Loading...
1993-10-19 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE , ILLINOIS TUESDAY , OCTOBER 19 , 1993 I . CALL TO ORDER Chairman Richard Heinrich called the Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing to order at 7 : 40 P . M . on Tuesday , October 19 , 1993 in Room 24 of the Alcott Community Center , 530 Bernard Drive . II . ROLL CALL Commissioners Present : B . Entman , L . Windecker , L . Arbus , H . Hefler and R . Heinrich QUORUM PRESENT . Commissioners Absent : M . Kearns and J . Paul Bldg . Dept . Liaison : Edward Schar , Deputy Building Commissioner Village Board Liaison : Brian Rubin , Trustee Village Attorney : Richard Skelton III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 21 , 1993 - Motion to approve was made by Com . Entman and seconded by Com . Hefler . Corrections : Ch . Heinrich had arrived at 7 : 55 P . M . ( not 8 : 55 P . M . ) Page Two : Last sentence of the Bond motion - insert the word NOT - s/b " addition will NOT alter the essential character of the neighborhood . Top of Page Nine : Last sentence of the Miranda motion should read : " proposed roofed-over front porch will not alter the essential character of the neighbor- hood . Ch . Heinrich added : " It will upgrade the neighborhood . " Roll Call Vote : AYE - Hefler , Entman , Windecker , Arbus , Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 5 to 0 . September 21 , 1993 were approved with corrections as noted and will be placed on file . IV . OLD BUSINESS A . 720 Horatio Boulevard , Alan and Jennifer Auerbach Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Construction of a six foot ( 6 ' ) fence and a five foot ( 5 ' ) fence past building line . Mr . and Mrs . Auerbach were not present . Item discussed at the end of the public hearing . ( See Announcements - Pg . 7 ) V . NEW BUSINESS A . Michael and Erin Levi , 2885 Roslyn Court Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts Five foot ( 5 ' ) fence past building line along Roslyn Lane , Mr . Levi was sworn in and the Public Hearing Notice was read . Mr . Levi summarized the reasons for requesting a fence that would extend past the building line along Roslyn Lane : 1 . The house fronts on the cul-de-sac and the garage is setback thirty feet (30 ' ) so the rear yard is shortened . 2 . A fence past the building line along Roslyn Lane would extend the usable yard area and provide safety for their two young children. The Village Engineer ' s Review , dated October 5 . 1993 . states : The limiting factor at the intersection is the principal structure itself . The abutting property is a near side drive- way and the fence should be set back not less than ten feet ( 10 ' ) from the sidewalk . Ch. Heinrich explained Mr . Kuenkler ' s reference to the near side driveway. The set back distance would have to be a minimum of ten feet ( 10 ' ) from the sidewalk or it would restrict the view of the neighbors exiting their driveway . He said it is unusual for a cui-de-sac lot to have this kind of side yard . He asked if they have talked to the neighbors? (Most of them had been informed , but not the ones next door . ) Mr . and Mrs . Satish Sura , 2875 Roslyn Lane , were present . They are the neighbors with the abutting driveway . They were shown the plat of survey and the proposed fence was described . The Suras expressed concern about the fence being in their front yard . They would not oppose a fence constructed up to the end of the house . Mr . Levi asked if they would be permitted to have a three foot (3 ' ) fence? Ch. Heinrich informed him that it could not be a continuous fence and would have to be separated every thirty feet ( 30 ' ) . Such fences are considered to be ornamental fences . not security fences . Comments from Commissioners : Com . Windecker : Could not support the proposed fence because it would block the view of the neighbors . Com . Arbus : The fence would affect the entire length of Roslyn Lane because all the other houses front on Roslyn Lane . He observed that the petitioners have a large lot with a small rear yard . He would not object to a fence that would extend five feet (5 ' ) from the house to permit a gate into the yard. Mrs . Levi asked if they could plant shrubs? She was informed that there is no ordinance regulating land- scaping , but the Village has the authority to have bushes trimmed . Liability is also a concern for the homeowner . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 19 . 1993 - Page Two Com. Entman: Agreed that the lot is most unusual . He would support Com. Arbus ' proposal and permit a fence into the side yard far enough to install a gate . Com. Hefler : Concurred with the previous comments . The pro- posed fence would be detrimental to the neighbor ' s view and would affect the entire length of Roslyn Lane . He agreed to a variance that would permit a gate in the side yard . Ch. Heinrich would also support a variance to permit a gate but , since there is no side door facing Roslyn Lane . recom- mended that the fence only extend from the rear of the house . Mr . and Mrs . Sura were informed of the ZBA' s recommendation and they agreed that such a fence would be acceptable . Mr . and Mrs . Levi agreed to amend their petition and requested a variance to extend a five foot (5 ' ) wood fence a distance of five feet (5 ' ) from the rear of the house along Roslyn Ln. Com. Arbus made the following motion: I move we grant the request of Michael and Erin Levi . 2885 Roslyn Court , 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 extend past the building line along Roslyn Lane . Fence to be constructed a distance of five feet (5 ' ) from the southwest corner of the house and extend to the rear lot line . Petitioners having demonstrated that the fence would not be detrimental to the neighborhood and would not be detrimental to the public health. safety and welfare . Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman. Hefler . Arbus , Windecker and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 5 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . Permit may be issued in 15 days . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 19 , 1993 - Page Three B. 495 Chatham Circle , Robert Moon and Christine Tangney Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 32 . 020 Location of Accessory Buildings and Structures Mr . Moon was sworn in and the Public Hearing Notice was read . Mr . Moon summarized the reasons for requesting a variance for the purpose of constructing a deck that would exceed the 20% rear yard coverage limitation: 1 . The rear yard slopes away from the house . 