Loading...
1993-09-21 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE , ILLINOIS TUESDAY , SEPTEMBER 21 , 1993 I . CALL TO ORDER Commissioner Michael Kearns called the meeting to order at 7 : 44 PM on Tuesday , September 21 , 1993 in Room 24 of the Alcott Community Center at 530 Bernard Drive . II . ROLL CALL Commissioners Present : M . Kearns , J . Paul , B . Entman , L . Windecker , L . Arbus and H . Hefler . Chairman R . Heinrich arrived at 8 : 55 PM Commissioners Absent : None . Bldg . Dept . Liaison : Edward Schar , Deputy Building Commissioner Village Board Liaison : Brian Rubin , Trustee Village Attorney : Richard Skelton III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES Com . Entman made a motion to table the minutes until after the business meeting . Com . Paul seconded the motion . Voice Vote : AYE Unanimously IV . OLD BUSINESS A . 720 Horatio Boulevard , Alan and Jennifer Auerbach Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts Tabled on June 15 , 1993 . Petitioners requested another postponement . Item will be rescheduled on October 19 , 1993 . B . 981 Cumberland Lane , Clayton and Shirley Bond Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 - Area , Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations ; Purpose - Construction of Addition Tabled on August 17 , 1993 . Motion to remove from Table was made by Com . Windecker and seconded by Com . Arbus . Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously . A different proposal has been submitted , so the new public hearing notice was read . Clayton and Shirley Bond were sworn in . Mr . Bond summarized their reasons for requesting a variance : 1 . The 2 , 200 square foot , 4 bedroom house has no basement or attic . 2 . They have two children and a parent who lives with them six ( 6 ) months of the year , so they need additional living space . Mr . Bond explained that they have reconsidered placement of the addition because the plan they submitted in August would impede the view from the their neighbor ' s house . They have submitted a new proposal for a 13 ' x 29 ' addition to be constructed. Plans have not been submitted because they did not want to spend any money until after the variance was granted . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Paul : No problem. The proposed location would have no detrimental effect on the neighbor ' s house. He asked if the materials used for the addition would be compatible with the existing house. Mr . Bond responded, "Yes . " Com. Windecker : Confirmed that the addition would not have a basement . He has no objections . Com. Arbus : No questions , comments or objections . Com. Hefler : No questions , comments or objections . Com. Entman: No questions , comments or objections . Ch. Kearns : No objections . Plans must be submitted to and approved by the Village before a permit will be issued . Village Engineer ' s Review, dated September 7 , 1993 , states : "The proposed addition will not affect the existing drainage pattern. Please advise the homeowner that no alteration of the grade within five feet (5 ' ) of the property line or swale is allowed . " Com. Paul made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by Clayton and Shirley Bond , 981 Cumberland 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 eight feet (8 ' ) into the required thirty foot (30 ' ) rear yard setback . Construction will be architecturally consistent with the construction of the house . Plans are to be submitted to and approved by the Village. Unique circumstances having been demonstrated , the proposed addition will alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Com. Hefler seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Entman, Hefler , Paul , Arbus , Windecker and Kearns NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . Permit may be issued in 15 days - October 7 , 1993 . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS September 21 , 1993 - Page Two V. NEW BUSINESS A. 1554 Countryside Drive , Darrell and Donna Chelcun Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 - Area, Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations . Purpose : Construction of Addition The public hearing notice was read. Mrs . Donna Chelcun was sworn in. She summarized the reasons for requesting a variance : 1 . They have 3 growing children and they need more living space . They also have a large dog. 2 . Moving would create a financial hardship and they prefer to stay where they are because the children are happy in school , etc . 3 . Mrs . Chelcun is very active in the Longfellow PTO and is serving a 2-year term as treasurer . The Chelcuns were granted a variance two years ago with the condition that the grade in the rear yard be restored , the tie-wall and plantings were also to be removed and relocated to the five foot (5 ' ) mark where they would not effect the drainage , per Village Engineer ' s Review, dated Oct . 