Loading...
1993-06-15 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes ZONNG BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE , ILLINOIS TUESDAY , JUNE 15 , 1993 I . CALL TO ORDER In the absence of Chairman Richard Heinrich , the meeting was chaired by Commissioner Michael Kearns . He called the meeting to order at 8 : 15 P . M . on Tuesday , June 15 , 1993 in Room 24 of the Alcott Commu- nity Center at 530 Bernard Drive . II . ROLL CALL Commissioners Present : M . Kearns , J . Paul , L . Windecker and L . Arbus Commissioners Absent : R . Heinrich , B . Entman and H . Hefler Bldg . Dept . Liaison : Edward Schar , Deputy Building Commissioner Village Attorney : Thomas Dempsey Village Board Liaison : Jeffrey Braiman , Trustee for Brian Rubin III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 18 , 1993 - Motion to Table was made by Com . Windecker and seconded by Com . Arbus . Voice Vote : AYE Unanimously Minutes of May 18 , 1993 were Tabled . Ch . Kearns announced that four ( 4 ) Commissioners consitute a quorum , but in order for a variance to be granted , there must be four ( 4 ) affirmative votes . Should any petitioner want to Table until July 20 , 1993 , they may do so at any time during the presentation of testimony . IV . OLD BUSINESS A . 280 Indian Hill Drive , David M . and Kathleen G . Sczepanski Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts Four foot ( 4 ' ) wood fence past building line/Plum Grove Circle Item was Tabled to permit the petitioners time to consult with the Village Engineer , Richard Kuenkler , about his review of May 13 , 1993 , in which he recommended that the fence should be set back five feet ( 5 ' ) from the sidewalk . Motion to remove from Table was made by Com . Windecker and seconded by Com . Paul . Voice Vote - AYE Unanmiously David and Kathleen Sczepanski were present . Mr . Sczepanski reviewed their reasons for requesting a variance of the Fence Code : 1 . Safety and protection of young children from traffic . 2 . Privacy from Cooper Junior Higli School students and other people coming and going at all times 3 . Replacement of an existing four foot ( 4 ' ) wood fence past the building line on a corner lot with a four foot ( 4 ' ) wood fence in the same location . Mr . Sczepanski said they objected to Mr . Kuenkler ' s recommenda- tion because the existing row of tall trees along Plum Tree Circle would have to be cut down if the fence is setback five feet (5 ' ) . The existing fence is two and a half feet (2-1/2 ' ) from the sidewalk . When Mr . Sczepanski discussed the situation with Mr . Kuenkler , he was told that the five foot (5 ' ) setback was the standard recommendation. However , Mr . Kuenkler did not submit a revised written review . Another issue was that the plat of survey submitted with the application did not show the garage , but Mr . Kuenkler ' s line- of-sight drawing indicated that the garage would not be a problem. Com. Paul : Suggested tapering the first section of the fence back to five feet (5 ' ) from the sidewalk . There was discussion and Mr . Dempsey informed the Commissioners that a variation could be granted , subject to Mr . Kuenkler ' s written confirmation that the present setback is acceptable . A poll was taken: Com . Paul : Said he was uncomfortable because there is no written report from Mr . Kuenkler , but thought the situation is solvable . He did not object to a variance subject to the Village Engineer ' s approval . Com . Windecker : No problem because line-of-sight is not an issue . It is essentially the same fence . Com . Arbus : No problem and did not think it was necessary to taper the fence back . There were no questions or comments from the audience . Com. Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the petition of David M. and Kathleen G. Sczepanski , 280 Indian Hill Drive , for variance of the Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 , pertaining to Residential Districts , for the purpose of constructing a four foot (4 ' ) wood fence , replacing an existing foot foot (4 ' ) wood fence that would extend past the building line along Plum Grove Circle , as indicated on the plat of survey submitted with the application. The essential character of the neighborhood will not be affected and said fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 15 , 1993 - Page Two Condition of variance : The fence should be constructed pursuant to the written approval of Mr . Richard Kuenkler , Village Engineer , submitted to the Building Department , within the fifteen ( 15) day waiting period . Com . Arbus seconded the motion. Roil Call Vote : AYE - Paul . Arbus . Windecker and Kearns NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in 15 days - July 1 , 1993 , with the Village Engineer ' s written approval . B. 897 Shambliss Lane , Marc and Marlyn Spivak Zoning Ordinance . Section 17 . 