Loading...
1993-04-20 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE , ILLINOIS TUESDAY , APRIL 20 . 1993 I . CALL TO ORDER In the absence of Chairman Richard Heinrich , the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting was called to order and chaired by Commissioner Michael Kearns at 8 : 10 P . M . on Tuesday , April 20 , 1993 in Room 24 at the Alcott Community Center , 530 Bernard Drive . II . ROLL CALL Commissioners Present : M . Kearns , J . Paul , B . Entman , L . Arbus and Herman Hefler . Commissioners Absent : R . Heinrich and Lou Windecker Bldg . Dept . Liaison : Edward Schar . Deputy Building Commissioner Village Attorney : Tom Dempsey Village Board Liaison : Bruce Kahn , Trustee III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 16 , 1993 - Motion to approve was made by Com . Arbus and seconded by Com . Paul . No corrections or additions . Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman , Paul , Arbus and Kearns NAY - None ABSTAIN - Hefler Motion Passed - 4 to 0 , 1 abstention . February 16 , 1993 - Motion to approve was made by Com . Hefler and seconded by Com . Arbus . No corrections or additions . Roll Call Vote : AYE - Hefler , Entman , Arbus and Kearns NAY - None ABSTAIN - Paul Motion Passed 4 to 0 , 1 abstention . Minutes of February 16 , 1993 and March 16 , 1993 were approved and will be placed on file . IV . OLD BUSINESS A . 79 Mc Henry Road , Jewel /Osco Wall Sign Sign Code , Section 14 . 20 . 030 - Business Districts Sign Code , Section 14 . 20 . 090 - Wall Signs " 24 HOUR PHARMACY " at the south end of the west elevation Item was Tabled on March 1. 6 , 1993 and republished because the location of the sign was changed from the north end of the west elevation to the south end of the west elevation . Motion to remove from Table was made by Com . Entman and seconded by Com . Hefler . Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously . Mr . Terry Doyle . Doyle Signs , Inc . 232 Interstate Road , Addison. IL 60101 ( 708 ) 543-9490 and Mr . Robert Poelker , Osco Pharmacy Manager , were present . The new Public Hearing Notice was read . Mr . Doyle stated that the store has recently been enlarged and 62 linear feet of frontage has been added at the south end . There is a "24 HOUR PHARMACY' in the store . Osco believes it would be beneficial to the general public and to Osco to have this important service identified with an exterior sign. The proposed sign will be composed with 21 ' individual numerals and letters located on the southern portion of the new storefront . A color rendering of the storefront was presented . The color and construction of the proposed sign would match the existing letters and would be less tnan 15% of the additional storefront . Comments of Commissioners : Com. Paul : Observed that the rendering is not correct in that the fascia drops about a foot and then goes straight across . He asked how the letters were going to be lined up? Mr . Doyle responded that the new letters would be centered on the new portion and would be more in line with the existing JeweliOsco letters , but would be a little higher than the cleaners and restaurant signs . The Appearance Commission reviewed the sign rendering on March 11 , 1993 and recommended a variance . A discussion followed . Com. Paul contended that the rendering does not show the whole fascia so the Appearance Commission did not see what the actual west elevation will look like because the proposed sign does not line up with the existing signs on the fascia . Com . Hefler listed the following options : The ZBA can refuse the sign and refer it back to the AC with a new drawing OR the ZBA can recommend the sign be centered on the fascia and send it on to the Village Board of Trustees . Com . Arbus : would approve the sign if it is centered on the fascia . The difference is only six inches (6' ) . Com. Hefler : No problem if the sign is centered on the fascia and leave it up to the Village Staff to approve the permit application. Com. Entman: No comment and no objection. Ch. Kearns : Recommended that the sign be sent on to the Village Board with a caveat that the AC review an accurate rendering of the proposed sign . �✓ ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 20 , 1993 - Page Two A poll was taken: Should the AC review the sign again? NO - Arbus , Entman and Hefler . YES - Paul and Kearns . Vote was 3 to 2 not to send the sign back to the Appearance Commission. Four votes are necessary for a motion to carry . Com. Paul remarked that there is a line on the drivit front that separates the addition from the rest of the building , so he suggested that the base line of the sign be kept in line with existing FOOD/DRUG sign and made the following motion: I move we recommend that Village Board of Trustees grant the request of Jewel /Osco , 79 Mc Henry Road . variance of Sign Code , Section 14 . 20 . 030 , pertaining to Business Districts and Section 14 . 20 . 090 , pertaining to Waii Signs . for the purpose of permitting a "24 HOUR PHARMACY" sign as requested and shown on Exhibit A with the stipulation that the base line of the new sign line up with the base line of the existing FOOD/DRUG sign. Variance to be granted in accordance with Sub-section A of Sign Code . Section 14 . 