 1993 - Page Two Com. Paul made the following motion: I move we grant the request of Satish and Smurti Sura, 1109 Devonshire Road, for variance of the Fence Code, Section 15. 20 . 040, pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of constructing an 8 foot stockade fence along Route 83, angled outside the 25 foot radius at the southwest corner of the lot, tapering from 8 feet to 5 feet in height, extending north and south, parallel to the sidewalk along Devlin Road a distance of 8 feet past the building line and shall extend 10 feet north of the southwest corner of the house, per the revised plat of survey, Exhibit A-1. The proposed fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. It will not be detrimental to the essential character of the neighborhood. Com. Entman seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Kearns, Entman, Hefler, Paul, Arbus and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0. Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in 15 days - February 4, 1993 The petitioners were advised that a permit application should be submitted to the Building Department for review. B. 529 White Pine Road, Robert and Shana Betz Fence Code, Section 15 .20 .040 - 6 foot fence The Public Hearing Notice was read. Robert and Shana Betz were sworn in. Mr. Betz summarized their reasons for requesting a variance for the purpose of constructing a six foot (6 ' ) wood privacy fence. He said the corner is very busy so the fence will provide safety for their three small children and privacy for the family. They removed an existing fence that was over six feet (6 ' ) in height and began replacing it with a six foot (6 ' ) fence when they were informed that it was too high and it was being constructed past their property line. They discussed the situation with their neighbors, Vince and Bernice Konwent, 513 White Pine Road, and the Konwents have also applied for a variance, so that the fence can be completed and remain in the original location. Mr. Konwent confirmed Mr. Betz ' s statement and said they did not object to having the fence reconstructed on their property. There has always been a similar fence there. Mr. Betz said he has talked to all the other neighbors and none of them object to the proposed fence. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS January 19 , 1993 - Page Three The Commissioners had no comments or objections. Com. Entman informed Mr. and Mrs. Betz , that the granting of a variance to permit the northern portion of the fence to he on the southern portion of the Konwent' s property does not guarantee it can remain there in the future, if the property is sold, and the new owners object. The Betz ' s will not be given title to the property because of placement of the fence. Both parties indicated that they understood the situation. Com. Entman made the following motions: I move we grant the request of Robert and Shana Betz, 529 White Pine Road, for variance of the Fence Code, Section 15.20.040 , pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of constructing a six foot (6 ' ) wood shadow box fence, subject to the following conditions: The fence shall be constructed with materials approved by the Village and situated pursuant to the attached survey that was submitted with the application and marked Exhibit A. Petitioners have exhibited that granting of this variance for the construction of a six foot (6 ' ) wood shadow box fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. Com. Hefler seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Paul, Arbus, Kearns, Entman, Hefler and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0. Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in 15 days - February 5, 1993. C. 513 White Pine Road, Vince and Bernice Konwent Fence Code, Section 15 .20 .040 - 6 foot wood privacy fence The Public Hearing Notice was read. Vince and Bernice Konwent were sworn in. Testimony having been given, Com. Entman made the following motion: I move we grant the request of Vince and Bernice Konwent, 513 White Pine Road, for variance of the Fence Code, Section 15. 20 . 040 , pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of constructing a six foot (6 ' ) wood shadow box fence, subject to the following conditions: Fence to be constructed with materials approved by the Village and located pursuant to the Plat of Survey, Exhibit A, attached to the application. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS January 19 , 1993 - Page Four Petitioners having exhibited that granting of the variance and construction of said fence will not be detrimental to the public health , safety and welfare . Com. Kearns seconded the motion . Roll Call Vote : AYE - Paul , Arbus , Kearns , Entman , Hefler and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in 15 days - February 4 , 1993 . D . 2150 East Lake Cook Road - Riverwalk Marketing Sign Sign Code , Section 14 . 20 . 