1 , 1991 . This work has been done , but the addition was never built , because of personal reasons . They have now reapplied. The Village Engineer ' s Review , dated September 7 , 1993 , states : "The proposed addition will not affect the existing drainage pattern. Please advise the homeowner that no alter- ation of the grade within five feet (5 ' ) of the property line of swale is allowed. " The neighbor to the rear , Mr . Robert Brizzolara at 907 Whiting Lane , Arlington Heights , IL, was present . He has seen the plans and asked for confirmation that the drainage would not be affected. The grade is steep and he wondered where the water would go . Mrs . Chelcun replied that the water will flow into the swale and then drain to the north and west . The addition will have gutters that will direct the water into the swale . Mr . Schar confirmed that Mr . Kuenkler has inspected the rear yard and the swale has been properly restored. He said the ten foot ( 10 ' ) addition will not affect the drainage pattern. Mr . Brizzolara said he moved in two years ago and he is satisfied with the explanation he has been given regarding drainage. There were no other comments from the audience. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS September 21 , 1993 - Page Three Comments from Commissioners : Com. Paul : No objections . There is quite a bit of distance between the house and the neighbor ' s house to the rear . Com. Entman: Confirmed that there is an economic hardship and asked if the proposed addition is the same addition that was approved two years ago? Will it be two stories? Have they informed their neighbors of the proposed addition? Mrs . Chelcun said the two story addition is the same and their neighbors do not have any objections . Com. Hefler : No questions , comments or objections . Com. Entman: No questions , comments or objections . Com. Windecker : Recalled the previous variance and since the conditions have been met , he has no objections . Ch. Kearns : Ascertained that the construction materials will match and asked that the motion contain a reference to the drainage in response to Mr . Brizzolara ' s inquiry. Com. Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the variance requested by Darrell and Donna Chelcun, 1554 Countryside Drive , for variance of Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40.020 , pertaining to Area , Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations , for the purpose of constructing an addition that would encroach a distance of ten feet ( 10' ) into the required thirty five foot (35 ' ) rear yard setback. Materials are to match the existing construction in like kind and quality. Plans are to be submitted to and approved by the Village . Hardship and unique circumstances having been exhibited, the proposed addition will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The Village Engineer has reviewed the addition and has said it will not affect the existing drainage pattern. The grade is not to be altered within five feet (5 ' ) of the property line or the swale . Com. Entman seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Hefler , Entman, Paul , Windecker Arbus and Kearns NAY - None ABSTAIN - Heinrich (arrived during discussion) Motion Passed - 6 to 0 , 1 abstention. Findings of Fact attached . Permit may be issued in 15 days - October 7 , 1993 . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS September 21 , 1993 - Page Four B. 561 Castlewood Lane , Martin and Ruth Marion Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 20 .030 , Pertaining to : Building Height , Bulk and Lot Coverage Mrs . Ruth Marion, 561 Castlewood Lane , was sworn in and the public hearing notice was read . Mrs . Marion summarized the reasons for requesting a variance for the purpose of constructing a deck with a gazebo that would exceed the 20% rear yard coverage limitation and would be located closer than five feet (5 ' ) from the lot line : 1 . The rear yard is not level so they want to remove the existing 416 sq . ft . patio and 128 sq . ft . deck replace them with a wood deck , increasing the allow- able 654 sq . ft . rear yard coverage to 1 , 152 sq. ft . 2 . The rear yard is fenced in and the Marions have 2 small children who play in the yard but there is very little usable play area because of the slope. 3 . The house is located on a very busy corner and the bulk of the lot is in the front and side yards , but the fence is constructed along the building line so the rear yard is very small . 4 . Mrs . Marion' s handicapped sister uses a motorized wheelchair . When she visits it is necessary for her to be taken outside and around the house in order to gain access to the existing patio . 5 . The existing patio is not level and the only tree in the rear yard has roots that have grown on top of the ground. Additional concrete could kill the tree . The Marions purchased the house in the winter when yard was covered with snow, so they did not realize how much the terrain dropped off . The proposed deck would satisfy the family' s needs and allow more of the property to be utilized. The entire yard is fenced in so the deck will not be visible from the street . Drawings and photographs were submitted. Ch. Heinrich observed that the proposed deck would almost double the permitted square foot coverage . He asked if they have considered a smaller deck and if they have discussed the deck with their neighbors? Mrs . Marion responded that they have not discussed a smaller deck because anything smaller would not permit any more space to be used . The yard is really unusable and , as the children grow, they will need more space . They have shown the plans to all their neighbors and there have been no objections . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS September 21 , 1993 - Page Five Ch. Heinrich asked Mr . Schar about the five foot (5 ' ) lot line encroachment . Mr . Schar noted that the utility easement is along the side lot line , so the proposed deck would not encroach into an easement . A variance can be granted to permit construction four feet (4 ' ) from the lot line . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Paul said the size of the deck is not a problem because it is only two feet (2 ' ) off the ground. He objected to the six foot (6 ' ) fence that would be constructed on top of the deck , making it eight feet (8 ' ) in height just four feet (4 ' ) from the neighbor ' s property line . He would prefer a lower fence with some bushes to screen the deck . Mr . Skelton confirmed that Fence Code , Section 15 . 20.040 , permits a six foot (6 ' ) screen on top of a deck. Mrs . Marion said they are planning to plant bushes around the deck. Her husband took the plans next door ( 1070 Twisted Oak Lane) last weekend to explain exactly what they were planning to do and the neighbors did not object . Their neighbors at 551 Castlewood Lane may want a similar deck. Com. Windecker asked about the height of the gazebo? Mrs . Marion stipulated that the gazebo would be would not exceed fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) in height . Com. Arbus had no problem with the size of the deck and the height of the fence since the neighbors do not object . He noted the Village Engineer ' s Review, dated September 7 , 1993 , states : "The deck itself will not affect the existing drain- age : however , all soil will need to be removed from the property as the swales in the area are not very well defined . " Ch. Heinrich clarified the requirement means to remove all the dirt from the excavation in order to restore the swale . Com. Arbus said he drove around the neighborhood and the deck will improve the property. He asked how the deck will help Mrs . Marion' s sister? Mrs . Marion explained the deck will be level with the sliding doors from the kitchen and the wheel chair can be rolled out directly onto the deck . The model is a 4-bedroom Roxbury. Com. Kearns had no objections as long as they are going to plant bushes between the deck and the property line . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS September 21 , 1993 - Page Six Mrs . Marion said they will plant tall evergreens across the rear for added privacy. Com. Entman asked if the same section of the Zoning Ordinance applies to both variances? Yes , Section 17 . 20 . 030 , Sub-section I includes the 20% rear yard coverage and the distance to the lot line . The ZBA can recommend that the variance be granted by the Village Board and an Ordinance will be prepared. The total lot coverage will be approximately 37% and there is no limit to what size the Village Board can grant . Com. Hefler had no other questions or any objections . There were no comments from the audience . Com. Arbus made the following motion: I move we recommend that the Village Board of Trustees grant the request made by Martin and Ruth Marion, 561 Castlewood Lane , for variance of Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 20 . 030 , pertaining to Building Height , Bulk and Lot Coverage , for the purpose of constructing a deck with a gazebo that would exceed the 20% rear yard coverage limitation and would be located closer than five feet (5 ' ) to the lot line . Petitioner has demonstrated unique circumstances and the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Conditions : a. Deck not to exceed 1 , 152 square feet and not be constructed closer than four feet (4 ' ) to the rear lot line. b. Gazebo not to exceed fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) height . c . Petitioner is to comply with the Village Engineer ' s requirement to remove all soil (excavated earth) from the property. d . The swales are to be kept well-defined , or restored to a well-defined condition. e . Deck to be constructed according to plans submitted to and approved by the Village Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Kearns , Entman, Hefler , Paul , Windecker , Arbus and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 7 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. Item will be placed on the October 4 , 1993 Village Board Consent Agenda. Permit not be issued before October 7 , 1993 . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS September 21 , 1993 - Page Seven C. 280 Melinda Lane , Michael and Julie Miranda Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 20.040 , Area , Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations - Purpose : Construction of Front Porch The public hearing notice was read and Mr . Michael Miranda was sworn in. He summarized the reasons for requesting a variance for the purpose of constructing a roofed-over front porch that would encroach a distance of five feet (5 ' ) into the required twenty-five foot (25 ' ) front yard setback: 1 . The proposed porch will enhance their ranch style house and would add value to the property. Other homes on the block have similar porches . 2 . They have no place to sit in front unless they bring chairs into the front yard . They could have a bench on the porch. 