44 . 010 - Conditions for granting . Com. Entman seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Hefler . Entman. Paul , Arbus , Kearns NAY - None Motion Passed - 5 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . An ordinance will be prepared by the Village Attorney . This item will be on the Consent Agenda of the May 3 , 1993 Village Board meeting and if approved . a permit may be issued on May 6 , 1993 . B. 4 Belaire Court . Kenneth and Marisa Duke Request for Brick Paver Patio On July i6 , 1991 . Kenneth and Marisa Duke , 4 Belaire Court , were granted a variance of Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 . for the purpose of constructing an addition with a condition to return to the Zoning Board of Appeals for approval of any patio . Mr . and Mrs . Duke were present and Mr . Duke summarized the history of their attempts to put a Uniiock paver patio in their rear yard . They returned to the ZBA in July and August 1992 to request approval of the patio , but they were denied approval . Ms . Karen Uhren. 760 Bernard Drive . said she objected to the patio because it would cause more water to flow into her yard . Mr . Richard Kuenkler , Village Engineer has consistently stated that the Dukes have not contributed to the drainage problem that has existed in the area for the past ten years . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 20 , 1993 - Page Three Mr . Kuenkler wrote to Ms . Uhren on October 22 . 1992 and on January b . 1993 suggesting alternative solutions to her drainage problem . On April 5 , 1993 , Mr . Kuenkler sent Mr . Scnar copies of his correspondence and stated that he has had no response from the homeowner (Ms . Uhren) . Mrs . Duke said when she talked to Mr . Kuenkler and Mr . Bailing she was advised to return to the Zoning Board . She said that some work has recently been done in Ms . Uhren ' s yard to alleivate the problem . Ms . Uhren was present and confirmed that she objected to the proposed patio last year because flooding has increased since the Dukes addition was constructed . She has had drain tile in the back yard . but it it now a mudpit . The neighbor to the west of her has more water in her yard than she has ever had before . The two neighbors directly east of her who have never needed a sump pump before have water in their yards . She does not know if the Dukes have caused the problem , but something needs to be done in the area . She has spent thousands of dollars in the last two months to have drain tile put around the perimeter of her crawl space and into the back yard . She cannot tolerate any more construction that will increase the water in her yard . The neighbors on both sides of her have built up their yards . The previous owners of the Duke ' s house built a larger patio and then built up the rear yard . Her yard has become a retention basin. She cannot even walk into the front yard . She is not here to tell the Dukes that they cannot build a patio , but she cannot live under these conditions . Mr . Duke said he understood Ms . Uhren' s problem because it has existed for the eleven ( 11 ) years he has lived there , but it has increased as the neighbors on either side of her built up their lawns . He added that the Village Engineer has been out numerous times . He has testified at each ZBA meeting and at the Village Board meeting that their construction would not affect the drainage in Ms . Uhren ' s yard . Without the drain tile that she had put in, the yard would be a lake and not a mudpit because the water does not generally drain off until the weather dries up . There has been unusually heavy rains for the past few weeks . Ms . Uhren contended that whenever a large portion of grass is taken away from the Dukes yard and replaced it with concrete . it will cause water to drain into her yard and exacerbate the situ- ation. More water will also flow into the yard to the west . Ch. Kearns asked why Ms . Uhren did not respond to the Village Engineer ' s letters? She replied that Mr . Kuenkler did not ask for a response and his estimate of $8 .000 to construct a storm sewer was prohibitive so she chose to follow a different route . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 20 , 1993 - Page Four Mr . Frank Schuster . 5 Belaire Court , was also present . He said he did not originally object to the Duke ' s construction of the addition because he had no water problems , but now he does . His house is to the east of the Dukes and he has been taking on water since last year . Mr . Duke said the Schuster ' s house sits higher than theirs and the rooms that are taking on water are on the east side of the Schuster ' s house , so it cannot be caused by their additions . They have done everything that has been suggested by the Village . The addition to the rear is smaller than the patio that existed before . The shed has been removed . The gutters and downspouts all drain away from the back and run from the back to the front of the house . No water drains off the roof into his back yard . The patio they