40 . 020 Area , Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations Addition that would encroach 9 ' into rear yard setback Item was Tabled to permit petitioners time to discuss the proposed addition with their neighbors , Thomas and Linda Roemer , 1540 Bunescu Court . Motion to remove from Table was made by Com . Windecker and seconded by Com . Paul . Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously. Marc and Marlyn Spivak were present . A new survey , dated May 17 , 1993 was submitted , showing the wood deck and the existing concrete patio . Mr . Spivak reviewed their reasons for requesting a variance : 1 . Their children are growing and the whole family needs more privacy for studying. 2 . It would create a great difficulty if the variance is not granted because they will not be able to modernize and upgrade their house . A poll was taken: Com. Windecker : Has a possible problem . Com. Arbus : Has a problem because of the objectors ' letter . Thomas and Linda Roemer , 1540 Bunescu Court , were present . Ch. Kearns read their letter of objection. dated May 18 , 1993 . They object because of : 1 . The extreme density of the Crossings and the location of the structures in relation to the common property line . 2 . The construction of the requested addition would significantly reduce the marketability and desira- ility of their property . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 15 , 1993 - Page Three Com . Paul : Has a problem with the variance because the area in the rear yard is tight , and the proposed addition would make a bad situation worse . Ch. Kearns asked Mr . and Mrs . Spivak if they wanted another continuance in view of the fact that only four Commissioners are present and they have problems with the variance . Mr . Spivak said they wanted to proceed . Com. Paul asked if they have considered adding on to the front of the house? There is room in front and he has seen similar additions that are attractive . Mr . and Mrs . Spivak rejected this suggestion because the living room and dining room are in front and they need study areas . They also want to enlarge and modernize their master bedroom which is on the second floor at the rear of the house . Com. Paul said he would normally try very hard to grant a variation of this kind , but the neighbors have a very small rear yard and the addition would lessen their property value . Com. Arbus said his decisions are based on the ordinance and the criteria for granting this type of variance is that the proposed construction will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood . He also considers the people who are most affected . Usually when people improve their house , they also improve the neighborhood . When people purchase property , they expect that the zoning ordinances will be upheld and they can benefit by the setback lines . He looked at these yards and if the variance is granted , the Spivak ' s house would only be twenty-one feet (21 ' ) from the rear property line . He would not vote for the proposed variance because the neighbors , who are most affected , have objected . Com. Windecker concurred that the rear yard is very busy and asked if they had considered a different layout that would be more in line with the house and not extend so far into the rear yard setback? Mr . Spivak replied that because they have a split-level house , this is really the only option they think will work. Ch. Kearns : Also has a problem with the proposed variance . He noted the Roemers have a pie shaped lot with most of their space in the side yard . They have very little room in the rear yard and they also have a deck . He observed that the proposed addition is twelve feet ( 12 ' ) wide and asked Mr . and Mrs . Spivak if they would consider pulling it back three feet (3 ' ) , making the addition nine feet (9 ' ) deep? Mr . Roemer said he would still have a problem with the variance . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 15 , 1993 - Page Four Mrs . Spivak said a nine foot (9 ' ) addition would not meet their needs and they would not want to add on to the front . They want to modernize the upstairs as well as the downstairs . Mr . Spivak asked for a motion and a vote . Com . Paul made the following motion: I move we grant the variance requested by Marc and Marlyn Spivak , 897 Shambliss Lane , pursuant to 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 nine feet (9 ' ) into the required thirty foot (30 ' ) rear yard setback . Hardship having been demonstrated , the proposed variance would not be detrimental to the essential character of the neighborhood . Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - None NAY - Arbus , Windecker , Paul and Kearns Variance DENIED: 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . The petitioners were advised of their right to appeal in writing within 15 days . NEW BUSINESS A. 1372 Logsdon Lane , Sherrilyn Schulz Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts The public hearing notice was read . Martin and Sherrilyn Schulz were sworn in. Mr . Schulz summarized the reasons for requesting a variance of the Fence Code for the purpose of constructing a six foot (6 ' ) chain link dog run that would be attached to the west side of the house : 1 . The fence would be within the existing boundaries of the property and it would protect their professional show dogs . A poll was taken. The Commissioners had no problem with the proposed variance . They had no questions or comments . There were no questions or comments from the audience . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 15 , 1993 - Page Five Com. Arbus made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by Sherrilyn Schulz , 1372 Logsdon Lane , for variance of the Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 , pertaining to Residential Districts , for the purpose of constructing a six foot (6 ' ) chain link dog run attached to the west side of the house . Petitioners have demonstrated that this particular type of fence would not be detrimental to the public health , safety and welfare . Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Paul , Arbus , Windecker and Kearns NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . Permit may be issued in 15 days - July 1 , 1993 . B. 131 Marylu Lane , Steve Congemi Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 20 . 030 - Building Height , Bulk and Lot Coverage The public hearing notice was read . Mr . Steve Congemi was sworn in. He summarized the reasons for requesting a variance for the purpose of constructing a deck that would exceed the 20% rear yard coverage limitation: Li 1 . He wants to cover the deteriorating concrete patio with professionally constructed cedar deck with a railing . 2 . They have three (3) small children and the deck will provide a safer place for them to play. The lot is on Buffalo Creek and there is no fence along the rear lot line . 3 . The deck will provide additional space for enter- taining visiting family members . 3 . The deck would improve the neighbo: hood including the view of the property frGm Lake Cook Road . There were no questions or comments from the audience . A poll was talon. The Commissioners had no problems or questions . Com. i-aul commented that the proposed deck will be fairly well hidden because there is a fence on both sides . The Village Engineer ' s Review , dated June 1 , 1993 , states : "The deck is proposed within the floodway for the Buffalo Creek . This is a permitted use . This must be an unwalled structure and no storage will be permitted below the deck . " ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 15 , 1993 - Page Six Mr . Congemi said he has talked with his neighbors and there were no objections . Com. Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the petition of Steve Congemi , 131 Marylu Lane , for variance of the Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 20. 030 , pertaining to Building Height , Bulk and Lot Coverage , for the purpose of constructing a deck that would exceed the 20% rear yard coverage limitation. Petitioner having exhibited hardship and unique circumstances , the proposed deck will not be detrimental to the essential character of the neighborhood . Com. Paul seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Arbus , Paul , Windecker and Kearns NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . Permit may be issued in 15 days - Juiy 1 , 1993 . C . 720 Horatio Boulevard , Alan and Jennifer Auerbach Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts Alan and Jennifer Auerbach were sworn in and the public hearing notice was read . Mr . Auerbach summarized their reasons for requesting a variance : 1 . Their neighbor to the rear has an unsightly satellite dish that obstructs their view. 2 . The grade along the rear property line is much steeper than the rest of the yard so in order to screen the dish , they would like a six foot (6 ' ) fence , but they would taper it down to five feet (5 ' ) toward the street . The Village Engineer ' s Review , dated June 2 , 1993 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 . " Mrs . Susan Greenspan , 721 Horatio Boulevard , was present . She lives across the street and came as representative of some of the other neighbors . She summarized their objections : 1 . They do not like to look at the satellite dish either , but it is low to the ground and a six foot (6 ' ) fence is not necessary. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 15 . 1993 - Page Seven 2 . The Auerbachs are on a corner lot and there are many children in the neighborhood that ride bikes . The Scarsdale Homes trailer that had been at the corner of Newtown Drive and Horatio Boulevard has finally been removed so that corner is unobstructed . The proposed fence would be another obstruction if it permitted to be located past the building line . A poll was taken: Com. Paul : Has problems with the proposed variance . Com. Arbus : Disclosed that he and the Auerbachs are close personal friends . He recused himself from the discussion. Ch. Kearns informed the Auerbachs that if a vote is taken , it would be a denial because there are not enough Commissioners present to grant a variance . He advised Tabling the request . The Auerbachs agreed and requested the matter to be tabled . Motion to Table until July 20 , 1993 was made by Com. Windecker and seconded by Com. Paul . Voice Vote : AYE Unanimously . D. 2921 Whispering Oaks Drive , Edward P. Bakal Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts Edward Bakal was sworn in and the public hearing notice was read . Mr . Bakal summarized the reasons for requesting a variance : 1 . His lot is unique in that it is almost a peninsula , with no privacy from any direction. 2 . The northwest side of the property abuts a detention pond and the grade drops approximately three feet (3 ' ) so he is requesting an eight foot (8 ' ) wood fence along this section. A five foot (5 ' ) fence would not give enough privacy or security . 3 . Along the northeast side of the property the fence would be five feet (5 ' ) in height but it would extend past the building line a distance of twenty-seven feet (279 ) , or five feet (5 ' ) from the sidewalk . 4 . The side of the lot is on a cul-de-sac and the fence will be angled to keep the neighbor ' s view open. The Village Engineer ' s Line-of-Sight Review , dated June states : "This is a cul-de-sac eyebrow situation and there is no appreciable applicable sight distance . " Harvey and Elizabeth Fayer , 2927 Whispering Oaks Drive , were present . Ch. Kearns read their letter of objection, dated June 10 , 1993 . They requested denial of the proposed fence because it would give their front yard a fenced-in appearance . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 15 , 1993 - Page Eight A Poll was taken: Commissioners Paul , Arbus and Windecker all had problems with the proposed variance . Ch. Kearns also expressed concern. Mr . Thayer presented his plat of survey and it was reviewed in relation to the proposed fence . Their house is positioned very close to the front of the lot near the Bakals side lot line . The view from their picture window in the front room would be obstructed by the proposed fence and would also be somewhat limited by a fence along the building line . Com . Paul : Has no problem with the eight foot (8 ' ) fence along the detention basin, but when he looked at the property , he felt the proposed fence would be detrimental to the neighborhood The yard would be ample in size with a fence along the building line and he expressed concern about a fence so close to the sidewalk being detrimental to the petitioner ' s property . He complimented Mr . Bakal on his clear presentation. Com. Arbus : The way the cul-de-sac is laid out , a fence past the building line would not be acceptable . He also objected to the eight foot (8 ' ) height along the detention area because it would look like a wall from Buffalo Grove Road . Com. Windecker : Had observed that the neighbors to the rear have a five foot (5 ' ) fence and it would not look very good , aesthetically , next to an eight foot (8 ' ) fence . He would support a five foot (5 ' ) at the building line for which a variance is unnecessary. Ch. Kearns concurred that the fence should not extend past the building line and two (2) Commissioners object to the eight foot (8 ' ) height next to the detention area . He asked Mr . Bakal if he wanted to Table and return on July 20 , 1993 to discuss the fence and/or an alternative proposal . Mr . Bakal asked for the variance to be Tabled. Motion to Table until July 20 , 1993 was made by Com. Windecker and seconded by Com. Arbus . Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously. E. Boston Chicken at Town Center - Two (2) Wall Signs Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 44 . 060 . E. 6 . ( ix) The Public Hearing Notice was read . Mr . Branson Edwards , Real Estate Manager , Boston Chicken, 1804 Centre Point Drive , Naperville , IL 60563 (527-8282 , Ex 18) and Mr . Victor Laska , President , North Shore Sign, 1925 Industrial Drive , Liberty- ville , IL (816-7020) were sworn in. