1994-07-19 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE , ILLINOIS
TUESDAY, JULY 19 , 1994
I . CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Richard Heinrich called the meeting to order at
7 : 40 P .M. on Tuesday , July 19 , 1994 in the Council Chambers
of the Village Hall , 50 Raupp Boulevard.
II . ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present : J. Paul , B . Entman , L . Windecker ,
H . Hefler, L. Arbus and R. Heinrich.
Commissioners Absent : M. Kearns
Bldg . Dept. Liaison: Edward Schar ,
Deputy Building Commissioner
Village Board Liaison: John Marienthal , Trustee
III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES
June 21 , 1994 - Motion to approve was made by Com. Windecker
and seconded by Com. Entman .
No additions or corrections .
Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman, Paul , Windecker , Heinrich
NAY - None
ABSTAIN - Hefler and Arbus
Motion Passed - 4 to 0 , 1 abstention
Minutes of June 21 , 1994 were approved as submitted.
IV. BUSINESS
A. 750 Essington Lane , Lawrence M. and Karen R. Preston
Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020
Purpose : Construction of screen room
Mr . Lawrence Preston was sworn in and the public
hearing notice was read . Mr . Preston summarized the
reasons for requesting a variance for the purpose of
constructing a screen room;
They have a Buckingham model and the rear of the lot
abuts Willow Grove School and Park District property .
The screen room would be constructed a distance of sixteen
feet ( 16 ' ) from the house and encroach a distance of 9 ' 8 "
into the required 30 ' rear yard setback . Without the
variance they would only be able to build a six foot
(6 ' ) porch and that would not be sufficient.
They have informed all their neighbors and there have
been no objections . Their next door neighbors offered to
come with them, but he did not think it was necessary.
Comments from Commissioners:
Com. Paul: Considering the location, no problem.
Com. Windecker: Confirmed that the screen room will be
the size of the existing patio. Piers will be put in and
a wood deck constructed on top. No objections.
Com. Arbus: No objections.
Com. Hefler: No objections.
Com. Entman: No objections.
No comments from the audience.
Com. Arbus made the following motion:
I move we grant the request of Lawrence M. and
Karen R. Preston, 750 Essington Lane, for variance
of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.40.020, pertaining
to Area, Height, Bulk and Placement Regulations,
for the purpose of constructing a screen room that
would encroach a distance of nine feet eight inches
(9 ' 8") into the required thirty foot (30 ' ) rear
yard setback. Unique circumstances having been
established, the proposed variance will not alter
the essential character of the neighborhood.
Com. Paul seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote: AYE - Hefler, Entman, Paul, Windecker,
Arbus and Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 6 to 0. Findings of Fact Attached.
Permit may be issued in 15 days, after August 4 , 1994.
B. 284 Timberhill Road, Harold and Helen Cavins
Municipal Code, Section 15. 20 .040 - Residential Districts
Purpose: Construction of a six foot (6 ' ) wood fence
Harold and Helen Cavins were sworn in and the public
hearing notice was read. Mrs. Cavins summarized their
reasons for requesting a variance for the purpose of
constructing a six foot (6 ' ) wood fence:
1. They want to replace the existing six foot (6 ' ) wood
fence was there when they purchased the house in 1978.
It is deteriorating, leaning and in need of repair
and they want to replace it.
2. Their neighbors at 274 Timberhill have a swimming pool
that is used by their teen age children. The fence
provides needed privacy for both families and helps
reduce the noise.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
July 19 , 1994 - Page Two
3. He has talked to all their neighbors and none of
them object to the replacement of the six foot (6 ' )
fence.
Ch. Heinrich confirmed that the original fence was
constructed before the Fence Code was adopted.
Comments from Commissioners:
Com. Hefler: No questions.
Com. Entman: No problem if the neighbors do not object.
Com. Paul: No objections if only replacement.
Com. Windecker: Asked if the style would be the same?
Mr. Cavins responded that the existing fence is a
stockade but they want a gothic, no higher than 6 feet.
Com. Windecker: No problem.
Com. Arbus: No problem.
No comments from the audience.
Com. Windecker made the following motion:
I move we grant the request of Harold E. and
Helen L. Cavins, for variance of Municipal Code,
Section 15 .20. 040 , pertaining to Residential
Districts, for the purpose of constructing a
six foot (6 ' ) wood fence surrounding the rear
yard to replace an existing six foot (6 ' ) wood
fence.