3 . There is a 2 ' eave over the porch that would protect the front windows from rain. The neighbors have been informed and do not object . Comments from Commissioners : Ch. Heinrich said front yard varianced are not encouraged by the ZBA but the porch will improve the house . Com. Paul : Agreed the porch will improve the neighborhood. Com. Windecker : Agreed . Com. Arbus : A fine addition. Com. Kearns : No objections . Com. Entman: No questions . Com. Hefler : Will add value the house and improve the neighborhood. No questions or comments from the audience . Com. Entman made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by Michael and Julie Miranda , 280 Melinda Lane , for variance of Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 , pertaining to Area , Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations , for the purpose of constructing a roofed-over front porch that would encroach a distance of five feet (5 ' ) into the required twenty-five foot (25 ' ) setback . Materials for the proposed porch are to match the existing house as much as possible in like kind and quality. Plans and specifications are to be approved by the Village . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS September 21 , 1993 - Page Eight Petitioner having exhibited unique circumstances , the proposed roofed-over front porch will upgrade the essential character of the neighborhood. Com. Hefler seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Paul , Windecker , Arbus , Kearns , Entman, Hefler and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 7 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in 15 days - October 7 , 1993 . Petitioner was advised that construction may not be started without a permit . D. 322 Gardenia Lane , Ken and Rani Crouse Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 .040 - Residential Districts Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 20 . 030 , Pertaining to: Building Height , Bulk and Lot Coverage Mrs . Rani Crouse , 322 Gardenia Lane , was sworn in and the public hearing notice was read . She summarized their reasons for requesting variance of the Fence Code and the Zoning Ordinance : 1 . They have an existing four foot (4 ' ) picket fence constructed along the building line and they want to extend the fence to a distance of three feet (3 ' ) from the sidewalk to enable them to construct a deck that would permit more functional use of their yard . 2 . The house has a long , narrow family/living room and they plan to have a family so they will need more controlled space in the rear yard . 3 . They have a dog that uses the grassy area and the deck would permit children to be separated from the area in which the dog plays , etc. 4 . They purchased the house recently with the intention to construct a deck , but they were not aware of the Ordinance until they submitted building plans . Mrs . Jackie Walton, 321 Gardenia Lane , was present . She lives across the street from the Crouses and came to support the proposal . She said the deck will improve the property. The Village Engineer ' s Review , dated September 7 , 1993 , states : "The deck will not affect the drainage pattern. The proposed fence construction will not reduce the line of sight . The abutting property is a far side driveway, and the fence should be set back five feet (5 ' ) . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS September 21 , 1993 - Page Nine Ch. Heinrich observed that narrow side yard is a unique circumstance , but the petitioners are creating their hardship by the size of the proposed deck, which makes the rear yard smaller . He objected to the fence being five feet (5 ' ) from the sidewalk and proposed a distance of seven feet (7 ' ) or about 1/2 the distance between building line and the sidewalk . Mrs . Crouse noted that the Village Engineer recommended a five foot (5 ' ) setback and she asked why that was not enough? Ch. Heinrich explained that the Village Engineer only does a line of sight review that relates to traffic safety but he does not determine placement . The ZBA is responsible for the establishment of fence location. The four foot (4 ' ) height and open picket style are acceptable or he would want the fence to be set back farther from the sidewalk. Ch. Heinrich asked Mr . Schar to request that Mr . Kuenkler reword his reviews so that they only indicate the line of sight and not state "should be set back , etc . " It would be more appropriate to stipulate a minimum distance . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Paul said he has no objections to the proposed deck because it is low , but he objected to the location of the fence because it would be the only fence along Crown Point Dr . All the other houses face Crown Point Drive . He proposed the fence to be located a distance of 8 ' to 10' from the sidewalk. Mrs . Crouse disputed the various fence locations , saying the distance has gone from 5 ' to 7 ' and now from 8 ' to 10 ' . She commented that the neighbors have a hedge which is close to the height of the fence and so the fence would not hinder the sight of pedestrians . Com. Paul responded that the Village does not require permits for bushes but if the hedge becomes a problem the Village can require trimming or removal . The fence is permanent and could become a liability to the Village and to the property owners . Com. Windecker said he had no problem with the deck but the fence should be setback about 7-1/2 feet . Com. Arbus asked if the neighbors at 503 Crown Point Drive have been informed of the proposed fence because it would be in their front yard. Mrs . Crouse said she has not talked to them, but her husband may have . These are the neighbors that have the high hedge . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS September 21 , 1993 - Page Ten Mrs . Walton said she has talked to these neighbors and they are in favor of the fence . She noted that the common area to the rear prohibits any fencing so the Crouses are the only ones permitted to have a fence . Com. Arbus said the deck will improve the yard . He will agree with the consensus of the Board as to placement of the fence . Com. Kearns had no objections to the deck , but said the bushes could be removed someday and he would want the fence located half the distance between the building line and property line . Com. Entman agreed with Com. Kearns ' proposed fence location. The lot is small and he understands the petitioner ' s desire to use as much space as possible . The ZBA looks at the public health, safety and welfare of the neighbors . Com. Hefler reluctantly agreed with the suggested location of the fence. Com. Heinrich asked if the Commissioners would agreed to permit the fence to be seven feet (7 ' ) from the sidewalk? There were no objections . Mrs . Crouse amended the petition to construct the fence a distance of seven feet (7 ' ) from the sidewalk. She mentioned she had never met Mrs . Walton and appreciated her coming. Mrs . Walton commented that she came because the previous owners moved after the ZBA denied their petition for an addition. They do not want to lose any more nice people . Ch. Heinrich thanked her for coming to the meeting. Mr . Skelton indicated that two separate motions are necessary because the deck requires Village Board approval by Ordinance . Com. Kearns made the following motion: I move we grant the petition of Ken and Rani Crouse , 322 Gardenia Lane , for variance of the Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 , pertaining to Residential Districts , for the purpose of constructing a four foot (4 ' ) wood picket fence past the building line . Said fence to be located a distance of seven feet (7 ' ) from the sidewalk and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare . Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Paul , Windecker , Arbus , Kearns , Entman, Hefler and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 7 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in 15 days - October 7 , 1993 . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS September 21 , 1993 - Page Eleven Com. Paul made the following motion: I move we recommend that the Village Board grant the request of Ken and Rani Crouse , 322 Gardenia Lane , for variance of 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, with the condition that the deck is not to exceed 624 square feet , pursuant to Exhibit A, as submitted. Unique circumstances having been demonstrated the proposed deck will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood . Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Hefler , Entman, Kearns , Arbus , Windecker , Paul and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 7 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. Item will be placed on the October 4 , 1993 Village Board Consent Agenda. Permit not to be issued before Oct . 7 , 1993 . VII . ANNOUNCEMENTS APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1 . April 20 , 1993 - Motion to approve as submitted made by Com. Kearns and seconded by Com. Arbus . Roll Call Vote : AYE - Kearns , Paul , Entman, Arbus , Hefler NAY - None ABSTAIN - Heinrich, Windecker Motion Passed - 5 to 0 , 2 abstentions ; April Minutes Approved. 2 . May 18 , 1993 - Motion to approve as submitted made by Com. Paul and seconded by Com. Kearns . Roll Call Vote : AYE - Kearns , Entman, Windecker , Heinrich NAY - None ABSTAIN - Heinrich, Paul , Arbus Motion Passed - 4 to 0 , 3 abstentions ; May Minutes Approved. 3 . June 15 , 1993 - Motion to approve as submitted made by Com. Windecker and seconded by Com. Arbus . Roll Call Vote: AYE - Kearns , Paul , Windecker , Arbus NAY - None ABSTAIN - Heinrich, Entman, Hefler Motion Passed - 4 to 0 , 3 abstentions : June Minutes Approved. 4 . August 17 , 1993 - Motion to approve as submitted made by Com. Windecker and seconded by Com. Hefler . Roll Call Vote : AYE - Heinrich, Entman, Windecker , Arbus , Hefler NAY - None ABSTAIN - Kearns , Paul Motion Passed - 5 to 0 , 2 abstentions ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS September 21 , 1993 - Page Twelve Chairman Heinrich announced that the Village Board upheld the ZBA denial of the fence as requested by Daniel and Roberta Racinowski , 902 Hilldale Lane . Mr . Schar announced that Mr . John Dempsey, Assistant Village Planner , has computerized all the lots in the entire Village and will be providing location plats for all future ZBA variances . John was sincerely thanked for this helpful service . VIII . ADJOURNMENT Com. Kearns made a motion to adjourn. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously. Ch. Heinrich adjourned the meeting at 9: 05 P.M. Respectfully submitted , Shirley Bate Recording Secretary ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS September 21 , 1993 - Page Thirteen