1995-03-21 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes • }lam T Y.t• 7
A - a 4 i'‘ . .
.• �t.•
r r � • ,.
• . , .
• . . .
•
• .
• '
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS •
• VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE , ILLINOIS
TUESDAY , MARCH 21 , 1995 .
•
'`./ .
• I . CALL TO ORDER
Commissioner Michael Kearns called the Zoning Board of A e Public Hearing to order at 7 : 40 P .M . on Tuesda PP als
• in the- Council Chambers of the Village Hall , 50 � Raupp
1995
Boulevard .
II . ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present : • M. Kearns , B. • Entman, L. Windecker ,
L.
Arbus Chairman Richard Heinrich arri and H. Hefler .
arrived
the meeting . during Roll Call' and chaired
QUORUM. •
Commissioners Absent : J . Paul •
Bldg . Dept . Liaison : Edward Sch •
ar , Deputy Building Commissioner
Village Attorney: Richard Skelton
Village Board Liaison: John Marienthal , Trustee
•
III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES
February 28 , 1995 - Motion to Table was made by Com . Entman and
seconded by Com . Windecker .
Minutes of February 281Ce i995twe AYE Unanimously
re Tabled .
�V . BUSINESS .
• Variances of Municipal Code . Section 15 . 20 . 040 . er Residential Districts , for the o •
pseoP taining to
(7 ' ) wood fences along Port Clinton Road , have consbeen
seven foot
requested
requested by :
(
A. Martin and Sindy Marks , 390 Blue Ash
Drive •
B. .Carey and Joan Rosemarin . 400 Blue Ash Drive
C . Jeffrey and Michele Worth . 410 Blue Ash Drive
. D . Mark and Marcie Weinstein . 420 Blue Ash Drive
E . Mark ' and Joan Rosenbaum . 440 Blue Ash Drive
The Marks and the Rosenbaums have also requested v
ari
would permit side yard fences to exceed five feet (5 ' )nces that
in height .
The following property owners were
Martin and SindyMarks : present and were sworn in : •
Mrs . Joan Rosemarin : Mrs . Michele Worth ;
Mark Weinstein ; and Mark and Joan Rosenbaum .
Public Hearing Notices were
Grove Herald on Saturday , Marchl4Shin the Buffalo Grove-Long -
public hearingnotice and listed each 1995 . Ch . Heinrich read one
• addresses , •
petitioner with their
•
• r t
ri- .4 f} '1 v,'.)J;
!` 1r h 5i�
• f . , 4
' Mr. Rosenbaum represented �"" �
for requesting variancesdtoreitioners and summarized the reasons
� seven foot (7' ) fences:
• 1 . Each lot backs up to Port Clinton Road. •
Long Grove is. across the street from them.
2. The swale along the rear lot lines is from
•
fenceo 1-1/2 deep. Therefore, a six foot (6 ' )
would not give them enough privacy.
3. There are other 7' and 8 ' fences in Buffalo
Grove that border major streets with 35 mph
speed limits.
4. •
• There is a 30 mph speed limiton Port ClintonRoad, which is approximatelyi
• There is a' lot of tiraff thecandl /2 miles long.
needed to fence is
provide safety for their children.
Mr. Rosenbaum presented photographs of the area,six foot (6 ' ) fence at 430 Blue Ash Drive. Becausecofdthe one
Swale, people can easily see over this fence. Six foot fenc
would not be high enough to kee es
yards and houses. The p people from seeing into the
add value to their proposed fence is attractive and will
property.
The Rosenbaums are requesting a six foot
(6' ) fence along the
side lot line because the area. next to
is
their lot and a five . foot (5' ) fence wouldemnot muvh lower than
privacy. give them any
A letter from Mr. Ray Skiea
Dartmoor Homes , dated March21Ex19951Vste vice President of
-Dartmoor Homes , � ates: "Our Firm.
has no objection to owners installing fences
to 7 '0" in height at the rear of lots in Block 7 along
Clinton Road. " Port
•
A letter from Mr. Frank R. Fitzgerald; Canterbury
Architectural Review Committee, dated March21 , 1 Fields
referring to a March 12, 1993 recommendation, states ,
"Any future fences adjoining the fence• at 430 B es:
match the 6 •foot height Any fence constructionoAsh should
should be
submitted• to us for review and approval pproval prior to a building
•
• Mr. Skelton informed the Commissioners that the
is not bound by the Homeowners ' covenants that we ere drawn oning Boardu
by the Architectural Review Committee, but they
consid-
ered with regard to the feasibility of the construction be
proposed fences . •
truction off thee
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
March 21 , 1995 - Page Two
../ .