070 - Ground Signs Purpose : Extension of variance and relocation of sign The Public Hearing Notice was read . Mr . Tim Beechick , Hamilton Partners , 1130 Lake Cook Road , Suite 220 , Buffalo Grove , IL 60089 ( 708 ) 459-9225 was sworn in . A letter of objection was read from Carol A. Dawson , owner of the property at 20152 St . James Circle , Wheeling , IL . Mr . Jerome Tryboski , 5433 N . Parkside , Chicago , IL and Mrs . Jessie Tryboski , Ms . Dawson ' s brother and mother , were present. Mr . Beechick requested an extension of the 1989 variance that was granted for the Riverwalk Marketing Sign that is presently located near the intersection of Milwaukee Avenue and Lake Cook Road . Approximately 3 acres of the Riverwalk property will be taken by IDOT to permit construction of the Lake Cook Road overpass . At this time , the marketing sign will have to be removed. Mr . Beechick submitted a plat of survey and requested that the sign be relocated north of the present location . It will be 75 ' feet from the right-of-way and will be in compliance with the regulations of the Sign Code . There is no other location that would be in reasonable proximity to the corner . The sign will be orientated perpendicular to Milwaukee Avenue in order to reach as much of the traffic as possible . The sign will not be visible from Lake Cook Road after construction has started . Mrs . Tryboski thought the sign should be located on L/C Rd . . Ch . Heinrich asked Mrs . Tryboski where the property owned by her son and daughter is located? Mr . Schar submitted a Subdivision Plat of Columbian Gardens showing Lots 40 and 41 which are located in Vernon Township , in unincorporated Lake County . The site is east of the animal hospital and there is no access to the property . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS January 19 , 1993 - Page Five Mr. Beechick said there is a right-of-way platted but there is no street, so there is no access to the land at this time. The distance from the Tryboski property and the proposed location of the marketing sign is over 400 feet. The sign is 19 feet in height and the overpass will be 33 feet. Mrs. Tryboski asked that her daughter' s first letter be read. Ms. Carol A. Dawson' s letter, dated December 7 , 1992, states her objections relate to a "cell tower and a huge billboard" that are not located in the Village of Buffalo Grove. Ch. Heinrich informed Mrs. Tryboski that the ZBA has no comment or control over the cell tower. He asked when they are planning to build on the lots? Mr. Tryboski responded that they would like to build as soon as the "commotion" stops. They are being land-locked and they will not build until the area is settled. Ch. Heinrich said the proposed 33 foot overpass will be much higher that any sign on the Riverwalk property. The marketing sign has been in place for over three years and it is temporary so they must periodically apply for extensions. It will be a very long distance from the Buffalo Grove property line and will not affect their property. The Tryboskis' greatest problem is from the surrounding commercial property. In his opinion, the sign is not an eyesore to the community. Mr. Beechick agreed the billboard sign is very visible, but the Village of Buffalo Grove has no jurisdiction over it. He commented that the Riverwalk sign would be very difficult to see from the Tryboski property, because of the existing landscaping. There are many trees around the Riverwalk detention area that are over 19 feet in height. Ch. Heinrich said the ZBA will take the comments of the objectors into consideration, but this sign will not be a problem. Their property is probably no longer a residential area. The Riverwalk development is very tastefully done compared to the existing developments to the north. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS January 19 , 1993 - Page Six Comments from Commissioners: Com. Hefler: Said that the question is not whether the area is residential or commercial or whether an overpass will be constructed. The issue before the ZBA is whether or not to recommend a variance be granted to permit the Riverwalk sign to be relocated, based on the criteria that it will or will not be detrimental to the surrounding area. This question will be answered by vote. He asked if all the land surrounding the Tryboskis' lots are residential or commercial? The proposed sign will be located approximately 500 feet from the Tryboskis' lots. It is unfortunate that the objectors are being affected by the changes that are being made to the area. The issue before the ZBA is whether the sign relates to the area. Com. Entman: Seriously takes into consideration the comments of the objectors. It is his opinion that the sign will not harm anyone in the area. The sign is very tastefully done. He recalled the initial discussions that preceded the granting of the variance and said the size and height were reduced before the sign was permitted. The proposed location seems to be the only feasible place to get any visibility. Based on what he has heard, the relocation of the sign will not be detrimental to anyone. Com. Kearns: It does not appear that the objectors are in a very attainable position in relation to the proposed location of the sign. There are no immediate plans to build on the property, but if construction is proposed when the petitioner applies for renewal of the variance, the parties will again be notified and the matter will be discussed. Mr. Dempsey informed the ZBA and the objectors that renewal of the marketing sign does not require a public hearing every year. If circumstances change and plans are made to build on the property, the Village should be informed. If the sign is ever taken down, and another variance is requested, the surround- ing property owners will be notified. Ch. Heinrich said that after looking at the Plat of Columbian Gardens, it is possible that the roads will never go through and the lots may not be buildable. Com. Arbus: No Comment Com. Paul: Since the sign will be 500 feet away from the objectors' . property and since the landscaping includes trees that are taller than the sign, he does not believe the proposed sign will be seen from their property. The construction that is proposed will be more of a problem than the sign will be. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS January 19 , 1993 - Page Seven Com. Kearns made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board that the variance requested by Hamilton Partners, Inc. , 1130 Lake Cook Road, Suite 220, Buffalo Grove, IL be granted that would permit variance of Sign Code, Code 14. 20.070 pertaining to Ground Signs, for the purpose of permitting and relocating the existing Riverwalk Marketing Sign (2150 East Lake Cook Road) to Milwaukee Avenue, per Exhibit A-1, attached. The Village Engineer' s Line-of-Sight Review, dated December 3 , 1992, states "The proposed location will not affect the required line-of-sight. It' s exact location should be subject to all existing utility locations. " Petitioner has met the conditions for granting a variance. Com. Arbus seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Hefler, Entman, Kearns, Paul, Arbus and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0. Findings of Fact Attached. Item will be on the February 1 , 1993 Village Board Agenda. The objectors were informed that they have the right to attend the Village Board meeting and express their opinion. E. 200 Navajo Trail, Wayne and Kathleen Kiska Zoning Ordinance, Sections 17 .40 .020 and 17.40 .030 Construction of attached garage, addition and front porch The Public Hearing Notice was read. Wayne and Kathleen Kiska were sworn in. Mr. Kiska summarized their reasons for requesting a variance for the purpose of constructing a garage/addition and a front porch. He said they want to take down the existing garage and construct a garage that would be attached to the front portion of the house with living space above the new garage, construct a new family room to the rear of the garage and cover the front porch. The whole house will be resided a light blue or grey color. They have informed all their neighbors of their plans. Mr. Kenneth Lungren, 214 Navajo Trail, was present. He said the side of his house is closest to the proposed garage/addition and he has no objections to the proposed construction. Ch. Heinrich complimented the petitioners on the improvements. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS January 19 , 1993 - Page Eight Comments from Commissioners: Com. Paul: No objections - the addition will upgrade the neighborhood. Com. Arbus: No objections as long as the neighbors do not object. Nice addition, good for the neighborhood. Com. Kearns: No questions or objections. Com. Entman: It will be useful to enlarge house because of the increasing size of the family and more economical to make improvements instead of moving. No problem. Com. Hefler: Variance is the maximum distance the ZBA can grant. No comments from the audience. Com. Arbus made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by Wayne and Kathleen Kiska, 200 Navajo Trail, for a variance of the Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.40 .030 , pertaining to Building Height, Bulk and Lot Coverage; for the purpose of constructing a roofed-over front porch that would encroach a distance of three feet (3) into the required thirty foot (30) front yard setback; AND a variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17 .40 . 020 , pertaining to Area, Height, Bulk and Placement Regulations, for the purpose of constructing an attached garage/addition that would encroach a distance of two feet, four inches (2 ' 4" ) into the required seven foot (7 ' ) side yard setback. Petitioners have demonstrated unique circumstances and the proposed construction will not be detrimental to the essential character of the neighborhood. Construction to be in accordance with plans submitted to and approved by the Village. Village Engineer' s Review, dated December 3 , 1992, states: "the proposed addition at the subject property will not affect the existing drainage pattern. " Com. Paul seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Kearns, Entman, Hefler, Paul, Arbus and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0. Findings of Fact Attached. Petitioners were advised to submit complete construction plans for review. Permit may be issued in 15 days - February 4 , 1993 . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS January 19 , 1993 - Page Nine F. 2860 Daulton Drive, Randall and Susan Levin Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.40.020 - Screened Porch The Public Hearing Notice was read. Randall and Susan Levin were sworn in. Mr. Levin explained that the original plat they submit- ted with the permit application for a screened porch showed the porch 15 feet from the house. The plans were later revised and approved with the porch going out 16 feet from the house, but the contractor constructed the porch 17i feet out from the house, and it encroaches a distance of 2 ' 6" into the required 40 foot rear yard setback. The error was discovered upon final inspection. The variance was requested because of the severe financial hardship that would be incurred if the porch has to be reconstructed. Mr. Levin said he has talked with all his neighbors and none of them object. One of them came to the December meeting that was cancelled. Several others offered to come. Ch. Heinrich