want to put in is made of paver stones laid in sand and gravel that permits drainage . It is ground level , not raised , so water will not drain off of it . Ms . Uhren said she has researched the Unilock product and it is compressed pre-cast concrete that locks into a flat surface with minute cracks that separate the blocks . It is extremely durable with a lifetime guarantee . The flat surface will not permit drainage the way grass does . Water will spill into her yard because of the slope . Mr . Schuster said that Mr . Kuenkler advised him to seal along the edge of the south end of his house between the house and patio . He did this and has still been getting water . Ms . Uhren recalled that when the issue was addressed at the Village Board meeting , Trustee Reid agreed there is a serious problem on Bernard . Several houses flood and Mr . Reid commented that the Village has spent more money in Lake County than in the Cook County sections that need attention. Comments from Commissioners : Com. Hefler - Said he does not profess to be an expert on water reclamation or swales or drain tiles and water . He has not seen any qualified opinion that he can respect concerning whether any further building on any adjacent parcel in this neighborhood will cause flooding . This area has had a water problem for twenty years and the Village has tried to address the situation. There has been a lot of rain and the water table has risen. A lot of people have water that have not had it before . The Dukes want to build a patio and neighbors are objecting . The ZBA needs to be advised whether the patio will increase the problem . He suggested that the Village Engineer be asked to give his professional opinion with regard to the flooding situation. Mrs . Duke had copies of the minutes from previous meetings and Mr . Kuenkler stated at that time that the proposed addition would not have any affect on Ms . Uhren ' s property. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 20 . 1993 - Page Five Com . Entman - Recalled that a great deal of time was spent when the Dukes originally petitioned for a variance to permit con- struction of the addition and Mr . Kuenkier was out a number of times . The Dukes have complied with the requirement to direct water away from the rear yard toward the front of the house . The patio will be a further extension into the rear yard and he does not know if it will further exaserbate the water problem . He cannot make a valid decision without more information about the type of patio itself and how water will drain from it . He has been out to the property every time it has been on the ZBA agenda and was out there this evening to view the yards . It is a swamp back there but that does not mean that the Dukes have caused the situation , because he has heard for the last two years how the swage has been interrupted by the residents . His own yard is a lake also because of all the rains . He needs more information from the Village Engineer or from another professional that will provide evidence that the proposed patio will not , beyond reasonable doubt . make the problem any worse . Ms . Urhen does have a problem. Com . Paul - Agreed that more information is needed in order to make any judgment concerning this situation. Com. Arbus - Recollected that the Village Engineer has submitted reports in the past and has stated that the proposed patio will not affect the area drainage . The ZBA always relies on Dick Kuenkler ' s reports and he cannot substitute his judgment for the Village Engineer ' s . If Dick says the patio will not affect the drainage and will not affect the water problem , and there is no other reasonable objection to the patio . then he would vote in favor of the patio . Com . Hefler requested a complete set of minutes with an accurate plat of survey showing the addition and the proposed patio ; and the previous Village Engineer ' s Reviews . Com. Entman requested an updated report from Mr . Kuenkler with a review of the type of patio : porous concrete . slab , wood . etc . Com. Paul recommended a wood deck with spaces between the slats as an alternative because it would permit water to drain. Ms . Uhren said she would get a civil engineer ' s opinion and she will also bring a signed petition from residents on Bernard because the problem is serious and must be addressed by the Village . Ch. Kearns said the matter would be Tabled until May 18 , 1993 and requested that Mr . Kuenkler be asked to attend the meeting . Com . Entman made a motion to Table until May 18 , 1993 . Com. Hefler seconded the motion. Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 20 . 1993 - Page Six A. 48 Raupp Boulevard , Buffalo Grove Golf Course Fence Code . Section 15 . 20 . 040 - 6 foot fence along Checker Road . Mr . Rick Reed , Golf Course Superintendent , was sworn in and the Public Hearing Notice was read . Mr . Reed summarized the reasons for requesting a variance : 1 . The proposed six foot ( 6 ' ) board-on-board cedar fence will match the fence across the street and improve the appearance of the maintenance building . 2 . The fence will screen the golf course property from Checker Road and from the neighboring residents . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Arbus , Com. Paul . Com. Entman - No comments or objections . Com . Hefler - Disclosed that he has done business with the Village but this does not affect his approval of the variance . The fence will improve the area . Ch. Kearns - Recalled that the subdivision across the street was granted a variance so they would not see the golf course . He does not object to the variance . No questions or comments from the audience . Com . Arbus made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by the Buffalo Grove Golf Course , 48 Raupp Boulevard , for variance of the Fence Code . Section 15 . 20 . 040 , pertaining to Residential Districts , for the purpose of constructing a six foot (6 ' ) wood fence that would run parallel to Checker Road for a distance of approximately 260 feet , returning approximately 62 feet south to the maintenance building on the west end and returning approximately 25 feet south on the east end . Petitioner has demonstrated that presence of this fence will not be detrimental to the public health , safety and welfare but will in fact improve the aesthetics of the property . The Village Engineer ' s Review , Exhibit F . dated April 1 . 1993 , states : "There is no applicable sight distance for this proposed fence . ' Com. Paul seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Hefler , Entman . Paul , Arbus , Kearns NAY - None Motion Passed - 5 to 0 . Findings of Fact attached. Permit may be issued May 6 . 1993 . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS `., April 20 , 1993 - Page Seven B. 430 Blue Ash Drive . Lawrence and Francesca Kessler Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - 6 foot fence/rear property line Lawrence and Francesca Kessler , 430 Blue Ash Drive , were sworn in and the Public Hearing Notice was read . Mr . Kessler summarized their reasons for requesting a variance : 1 . The grading at the rear of their property is lower than Port Clinton Road which borders Long Grove . The entrance to Heron' s Landing ( in Long Grove ) is across the street from their rear yard so a five foot (5 ' ) fence would not provide sufficient privacy. 2 . Traffic , including Heron' s Landing construction equip- ment , on Port Clinton Road is very heavy . The fence will help decrease the noise and eliminate the view of passing cars . The additional foot in height will be very effective and will also provide safety for their three small children. Ch. Kearns read Dartmoor Homes ' letter . dated March 24 , 1993 . which states : " . . . . Dartmoor sees no problem with this request . Fencing shall comply to notes on the plat signed by Dartmoor Homes and regulations set forth by the Village of Buffalo Grove . " The Village Engineer ' s Review , dated April 1 . 1993 . Exhibit F . states : "There is no applicable sight distance for this proposed fence . " Comments from Commissioners : Com . Arbus - Considered the location and agrees the heavy traffic and the drop off warrants the increased height . Asked if the fence would taper down to the five foot (5 ' ) fence on the side lot lines? Mrs . Kessler responded that the fence company has recommended that the fence be tapered up at the bottom of the sides so the fence will be level across the top . This would be done within one section of fence . Mr . Dempsey advised the Commissioners and the petitioners that the publication notice did not include increasing the height along the side lot lines , so a new variance would be required . The Kessiers were given the option of Tabling the request until May 18 , 1993 and republishing to include the height of the side lot lines : OR granting the variance for six feet ( 6 ' ) along the rear lot line and applying for another variance for the sides . There were no comments from the audience . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 20 . 1993 - Page Eight Com. Paul - Has no problem with the request . Com . Entman - The sides should taper for aesthetic reasons , but if safety is an issue , he does not object to the variance for the rear lot line . Com . Hefier - No problem with variance for a six foot (6 ' ) fence along the rear lot line . Aesthetics are not an issue for the ZBA to discuss . If the petitioners want to increase the height along the sides , they can reapply and come back for a new variance . Ch. Kearns : No objection to the variance as requested . The sides would have to be five feet (5 ' ) in height following the contour of the ground . After the discussion, Mr . and Mrs . Kessler . requested that the ZBA grant a variance for the rear lot line now and they would apply for another variance for the side lot lines . Com. Entman made the following motion: I move we grant the request of Lawrence and Francesca Kessler . 430 Blue Ash Drive , for variance of the Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 , pertaining to Residential Districts , for the purpose of constructing a six foot (6 ' ) wood fence along the rear property line abutting Port Clinton Road . Conditions being : 1 . Six foot (6 ' ) board-on-board fence . 