Loading...
1993-05-18 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes • ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE , ILLINOIS TUESDAY , MAY 18 , 1993 I . CALL TO ORDER In the absence of Chairman Richard Heinrich , the Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing was called to order and chaired by Com . Michael Kearns at 8 : 10 P . M . in Room 24 of the Alcott Community Center , 530 Raupp Boulevard . II . ROLL CALL Commissioners Present : M . Kearns , B . Entman , L . Windecker and H . Hefler . QUORUM . Commissioners Absent : R . Heinrich , J . Paul and L . Arbus Bldg . Dept . Liaison : Edward Schar , Deputy Building Commissioner Village Engineer : Richard Kuenkler Village Attorney : Thomas Dempsey Village Board Liaison : Brian Rubin , Trustee III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 20 , 1993 - Motion to Table was made by Com . Entman and seconded by Com . Windecker . Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously . Minutes of April 20 , 1993 were tabled because of Commissioners ' absence . IV . OLD BUSINESS A . 4 Belaire Court , Kenneth and Marisa Duke Request for Brick Paver Patio Kenneth and Marisa Duke , 4 Belaire Court were present . Ms . Karen Uhren , 760 Bernard Drive , and Mr . Frank Schuster , 5 Belaire Court , were also present . Item was Tabled on April 20 , 1993 because the Village Engineer was not present to confirm that the proposed patio would , or would not , contribute to the flooding of Ms . Uhren ' s yard . A motion to remove from Table was made by Com . Entman and seconded by Com . Windecker . Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously . Mr . Richard Kuenkler , Village Engineer , was present . He stated that his opinion has not changed . The proposed patio will not make any difference in the drainage pattern . Li Summary of the history of this request : On July 16 , 1991 , Kenneth and Marisa Duke , 4 Belaire Court were granted a variance for the purpose of constructing an addition. A condition of the variance was that the Dukes should return to the Zoning Board of Appeals for approval of any future patio. On August 18 , 1992 , Mr . and Mrs . Duke appeared before the ZBA and requested approval of a brick paver patio. Because of the objections of Ms . Karen Uhren, 760 Bernard Drive and Mr . Frank Schuster , 5 Belaire Court , a motion to permit construction of the patio was denied by a vote of 2 - 2 . The Dukes reserved their right to appeal the ZBA denial to the Village Board until all possible solutions had been discussed. The flooding condition exists because so many of the residents in the area have filled in the swale and water runs off into Ms . Uhren' s yard. The Village Engineer was asked to recommend a solution that would alleviate the problem of flooding that exists in the area. Mr . Kuenkler offered Ms . Uhren two solutions but she did not respond to his correspondence . Ms . Uhren confirmed that prior to April 20 , 1993 , she had drain tile put in around the perimeter of her crawl space and in the yard. At the time of the April 20 , 1993 ZBA meeting she described her yard as a "mudpit" after many days of rain. There has not been as much rain this month as there had been in April , but her concern remains the same . Any amount of ground , dirt and grass that is taken away and replaced with concrete , or interlocking bricks , will cause water to drain back toward her property. Ch. Kearns asked Mr . Kuenkler if the Dukes could do anything to direct the water from the patio to the front of the property and away from the rear of the property, such as pitching it toward their house or putting in drain tile at the rear of the patio that would flow to the front of the property? Mr . Kuenkler said he would not recommend pitching the patio to drain any water toward the house . The drainage pattern is from north to south and water cannot be made to run uphill . Mr . Schuster commented that when he got home after the April ZBA meeting , water was coming in under the carpet in his family room which is next to the Dukes house and this never happened before. Mr . Kuenkler said he did not see how it was possible for the Duke ' s addition to have caused this to happen. Ms . Uhren said two of her neighbors to the east have had water in their crawl spaces and they never had any before. Mr . Kuenkler said that there was seven inches (7" ) of rain during six (6) weeks and many houses took on water in April . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 18 , 1993 - Page Two Mr . Duke remarked that his crawl space is dry so his addition could not be causing neighboring crawl spaces to flood. Water never rises above the level of his sump pump. Comments from Commissioners : Com. Hefler : No comment . Com. Entman: Asked if water would run between the Unilock Pavers or run off? Mr . Kuenkler ' s opinion was that water would run off . Mrs . Duke said she was told water would "perk" and seep in because they are not cemented together . There is sand and gravel beneath the pavers. Com. Entman: Asked about the configuration of the patio? The drawing was discussed . The patio is kidney shaped and will extend approximately four feet out past their addition. There is two feet between the patio and the addition. The gutters on the house drain water toward the front of the property. Com. Windecker : Recalled he did not object to the patio in 1992 because it was designed with space between it and the house . If the shape is changed to a rectangle , more water would be forced toward the rear of the property. The kidney shape will cause water to drain toward the Duke ' s property from two sides . Water on a flat surface does not know any direction and will flow back toward the Duke ' s house. They have complied with the ZBA' s condition to divert water to the front of the property. The problem is bigger than a patio , the addition, or anything else in the area. He would object to a rectangular patio. Ch. Kearns announced that it is necessary to have four (4) affirmative votes in order for a motion to pass . Because there are only four (4) Commissioners present , all must vote AYE. If any petitioner wants to have their petition Tabled , it will be heard on June 15 , 1993 , when more Commissioners are present . The Zoning Board must vote on the Dukes request even though the patio does not require a variance . Mr . Dempsey stated that if a vote is taken, and it is denied, petitioners have the right to appeal to the Village Board of Trustees . Ch. Kearns said he sympathizes with Ms . Uhren and the water problems she has , but the Village Engineer has stated that the proposed patio will not contribute to the flooding situation, so he does not object to the patio. He took a poll to help the Dukes to decide if they want to Table the vote until June . