1993-08-17 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE , ILLINOIS
TUESDAY , AUGUST 17 , 1993
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Richard Heinrich called the public hearing to order at
8 : 05 P . M . on Tuesday , August 17 . 1993 in Room 24 of the Alcott
Community Center , . 530 Bernard Drive .
II . ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present : B . Entman , L . Windecker , H . Hefler and
R . Heinrich . QUORUM PRESENT .
Com . Arbus arrived at 8 : 16 P . M . and
Com . Entman left at 9 : 00 P . M .
Commissioners Absent : M . Kearns and J . Paul
Bldg . Dept . Liaison : Edward Schar . Deputy Building Commissioner
Village Attorney : Tom Dempsey
Ch . Heinrich announced that four ( 4 ) affirmative votes are
necessary in order for a variance to be granted . Since only
four Commissioners are present for the start of the meeting .
petitioners have the option of fabling their request at any
time during the hearing .
III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Postponed until after the Business was conducted .
IV . OLD BUSINESS
A . 902 Hiildale Lane . Daniel and Roberta Racinowski
Fence Code Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts
Motion to remove from Table was made by Com . Windecker and
seconded by Com . Entman . Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously .
Item was Tabled on July 20 . 1993 to permit the Racinowskis to
consult their neighbor at 901 Hobson Drive about his plans to
reconstruct an existing tie-wail with a fence that extends
past the building line . A variance was granted for this
. construction .
Mr . Glenn Hersenhouse . 901 Hobson Drive , was present . He
confirmed that the retaining wail around the property is
deteriorating and he plans to either replace it with timbers
or more permanent concrete blocks . He has been told that if
he replaces the timbers with more timbers a variance would not
be necessary , but replacement with some other material would
require a new variance .
Mr . Schar verified this information and said replacement with
the same material would be considered repair and would not
require a variance . but substitution with a different material
would require a new variance .
Ch. Heinrich recalled that the fence as proposed by Mr . and
Mrs . Racinowski would not line up with the existing fence and
asked if they had discussed the possibility of modifying their
request?
Mr . Racinowski responded that the ZBA ' s recommendation to
locate the fence no more than ten feet ( 10 ' ) from the house
was unacceptable to them . The existing fence is at least
twelve feet ( 12 ' ) away from the house .
Mr . Hersenhouse presented copies of the previous variance . the
plat of survey and photographs of the existing fence which is
about 2 to 3 feet from the retaining wail . The fence is
seventeen feet ( 17 ' ) from the sidewalk and the wall is about
fourteen feet ( 14 ' ) from the sidewalk .
Ch. Heinrich said the Racinwoski ' s fence would have to line up
with the existing fence or it would be detrimental to the
neighborhood .
Mr . Racinowski responded that their original request was for
the fence to be three feet (3 ' ) from the sidewalk and the
Village Engineer recommended a setback of five feet (5 ' ) from
the sidewalk . He asked about the requirements for an
ornamental fence?
He was informed that ornamental fences cannot not exceed three
feet ( 3 ' ) in height and must be broken every thirty lineal
feet (30 ' ) by a minimum space of 6 inches (e' ) . Bushes can be
planted up to the sidewalk . but they cannot restrict the line
of sight . The Village has the authority to have bushes trim-
med if they are obstructive .
Mr . and Mrs . Racinowski were advised that they have the
following options :
1 . Withdraw their request .
2 . Amend their request to comply with the ZBA ' s
recommendation to line their fence up with the
neighbor ' s fence at 901 Hobson Drive .
3 . Ask for a vote on the original request . and if
denied they can appeal the ZBA ' s decision to the
Village Board of Trustees .
The Racinwoskis amended their request to comply with the
Village Engineer ' s recommendation of five feet ( 5 ' ) from the
sidewalk and asked the ZBA to vote on this location for their
fence .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
August 17 . 1993 - rage Two
Mr . Dempsey noted that the Village Engineers Review indicated
a line-of-sight problem and Mr . Kuenkler recommended that the
fence be relocated as shown on the revised plat of survey ,
Exhibit A-1 .
Ch . Heinrich affirmed that the amended petition does not
violate the line-of-sight .