2 . Located and constructed pursuant to the survey , Exhibit A, attached to the petition. 3 . Plans to be approved by the Village . 4 . Village Engineer ' s Review attached . Petitioners have exhibited that the proposed variation and the fence will not be detrimental to the public health. safety and welfare . Com. Arbus noted the letter of approval from Canterbury Fields Homeowners Association, dated March 12 , 1993 , which states : We feel that a uniform height should be maintained along Port Clinton Road . If the Village approves this as a six foot (6 ' ) height , future fences adjoining it should also be six feet (6 ' ) . " The ZBA is not bound by this letter and the Association should be notified that subsequent requests for variance would be considered on an individual basis . Com . Paul seconded the motion . Roll Call Vote : AYE - Hefier . Entman . Paul and Kearns NAY - Arbus Motion Passed - 4 to 1 . Findings of Fact Attached . Permit may be issued May 6 , 1993 . ZONING BOARD) OF APPEALS April 20 , 1993 - Page Nine C . 1107 Hidden Lake Drive , Mark and Sandra Levin Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 Addition encroaching into the rear and side yard setbacks Mark and Sandra Levin . 1107 Hidden Lake Drive , were sworn in and the Public Hearing Notice was read . Mr . Levin summarized their reasons for requesting a variance : 1 . They have four children , including twins that were born last summer , and they need more living space . 2 . They like the neighborhood , school and participate in the Park District programs . 3 . Mr . Levin is a doctor and his office is nearby . This and permits him to be close to both the Northwest Community and Condell Treatment Centers . 4 . They want to increase the size of the family room to provide space for entertaining their families and neighbor children. This 1-story addition will be toward the rear of the property . 5 . He needs a study for personal use and that room is now being used for the twins . The 2-story addition on the side will provide a new study on the main floor with an additional bedroom upstairs . 6 . The siding will be replaced so the addition will appear to look like it was part of the original construction. The Village Engineer ' s Drainage Review , dated April 1 , 1993 . states : ' . . . . the proposed addition at the subject property will not affect the existing drainage pattern. Please advise the homeowner that no alteration of the grade within five feet (5 ' ) of the property line or swale is allowed . " Ch. Kearns observed the proposed addition will be 5 . 36 feet from the side lot line . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Hefler : No objections . Com . Entman: Confirmed the size of the two additions and the that the Levins have lived in the house for 4 years . He asked if they have spoken to their neighbors . Mr . Levin responded that they are friendly with all their neighbors and have informed all of them about their plans . Mr . Marshall Kanter , 1109 Hidden Lake Drive , was present and stated he has no objection to the proposed additions . His property is to the north and he would be the most affected . Com . Paul : No problems with proposed additions . The area is very open and there will be no impact on it . Com . Arbus : Lives a block away and likes the open area . He does not object if the neighbors are agreeable . Ch. Kearns : No objections . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 20 , 1993 - Page Ten Com . Paul made the following motion: I move we grant the petition made by Mark and Sandra Levin, �.! 1107 Hidden Lake Drive , 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 their property that would encroach a distance of four feet (4 ' ) into the required forty foot (40 ' ) rear yard setback and encroach a distance of two feet ( 2 ' ) into the required 7 . 1 foot side yard setback on the . north side of the property. Hardship having been demonstrated , the proposed variation will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood . Com . Hefler seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Arbus , Paul . Entman , Hefler , Kearns NAY - None Motion Passed - 5 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . Permit may be issued May 5 . 1993 . D. 860 Clohesey Drive , Stanley J . and Denise M. Kazuba Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 Addition encroaching four feet (4 ' ) into rear yard setback Stanley and Denise Kazuba were sworn in. The Public Hearing Notice was read . Mr . Kazuba summarized their reasons for requesting a variance : 1 . They have one child and are expecting another . They want to keep their house and stay in B.G. but the existing family room is small and has four doorways . They would like increase the size . Ch. Kearns confirmed that the addition would be 1-story and that the materials would match the existing construction. Mrs . Kazuba said she has talked to their neighbors and none of them have objections to the proposed addition. There were no comments from the audience . The Village Engineer ' s Review , dated April 1 , 1993 , states : " . . . the proposed addition will not affect the existing drainage pattern. Please advise the