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 18 , 1993 - Page Three Com. Hefler : Would vote NO on the chance that the patio could contribute to the water problem. Com. Entman: He is not opposed to the patio , but he would prefer a different configuration to keep it back within the confines of the addition. Com. Windecker : No objection. Ch. Kearns asked Mr . and Mrs . Duke if they would consider a different shape? Mrs . Uhren continued to object to any flat patio and said she would not oppose a wood deck. Com. Hefler asked Mrs . Uhren what the basis for her objections was and how does she know that the patio will exacerbate the flooding problem? Mrs . Uhren responded that common sense tells her a flat sur- face , as opposed to ground which will soak up water , will cause more water to drain toward her property . A structural engineer told her that if any one else does anything to their property it will exacerbate the flooding . She has a written report but she does not have it with her . She planned on having another opinion but has not had time to secure one . Com. Hefler said a written report would have been important . Mrs . Duke said she had asked Mr . Kuenkler if a wood deck would be better than the Unilock bricks and he told her it would not make a difference . Com. Windecker repeated his opinion that the proposed shape of the patio is better than a rectangular one attached to the house because all the water would have to flow away from the house . Mr . Duke offered to compromise on the size of the patio and said they could pull it back 1-1/2 to 2 feet , but any more than that would make it too small . He agreed to make the arc twelve C.; feet ( 12 ' ) instead of fourteen feet ( 14 ' ) and reduce the size from approximately 200 square feet to 185 square feet . A second poll was taken and all four Commissioners said they had no objections to the patio as amended . 4011:14 Com. Windecker made the following motion: simmr I move we grant the request of Kenneth and Marisa Duke . 4 Belaire Court , for approval of the condition to the variance of July 16 , 1991 , to construct a patio , not to extend more than two feet (2 ' ) south of the addition for which the variance was granted , based on the design 4:11:: submitted with the request and subsequently amended . `" ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 18 , 1993 - Page Four ............................... Based upon the advice of Richard Kuenkler , Village Engineer , the proposed patio would not be detrimental to the essential character of the neighborhood as it affects the drainage in the area. Request is granted with the condition that no change of the grade will be permitted and the Village Engineer ' s approval is required. Com . Entman seconded the motion. Mr . and Mrs . Duke confirmed that they amended their petition by reducing the size of the Unilock Paver patio . Roll Call Vote : AYE - Hefler , Entman, Windecker and Kearns NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact attached . Permit may be issued in 15 days - June 3 , 1993 . Ms . Uhren and Mr . Schuster were advised that they can appeal this decision to the Village Board within 15 days . Copies of the minutes will be made available to them, upon request . V. NEW BUSINESS A. 430 Blue Ash Drive , Lawrence and Francesca Kessler Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 .040 - Fence exceeding 5 ' in height Lawrence and Francesca Kessler , 430 Blue Ash Drive , were sworn in. The Public Hearing Notice was read. Mr . Kessler explained that they were granted a variance last month (4/16/93) to construct a six foot (6 ' ) fence along their rear property line which borders Port Clinton Road . At that time , they requested a transition piece along the side lot lines , tapered down, that would exceed five feet (5 ' ) following the contour of the land . This required a variance that had not been published , so the Kesslers reapplied for another variance . There were no comments from the audience . ;11114:1 The Commissioners had no questions or objections . :11341 Com. Hefler made the following motion: 11,111 I move we grant the request being made by Lawrence and Francesca Kessler , 430 Blue Ash Drive , for variance of Fence Code , Section 15 . 20.040 . pertaining to Residential Districts , for the purpose of constructing a wood fence that would exceed five feet (5 ' ) in height along sections of the side lot lines . CO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 11.0 May 18 , 1993 - Page Five Construction of said fence will not detrimentally affect the character of the neighborhood and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare . Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Hefler , Windecker . Entman and Kearns NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in 15 days - June 3 , 1993 . B. 810 Prairie Lane , Craig L. and Sue Gordon Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 .020 - Construction of Addition Craig and Sue Gordon, 810 Prairie Lane , were sworn in and the Public Hearing Notice was read . Mr . Gordon summarized their reasons for requesting a variance : 1 . The house was built on a slab with no basement . 2 . They have two (2) small children and they do not have any place to play in the house. 3 . The Gordons do not want to move away from the area and they could not afford to purchase a different house in Buffalo Grove . The Village Engineer ' s Review, dated May 13 , 1993 , states : "The proposed addition will not affect the existing drainage pattern. . . .No alteration of the grade within five feet (5 ' ) of the property line of swale is allowed . " There were no comments from the audience . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Windecker and Com. Hefler had no questions or objections . Com. Entman - Asked if the addition was going to be built where po the patio is located? Would it be the same dimensions? Have they talked to their neighbors? Will it match the house? :1:21 Mrs . Gordon replied that the patio is in the center of the house 1111 and the addition will cover part of it . They have discussed the ammmi addition with their neighbors and there were no objections . The addition will match the existing house . Com. Entman said the area is open and there is no house to the 411177 rear , so he is not opposed to the variance . 4:::15;4 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 18 , 1993 - Page Six Com. Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the request of Craig L. and Sue Gordon, 810 Prairie Lane , for variance of Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 , pertaining to Area , Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations , for the purpose of constructing an addition that would encroach a distance of ten feet ( 10 ' ) into the required thirty foot (30 ' ) rear yard setback. The exterior of the addition is to match the house . Unique circumstances having been demonstrated , the proposed structure would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood . and will not be detri mental to the public health, safety and welfare . The Village Engineer ' s Review , dated May 13 , 1993 , is attached - Exhibit "F" is attached . Com. Entman seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Hefler , Entman, Windecker and Kearns NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in 15 days - June 3 , 1993 . C . 2854 Whispering Oaks Lane , Scott and Susan Ginsberg Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 .040 - 5 ' Fence past building line Scott and Susan Ginsberg were sworn in. The Public Hearing Notice was read . Mrs . Ginsberg summarized their reasons for requesting a variance : 1 . They have a small child and a dog. The fence will protect the child and confine the dog. 2 . A fence along the building line would reduce the size of their rear yard . 1:::: The Ginsbergs are requesting a variance to extend the fence twenty feet (20' ) past the building line to within ten feet 71:11: ( 10' ) of the sidewalk . There were no comments from the audience . sir Ch. Kearns said he objected to the variance because the rear MOM yard is approximately 3 , 200 square feet which is very large . The ZBA only grants variances for fences past the building line where the rear, yard is much smaller than this yard and where 4:1111a; most of the space is in the side yard . C ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MMIF May 18 , 1993 - Page Seven Comments from Commissioners : Com. Windecker - Said he would not vote for a variance that permits a fence ten feet ( 10' ) from the sidewalk because of the size of the yard. Mrs . Ginsberg said they moved into the development because they were getting a large lot ( 1/3 to 1/2 acre) but they have a small yard on the other side . If there was more space there , they would not need a variance . They want to use the space for a swing set and landscaping. Without the variation they will be losing the use of a large section of property. She cited the Village Engineer ' s Review, dated May 13 , 1993 , Exhibit "F" which states: "The limiting factor at the intersection is the principal structure itself . The abutting property is a near side driveway, and the fence should be set back ten feet ( 10 ' ) from the sidewalk. " Ch. Kearns explained that the Village has an open air policy. This is the reason for building lines and he is reluctant to permit variances for fences in the side yard . He understands the problem with corner lots . People do purchase more land. Mr . Ginsberg said they have a smaller lot than most of their neighbors and they will lose more area without the variance . None of their neighbors object to the proposed fence . Ch. Kearns said that a fence along the building line would be his recommendation. This would give the petitioners privacy and safety for their child. It would be more aesthetically accept- able and in keeping with the open air policy of the Village . Mrs . Ginsberg said they would be very dissatisfied with the size of yard they would have compared to their neighbors . People are moving to Doubletree , instead of the Woodlands because the lots are larger . They might not be able to sell their house if there are other lots with more usable space . Com. Windecker said the reason the Village is emphatic about keeping the corner lots open is to preserve the value of the property. People are under a false impression when they purchase a corner lot because they think they can fence it in. The builders do not inform people of the Building Codes . Mrs . Ginsberg questioned why people are permitted to plant tall trees and bushes out to the property line . They can block the view more than a fence would . They cannot put in trees because their daughter could go through them and leave the yard. A three foot foot (3 ' ) fence would not give them security or any privacy. They agree that a fence closer than ten feet ( 10' ) to the sidewalk would not look appropriate . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 18 , 1993 - Page Eight Com. Hefler - Said the problem is that the law exists and the Zoning Board of Appeals is the place people come for help because the law in their particular case is hurting them and they want to live within the framework of the law. The law is not there to mitigate against people who want fences , but it is is there to protect the Village in general from obtrusive things in side yards . It is not the fault of the Village that people are not told what they can or cannot do . The ZBA did not write the law and does not change the law. It tries to respond to people ' s needs in situations where it would be detrimental to them if they did not get some help, but not in such a way that it would be detrimental to others . In this case , the Chairman is correct . Projections into the side yard are not permitted . Trees and bushes are different . Fences are structures . It is possible to live without fences . For example , his house is next to a park and nobody built a fence . He is opposed to a variance . Mrs . Ginsberg said they have gone through the required process of applying for a variance and having a sign in their yard. During this time they have observed other fences and she asked how other people got a variance past their building lines? Ch. Kearns responded that they must have appeared before this Board to