Unique circumstances having been established,
the proposed fence would not be detrimental to
to the public health, safety and welfare.
Com. Hefler seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote: AYE - Hefler, Entman, Paul, Windecker,
Arbus and Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 6 to 0. Findings of Fact Attached.
Permit may be issued in 15 days after August 4, 1994.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
July 19, 1994 - Page Three
C. 1802 Brandywyn Lane, Ishfaq and Nancy Niazi
Municipal Code, Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts
Purpose: Construction of 5 ' and 6 ' fence past the building
line along Brandywyn Lane at the corner of Aptakisic Road
Mr. Ishfaq Niazi was sworn in and the puiblic hearing notice
was read. Mr. Niazi summarized the reasons for requesting a
variance for the purpose of constructing a five foot (5 ' ) and
six foot (6 ' ) wood fence that would extend past the building
line along Brandywyn Lane at the corner of Aptakisic Road:
1 . The existing six foot (6 ' ) fence along Aptakisic Road
would be extended to meet a six foot (6 ' ) fence along
Brandywyn Lane that would be twenty feet (20 ' ) from
the building line and a five foot (5 ' ) fence extending
from the garage (One foot (1 ' ) north of the exit door)
to the six foot (6 ' ) fence on Brandywyn Lane.
2. The intersection is very busy and the fence will
provide privacy and safety for their two children and
will be a noise barrier also.
3 . They want to provide landscaping inside the fence area
and a fence along the building line will not allow
enough space for the bushes.
The Village Engineer' s Line-of-Sight Review, dated June 12, 1994
states: The fence does not appear to affect the sight distance,
but an accurate drawing has not been submitted. If the fence is
proposed to be ten (10 ' ) feet west of the Brandywyn sidewalk and
an extension of the existing fence along Aptakisic, it would be
acceptable.
Ch. Heinrich asked Mr. Niazi if he has talked to his neighbors
about the fence?
Mr. Niazi said he has informed the 3 or 4 closest neighbors and
they have no objections.
Ch. Heinrich observed that this would be the first fence in the
area and it is the entrance to the subdivision.
Comments from Commissioners:
Com. Paul: Said this will be the only fence along Brandywyn.
He observed that the yard slopes down and a fence at the
proposed location would give them less privacy. He objected
to a six foot (6 ' ) fence in the side yard. He proposed a fence
that would be located a distance of ten feet (10 ' ) from the house
and a height of five feet (5 ' ) . A five foot (5 ' ) fence closer
to the house would give them more privacy and less noise.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
July 19, 1994 - Page Four
Com. Windecker: Agreed the slope along Brandywyn is steep and
said he would not approve a six foot (6 ' ) fence. He would permit
a variance for a five foot (5 ' ) fence, ten feet (10 ' ) from the
house.
Com. Arbus: Also observed the slope and said he would be
reluctant to grant any variance. The closer the fence is to the
garage, the more privacy the family would have. He would not
grant a variance for a six foot (6 ' ) fence and not much past the
building line. They would still have a large rear yard.
Com. Entman: Objected to a six foot (6 ' ) fence. A five foot
(5 ' ) fence would provide the safety and privacy they are seeking.
The plat shows a rear yard of over seventy feet (70) and that is
larger than the average size rear yard. There is a slope and the
lot is at the entrance (exit) to the subdivision. There are no
other fences along Brandywyn Lane. He was hesitant to permit a
fence to go beyond the building line and no variance is needed for
a five foot (5 ' ) fence.
Com. Hefler: Agreed with Commissioners Arbus and Entman. The
yard is very large. He has always been opposed to side yard
fences on corner lots and the petitioners do not have a hardship
relative to the size of the lot. Privacy will be achieved with
a five foot (5 ' ) fence and the ZBA is not obliged to the confine
the neighborhood with a fence out into the side yard.
Mr. Niazi said that a fence along the building line would not
permit him any room to open the garage door, because the building
line is only about three feet (3 ' ) away from the garage door.
They could not put a deck or bushes on that side of the yard.
They want landscaping to help reduce the traffic noise.