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 15 , 1993 - Page Nine Mr . Edwards described the site . Boston Chicken will be a free- standing 3 , 000 sq . ft . building constructed on the existing grass pad located on the east side of Town Center , west and north of the traffic light on Route 83 . The Boston Chicken sign on the east (front ) elevation facing Mc Henry Road is smaller than the PUD would permit . A variance is requested for two (2) additional wall signs on the elevations that would be visible from Route 83 . The logo will be on the elevation that faces north and the channel letters will be centered on the elevation that faces south. They need these signs to identify the building from Lake Cook Road and from southbound traffic on Route 83 . The Appearance Commission reviewed the signs on April 22 , 1993 and recommended that variances be granted . A poll indicated that there were no objections to the signs . Comments from Commissioners : Com . Paul : Asked if they were going to request a free-standing sign? Mr . Edwards replied that a free-standing sign is not permitted . Com. Paul said the wall signs would be more effective . Com . Arbus and Com. Windecker : No questions and no problems . Ch. Kearns : Asked if the size of the signs falls within the limits of the Sign Code? Mr . Schar responded that these signs fall within the B-5 Zoning District , which is , in part , separate from the Sign Code . They are permitted with a variance . Ch. Kearns directed that copies of the Appearance Commission minutes be attached to the recommendation to the Village Board . Com. Arbus made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board of Trustees grant the request of Boston Chicken , to be located at the Buffalo Grove Town Center , for variance of the Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 44 .060 . E. 6 . ( ix) pertaining to the Town Center Planned District , for the purpose of permitting two additional wall signs that would be visible from Route 83 , pursuant to Exhibits A and B, as submitted. Com . Windecker seconded the motion. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 15 , 1993 - Page Ten Roll Call Vote : AYE - Paul , Windecker , Arbus and Kearns NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . Signs will be sent to the Village Board for approval on June 21 , 1993 . Permit may be issued in 15 days ( 7/1/93) . F . The Grove (Shopping Center ) - Lake Cook Road Sign Code , Section 14 . 20 . 070 - Ground Sign and Entrance Signs The Public Hearing Notice was read . Mr . Matthew J . Roberts , Chicago Suburban District Manager , RREEF Funds , 2625 Butterfield Road , Suite 147 E, Oak Brook , IL 60521 (571-2300) was sworn in. Mr . Roberts requested a variance for the setback of the proposed ground sign. The Sign Code requires the sign to be no closer than ten feet ( 10 ' ) to the property line . The proposed sign will be set back from five (5) to eight (8) feet from the sidewalk , in line with the existing Shoney' s sign at the corner of Route 83 and Lake Cook Road . It will match the existing ground sign for The Grove at the entrance on Route 83 , but it will be smaller , 6 ' x 7 ' 6" . The three (3) existing Flowering Crab trees on Lake Cook Road will be removed and relocated on the site . The purpose of the sign is to identify The Grove , Jewel /Osco and Walgreen' s to drivers traveling west bound on Lake Cook Rd . People go past the center and have make a quick turn around at Route 83 , or they go past the entrance and try to turn in at the exit ramp . The sign will be double sided . Mr . Roberts presented photographs of the site from the east , at Steepleview , and closer to the entrance . The proposed sign will be more than 250 feet from the Shoney ' s and Steepleview ground signs . The Appearance Commission reviewed the sign on June 10 , 1993 and recommended that a variance be granted. The proposed entrance and exit signs were discussed with Mr . Schar and the Appearance Commissioners . These signs were withdrawn at Mr . Robert ' s request . A poll was taken: Com . Paul : Disclosed that his company is doing work for RREEF and RREEF is also their landlord , but this will not influence his decision. He has no questions or problems . Com. Arbus : No problems . He has found it difficult to enter . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 15 , 1993 - Page Eleven Com . Windecker : Clarified hardship . (They cannot meet the setback . ) He mentioned that Jewel /Osco is not lighted on the existing sign. No problem with proposed sign. Ch. Kearns : No problem. Trustee Braiman asked where the Crab Apple trees would be relocated? Mr . Roberts replied that they , and possibly one other larger tree , would probably be planted on Mc Henry Road . Com . Paul made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board of Trustees that the request made by The RREEF Funds of Oak Brook , IL with regard to The Grove Shopping Center , pursuant to Sign Code , Section 14 . 