Com . Windecker made the following motion :
I move we grant the request of Daniel and Roberta
Racinowski . 902 Hilidale Lane , for variance of the
Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 . pertaining to
Residential Districts . for the purpose of constructing
a five foot ( 5 ' ) wood fence that would be located a
distance of five feet ( 5 ' ) from the sidewalk along
Fabish Drive , and relocated , as recommended by the
Village Engineer ' s Line-of-Sight Review . dated 7/6/93 .
Construction of said fence would not be detrimental to
the public health , safety and welfare .
Com . Hefler seconded the motion.
Roil Call Vote : AYE - None
NAY - Entman . Windecker . Hefler and Heinrich
ABSTAIN - Arbus (arrived during discussion)
Motion DENIED - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact attached .
Petitioners were advised that they can appeal the decision by
writing to the Director of Building and Zoning within 15 days
(September 2 , 1993) . The next Village Board meeting will be
held on September 13 , 1993 .
V . NEW BUSINESS
A. Condeli Medical Center , 150 Half Day Road - Signs
Sign Code , Section 14 . 20 . 050 - Industrial Districts
Sign Code , Section 14 . 20 . 090 - Wail Signs
Sign Code Section 14 . 20 . 070 - Ground Signs
The public hearing notice was read .
Mr . Vic Laska , North Shore Sign , 1925 Industrial Drive .
Libertyville , IL 60048 ( 816-7020) and Mr . Jay Justice ,
Condell Medical Center , were sworn in .
The Appearance Commission reviewed the proposed signs on
July 22 , 1993 and recommended that variances be granted .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
August 17 . 1993 - Page Three
Mr . Laska said Condell is requesting additional wall signs on
the east and west elevations of the building to inform people
that 24 HOUR MEDICAL TREATMENT is available . Two lines of
eighteen inches ( 18 " ) letters will be located toward the south
end of the building which faces Half Day Road .
The existing non-illuminated wall sign will remain on the
south elevation of the building . The proposed "24 HOUR"
signs will be silhouette lighted with illumination thrown
across the back of the letters .
Mr . Laska noted the new ground sign has been installed in
front of the building and they would like to install the
former double-sided ground sign at the rear of the building .
It is twelve feet ( 12 ' ) in height and would replace the
existing single faced sign which is seven feet ( 7 ' ) in height .
Since the rear of the building is now accessible from both
directions , the double-raced sign would be advantageous .
Mr . Justice described a recent incident . A person suffering
a heart attack unfortunately turned into the Domi.nick ' s park-
ing lot because he could not locate the way to enter Condeli
and he died in front of Dominick ' s . Mr . Justice added that
they would be willing to agree to a time limitation on the
signs until people are more familiar with the facility .
Ch. Heinrich agreed that the building is very difficult to
reach and the signs are necessary.
Com . Windecker , Com . Arbus . Com . Entman and Com . Hefler
had no questions or objections .
A. resident , Mrs . Kathy Vogler at 646 Raintree Court , commented
that she lives in the area and knows how difficult it is to
find the entrance to the facility .
Ch. Heinrich questioned the need for the illuminated sign in
the rear because the area is zoned residential and will some-
day have houses that could be affected . He suggested control
of the hours of illumination . so it goes off each night .
Com . Arbus disagreed because the Acute Care Center is open
24 HOURS , it is necessary to have the sign lighted all night .
Mr . Laska described the construction of the sign . It has a
metal face with cut out plexiglas letters . The light only
comes through the letters .
Com . Hefler agreed illuminated signs are necessary because
it gets dark so early in the winter . He said the light would
be minimal because it is diffused when it comes through the
plexiglas copy .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
August 17 . 1993 - Page Four
Com . H.ef ier made the following motion:
I move we recommend the following variances of the
Sign Code . as requested by Condeii Medical Center ,
150 Half Uay Road . be granted :
1 . Section 14 . 20 . 050 - Industrial Districts , relating
to the number of signs permitted .
2 . Section 14 . 20 . 090 - wall Signs , for the purpose
of installing additional signs on the east and
west elevations of the building .
3 . Section 14 . 20 . 070 - Ground Signs . for the purpose
of installing a second ground sign at the rear of
the building . The ground sign is to replace an
existing ground sign.