said he had no objections. Comments from Commissioners: Com. Paul: The difference would not be noticed. No objection. Com. Arbus: Noted that the 16 foot distance would have required a variance. Com. Hefler: Commented that there have been several errors of o4mmission due to changes in the plans. The ZBA is being asked to grant a sizable variance after the fact. The request may be reasonable under normal conditions, but the ZBA has taken a stern approach in the past. The builder has an obligation to the Village to research the ordinances and he is liable to the Village and the petitioner to perform his work correctly. The issue should be discussed because by granting a variance, the ZBA is white-washing and making right errors that were made by contractors who are be- holden to their clients. A hardship was created for the petitioner Mr. Levin responded that the permit was issued at 16 feet and he cannot explain why the porch was built 17i feet from the house. Ch. Heinrich: Commented that taking into consideration the size of the lot and the size of the area involved, he has no problem with the variance. The difference will not be noticed. Com. Paul: Said it cost the contractor more to construct the deck the way it is and it would cause the petitioner to suffer inconvenience as well lose part of the screen room. The contractor did not purposely construct a larger porch. Taking this case individually, the variance will not detrimental to the area. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS January 19 , 1993 - Page Ten Com. Entman: Said he is acquainted with Mr. and Mrs. Levin, but this will not affect his actions regarding this matter. He is appalled at the number of petitioners that have requested variances because of contractors ' errors. He agrees with Com. Hefler that this must be treated as a variance. The house backs up to Buffalo Grove Road and there is no house to be affected by the encroachment. There has been a combination of errors and until the Village requires some type of bonding or imposes some liability on contractors, the ZBA will be faced with similar situations in which the homeowners are innocent. Consider- ing the circumstances, including the facts that the Levins obtained approval from Dartmoor and the Village Engineer' s Review, dated December 3 , 1992, which states that the existing drainage pattern will not be affected, he would not have a problem granting the variance. Com. Kearns: No problem with granting of the variance. Concurs with the previous statements. He would like the Village to have some way of being alerted to monitor certain contractors when they do work in the area. Ch. Heinrich and the ZBA Commissioners agreed that such work causes people to suffer for others ' misdemeanors and discussed solutions. (See Announcements. Com. Hefler made the following motion: I move we grant the variance requested by Randall and Susan Levin, 2860 Daulton Drive, for variance of the Zoning Ordinance, Section 17. 40. 020, pertaining to Area, Height, Bulk and Placement Regulations, for the purpose of permitting the existing screen porch that encroaches a distance of 2 ' 6" into the required 40 ' rear yard setback to remain as constructed. Petitioner having demonstrated unique circumstances, the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Com. Kearns seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Paul, Kearns, Entman, Hefler and Heinrich NAY - None ABSTAIN - Arbus Motion Passed - 5 to 0 , 1 abstention. Findings of Fact Attached. Permit has been issued. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS January 19, 1993 - Page Eleven , V. ANNOUNCEMENTS Ch. Heinrich asked Tom Dempsey to have the Sign Code draft ready, for review in February. the meeting will be held at Chipper' s Restaurant, 48 Raupp Boulevard. Regarding variances forced by contractors ' errors, Com. Hefler said the onus is actually on the owner of the property. Other Villages require performance bonds and registered contractors. Mr. Schar said that if the ZBA and the Village denies variances, people would have recourse through the court system. The Village does not have legal recourses to take action against repeated offenses, except in the case of electrical work. Ch. Heinrich agreed that denial hurts the homeowners more than the contractors. bonds could be required and in the case of error, the bond would be forfeited. Their right to build could be revoked. Mr. Schar commented that some contractors use bonds to buy their way out of situations. He would prefer not to have them licensed. The electrical, plumbing and mechanical contractors have licenses but there is no licensing tool to use for registering carpenters. Trustee Kahn agreed that bonds are costly and would create greater hardship. The subject is arbitrary and subjective. Mr. Dempsey suggested keeping a list is contractors who have built in violation of the Codes and do more frequent field checks. Com. Paul said people should not pay contractors before final inspections are made. When work is not approved and variances are necessary, contractors should be required to come before the ZBA with the petitioners. VI. ADJOURNMENT Com. Paul made a motion to adjourn. Com. Kearns seconded the motion. Ch. Heinrich adjourned the public hearing at 10 :50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, s • Shirley Bates Recording Secretary ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS January 19 , 1993 - Page Twelve