20 . 070 , pertaining to Ground Signs , for the purpose of constructing an entrance monument for The Grove (Shopping Center) on Lake Cook Rd . Said sign will be set back from five (5) to eight (8) feet from the sidewalk , to be in alignment with the existing Shoney ' s ground sign on the corner , pursuant to Exhibit A, submitted with the application. Variance is recommended in accordance with Sign Code , Section 14 . 44 . 010 - Conditions for granting . Sub-Section A. Com . Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Arbus , Windecker , Paul and Kearns NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . Sign will be sent to the Village Board for approval on June 21 , 1993 . Permit may be issued in 15 days (7/1/93) . VI . ANNOUNCEMENTS 1 . Ch. Kearns announced that Scott and Susan Ginsberg 2854 Whisper- ing Oaks Drive , appealed the May 18 , 1993 ZBA denial of their request for variance of the Fence Code . The Village Board reviewed their appeal and after discussion, Mr . and Mrs . Ginsberg agreed to return to the ZBA with an alternate proposal . However , the Ginsbergs decided not to compromise , withdrew their request for any variance and have applied for a fence on the building line . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 15 , 1993 - Page Twelve 2 . Mr . Schar addressed the Addendum attached to the May 18 , 1993 Zoning Board of Appeals pursuant to the request of Larry and Judy King , 579 Weidner , for variance of the Zoning Ordinance , to permit the existing deck to remain as constructed . Because the ZBA does not have the authority to grant a variance of more than 33-1/3% so a recommendation was made to the Village Board . The Village Board does not have the authority to grant variances greater than 33-1/3% except in the case of the required separa- tion between a principal structure and a detached garage . Mr . Dempsey said that by recommending the variance , the ZBA gave implied consent that they would have granted a variance up to their authority. He asked the ZBA to ratify their consent . Ch. Kearns and Com. Windecker were present at the May 18 , 1993 ZBA public hearing . Com . Entman and Com . Hefler were also present . Ch. Kearns confirmed that since there were no dissent- ing votes , and since the recommendation was made to the Village Board , the intent and purpose of the ZBA was to grant the variance that was withinin their authority . Mr . Dempsey asked that the ZBA verbally ratify the Addendum attached to the May 18 , 1993 Minutes . Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously. 3 . Mr . Schar reviewed the variance granted Peter and Darlene Clarke on March 16 , 1993 for the purpose of permitting a house to be constructed on Lot 6 at Williamsburg Estates on Old Arlington Court that would encroach a distance of ten feet ( 10 ' ) into the required thirty foot (30 ' ) rear yard setback . Mr . and Mrs . Clarke have submitted a revised plat of survey with a different configuration for their proposed house . The new proposal shows a different footprint but the ten foot ( 10 ' ) encroachment remains the same and the total square feet of coverage into the setback is slightly less than the original submittal . Since Com. Entman , who made the original motion is not present , Mr . Schar asked Commissioners Kearns , Paul , Windecker and Arbus if they considered this to be a minor change? If so , would it be acceptable to approve the new configuration, without a new variance? Mr . Dempsey confirmed that there was no problem with the publi- cation and granting of the variance . He recommended that the Commissioners accept the new exhibit and ratify the action taken by the ZBA in granting the variance . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 15 , 1993 - Page Thirteen There were no objections to the new configuration and Ch. Kearns proposed that the revised exhibit submitted by Peter and Darlene Clarke for construction of a house on Lot 6 in Williamsburg Estates , be accepted and by its acceptance , that the variance granted on March 16 , 1993 is hereby ratified , in that the ZBA would have granted a variance pursuant to the new exhibit . Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously . VII . ADJOURNMENT Com . Arbus made a motion to adjourn. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Ch. Kearns adjourned the meeting at 9 : 45 P.M. Respectfully submitted , Shirley Bat ZBA Recording Secretary sb 7nNTNG BOARD OF APPEALS `,i June 15 , 1993 - Page FourtPPn