In granting the variances the Zoning Board of Appeals finds
that such signs will not be detrimental to the essential
character of the neighborhood , and meet the conditions of
Sign Code , Section 14 . 44 . 010 , Sub-section A.
Com . Entman seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote : AYE - Arbus , Windecker . Entman .
Hefter and Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 5 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached .
The signs will be placed on the Village Board Consent
Agenda on September 13 , 1993 .
B. 981 Cumberland Lane , Clayton and Shirley Bond
Zoning Ordinance , Section _17 . 40 . 020 - Addition
Mr . Clayton Bond was sworn in. The Public Hearing Notice was
read and Mr . Bond summarized the reasons for requesting a
variance for the purpose of constructing an addition :
1 . They have a four-bedroom house but it has no
basement or attic , so they do not have sufficient
storage space .
2 . They have two children living at home and
Mrs . Bond ' s mother lives with them six (6)
months of the year .
3 . They also have five other siblings who visit
throughout the year , so the four ( 4) bedrooms
are usually occupied .
4 . Mr . Bond has no space in which to work at
home so his desk . computer equipment and
files are in their bedroom . It is most
inconvenient because he cannot work very
late at night .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
`./ August 17 . 1993 - Page Five
The proposed addition would provide a playroom with two
large closets and an office . They want to remain in the
house because they value the school system and it would
cause financial hardship to purchase a larger house in
Buffalo Grove .
Ch . Heinrich read a letter of objection from James and
Cheryl Wolf , 995 Cumberland Court . dated August 11 . 1993 .
It states that they have been advised by real estate agents
that should the Bonds be able to build this addition. it
will affect their ability to sell .
Mr . Bond said they have not discussed the proposed addition
with the Wolfs and the Wolfs have not said anything to them .
The Wolfs live next to the Bonds and the addition would be
in their front yard , but because of the unusual configuration
of the houses . the addition would be in the Bonds side yard .
Comments from Commissioners :
Com . Entman agreed the lot is unique . Houses usually front
on cul-de-sacs and the proposed addition would be in the
neighbor ' s front yard . He observed the lots for some time
and could not approve the variance as requested even without
the neighbor ' s letter of objection . He understands the Bonds
need for space and the high cost of moving to a larger house .
Com . Windecker questioned whether the 16 ' x 18 ' playroom was
necessary because it would come out to far into the neighbor ' s
front yard and he could not support the request . An addition
could be constructed up to the building line without any
variance .
Com . Arbus commented that he is familiar with the model and
he tried to visualize a sixteen foot ( 16 ' ) addition . He asked
if they have considered adding on to the back of the house?
Mr . Bond answered that they have .
Com . Hefler asked if they explored adding on to the rear?
Mr . Bond replied that an addition at the rear of the house
was their first choice , but it would be much more expensive
because they would have to remove the kitchen wall . It
would also take away space from the rear yard and that is
the only private area that they have .
Com . Hefler suggested one way to construct an addition with-
out disturbing the plumbing would be to create an island
work space in the kitchen. It would be difficult for him
to support a variance that would inconvenience all future
neighbors because the petitioners nave another option.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
August 17 , 1993 - Page Six
Ch . Heinrich said that , notwithstanding the realtor ' s state-
ment , the situation is so unique with the proposed addition
going in the neighbor ' s front yard , he would agree with the
other Commissioners that a variance is not feasible . There
is a substantial rear yard and an addition could be located
in the rear yard toward Cumberland Court . He suggested using
the sliding door of the breakfast room for access without
removing any walls , or the family room window could be made
into the entrance . This would minimize the cost .
Com . Arbus said that he would be more inclined to vote for a
rear yard variance .
Com . Entman observed that . while not being an architect . it
appears that an addition could be constructed in the rear
yard .
Mr . Dempsey advised the petitioners that . if the hearing is
continued and they amend their request , it would be necessary
to republish if the encroachment into the required thirty
foot ( 30 ' ) rear yard setback is more than six feet (6 ' ) .
Mr . and Mrs . Bond agreed to Table their request .
Com. Entman made a motion to Table until September 21 , 1993 .
Com . Windecker seconded the motion.
Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously.
Mr . and Mrs . Bond were advised to consult their architect and
their neighbor . Any new proposal should be submitted to the
Building Department for review to determine if republication
is necessary .
Com. Entman left the meeting at 9 : 00 P . M .
C . 646 Raintree Court . Gregory and Kathleen Vogler
Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts
Gregory and Kathleen Vogler were sworn in and the Public
Hearing Notice was read . Mr . Vogler summarized their
reasons for requesting a variance for the purpose of
constructing a four foot ( 4 ' ) wood fence that would extend
past the building line at the corner of Sandalwood Road
and Port Clinton Road :
1 . The fence would provide safety for their
two ( 2) small children.
2 . Their lot is unique in that it is bordered
by three ( 3) streets .
3 . Port Clinton , at the corner of Sandalwood Road is
used by bikers , joggers , dog walkers , skaters ,
H. S . driver ' s education teachers track and cross
country teams . The corner has also been used by
the police for radar surveillance .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
August 17 . 1993 - Page Seven
4 . The rear of the lot slopes down but they are
only asking for a four foot ( 4 ' ) fence .
They are not seeking privacy . just security
for their children from traffic , dogs and
strangers .
The Village Engineer ' s Review . dated August 5 . 1993 states :
Village ordinance does not allow encroachments within
twenty-five feet ( 25 ' ) of the corner of the property line .
The suggested location is shown on the enclosed plan. If
considered , it should be set back five to ten feet ( 5-10 ' )
from the sidewalk on Sandalwood Road . '
Mr . Vogger said they planned to angle the fence at the both
rear corners of the lot and they agreed to comply with the
Village Engineer ' s recommendation.
Comments from Commissioners :
Com . Arbus said the lot is like an island . He had observed the
slope to the rear of the lot and asked if a four foot ( 4 ' )
fence is going to meet their needs?
Mr . Vogler responded that they do not want a privacy fence
but the four foot (4 ' ) fence will keep people out of the yard .
The fence will still be four feet (4 ' ) high at grade level .
Com . Arbus commented that the rear yard is considerably large
and suggested that if they construct the fence fifteen feet
( 15 ' ) from the sidewalk they would have a shorter angle at
the corner .
Mrs . Vogler said they measured the side yard after they got
the Village Engineer ' s Review . They have a pine tree about
ten feet ( 10 ' ) from the sidewalk and they would like to keep
it inside the yard .
A poll of the Commissioners indicated agreement , so the
Vogiers amended their petition to construct the fence a
distance of ten feet ( 10 ' ) from the sidewalk and comply
with the Village Engineer ' s recommendation to angle the
fence outside the twenty-five foot (25 ' ) radius .
Com . Arbus made the following motion:
I move we grant the request made by Gregory and
Kathleen Vogler . 646 Raintree Court . for variance
of Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 04U . Pertaining to
Residential Districts . for the purpose of constructing
a four foot ( 4 ' ) wood picket fence that would extend
past the building line along Sandalwood Road and
Port Clinton Road .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
August 17 . 1993 - Page Fight
Said fence not to be closer than ten feet ( 10 ' )
from the sidewalk along Sandalwood Road and it is
to comply with the Village Engineer ' s requirement
not to encroach within twenty-five feet ( 25 ' ) of
the northwest corner of the property .
Petitioners have demonstrated that this fence will
not be detrimental to the public health . safety
and welfare .
Roll Cali Vote : AYE - Hefler , Windecker . Arbus . Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 4 to O . Findings of Fact Attached .
Permit may be issued in 15 days - September 2 , 1993 .
D. 1317 Devonshire Road . Scott and Lynda Miller
Zoning Ordinance . Section 17 . 32 . 020 - In round Swimming Pool
Scott and Lynda Miller were represented by Mr . Ron Bell ,
1335 Devonshire Road . They were ail sworn in and the public
hearing notice was read .
The Village Engineer ' s Review , dated . August 5 , 1993 . states :
' The proposed construction will not affect the existing
property drainage pattern : however . it will be necessary for
the petitioner to provide a detailed grading plan indicating
how the grade will be altered outside the swaie and easement
area. . as the proposed construction is very close to these
areas .