request a variance . Each case was considered on its own merit . When people have problems , the ZBA grants variances for fences into side yards to allievate those problems as long as the fence would not encroach into a neighbor ' s front yard. In this particular case , there is no hardship and the ordinance says fences are not permitted in side yards past building lines . A fence is permitted up to the building line . Mrs . Ginsberg asked if they could compromise and come out about fifteen feet ( 15 ' )? Ch. Kearns said that in his opinion a fence on the building line would give them an adequately large back yard. Com. Entman - Agreed with the other Commissioners . They have reviewed many similar situations and he is personally concerned with fences that would run alongside of driveways . With regard to trees and bushes , it is true that they can be planted wher- ever people want them , but they must be kept trimmed. The Police have the power to enforce restraints for the protection of the public safety. There is some control and it is a safe- guard for the Village. He cares about safety of children and the Ginsbergs can have a fence , but they are limited to the location. Their lot is large , maybe not as large as some in the neighborhood, but even with a fence on the building line , the lot is large compared to other lots in the Village . They have a beautiful house and a beautiful yard. The neighbor has a fence and if the Ginsbergs continue the fence on the building line , it will give them a wonderful back yard with sufficient space. He has taken all their comments into consideration and he has a duty to the public , so he is not in favor of a variance. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 18 , 1993 - Page Nine Ch. Kearns explained the options to the Ginsbergs : 1 . They can ask that the request be Tabled until June 15 , 1993 when more Commissioners may be present , but there are only 3 others , so they probably would not get the necessary 4 votes that are required for a variance. 2 . The can ask for a vote at this time and if the variance is denied , they can appeal the decision to the Village Board of Trustees . Mrs . Serena Heller , 2860 Whispering Oaks Drive (next door neighbor) was present and said they have no objections to the proposed fence. It will not be a visual obstruction. Another neighbor has a dog run that sticks out the same distance as the Ginsbergs want their fence. Granted , the Ginsbergs have a big yard but they paid for the land and they should be able to utilize the space. Ch. Kearns explained that the Board feels the Ginsbergs have an adequate yard and it is the ZBA' s responsibility to uphold the ordinance unless there is a good reason for going into the side yard . All the Commissioners present agree with him. Mrs . Ginsberg stated they are being penalized for buying a large lot on a corner and not being able to use the space. They spent more money to get a yard large enough for a swing set and give their daughter room to play. A fence on the building line will not be what they have visualized and they would definitely lose a great amount of space . Com. Windecker disagreed. He said a fence up to the building line represents 84% of the lot so they are only losing 16% of the space . The Ginsbergs argued that it makes a big difference to them and they would not put the fence up on the building line . Com. Hefler responded that the Ginsbergs are misunderstanding the function of the ZBA. It is not what we want vs . what you want . The law says X and the ZBA can say X minus because of a very good reason, but desire is not a hardship. The petitioners do not have any special condition that qualifies as a bonefide hardship. Mr . Ginsberg contended that people who have spent money for a smaller lot say their hardship is that they have a small lot . Mrs . Ginsberg added that the visual impact will be the same from the corner , if the fence is on the building line or ten feet ( 10 ' ) from the sidewalk. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 18 , 1993 - Page Ten Com. Hefler said the ZBA tries to look forward and backward in time to evaluate each situation. They do not say yes to people with a small lot and no to people with a large lot . The problem �./ is what the Ginsbergs want is contrary to the law, and they do not have a good reason to change the law. The variance procedure is for the purpose of reviewing the law. He "wanted" to have a an addition that required a variance , but because he was a ZBA Commissioner he knew he did not qualify, so he did not get what he "wanted. " Mrs . Ginsberg continued to debate the issue. They followed the proper procedures . They talked to all their contiguous neighbors and none of them object to the proposed fence . Some said they would also apply for a variance . If the variance does not hurt anyone and will help them use their land , she didn' t understand why it would be denied. Com. Hefler retorted again and repeated the options of having the issue tabled or having a vote taken with recourse to the Village Board of Trustees . Enough time has been spent . Mrs . Ginsberg answered with a plea for a fence now because she cannot let her daughter play outside by herself without a fence. Ch. Kearns ended the discussion and said a choice must be made . Mr . and Mrs . Ginsberg asked for a vote. Com. Entman made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by Scott and Susan Ginsberg, 2854 Whispering Oaks 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 past the building line at the corner of Whispering Oaks Drive and Chapel Oaks Drive , subject to construction of the fence being built , according to the survey submitted with the application, no closer than ten feet ( 10 ' ) to the sidewalk along Chapel Oaks Drive . Fence to be constructed pursuant to the Village Engineer ' s Review, dated May 13 , 1993 , noting the conditions therein. Petitioners having exhibited that a variance for said fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - None NAY - Hefler , Entman, Windecker and Kearns Motion DENIED - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. Petitioners may appeal the decision in writing within 15 days . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 18 , 1993 - Page Eleven Because of the number of it•eMs . to be considered at this public hearing and in the interest of time , Com. Hefler suggested that petitioners should opt to be heard before proceeding, or opt to Table . If the items are discussed and then the petitioners decide to have their variance Tabled, much of the discussion will have to be repeated at the next meeting. Ch. Kearns agreed and said the reason he gave his objection to the Ginsbergs immediately, was so they would know that the variance would not be granted. He was giving them the opportunity to Table. Mr . Dempsey proposed a quick polling of the Board after the petitioners have given their reasons for requesting a variance . If there are objections , the petitioners may decide to Table . Ch. Kearns was agreeable and explained the procedure to the audience . D. 1101 Hidden Lake Drive , Michael W. and Debra L. Blitstein Fence Code , Section 15 . 20.040 - 6 ' Fence past the building line . Michael and Debra Blitstein were sworn in and the Public Hearing Notice was read . Mr . Blitstein summarized their reasons for requesting a variance: 1 . They have small children and need a fence for their protection. 2 . They have bushes along the side lot line and a fence along the building would reduce the width of the lot by 40% 3 . Busch Road runs along the side lot line and with the impending widening of the road , a six foot (6 ' ) fence around the entire yard would be more appropriate to control noise and sight pollution. 4 . The fence would aesthetically match the existing fences along Busch Road . Mr . Schar confirmed that a six foot (6 ' ) fence would be permitted along Busch Road , because it is a major road , but they would require a variance for a six foot (6 ' ) fence past the building line and around the entire yard. The Village Engineer ' s Review, dated May 13 , 1993 , states: "The fence should not be permitted beyond the front building line and should be located a minimum of two feet (2 ' ) from the sidewalk. The abutting property is not affected . " The plat of survey shows the fence going past the house up to the front property line . This was drawn incorrectly. The fence will only go up to the front of the garage . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 18 , 1993 - Page Twelve Commissioners were Polled : Com . Windecker - Did not object to the six foot (6 ' ) height past the building line along Busch Road , but said the remainder of the fence would have to be five feet (5 ' ) in height . Com. Hefier - Objected to the variance because the rear lot line is along a utility easement . Com. Entman - Concurred with Com. Windecker that the six foot (6 ' ) height past the building line along Busch Road was okay , but the fence should be five feet (5 ' ) high along the rear and side lot line . He asked Mr . Schar how far the existing fences along Busch Road are from the sidewalk and would they be on a utility easement? Mr . Schar said he did not know the distance between the fences and the sidewalk . They are constructed on the utility easement . Mr . Blitstein said he measured these fences today and they are one foot ( 1 ' ) away from the sidewalk . Com. Hefler asked if the right-of-way was going to change when Busch Road is widened? Trustee Rubin said the Village Board was told that the right- of-way is sufficient . Ch. Kearns said he agreed the height would have to be five feet (5 ' ) except for the portion along Busch Road . Mr . Blitstein asked if they could amend their petition and agree to the five foot (5 ' ) height along the rear and side lot line , six feet (6 ' ) along Busch Road and two feet (2 ' ) from the sidewalk. He said they received a copy of the Village Engineer ' s Review . Ch. Kearns polled the Commissioners again and there were no objections . He informed Mr . and Mrs . Blitstein that they would be permitted to taper the fence from six feet (6 ' ) down to five feet (5 ' ) following the contour of the land . The Blitsteins agreed to amend their petition on its face . as stated by Ch. Kearns . Com. Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the amended petition of Michael W . and Debra L. Blitstein, 1101 Hidden Lake Drive , for variance of the Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 , pertaining to Residential Districts , for the purpose of constructing a board-on-board six foot (6 ' ) wood fence past the building line along Busch Road . (motion continued . . . ) ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 18 , 1993 - Page Thirteen • Said fence to be constructed two feet (2 ' ) from the sidewalk along Busch Road. Said fence is to be five feet (5 ' ) in height along the rear of the property, on the interior lot line , returning to the house along the front building line . A transitional piece from six feet (6 ' ) to five feet (5 ' ) on the rear corner from Busch Road and on the front corner from Busch Road . The essential character of the neighborhood will not be affected and the fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare . Said fence to be constructed pursuant to the Village Engineer ' s Review, dated May 13 , 1993 , as indicated on the plat of survey to be submitted with the permit application. Com. Hefler seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman, Hefler , Windecker and Kearns NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact attached. Permit may be issued in 15 days - June 3 , 1993 E. 1100 Hidden Lake Drive - Louis and Janet Franchi Fence Code , Section 15 . 20. 040 - 6 ' Fence past building line Louis and Janet Franchi were sworn in and the Public Hearing Notice was read. Mr . Franchi summarized their reasons for requesting a variance : 1 . They have a 2-year old daughter and need a fence for her protection. 2 . Busch Road traffic is heavy and it will increase when the road is widened. The fence will help reduce noise pollution. It will match the existing fences on Busch Road and be pleasing aesthetically. 