2 . No level space for a patio or patio furniture . 3 . They have a 2-year old daughter who needs a play area. 4 . The size of the deck will be 486 square feet , approximately 10 square feet over the permitted 476 square feet of rear yard coverage . Mr . Moon said they have discussed the proposed deck with their neighbors and there have been no objections . The Village Engineer ' s Review , dated October 5 , 1993 , states : "The proposed deck will not affect the existing drainage pattern. No alteration of the grade within five feet (5 ' ) of the property line or swale is allowed . " The Commissioners had no questions or comments . There were no comments from the audience . Com. Windecker made the following motion: I move we recommend that the Village Board of Trustees GRANT the request of Robert D. Moon and Christine Tangney , 495 Chatham Circle , for variance of Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 32 . 020 , pertaining to Location of Accessory Buildings and Structures for the purpose of constructing a deck that would exceed the 20% rear yard coverage limitation by ten ( 10) square feet . Petitioners having demonstrated unique circumstances the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood . Com. Hefler seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman , Hefler . Arbus , Windecker and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 5 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . Item will be on the Consent Agenda at the November 1 , 1993 Village Board meeting . Permit may be issued Nov. 4 , 1993 . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 19 , 1993 - Page Four C . 950 Shady Grove Lane , Donald and Barbara Crawford Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - 8 foot fence along Rt . 83 Mr . Donald Crawford was sworn in and the Public Hearing Notice was read . Mr . Crawford summarized the reasons for requesting a variance for the purpose of constructing an eight foot (8 ' ) wood fence along the rear lot line abutting IL Route 83 . 1 . The rear yard of their lot abuts IL Rt . 83 which is under construction and being widened to a 4-lane highway. 2 . The home was a model and was built up higher than the surrounding houses , so there is a two foot (2 ' ) drop from the rear of the house to the fence . 3 . They want to replace a 95 ' section of the existing six foot (6 ' ) chain link fence with an eight foot (8 ' ) stockade fence to reduce the traffic noise and sight of the cars on the road . The Village Engineer ' s Line-of-Sight Review, dated October 5 , 1993 states : "The proposed replacement fence does not con- flict with the desired sight distance . " Ch . Heinrich said he is familiar with the intersection and had no problem with the request . He asked Mr . Crawford if he has discussed the proposed fence with his neighbors? Mr . Crawford replied that they have informed all their neighbors and there have been no objections . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Hefler : Observed that the house has a 3-car garage and the proposed fence would encroach into the original side yard. He agreed the intersection is very busy and has no objections . Com. Entman: No problem. Asked where the fence will end? Mr . Crawford explained that the wood fence will end even with the new building line . The existing chain link fence will remain at the corner , beginning where the proposed 95 foot length of wood fence ends , and continue along Checker Drive . After discussing whether the proposed fence would be con- structed past the building line or not , Mr . Skelton acceded to the fact that the publication notice correctly stated that the fence would be constructed along the rear lot line and the side yard requirement would not be applicable . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 19 , 1993 - Page Five Com . Windecker : No problem. Asked if they were going to keep the tree? Mr . Crawford said they want to keep the tree , but the limb that is growing over the fence will be cut off . Com. Arbus : No problem. Questioned whether the fence would be disturbed during road construction? Mr . Crawford responded that if they wait for the County to finish the road , he may never have the fence and the noise is very disturbing . If it is damaged , it will have to be repaired. Com. Entman made the following motion: I move we grant the petition of Donald and Barbara Crawford , 950 Shady Grove Lane , for variance of Fence Code , Section 15 . 20. 040 , pertaining to Residential Districts , for the purpose of constructing an eight foot (8 ' ) wood privacy fence along the rear lot line abutting IL Route 83 . Said fence will be constructed from the northeast corner of the lot on Rt . 83 along the rear lot line to a distance at the point of intersection of the imaginary line running perpendicular from the northwest corner of the building along Checker Drive . Fence to be constructed according to plans and specifications approved by the Village , located as identified , pursuant to Ex . A. Petitioner having exhibited that the proposed variance and construction of this fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare . Com . Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Heller , Entman, Windecker , Arbus and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 5 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . Permit may be issued in 15 days - November 4 , 1993 . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 19 , 1993 - Page Six VI . ANNOUNCEMENTS A. 720 Horatio Boulevard , Alan and Jennifer Auerbach Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts Construction of 6 foot fence tapered to 5 foot fence past the building line along Parkchester Road. Item was Tabled on September 21 , 1993 . Com. Windecker made a motion to remove from Table . Com . Entman seconded the motion. Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously The petitioners were not present and the request has been Tabled for several months . The Commissioners agreed to Table one more time . Com . Windecker made a motion to Table until November 16 , 1993 . Com. Entman seconded the motion. Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously Ch. Heinrich directed that the Auerbachs be given final notice that their petition will not be continued again. VII . ADJOURNMENT Com. Entman made a motion to adjourn. Com. Hefler seconded the motion. Ch. Heinrich adjourned the meeting at 8 : 40 P.M. Respectfully submitted Shirley Bates Recording Secretary ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 19 , 1993 - Page Seven