Please advise the homeowner that no alteration of the grade
within five feet ( 5 ' ) of the property line or swaie is
allowed . '
Mr . Bell said he lives a few blocks away from the Millers .
His lot is approximately the same size and he has an identical
swimming pool . Two doors away from him . the Puttermans have
a pool and two doors away from them . the Singers have a pool .
The Miller ' s pool will be about the fifth pool in the area .
The aesthetics of the pools are pieasing and the Millers have
used Mr . Bell ' s pool for the past three years , so they have
decided to have one installed in their yard .
Mr . Dan Meifar , 1315 Devonshire Road . neighbor to the east .
was present and said he is in favor of the proposed pool .
Mr . Miller said the neighbor to the west has been informed and
he has no objections . Should any damage occur , during con-
struction . to the neighbors sod , etc . , it will be repaired .
Ch. Heinrich calculated that the total rear yard coverage will
be about 25% .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
August 1I . l99 - Page Nine
Mr . Larry Mullen , Advanced Pool Construction ( 708-735-0555)
explained that the existing drainage problem will be improved
because the pool itself will catch water and will be drained
directly into the storm sewer . There will be a planting area
around the edge of the decking area that will absorb almost
all water that fails . There will be no grade changes to the
easement or the swale . The existing concrete patio will be
removed and replaced with the pool which will be about two
inches (2 ' ) above grade level . There will be a five foot ( 5 ' )
concrete area around the pool with an eightteen inch ( 18 )
planting area to catch water .
Mr . Schar said the concrete area does not count in the yard
coverage , so they will be approximately 93 sq . ft . over the
permitted 20% rear yard coverage .
Mr . Mullen , explained that , in the winter , the pool will be
partially drained into the storm sewer . It will be covered
with a spring- loaded mesh cover that drains melted snow into
the pool . The water is pumped out in the spring . The process
was described and it connecting tiles underground to the sump
pump and running the water out to the storm sewer . This will
alleviate the water that drains onto Mr . Belfar ' s property .
All neighbors have been advised of their intentions .
Ch. Heinrich agreed the drainage solution is advantageous .
Comments from Commissioners :
Com . Hefier - No comments or objections .
Com . Windecker - No comments or objections .
Com . Arbus said he is against pools , but if the drainage is
not affected and neighbors do not object . he would not
oppose the variance .
Com . Windecker made the following motion:
I move we recommend to the Village that the request
made by Scott and Lynda Miller . 1317 Devonshire Road .
for variance of Zoning Ordinance , Section '7 . 32 . 020 ,
pertaining to Location of Accessory Buildings and
Structures , for the purpose of installing an inground
swimming pool that would exceed the 20% rear yard
coverage limitation. be granted .
Conditions : 1 . Pursuant to the Village Engineer ' s
Drainage Review , dated August 5 , 1993 , a detailed
grading plan , indicating how the grade will be altered
outside the swale and easement area , is to be provided .
2 . The drain is to be connected to the storm sewer at
the rear of the property at the nearest location .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
August 17 , 1993 - Page Ten
Unique circumstances having been demonstrated . the
proposed construction will not alter the essential
character of the neighborhood . Plans indicate that
the lot coverage will be 93 square feet over the
permitted 20% and total less than 25% .
Com . Heller seconded the motion .
Roll Call Vote : AYE - Windecker . Arbus , Hefier . Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 4 to O . Findings of Fact Attached .
Item will be placed on the Village Board Consent Agenda
on September 13 , 1993 . Permit may be issued after approval .
E . 545 Parkchester , Sueng M. and Sue M. Won
Fence Code . Section 15_20 .040 - Fence east buildin . line .
Sueng and Sue Won . 545 Parkchester . were sworn in and the
public hearing notice was read . Mr . Won summarized their
reasons for requesting a variance for the purpose of
constructing a five foot ( 5 ' ) and six foot (6 ' ) in height
that would extend past the building line along Horatio Blvd :
1 . They are seeking privacy from the traffic
on Horatio Blvd .
2 . They have a deck and he wants to build a
storage shed . but they do not have enough
room in the area .
3 . They have two boys (9 and 12 years) and he
would like to build some exercise equipment
in that area.