3 . The fence will confine their dog and keep children and other dogs out of the yard . The fence will be six feet (6 ' ) in height along Busch Road and five feet (5 ' ) in height returning from Busch Road to the rear of the garage and along the east property line returning to the rear of the house . Ch. Kearns told the Franchis that the fence would have to be two feet (2 ' ) from the sidewalk along Busch Road and they agreed . There are heavy bushes along the rear property line and they want to put a four foot (4 ' ) chain link fence along the rear property line but the Village Engineer ' s Review , dated May 13 , 1993 states : "The fence does not affect Busch Road but should be altered as shown, since it affects the private road at the west property line . " ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 18 , 1993 - Page Fourteen The Village Engineer ' s drawing on the plat of survey shows an angle from the south to the west property lines and Mrs . Franchi wondered how they could have a wood fence connected to a chain link fence that follows the sketch? Com. Windecker advised the petitioners that the fence company would be able to connect the chain link fence to comply with the Village Engineer ' s recommendation. Ch. Kearns gave Mr . and Mrs . Franchi the opportunity to Table the petition, but they agreed to amend their petition on its face and construct the fence pursuant to the Village Engineer ' s Review. A Poll was taken: Com. Hefler , Com. Entman and Com. Windecker - No objections . No questions or comments from the audience . Mrs . Franchi asked if they would be able to plant trees outside the line on the Village Engineer ' s drawing? Ch. Kearns informed her there is an ordinance that requires shrubbery to be kept trimmed back so that it does not interfere with the line-of-sight . If an accident occurs , the property owner is liable , but if the ZBA allowed any obstruction, the Village could be held liable . Com. Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the petition of Louis and Janet Franchi , 1100 Hidden Lake Drive , for variance of the Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 .040 , pertaining to Residential Districts , for the purpose of constructing a four foot (4 ' ) chain link fence along the rear lot line , extending past the building line , as shown on the Village Engineer ' s sketch, connecting to a six foot (6 ' ) board-on-board fence past the building line , two feet from the sidewalk along Busch Road running east to a point shown on the plat of survey , taper- ing to a five foot (5 ' ) board-on-board fence returning to the house as shown on the survey submitted with the application. Construction of said fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare . Com. Entman seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Hefler , Entman , Windecker and Kearns NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in 15 days (June 3 , 1993 ) . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 18 , 1993 - Page Fifteen F . 280 Indian Hill Drive , David M. and Kathleen G. Sczepanski Fence Code , Section 15 . 20.040 - 4 ' fence past the building line David and Kathleen Sczepanski were sworn in. To conserve time , Mr . Dempsey advised the chairman that he could dispense with the reading of the public hearing notices . Mr . Sczepanski said the purpose of the variance is to permit replacement of an existing fence that is deteriorating. He summarized their reasons : 1 . The fence will protect their young children. 2 . They live across the street from Cooper Junior High School . There is bus traffic as well as a constant flow of people going in and out of the school all day and into the evening hours . 3 . The fence will keep students and other people from cutting through the rear yard . 4 . They would lose much of their yard if they had to stay within the building line . Com. Windecker observed that the plat of survey is not correct because the garage is not shown. Therefore the line of sight drawing would be different . The Village Engineer ' s Review, dated May 13 . 1993 , states : "The fence would reduce the sight distance as shown on the attached sketch. The allowable building line for the area (25 ' ) , would reduce the safe approach speed to 25 m.p. h. , which would not be unreasonable for the area and since this is a "T" intersection. The abutting property is a far side driveway , and the fence should be set back five feet (5 ' ) from the sidewalk. " Mr . Sczepanski said if they set the fence five feet (5 ' ) back from the sidewalk , they would have to remove their trees . Com. Hefler suggested that the petitioners refurbish their fence , but the Sczepansk i s want a new fence . A discussion followed . There was some question about whether Mr . Kuenkler had done the line of sight review on paper and did not know about the existing trees . He also reviewed an incorrect site plan. Mr . Dempsey said his interpretation of Mr . Kuenkler ' s Report was that the proposed fence would not have any impact on the line of sight because of the type of intersection. Regarding the statement that the fence should be set back five feet (5 ' ) from the sidewalk . The request is for a new fence , so the existing fence would not have any impact and a new variance would be required. The fence would have to be set back five feet (5 ' ) from the sidewalk. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 18 , 1993 - Page Sixteen After consideration of the options : move the fence back or Tabling until June 15 , 1993 . the Sczpanskis chose to Table and discuss the situation with the Village Engineer . Motion to Table until June 15 , 1993 was made by Com. Windecker and seconded by Com. Entman. Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously. G. 5 Strathmore Court , William D. and Vicki Erwin Fence Code , Section 15 . 20.040 - Replacement of 6 ' wood fence William and Vicki Erwin were sworn in. Mr . Erwin explained that their rear yard abuts Strathmore Square Shopping Center on the south side of the lot . He questioned who owns that portion of fence? Mr . Schar said there is very little history regarding the fence but based upon the fact that it is located on the Erwin' s property , it is their fence . Mr . Erwin said they have small children and they need the ' fence for protection. Several sections of the fence have been knocked down and they have had a problem with kids cutting across their yard so they want to replace the fence with a six foot fence on both sides . There were no comments from the audience . A Poll was taken: Com. Hefler , Com. Entman and Com. Windecker had no objections . Com. Entman made the following motion: I move the request of William D. and Vicki Erwin, 5 Strathmore Court , for variance of Fence Code , Section 15 . 