homeowner that no alteration of the grade within five feet (5 ' ) of the property line or swale is allowed . During our inspection , it was noted that the sump pump discharge from this property is creating a hazard on the public sidewalk and should be connected to the storm sewer . Our recommendation is attached . " ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 20 , 1993 - Page Eleven Mr . Kazuba agreed to correct this problem and asked if it would be possible to use an alternative solution? Mr . Dempsey said that a condition of the variance could state that the problem is to be corrected to the Village Engineer ' s satisfaction. Comments from Commissioners : Com. Arbus - No objections . Com. Paul - The house is nicely landscaped and the addition will not affect the neighbors . Com. Entman - Confirmed the location of the family room and that it would be an economic hardship if the family was to move . He commented that they have done a wonderful job of fixing up the house and have improved the neighborhood . Com. Hefler :- Also lives in the neighborhood and appreciates the Kazuba ' s efforts to make the house look good . Com . Arbus made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by Stanley J . and Denise M. Kazuba , 860 Clohesey, for variance of the 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 property that would encroach a distance of four feet (4 ' ) into the required thirty foot (30 ' ) rear yard setback . Petitioners have demonstrated that their plight is due to unique circumstances and the proposed variation will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood . Granting of this variance is conditioned upon the petitioner ' s being in compliance with the Village Engineer ' s letter , dated April 1 , 1993 , indicating that the sump pump discharge from the property is creating a hazard on the public sidewalk and should be connected to the storm sewer . OR otherwise satisfy the Village Engineer that this problem would be corrected by some other means . The Building Department will approve compliance . Com . Entman seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Hefler , Paul , Entman , Arbus , Kearns NAY - None Motion Passed - 5 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued May 5 , 1993 . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS `-i April 20 , 1993 - Page Twelve E. 881 Horatio Boulevard , Mervyn and Ilana Kopinsky Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Fence past building line Zoning Ordinance . Section 17 . 20 . 030 - Arbor height Mervyn and Ilana Kopinsky were sworn in and the Public Hearing Notice was read . Mr . Kopinsky summarized their reasons for requesting a variance : 1 . They would like to extend a four foot (4 ' ) fence , made of recycled material , past the building line along Parkchester Road a distance of ten feet ( 10 ' ) from the sidewalk . The color of the fence material will weather to match the house . 2 . They have one child and are expecting a baby so they would like to increase the size of their rear yard to provide space and a safe place for playing. 3 . They want to landscape the back yard and without the variance the land outside the fence would be empty . 4 . The arbor type entrance into the rear yard would face Horatio Boulevard and would be aesthetically pleasing . Comments from the audience : Mrs . Rita Mathias , 440 Parkchester , asked if the color of the fence would be permanent? Mrs . Kopinsky described the material as a recycled wood/plastic product and said it is supposed to be a caramel color that will weather to natural grey , but if the fence darkens too much, they will paint it white . Mrs . Mathias said they purchased their house on a park because of the natural beauty of the openness . She understands the need for the children' s safety and the families right to privacy , but she is concerned about the fence being constructed beyond the building line because it will be the only one in the area. Mr . Dan Todd , 425 Parkchester , objected to the proposed fence because the garage opens out to Parkchester and the fence will appear to be in the front yard . It will be unsightly and he did not expect something like this to happen. He understands the need for a fence with small children, but he is opposed to any variance . Mrs . Kopinsky said they did consider the neighbors when they chose the fence design. It is only four feet (4 ' ) in height and the boards run horizontally , not vertically. It is very aesthe- tically pleasing . Mr . Todd responded that placement , not the design, is the issue . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 20 , 1993 - Page Thirteen Mr . Steve Feldman. 