Mr . Won said they would construct the fence pursuant to the
The Village Engineer ' s Review . dated August 5 . 1993 , which
states : "The proposed fence conflicts with the desired sight
distance , and encroachment is not recommended .
The suggested location , is shown on the enclosed plan . set
back five feet from from the sidewalk .
Ch . Heinrich asked what they would accomplish by only having
a fence along Horatio Boulevard? People driving or walking .
could still see into the yard and they would have no privacy .
Mrs . Won explained that the fence is an expense they hope
the neighbors (property now under construction) will want a
fence along the property line . They do not have small
children that need to be protected from the street .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
August 17 . 1993 - Page Eleven
Ch . Heinrich said they do not need to have a fence in order
to put up the storage shed and it could not go into the side
yard even with a variance . In his opinion . the proposed fence
will not serve any purpose .
Mrs . Won asked about planting shrubs along the property line
and she was informed that permits are not required for bushes .
If they become a line-of-sight problem . the Village has the
authority to trim them or ask for them to be moved .
Comments from Commissioners :
Com . Hefler said the Board may not grant a variance five feet
(5 ' ) from the sidewalk .
Com . Arbus said he would not vote for any variance because all
the other houses to the north face Horatio Boulevard . This is
the only house that faces Parkchester Road and this would be
the only fence .
Ch . Heinrich advised Mr . and Mrs . Won that they can accomplish
all they want to with bushes , without the fence .
Mr . Demsey informed Mr . and Mrs . Won of their option:
1 . They can withdraw their request for a variance
2 . They can ask for a vote and . if denied , they have
the right to appeal to the Village Board .
�./ Mr . and Mrs . Won agreed to WITHDRAW their petition.
F . 491 Springside Lane , Jeffrey and Barbara Julis
Zoning Ordinance , _Section 17 . 40 . 020_-_Front yard addition
Jeffrey and Barbara Julis were sworn in and the public hearing
notice was read . Mr . Julis summarized their reasons for
requesting a variance for the purpose of constructing an
addition at the front of their house :
1 . They have two growing children and they need
more living space . They want to convert their
existing garage into a family room and add a
new garage .
2 . The house is a Roxbury model with no basement and
they need more storage space .
3 . They prefer to stay in their home , rather than
move to a different . more expensive house .
Ch. Heinrich observed that the garage would be nineteen feet
( 19 ' ) deep without a variance . Twenty-four feet ( 24 ' ) is a
long garage and he has a problem going into front yard
setback . He noted that they were also proposing a variance
into the side yard setback .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
August. 17 . 1993 - Page Twelve
Mr . Julis said their existing garage is twenty-four feet ( 24 ' )
deep and they want to replace it with the same size to
accommodate their refrigerator/freezer .
Comments from Commissioners :
Com . Helier said they are changing the character of the
building . the frontage of houses on a street is usually the
same and by going out to the side . they are also creating a
box in front .
Mr . Julis responded that there are similar additions in the
area and going the additional space into the side yard is the
most efficient way to give them the storage space they need .
Mrs . Julis said they got the idea after seeing other houses .
They plan to plant bushes around the addition .
Com . Heiler said the idea might be good for them but not so
good for the neighbors .
Mrs . Julis replied that they have talked to their neighbors
and there have been no adverse comments .
Com . Arbus verified that there are a number of other homes in
the area that have similar additions and he agreed that a
nineteen foot ( 19 ' ) garage would be too short to justify the
cost . He under- stands the need for additional storage
space . The trees and land- soaping in the area is mature and
the addition will not disturb the neighborhood . it will
enhance it . Since the neighbors have not objected , he does
not have a problem with the variance .
Com . Windecker said he would prefer to keep the addition in
line with the house . He asked how much space would be lost
without it?
It was calculated that they would lose approximately 50 sq .
ft . or 10% of the proposed 500 sq . ft . addition .
Mr . Julis explained that a 22 ' x 24 ' addition would permit
them to convert the existing garage into a family room , extend
the laundry room and mud room as well as give them sufficient
storage space .