_ _
:tlic,.:
• • Mr. Rosenbaum9 4 '; 4 41;.;; J.,
responded that the covenants are not being
observed. There is inconsistency with enforcement regardin
the commitments they signed when theyg.
Cars were not to be parked on the purchased the property.
driveways, but they are.
There were not to be any chain link .fences, but there
The retention area next to their lot was su are some.
s
for low profile recreation. The Buffalo Grove Recreation
Association regularly uses the field for practice.
Mrs. Rosemarie said that cars are
and it makes her nervous because canthe rdrivers ked lahse intohouse her
kitchen. She. has been told that the see e her
tickets because there are no signsct cannot issue
postedo prevent parking.
•
Mrs. Marks said that much of- the traffic is from Stevenson
High
School students.
• • Mr . Weisbaum added that garbage is thrown from cars and into
their yards,
Mr . Rosenbaum said the only way a six foot
give them the privacy they need is for the Village fill in
fence
to would
the swale with dirt and he understood this cannot be done.
• Ch. Heinrich commented that Dartmoor Homes is i
being sold. He has no n the process of
problem with the seven foot (7' ) fences ,
except for the association's objections. He said it is pos-
sible that the covenants could
prevent
constructed even if the variancesare the fences from being
granted.
Mrs . Rosenbaum said there will not be a Homow
until 80% of the subdivision is constructedeTheysdosnotip y
any assessment , there is no enforcement and they do not know
the covenants are going to be mandatory when the new d if
takes over. developer
Mr . Rosenbaum summarized their request by asking for a fair
assessment of their
fence for the•'sake of privacy
They need a seven foot (7 ' )
privacy and they all want the same style
fence for aesthetic reasons. They are willingto go before
the Committee and ask for the covenants to be
changed.
•
• Ch. Heinrich asked if the neighbor with the six
at 430 Blue Ash Drive has been contacted? Boot (6 ' ) fence
Mr . Rosenbaum said these neighbors were
not object to thenotified and they do
d fences. In fact • they would have
preferred to have arseven fo
ot theirs . (7 ' ) fence and may change
•
•
•
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
•
March 21 , 1995 - Page Three
. . . . ilp „.--
.x� spr
qr7 6 L ,a;....4 ij 5,1_1 I
•
. - ' . ti M i ;:!tj * t$. pi
• Comments from Commissioners: ��{��
• Com. Hef l er: Asked i•f they were aware
purchased their of the grading when they
property?
Mr. Rosenbaum said the grading was done
their homes. If the land had been level they rwould they ved into
not be here.
Com. Entman: • • Disclosed that he knows the Marks
this will have no bearing on his decision. He confirm' but
the fences would all be the same style, board-on-board, that
wood would be left to weather naturall d. fencen the
was stained but the colors will be similar. Thes Zonings Board
• has been given the legal go-ahead by the Village attorney Board
act on the seven foot (7' ) fence. .It would then be rnto to
homeowners to convince the Architectural Review Committeeto the
permit . the fences to be constructed. If the Committee to
agree, the variance would be moot and would eventually does not
The declaration could be amended. .He could see the need
the seven foot (7 ' ) fence along the rear , but he was not 10r
0%
• convinced that the six foot (6 ' ) fence is needed along the sidelot line.
.' '
The Rosenbaums referred to the photograph depictingthe slope
and repeated their need for
• privacy. -
Com. Kearns: Expressed concern with the appearance of the
• fence if it drops from seven feet (7 ' ) down s i
and back up to seven feet (7' ) a ain. x feet (6 ' )
g
wanted to maintain a uniform fenceThe Review Committee
height along Port Clinton.
\./ Com. Windecker: Asked exactl
be located? Y where they wanted the fence to
He observed that the fence would not connect
with the existing fence, which appears to be on the
right-of-way, public
Mr . Rosenbaum responded that Mr. KuenkIer
put the fence on the berm, so it will be rightsalod g the not to
line that is next to the berm and will not connect with lot
• Kessler' s fence. The White Picket Fence CompanyofwIll the
has been given copies of their plats and beenIllinois
locate the fence alongthe has instructed to
property line.