Ch. Heinrich explained that a fence closer to the house would
provide more privacy and there would be less street noise because
the street is at a lower level than the side yard.
Com. Paul suggested putting the bushes on the outside of the
fence, but Mr. Niazi said they wanted to be able to enjoy the
landscaping.
Ch. Heinrich would permit a fence five feet (5 ' ) in height and
would permit a variance for the fence to be located a distance
of ten feet (10 ' ) from the house.
A poll was taken to ascertain the other Commissioner' s opinions:
Com. Hefler: Six feet (6 ' ) from the house.
Com. Paul: Eight feet (8 ' ) from the house would be one
fence length and permit space for a gate.
Com. Entman: Eight feet (8 ' ) from the house.
Com. Windecker: Eight feet (8 ' ) from the house would be OK.
Com. Arbus: Eight feet (8 ' ) from the house would be OK.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
July 19, 1994 - Page Five
The traffic situation was discussed. Mr. Niazi said there have
been two accidents in the last month from traffic coming from
Brandywyn out to Aptakisic Road. He would agree to lower the
height of the fence along Brandywyn Lane to five feet (5 ' ) .
Ch. Heinrich informed Mr. Niazi of his options:
1 . Amend the petition - Construct a five foot (5 ' )
wood fence located eight feet (8 ' ) from the
building line.
2. The request could be Tabled until August 16, 1994.
3 . Ask for a vote on the original petition.
Mr. Niazi considered the options and asked for a vote on the
petition as requested.
No comments from the audience.
Coma Entman made the following motion:
I move the request of Ishfaq and Nancy Niazi,
1802 Brandywyn Lane, fo variance of the Municipal
Code, Section 15 . 20. 040, pertaining to Residential
Districts, for the purpose of constructing a five
foot (5 ' ) and six foot (6 ' ) wood fence that would
extend past the building line along Brandywyn Lane
at the corner of Aptakisic Road, be granted as
submitted by the petitioner.
Said fence would not be detrimental to the public
health, safety and welfare.
Com. Windecker seconded the motion.
Added for the record: Petitioner has not shown unique circum-
stances and the proposed placement of the fence would limit his
privacy based on the slope of the yard. This is a very large
yard without a variance.
Roll Call Vote: AYE - None
NAY - Hefler, Entman, Paul,
Windecker, Arbus and Heinrich
Variance DENIED - 6 to 0.
Petitioner was informed of his right to appeal the decision
to the Village Board of Trustees. A written request must be
submitted to the Director of Building and Zoning within 15
days. The item would be put on the Village Board Agenda of the
next appropriate meeting after the appeal is filed.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
July 19 , 1994 - Page Six
D. 2916 Whispering Oaks Drive, Walter and Joan Osterman
Municipal Code, Section 15 . 20. 040 - Residential Districts
Purpose: Construction of an eight foot (8 ' ) wood fence
fence that would extend a distance of thirty feet (30 ' )
along the interior lot line.
Walter and Joan Osterman were sworn in andthe public hearing
notice was read. Mr. Osterman summarized their reasons for
requesting a variance:
1 . This is the third summer that they have been
disturbed by the noise from their neighbor' s
air conditioner.
2. The Ostermans are "deck" people and the neighbors
are "air conditioner" people. Their a/c runs
constantly from May through September.
3 . The neighbor' s yard is higher than the Osterman' s
yard and the proximity of the air conditioner is
approximately 30 inches above their property.
4 . The two houses form an echo chamber and the noise
continuous.
Mr. Osterman said they tried planting a tree line to buffer
the noise so they put in four Blue Spruce trees but this did
not help much.
They have discussed the situation with their neighbor and
suggested that he call 1-800-CARRIER to have a sound barrier
put up or put some bushes around the air conditioner. The
neighbor did nothing so the Osterman' s have decided to try
a wood fence. They submitted a "Guide on Evaluation and
Attenuation of Traffic Noise, March 1985) with their applica-
tion and copies have been distributed to the Commissioners.
Mrs. Osterman said she has done some research at the library
and described the digram on page 2 of the Guide. One way to
accomplish their goal would be to plant a 100 foot deep tree
barrier fifteen feet (15 ' ) in height. A fence could be put
up such as are seen along the interstate highways.
Photographs were submitted showing the grade difference.