20.040 , pertaining to Residential Districts , for the purpose of constructing a six foot (6 ' ) wood fence on the west side of the property to replace an existing six foot (6 ' ) wood fence , be granted. Wood stockade fence is to be constructed pursuant to plans and specifications submitted to and approved by the Village . Fence to be in accordance with the plat of survey and exhibits attached to the petition. Petitioners having demonstrated that granting of the variance and construction of the fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Hefler , Windecker , Entman and Kearns NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Face Attached . Permit may be issued in 15 days - June 3 , 1993 . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 18 , 1993 - Page Seventeen H. 1352 Rose Boulevard , Roderick C . and Renate M. Stephen Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - 4 ' fence past building line Roderick Stephan was sworn in. He summarized the reasons for requesting a variance : 1 . They have two small children and the fence would be for their safety. 2 . The rear yard is just over thirty feet (30 ' ) in depth and the northeast corner is under water much of the time so about 20% of the lot is unusable . 3 . They would like a four foot (4 ' ) picket fence to be located just inside of the existing landscaping. The fence would not be curved as shown on the plat of survey , but would go straight back on an angle . They have spoken to all their neighbors and none of them object . The Village Engineer ' s Review, dated may 13 , 1993 states : " . . .we have reviewed the line of sight requirements at the subject location, which will not be affected by the proposed fence . " A Poll was taken: Com. Windecker , Com. Entman and Com. Hefler : No objections . Com. Hefler made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by Roderick and Renete Stephan, 1352 Rose Boulevard , for variance of Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 .040 , pertaining to Residential Districts , for the purpose of constructing a four foot (4 ' ) picket fence that would extend past the building line at the corner of Cameron Way and Rose Boulevard a distance of fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) from the sidewalk along Cameron Way. pursuant to Exhibit A. Petitioner having demonstrated that construction of the fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare . Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman, Windecker , Hefler and Kearns NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in 15 days - June 3 . 1993 . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 18 . 1993 - Page Eighteen I . 897 Shambliss Lane , Marc and Marlyn Spivak Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 - Addition in rear yard Marc and Marlyn Spivak were sworn in. Mr . Spivak summarized their reasons for requesting a variance : 1 . They have lived in the house for 17 years and their children are growing up. They need space inside the house for individual quiet study and homework . 2 . Mr . Spivak is an attorney and Mrs . Spivak is a teacher . They also need space in which to work at home . 3 . They want to modernize their house by enlarging the master bedroom and bath area on the second floor . 4 . Mr . Spivak is on the School Board in District 96 and there is a very limited area into which he could move in Buffalo Grove and they do not want to live in Long Grove . 5 . They have looked at other houses and the cost of moving would be a financial hardship. A new plat of survey was submitted showing the existing improvements on the property. There is a deck and patio . The proposed addition would be constructed over part of the patio . The green area would actually be enlarged. Thomas D. and Linda Roemer , 1540 Bunescu Court , were present . They wrote a letter of objection to the variance because the lots at The Crossings are small and the proposed addition would be within nine feet (9 ' ) of their rear lot line . A Poll was taken: Com. Windecker - Did not comment . Com. Hefler - There could be future problems . He would vote No. Com. Entman - Also hesitant because of the objectors . He would like to hear more discussion. Com. Kearns recommended Tabling the petition to permit more members to be present . This would also give the petitioners and the objectors time to discuss the situation. Mr . and Mrs . Spivak agreed to Table until June 15 , 1993 . Motion to Table until June 15 , 1993 was made by Com. Entman and seconded by Com. Windecker . Voice Vote : AYE Unanimously. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 18 , 1993 - Page Nineteen J . 579 Weidner Road , Larry and Judy King - Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 20 . 030 - Accessory Buildings and Structures Section 17 . 32 . 020 - Building Height , Bulk and Lot Coverage Purpose : Permit an existing wood deck to remain as constructed Larry and Judy King were sworn in and the Public Hearing Notice was read . Mr . King explained that when they purchased the house eight years ago , there was a deck , outside the sliding glass doors , with a six foot fence between the house and their neighbor ' s house . The deck and fence were deteriorating and they decided to replace them with a larger deck and a new fence . They hired Jedi Construction to do the work. Jedi took out the permits and constructed the deck . The Building Depart- ment conducted two (2) inspections and the deck was approved. When they came into the Village to get information regarding a new fence , it was discovered that the contractor had been granted approval to construct the deck at the rear of the house instead of the side . At this time the Kings were informed that the deck was not in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance because it was within five feet (5 ' ) of the side lot line . One end of the deck is approximately 2-1/2 feet from the property line and the other end is approximately 3 feet from the property line. They applied for the variance , but they have three small children and they cannot be left outside alone to play because they do not have a fence around the deck . Mrs . King said she had to call 911 last week because one child wandered away off the deck . The plat of survey was reviewed and the deck was described . It extends to the front of the house and almost to the rear . They want to construct a six foot (6 ' ) fence , not a seven foot (7 ' ) fence as shown on the survey. The deck is wider than the original deck and the kitchen opens out onto it . The rear yard is enclosed so it is convenient to let the children out on the deck and they are safe . A petition, signed by neighbors , was presented. It states : "We the undersigned adjacent property owners to 579 Weidner , do hereby request that the Village of Buffalo Grove grant a variance to Judith and Lawrence King , 579 Weidner , in connection with the recently installed deck and the proposed fence . We feel that we will suffer no loss to our property values , enjoy- ment of our property, nor our safety should the Village of Buffalo Grove take this action, and urge it to do so . " Ch. Kearns confirmed the variances were to permit the deck to be constructed closer to the side lot line and past the mid- point of the house . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 18 , 1993 - Page Twenty A Poll was taken: Com. Windecker : No objections . Commented on the fact that two field inspections were done. Com. Entman: Confirmed that the fence is not a problem. (The Fence Code permits six foot (6 ' ) fences around decks and patios . ) He noted that the problem surfaced when it was observed that the original plat was approved with the deck on the rear of the house . Com. Hefler : No comments and no objections . The Village Engineer ' s Review , dated May 13 , 1993 , states : "We have reviewed the existing deck construction at the subject property. It has not affected the drainage in the area , although it will be important that no alteration of the grading is allowed . " Mr . Schar asked if the dimensions on the plat are accurate? Mr . King responded that the deck is about three feet (3 ' ) from the property line at the closest point . Mr . Schar informed Mr . and Mrs . King that the minimum distance the deck can be to the lot line is four feet (4 ' ) so the measurement must be exact . Mr . Dempsey said the ZBA has the authority to grant the variation for the deck to extend past the mid-point of the principal structure . The ZBA does not have the authority to grant the variation for side yard encroachment of three feet (3 ' ) from the property line , but the ZBA can make a recom- mendation to the Village Board to grant it . Mrs . King said they are not absolutely positive of the dimension and asked why the inspectors do not bring the paper work when they come out to make inspections? They really do need the fence for the protection of their children as soon as possible . Mr . Schar informed her that the inspectors are not registered surveyors and are not qualified to determine exact distances . They only inspect construction work . Mr . Dempsey said the ZBA could grant a variance for the deck to be four feet (4' ) from the property line and the Kings could cut one foot off of the deck to meet the requirement . If they choose to wait until after the Village Board meets and a variance is granted , the fence can be built immediately. Mr . and Mrs . King want to keep the deck as constructed and agreed to wait until after the Village Board meeting on June 7 , 1993 . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 18 , 1993 - Page Twenty One Com. Hefler apprised the Kings of the fact that the ZBA recom- mendation does not guarantee a variance . They understood . Com. Entman made the following motion: I move the petition of Larry and Judy King . 579 Weidner Rd. for variance of the Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 32 . 020 , pertaining to Accessory Buildings and Structures , for a variance for the purpose of permitting the existing wood deck that projects in front of the mid-point of the principal structure to remain as constructed be granted . Petitioners having exhibited that the granting of the variance for the existing structure will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood . Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Hefler , Entman, Windecker , Kearns • NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. Com. Entman made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board of Trustees , the petition of Larry and Judy King , 579 Weidner Road , for variance of the Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 20 . 030 , pertaining to Building Height , Bulk and Lot Coverage , for the purpose of permitting the existing wood deck that has been constructed closer than five feet (5 ' ) from the side lot line , be granted . Said deck , having been constructed as identified pursuant to the survey and exhibits attached to the petition. Petitioner having exhibited that the granting of the variance , construction and maintenance of the deck , will not alter the essential character of the neighbor . Also noted the variance is recommended pursuant to the Village Engineer ' s Review , dated May 13 , 1993 . Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Hefler , Entman, Windecker , Kearns NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . Item will be forwarded to the Village Board for action of Monday , June 7 , 1993 . Mr . and Mrs . King were informed that the item will be on the Consent Agenda for the Village Board and it is not necessary for them to attend . . SEE ATTACHED ADDENDUM ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 18 , 1993 - Twenty Two VI . ANNOUNCEMENTS None . VII . ADJOURNMENT Com . Hefler made a motion to adjourn. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Ch. Kearns adjourned the meeting at 10 : 45 P.M. Respectfully submitted , Z),4i/Z-tz=__ Shirley Bates Recording Secretary sb ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 18 , 1993 - Page Twenty Three ADDENDUM TO MAY 18, 1993 ZBA MINUTES Re: 579 Weidner - King Residence Page 21 - In the middle of the page, it states: "The ZBA does not have the authority to grant the variation for side yard encroachment of three feet (3 ' ) from the property line, but the ZBA can make a recommendation to the Village Board to grant it. " The ZBA, in it' s own right, can grant a variance of 33-1/3% but cannot recommend to the Village Board for a variance greater than 33-1/3% except in the case of the required separation between a principal structure and a detached garage. Therefore, the motion regarding the side yard encroachment, as stated on page 22, was not forwarded to the Village Board. However, since the ZBA voted 4-0 to forward an affirmative recommendation, it may be considered implied consent to grant the 33-1/3% variation. `.i