Mr. Schar said he went with the Village Engineer existing fence. They found it to be eightfeettooesfeet the
to 10 ' ) past the ten feet (8 '
property line. The Kesslers will be notified
that the fence must be moved back onto their ro
p perty.
Com. Arbus : Expressed some concerns . Usuallyt
standards for the good of a development , but theree is imposes
Architectural Review Committee that has been es is ean
stablished
impose standards for the communit tablished to
against the Review Committee and would eadvs trouble going
to seek the approval of the Committee beforee them petitioners
Zoning Board. coming to the
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
March 21 , 1995 - Page Four .
T • ' , ,,, _ - 7 4 i
r, . . 7. . ,
f ,, ,..t , r .... c
. . ;:f .
• . . k./,' ;
- Com. Arbus continued: � -
There are covenants and restrictions
that run with the land and if they are violated, there are
rights that can be exercised to take care of the resid
•
ents.
dents.
Ch. Heinrich said that even if the variances are 4ranted
must still go* to the Architectural Review Committee. It ,
ishey not
the job of ZBA to enforce the decisions of the Committee.
- Trustee Marienthal asked if the covenants can
be amended?
•
Ch. Heinrich. said it was his understanding that the are not easily changed. • covenants
• Com. Entman said that declarations usually state that it"X" number of homeowners to recommend any change in wr ting..
takes
sti
Com. Arbus stated. that ..purchasers of .homes in Buffalo
many things , but one thingtheydo not Grove get
g
houses are all built with sideand rear le
ales so that privacy. h
he
houses do not t the
get water in the basements. Retention ponds are
required in all subdivisions to eliminate water problems.
• Mr. Rosenbaum told the Board that a meeting was held
February 13„ 1995. All the neighbors, including the contract
•
purchasers of 370 and 380 Blue Ash Drive were present
d th
. all agreed that seven foot (7' ) fences were needed. Thecon-y
tract purchasers. of 370 and 380 Blue Ash Drive will also
request seven foot (7' ) fences after they have moved in.
Ch. Heinrich affirmed that there is heavy traffic on Clinton Road and Long Grove has no Pert
police to
Stevenson High School students use patrol the area.
Variances for eight foot (8 ' ) fences ohave lbeen nn granted
a e raalog
ng.
other thoroughfares with similar traffic. Since the ZBA
is
not bound by the Committee, their recommendation should be
disregarded except as a neighbor 's opinion.
•
Com. Kearns said he looks at this request as a variance
petitioners are aware of the Architectural Review The
comments and after the ZBA makes a decision, this becomesea ' s
internal matter. n
The side yard fences were discussed. The Marks said they
not certain if and/or when they would construct a fence wereg
the side lot Iines. They are requesting the variancalong
will not have to reapply in order to taper from fivea so theyo
seven feet (5 ' to 7 ) . feet to
•
Ch. Heinrich advised Mr. and Mrs . Marks that
(2 ' ) •within an eight foot (8 ' ) section may notbe
taper two feet
tract
and he did not want to permit tapering within two attract
(2) sections.
There were no objections to the Rosenbaum' s re
foot (6 ' ) fence, along the side next to the arkest for a six
could tapered to the seven foot (7 ' ). fence. p k area, and it
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
995 - Page Five
. ... • • • , . • • • - n ,... •, t.. -., ,, z : 4,i-fll
. ;t i, ILI ''.;-'2 ri .:,/.!: :;.1 iii
• • er `1 • . ai . • . . . ..
Com. Windecker made the following motion:
• I move we grant the request of Martin and Sindy Marks ,390 Blue Ash Drive, for variance of the Municipal Code,.
Section 15.20.040, pertaining to Residential. Districts,
u for .the purpose of constructing a seven foot (7'.) board-
on-board privacy fence along the rear lot line, and to
permit.a five foot (5' ) fence along the side lot lines
that would taper from seven feet (7'.) .to five feet (5 ' )
within one (1) eight foot (8 ' ) section, in accordance
with the plat of survey that was submitted with the
application.
Unique circumstances having been demonstrated, the
proposed fence will not alter the essential character of
the neighborhood and will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety and welfare.
•
Com. Hefler seconded the motion.
Com. Arbus commented that he might feel differentl
Architectural .Review Committee had been consulted by
if s the
• the petitioners. ' He wondered what Y any of
prompted their letter?