Mrs. Osterman is 5 ' 4" and in order to get the barrier high
enough, they have been advised by contractors that an eight
foot (8 ' ) fence thirty feet (30 ' ) in length would be sufficient.
This would cover the area east of the air conditioner and past
the end of the deck area.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
July 19 , 1994 - Page Seven
Ch. Heinrich commented that this is a unique circumstance.
The effect of an eight foot (8 ' ) fence would be the same
aesthetically, as building a wall. He asked what Carrier
could do to attunuate the sound?
Mr. Osterman replied that Carrier offers a product and he has
talked to his neighbor 4 or 5 times, but he cannot force him
to purchase the device. What he can do is put in bushes and
construct a fence.
Ch. Heinrich asked if the neighbor understands that this fence
is being proposed and would he not prefer to have something
around the unit?
Mr. Osterman said if action has not been taken in over three
(3) years - that' s it!
Ch. Heinrich asked if the ZBA has the authority to grant a
variance for an eight foot (8 ' ) fence? Mr. Schar said "yes. "
Comments from Commissioners:
Com. Hefler: The question is do we want an eight foot (8 ' )
fence? This is the first time he can recall such a request.
It was determined that the distance between the two houses is
about 45 feet. The Osterman' s have a 25 to 30 foot side yard
between the house and the property line and their neighbors have
less distance.
Mrs. Osterman said the fence would be eight feet (8 ' ) in height
on their side of the yard, but it would not be as high on their
neighbor' s side. The bushes are about five feet (5 ' ) high and
would lessen the visual impact of the fence.
Mr. Osterman said the Blue Spruce will grow to a height of
about ten feet (10 ' ) and he did not think the fence would
affect the resale of the house.
Com. Hefler asked if there are any extenuating circumstances
or is this a normal Carrier air conditioner? Is there a unique
circumstance that justifies the request realtive to air cond-
itioner units in general.
Ch. Heinrich responded that it depends on the placement. He
has a Carrier unit that is a lot closer to his neighbor' s house
than this one is, but the air conditioner faces his neighbor' s
garage and there is no deck. The location of the Osterman' s
neighbor' s air conditioner is a mitigating circumstance.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
July 19, 1994 - Page Eight
Com. Hefler recalled that at one time his air conditioner was
about four feet (4 ' ) from the lot line and the neighbor' s house
was about seven feet (7 ' ) from the lot line. The air conditioner
was loud, but it was normal and there was nothing that could be
done about it. No matter what is said, a fence such as the
proposed fence would set a precedent. True, all requests are
treated separately and differently and uniquely. The question
is whether this request is justified? These houses are fairly
far apart, farther apart than most of the houses in Buffalo
Grove. If we view this as not unique, this air conditioner is
not louder than others, and there is a lot of difference in
elevations at the north end of town. He can sympathize, but
throwing up a sound barrier because of an air conditioner that
is more than thirty-five feet from their house may not the
answer. Is the question an issue for the Zoning Board or is
it an issue for another forum? If all air conditioners are
causing an all air conditioner situation then must all air con-
ditioners be changed? That would be a manufacturing situation.
Mr. Osterman described uniqueness of the situation as the echo
effect of the air conditioner because of the proximity of their
deck, the grade difference, and the amount of time that it runs.
Their (Ostermans) air conditioner runs approximately two (2)
weeks of the year when the weather is hot, like it has been,
but their neighbors like it cool for along period of time.
A five foot (5 ' ) or six foot (6 ' ) fence will do no good at all
and they cannot fit one hundred (100 ' ) feet of bushes between
the houses.
The Ostermans said they were open for suggestions. They have
explored a number of possibilities. They have had a lot of
discussion with their neighbors, but no action. This is the
only way they can act independently. The neighbors are very
attentive to the discussions and receptive to talk, but no
action. Mr. Osterman said they could pay for bushes to
surround the air conditioner unit, but he cannot put them in.
The Osterman' s elderly parents are frequent visitors and it is
difficult to hold a conversation on the deck. They feel like
they must do something to alleviate the noise.