430 Parkchester , has small children and asked about the safety of the material ? He objected to the variance because if there are cars on the driveway , people turning the corner may not see other children. He also objects to the height of the proposed arbor gate . Specifications for the fence material were not available so there is no information to tell whether it would be harmful and dangerous to the community . The Village Engineer ' s Line-of-Sight Review, Exhibit F , dated April 1 , 1993 , states : the limiting factor at the inter- section is the principal structure itself . The abutting property is a near side driveway and the fence should be setback ten feet ( 10 ' ) from the sidewalk . " Mr . Mort Rubin, 435 Parkchester , has young children and under- stands the need for a fence . His house faces the Kopinsky' s driveway and he objects to having the fence protrude into the side yard . There is supposed to be a park built behind the Kopinsky' s house and he would not like to have his view of the park cut off . Mr . Kopinsky responded that any fence constructed along their building line would be as obstructive to the view from across the street , with or without the variance . Mrs . Rita Mathias , 440 Parkchester , objected to the fence because it would be in their front yard . They have taken a great deal of time and expense to cultivate the area with bushes for the benefit of their neighbors . She suggested that the Kopinsky' s consider the option of planting bushes as opposed to a fence for aesthetic reasons . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Hefler - The Village has side yard rules and the purpose of side yards is to provide clear pieces of land to separate buildings and give the sense of space . He has raised children next to a park and there have been no fences around the yards . He would vote against this variance . Com . Entman - Has a problem with the proposed fence because of its location and because of the number of objectors present . The relative configuration of the Mathias and Kopinsky lots and houses would put the fence in the Mathias ' front yard . When he drove into the petitioner ' s driveway to consider the proposed fence , he found there could be a problem seeing pedestrians all the way up to the sidewalk . He also considered the openness of the neighborhood and did not see any similar fences that changed the view of the area . Finally , the rear yard is quite large without any extension. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 20 , 1993 - Page Fourteen The Kopinskys have a right to have a fence to enclose the yard for the safety of their children, but based on his observations . and the fact that there a number of objectors present , he would not support a variance . With regard to the second request for a variance for the height of the arbor entrance , he would not see the need for this type of gate . The petitioners can accomplish their goal of provid- ing safety and privacy within the restraints of the building lines and adequately satisfy the concerns of the neighbors . He would not recommend any compromise to support a variance . Com. Paul - Acknowledged being an acquaintance of the Mathias ' but even before he knew where the house was located , he strongly opposed the requested variance because it would be detrimental to the neighborhood . The proposed fence would hurt everyone and would literally cheapen the neighborhood . The fence would be visible for quite a distance to the west . He usually looks for a compromise but the rear yard is about 4 ,000 square feet and a fence along the building line would be sufficient . The arbor type entrance is also objectionable and would detract from the area . He likes the four foot (4 ' ) height of the fence but would not support any variance . Com . Arbus - Said he is also familiar with Mr . and Mrs . Mathias . Mrs . Mathias has taught his daughter for 3 years , but this will not affect his decision in any way. Any variance would place a fence in the neighbors front yards . Most important to him is that when people move into a neighborhood , they should be able to expect the zoning ordinances to be upheld unless there are compelling reasons to believe otherwise . The neighbors would be the most affected and he would not agree to any variance . Ch. Kearns - The size of the back yard exceeds most of the yards that are brought before the ZBA. The Kopinskys will not be penalized by the denial of the variance because they will have a larger lot than many people who have side yard properties . The arbor type entrance is an aesthetic thing and could be located in the rear yard for the petitioners ' enjoyment . He suggested that the Kopinskys investigate the proposed type of fence material to assure its safety for small children. Com . Entman asked that the record include that he is acquainted with both Mr . and Mrs . Mathias but his comments were independent of this relationship . Ch. Kearns said Sid Mathias served on the Zoning Board of Appeals and he is currently the Village President . Com. Hefler assured Mr . and Mrs . Kopinsky that their request has been considered. Side yard penetration are the most difficult variances for the ZBA to decide because they do encroach on the narrowest distance between two homes or between a home and a street . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 20 , 1993 - Page Fifteen Many times people agree to compromise and modifications are made . It is up to the Zoning Board to represent the Village and all neighbors so it is not because of Mr . Mathias position that the decision was made . The other neighbors ' statements have been seriously considered . Village ordinances are expected to be upheld and only varied where rightful hardship will not affect or cause a hardship to other people . Variances have been granted tonight because the requests have been taken seriously and the decisions have been as humanly fair as possible . Ch. Kearns informed the Kopinskys that the Village has an open space policy that is enforced as much as possible and side yard variances are approached with extreme difficulty. Com . Paul made the following motion: I move we grant the petition of Mervyn and Ilana Kopinsky . 881 Horatio Boulevard , pursuant to variance of Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 , pertaining to Residential Areas , for the purpose of constructing a four foot (4 ' ) fence made of recycled material that would extend past the building line to within ten feet ( 10 ' ) of the sidewalk along Parkchester Road . Said fence would not be detrimental to the public health. safety and welfare , AND, also grant a variance of Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 .20 . 030 , pertaining to Building Height , Bulk and Lot Coverage , for the purpose of constructing an arbor type entrance that would not exceed ten feet ( 10 ' ) in total height . Said construction would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood . Com. Entman seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - None NAY - Arbus , Paul , Entman, Hefler and Kearns Variance DENIED - 5 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . Ch. Kearns informed the petitioners of their right to appeal . F . 1134 Lockwood Court , Alan and Rhonda Solid Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 - Patio Enclosure Alan Solid was sworn in and the Public Hearing Notice was read . Mr . Solid summarized the reasons for requesting a variance for the purpose of constructing a patio enclosure that would encroach a distance of four feet (4 ' ) into the required thirty-five foot (35 ' ) rear yard setback : 1 . They have a six-year old son who has had severe allergic reactions to insect bites . 2 . There is a history of skin cancer in the family and a patio enclosure would protect him from the rays of the sun and insects . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 20 , 1993 - Page Sixteen The enclosure would have aluminum frames with glass windows and doors . The aluminum will match the house . Mr . Solid has discussed the proposed patio enclosure with his neighbors and none of them object to the construction. Village Engineer ' s Review , dated April 1 . 1993 , states the proposed addition at the subject property. . . "will not affect the existing drainage pattern. " There were no comments from the audience . Comments from Commissioners : Com . Hefler - No objection. Com. Arbus - No problem. Com. Paul - Asked for a sketch and description of the site plan. Mr . Solid did not bring plans with him. He explained that the patio enclosure will cover part of the existing aggregate deck and connect to the existing wood deck . Com. Paul said only the neighbor at 1130 Lockwood at the northeast corner will be affected and he is not here to object . Com. Entman - No objection. The configuration is unique , but if the neighbor has expressed no concern. he has no problem. Com. Hefler - No problem with variance . Ch. Kearns - Asked the height of the proposed enclosure? Mr . Solid did no know but said it will it be 1-story in height? Com. Entman made the following motion: I move we grant the request of Alan and Rhonda Solid , 1134 Lockwood Court , for variance of the Zoning Ordinance . Section 17 . 40 . 020 , pertaining to Area , Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations , for the purpose of constructing a patio enclosure that would encroach a distance of four feet (4 ' ) into the required thirty-five foot (35 ' ) rear yard setback . Conditions : 1 . Encroachment of no more than four feet (4 ' ) into the required rear yard setback . 2 . Construction materials to match the existing structure in like kind and quality . 3 . Construction pursuant to the exhibits submitted , enclosure to be 1-story in height . 4 . Plans and specifications to be approved by the Village . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 20 , 1993 - Page Seventeen The Village Engineer ' s Review , dated April 1 , 1993 , Exhibit F . is to be incorporated into the motion. Petitioner having exhibited unique circumstances . the proposed variation and construction will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood . Com . Hefler seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Arbus , Paul , Entman , Hefler , Kearns NAY - None Motion Passed - 5 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . Permit may be issued May 5 , 1993 . VI . ANNOUNCEMENTS - None . VII . ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn was made by Com . Arbus and seconded by Com. Entman. Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously Ch. Kearns adjourned the meeting at 10 : 30 P.M. Respectfully submitted , Shirley Bates Recording Secretary sb ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 20 . 1993 - Page Eighteen