After further consideration , the Commissioners agreed to
permit the variance .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
August 17 . 1993 - Page Thirteen
Com. Hefler made the following motion:
I move we grant the request of Jeffrey and
Barbara Julis , 491 Springside Lane , 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 that would encroach a distance of five
feet(5 ' ) into the required thirty foot ( 30 ' ) front
yard setback and encroach a distance of two feet
six inches (2 ' 6" ) into the required eight foot
(8 ' ) side yard setback .
Unique circumstances having been demonstrated , the proposed
variance will not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood .
The Village Engineer ' s Review dated August 5 . 1993 , states :
" the proposed addition will not alter the existing drainage
pattern. " The petitioners were advised that no alteration
of the grade within five feet (5 ' ) of the property line or
swale is allowed .
Com . Windecker seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote : AYE - Arbus , Windecker , Hefler , Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached .
Permit may be issued in 15 days - September 2 . 1993 .
Li
G. 446 Ronnie Drive , Richard and Sharon Reinherz
Zoning Ordinance . Section 17 . 40 . 020 - Front Porch Addition
Mrs . Sharon Reinherz . 446 Ronnie Drive , and Mr . Tim Kral ,
T. T. Kral Builders , Inc . were sworn in and the public hearing
notice was read . Mr . Kral explained that the proposed front
porch would enhance the architecture of the house and protect
the front door from the weather . The house faces west .
A diagram of the proposed porch was submitted and described .
It will extend six feet (6 ' ) out from the front of the house
and because of the configuration of the house , one corner
would encroach a distance of 2-1 /2 feet into front yard .
The Commissioners had no objections . They agreed the porch
would be a nice improvement to the house and neighborhood .
Com . Windecker made the following motion:
I move we grant the request of Richard and Sharon
Reinherz . 446 Ronnie Drive . for variance of the
Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 , pertaining to
Area , Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations ,
for the purpose of constructing a front porch.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
August 17 , 1993 - Page Fourteen
Said porch would encroach a distance of three feet
( 3 ' ) into the required twenty-five foot (25 ' ) front
yard setback .
Addition to be constructed pursuant to plans
submitted to and approved by the Village .
The petitioner having exhibited unique circum-
stances , the proposed addition will not alter
essential character of the neighborhoods .
Com . Arbus seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote : AYE - Hefler . Windecker , Arbus . Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached .
Permit may be issued in 15 days - September 2 , 1993 .
H. 497 Middlesex Court . Howard and Elaine Fagan
Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts
Howard and Elaine Fagan , 497 Middlesex Court , were sworn in
and the public hearing notice was read . Mr . Fagan explained
that they are replacing a section of an existing fence .
The Fagans purchased the house nine (9 ' ) years ago and the
fence was there . It is at least twenty (20) years old and
it is deteriorating . They want to replace the front section
facing Middlesex Court and the sections along the west
property line . Their neighbor will share the cost and they
both want to maintain the six foot (6 ' ) height .
Ch. Heinrich noted that the existing fence predates the Fence
Code and the neighbors do not object , so he has not problem .
The Commissioners had no comments or objections .
Com . Arbus made the following motion .
•
I move we grant the request of Howard and Elaine
Fagan, 497 Middlesex Court . for variance of the
Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 . pertaining to
Residential Districts , for the purpose of
replacing an existing six foot (6 ' ) wood fence
with new six foot (6 ' ) fencing .
The petitioners have demonstrated that granting of
this variance will not detrimental to the public
health, safety and welfare .
Com . Windecker seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote : AYE - Hefler , Windecker , Arbus , Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached .
Permit may be issued in 15 days - September 2 , 1993 .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
August 17 , 1993 - Page Fifteen
VI . ANNOUNCEMENTS
Approval of Minutes - July 20 , 1993
Com. Hefler made a motion to approve the minutes of July 20 . 1993
as submitted . Com . Arbus seconded the motion .
Roll Call Vote : AYE - Windecker , Arbus , Hefler and Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 4 to 0 .
VII . ADJOURNMENT
Com . Hefler made a motion to adjourn.
Com . Arbus seconded the motion.
Ch. Heinrich adjourned the meeting at 10 : 10 P.M.
Respectfully submitted ,
' Oei"Xj —
Shirley Ba es ,
Recording Secretary
sb
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
August 17 , 1993 - Page Sixteen