Com. Entman: Speculated whether this is a unique problem that
exists? Is this the loudest air conditioner that was ever
manufactured? Is is a problem that is going to occur? He has
an aversion to any noise. He can hear the traffic from Arling-
ton Heights Road from his house even with several houses and a
street in between. If not air conditioners, lawn mowers and
other nuisances can be annoying every day. Is there a legal
remedy? He does not know what remedy there is. Asked if the
Ostermans have talked to their neighbor since the petition was
filed and is he open to taking any action? Has he said he will
do this, or do that, or does he tell them to go away?
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
July 19, 1994 - Page Nine
Mrs. Osterman said they have a good relationship with their
neighbor. He is open to talk but takes no action.
Com. Entman: Have they offered to pay for some type of muffling
device or bushes and said, "Let' s do it together. " Does he
understand their intent to put up an eight foot (8 ' ) fence?
Are there other alternatives that are within the Osterman' s
power to solve the problem? He suggested putting some bushes
around the deck. Said everybody has a problem in some form
or another. People should expect some privacy, but there is
no physical danger, so the ZBA is trodding on dangerous ground.
He is not convinced that the ZBA is the body that should try to
remedy the situation. They cannot do the same thing for every
other noise problem, sight problem, smell problem? He heard the
Osterman' s air conditioner and said his is louder. Could the air
conditioner be put on the other side of house?.
Com. Paul: Asked where the Osterman' s air conditioner is
located? (It is on the other side of their chimney. ) He asked
if they have considered a six foot (6 ' ) fence along their patio,
perhaps something with stepped up louvers.
Mr. Osterman rejected this idea because they also have a second
story deck. A fence would be like putting them in a box with
the house and the deck would be a roof. Mr. Osterman beseeched
the Zoning Board for a solution.
Ch. Heinrich said that the traffic noise study does not relate
to this circumstance. Traffic noises are different. There is
speed noise, density, engine noise, tires, and the whoosh of
air movement. He does not know of any study for attunating a
stationary noise such as the air conditioner. He does not know
how to get the neighbor in to discuss the situation. He had
never heard this type of situation occuring before in the 21
years he has sat on the Zoning Board. No one has ever reported
this type of sensitivity.
Mr. Osterman said this is proof that the situation is unique and
he invited the Commissioners over to experience the sound. They
invited their neighbor over to listen and he was very sympathetic.
Com. Paul said he did not know of a better solution than some
heavy vegetation, such as poplar trees close together. He said
that they could be sorry they have an eight foot (8 ' ) wall. It
may look alright when it is put up but it will begin to look
shabby. The fence will be a "sail. " With just 3 or 4 posts and
no cross walls it would begin to lean one way or another in a few
years. If the neighbor puts in bushes to hide the "ugly thing"
they would push the fence over.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
July 19 , 1994 - Page Ten
Mrs. Osterman referred Page 20 of the Guide, Section 5 . 3. 3
Barrier Walls - and the effectiveness of the proposed fence.
Decibel levels were discussed, referring to the chart on Page 3
of the handout, Ch. Heinrich said he was not convinced that an
eight foot (8 ' ) fence is the solution to try to mitigate sound.
Vegetation blockage would be more attractive. They want to
bring the sound down to an acceptable daytime level.
Com. Windecker: Asked the size of the deck? It is 16 ' x 20 ' -
and wondered how the thirty foot (30 ' ) length was detemined?
He had his engineer look at the plan. They observed that there
would be two feet (2 ' ) from the top of the air conditioner to
the top of the fence. His engineer did not think that thirty
feet (30 ° ) of fence would be long enough and they would be
wasting a lot of money. He described the location of his
neighbor' s air conditioner which is fourteen feet (14 ' ) from
his patio, eight feet from the property line, and he does not
notice the noise. He used to live next to a highway and they got
used to the noise there, too. The Blue Spruce trees are beauti-
ful but they are off to the side of the air conditioner. He
wondered if the Ostermans really conveyed the message to their
neighbor and does he understand the situation? He thought a
fence on two sides of the air conditioner would block the noise
and solve the problem.
Com. Arbus: Does not understand noise levels, decibels and does
not know anything about covering up noise. He looked at the
situation from the standpoint of the Zoning Ordinance. Would the
fence forever alter the character of the neighborhood and would
it be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare of
the entire neighborhood? He does not know if the ZBA is the
right forum for the situation. He does not know if the fence
would alleviate the sound or not. The Ostermans live in a very
open area and he would not approve any fence, not even a six foot
(6 ' ) for a distance of thrity feet (30 ' ) .
There were no comments from the audience.
In conclusion, Ch. Heinrich said he does not know how high a
fence it would take to muffle the noise of the air conditioner.
The fences on highways are much higher than eight feet (8 ' ) and
does not know if any fence would help. It could make it worse
and it would be expensive. A short length of fence, no matter
how high it is, is not normal.
Ch. Heinrich would like to discuss the situation with the
neighbor. Relocation of the air conditioner was discussed.
A variance could be granted if it is necessary to have it
relocated to the other side of the house.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
July 19, 1994 - Page Eleven
Com. Windecker observed that there is a gazebo on the other
side and they would probably not want to locate the air
conditioner near the gazebo.
After more discussion, it was obvious that they had come to
an impasse.
Com. Entman said the fence is not the remedy to the situation.
He doesn' t know if the neighbor can legally be forced to do
something physically. The Ostermans cannot compel him to do
something. What can they do physically? Perhaps shrubbry or
a privacy fence around the deck? They may have to do something
they don't want to do. He understands their frustration. They
might try writing the neighbor a letter.
Ch. Heinrich said the Zoning Board does not have the answer.
He feels this fence could make the problem worse and could cause
a different effect. The noise could bounce off the fence. He
is not a sound engineer. The charts from the Highway Department
may or may not be applicable to this circumstance. Attempting to
put something so atypical to everything else in the area may be
more negative and detrimental to the Ostermans that the noise is.
Personally he has a red flag in his mind that the community will
be affected negatively. A five foot fence could be constructed
without a variance. The Zoning Board was instructed to act.
Mrs. Osterman asked if other eight foot (8 ' ) fences have been
approved. The answer was "yes" but the fences were along
rear yard lot lines for alleviation of traffic noise on Lake-
Cook Road and it is not known whether they helped or not.
Com. Entman said he agreed that it would be a good idea to
attempt to have the neighbor put up a sound barrier on the
unit.
Ch. Heinrich informed Mr. and Mrs. Osterman of their right to
appeal a negative decision to the Village Board of Trustees.
Mr. Osterman asked if the Zoning Board would consider granting
the variance, because they were sure that when the neighbor
heard of it he would appeal the decision and then they would be
able to discuss the situation.
This requested was denied.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
July 19 , 1994 - Page Twelve
Com. Paul made the following motion:
I move the request of Walter and Joan Osterman,
2916 Whispering Oaks Drive, for variance of
Municipal Code, Section 15. 20. 040, pertaining to
Residential District, for the purpose of constructing
an eight foot (8 ' ) wood fence for a distance of
thirty feet (30 ' ) along the interior lot line, be
granted.
Com Windecker seconded the motion and asked that the record
include the statement that the proposed fence would change
the entire character of the neighborhood and would affect
the public health, safety and welfare.
Roll Call Vote: AYE - None
NAY - Hefler, Entman, Paul,
Windecker, Arbus and Heinrich
Variance DENIED by vote of 6 to 0.
Mr. and Mrs. Osterman were informed that a written request
must be submitted to the Director of Building and Zoning
within 15 days. The item would be put on the Village Board
Agenda of the mext appropriate meeting after the appeal is
filed.
Trustee Marienthal suggested that the Ostermans contact
Carrier and see if there is a something that could be done.
Mr. Osterman said he has called Carrier and there is a
device that could be put on top of the unit. It would cost
$70 or $80 - much cheaper than a fence.
E. 1160 Lake Cook Road, Dominick' s at Chase Plaza
Municipal Code, Section 14.20 . 030
Installation of additional wall sign.
Ira Carpman, Supervising Architect, Store Planning and
Development, 333 Northlake, IL 60164-1696 (562-1000 ,
X-2625) was sworn in. The public hearing notice was
published in the Buffalo Grove Herald on June 1, 1994 .
Mr. Carpman summarized the reasons for requesting a
variance:
1. Dominick' s is remodeling the store and it will
feature their new concept, which is a "Fresh
Store. " They are requesting a small sign
above the new east entrance. It is important
to Dominick' s to inform their customers of
the new services.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
July 19, 1994 - Page Thirteen
2. The sign will be small and will be under the
canopy. The stroke is only one inch (1" ) and
the design will be in keeping with the
architecture.
On May 26 , 1994, the Appearance Commission reviewed the
sign and recommended that a variance be granted.
Mr. Fred Divern, 10 Whitehall Court, was present. He
lives directly across from the Dominick' s store. The
sign would not matter in the summer, but if they were
putting up another large illuminated sign, it would be
visible to them in the winter and they would object.
Since the sign is small and not going to to be located
on the front of the mansard, he had no objection.
Comments from Commissioners:
Com. Arbus - No problem.
Com. Windecker - No problem.
Com. Paul - No objection.
Com. Entman - No objection.
Com. Hefler - No objection.
Ch. Heinrich - No objection. Asked what a Fresh Store is?
Mr. Carpman described the new concept as an expanded
produce section, deli and bakery department.
Com. Hefler made the following motion:
I move we recommend to the Village Board of
Trustees that a variance be granted of Sign
Code, Section 14 . 20. 030 , pertaining to Business
Districts, that would permit Dominick' s Finer
Foods, 1160 Lake Cook Road, to install an
additional wall sign over the east entrance
of the store at Chase Plaza identifying the
"Fresh Store. "
Sign is recommended pursuant to Sub-section B,
of Sign Code Section 14.44 .010.
Com. Entman seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote: AYE - Arbus, Windecker, Paul,
Entman, Hefler and Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 6 to 0. Findings of Fact Attached.
An Ordinance will be prepared. Permit may be issued
following Village Board approval, no sooner than
August 4, 1994.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
July 19 , 1994 - Page Fourteen
V. ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Com. Hefler made a motion to adjourn.
Com. Arbus seconded the motion.
Ch. Heinrich adjourned the meeting at 9 : 20 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Shirley Bates
Recording Secretary
sb
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
July 19, 1994 - Page Fifteen
t
To: William R. Balling
From: Brian P. Sheehan
Date: August 31, 1994
SUBJECT: 2916 Whispering Oaks Drive
Bill, on Friday, August 26, 1994, I conducted an inspection at the
above referenced property in an attempt to determine the levels of
sound generated by the air conditioning units which abut the prop-
erty at 2916 Whispering Oaks Drive.
Using a Realistic Sound Meter, which is capable of measuring sound
in the 60 - 120 decibel range, I took readings from the deck area
of the property, as was requested by Mr. Osterman in my conversation
with him.
At the time of my measurement the air conditioner was running for
the property to the South of 2916 Whispering Oaks Drive, which is
also the closest unit in proximity to the property in question. The
reading at that time fluctuated between a negative 4 and negative 5
(-4 & -5) on the decibel meter's scale, indicating a reading below
the 60 decibel level.
I have attached a graph, excerpted from an American Planning Asso-
ciation's dvisory Report which shows this level to be below the
"dangerous" or "unsafe" level of noise. It does not appear that
the noise generated by the neighboring air conditioning units in
question are uniquely loud or intrusive any more so than other air
conditioning units throughout the Village.
If you have any further questions or are in need of any clarification,
please advise.
Sincerely,
"5-1- 7,5;1.1g/g/4447
Brian P. Sheehan, R.S.
Health Officer
Attachment
BPS/hhp
xc: Frank E. Hruby, Jr.
FIGURE 4.NOISE LEVELS IN DECIBELS
200 Noise Weapon
190
LETHAL LEVEL 180
tf
170 •
160
150 Jet Aircraft(at 200 feet)
140
130 PneumatiAir Raid Siren
en
•
THRESHOLD OF PAIN 120
(one trillion times
Ethan least
audible sound)
110 Rock Niusic with Amplifiers(4-6 lest away)
Power Mower
100 Food
clerr»der(2-4 het awa�
Subway Train •
90 Sports
Car
vy Truck
80
DANGER LEVEL 70 Busy Street
60 Normal Conversation
80 Quiet Street(average urban interior)
40 Quiet Room(residential area at night)
30 Tick of Watch(at 2 feet) •
20 Whisper
10 Leaves Rustling in Wind
THRESHOLD OF
HEARING 0
Sarin:A Guide to
Forrest.Control at the Mufti*lead in Cdibnnir.Stanford Envrrorm�anW law Society.January 1976.
by DouglasRobert F.Knox,and David C.Spielberg.
12