Roll Call Vote: AYE - Kearns , Entman, Hefler,
Windecker and Heinrich •
NAY - Arbus
Motion Passed - 5 to 1 . Findings of Fact Attached.
Permit may be issued in fifteen (15) days - April 6 , 1995.
Com. Windecker made the following motion: •
I move we grant the request of Carey and Jo
n 400 Blue Ash Drive, for variance of the MunicipalmCodearin,
Section 15.20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts ,
for the purpose of constructing a seven foot (7' ) board-
on-board privacy fence along the rear lot line, in
accordance with the plat of survey that was submitted
• with the application.
Unique circumstances having been demonstrated, the
proposed fence will not alter the essential character
of the neighborhood and will not be detrim
public health, safety and welfare. ental to the
• Com. Kearns seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote: AYE - Hefler . Entman. Kearns ,
Windecker and Heinrich
NAY - Arbus
Motion Passed - 5 to 1 . Findings of Fact
Permit may be issued in fifteen ( 15) da s Attached.
Y - April 6 , 1995.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
March 21 , 1995 - Page Six
• k il 'A 1411 iiii
u 4 r ;: '.. d
, ,,
• • • • • . • • ,,„r, -_
• . Com. Windecker made the following motion: .
I move we grant the request of Jeffrey and Michele
'410 Blue Ash Drive, for variance of the Municipal Code,
Section 15.20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts, .
• for the purpose of constructing a seven foot (7' ) board-
on-board. privacy fence along the rear lot line in
accordance with the plat of survey that was submitted
.with the application.
Unique *.circumstances having been demonstrated,
proposed fence will not alter the essential character
of the neighborhood and will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety and welfare.
Com. Kearns seconded the motion. •
Roll Call Vote: AYE - Hefler, Entman, Kearns,
Windecker and Heinrich
• NAY - Arbus
Motion Passed - 5 to 1 . • Findings of Fact Attached. •
Permit may be issued in fifteen ( 15) days - April 6, 1995.
•
Com. Windecker made the following motion:
• I move we grant the request of Mark and Marcie Weinstein,
•
420 Blue Ash Drive, for variance of the Municipal Code,
• Section 15.20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts ,
for the 'purpose of constructing a seven foot (7 ' ) board-
• on-board privacy fence along the rear lot line.
- Unique circumstances having been
proposed fence will not altertheessentil demonstrated, the
of the neighborhood and will not be detrimental rtotr
public health, safety and welfare. the •
• Com. Kearns seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote: AYE - Hefler , Entman,. Kearns ,
•
Windecker and Heinrich
NAY - Arbus -
Motion Passed - 5 to 1 . Findings of Fact Attached.
Permit may be issued in fifteen ( 15' ) days April 6 , 1995 .
Com. Windecker made the following motion:
I move we grant the request of Mark and Joan Rosenbaum
440 Blue Ash Drive, for variance of the Municipal Code ,
Section 15. 20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts .
for the purpose of constructing a seven foot (7 ' ) board-
on-boardd privacy fence along the rear lot line; and to
permit a six foot (6 ' ) wood fence along the west lot line
that would taper from seven feet (7 ' ) to six feet (6 ' )
within one eight foot (8' ) section, in accordance with
the plat of survey submitted with the application.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
March 21 , 1995 - Page Seven
r • p.: ^',
,;, 7. -A r rt. :...; 6-••• ;.,! :, ..::..1„;
• .,_ t‘tt ,. '
E.
•
? J r�R.i ifi i.
•
r., :.
Unique circumstances having been .
. proposed fence. will not alter thedessentialec' the•
of the neighborhood and will not be de chara
public health, safety and welfare, detrimental toc ter the
Com. Heller seconded the m .
Roll Call Vote: AYE* - Kearns, Entm
• Windecker and Heinrich,
•
• Arbus (6 foot side yard' plus
e)
NAY - Arbus (7 foot rear lot l inecf e
Motion Passed - 6 to 0 for the 6 foot side yardnce) . •
ce.
5 to 1 •forthe 7 foot rear lot l fence.inen
Findings of Fact Attached.
Permit may be issued in fifteen (15' ) days - April 6 , 1995.
Ch. Heinrich strongly advised the petitioners
to contact the
Architectural Review Committee to inform them
Zoning Board of Appeals hasthat the
granted
foot (7' ) fences and seek their approval .
variances for seven
•
P al .
Ch. Heinrich further suggested that they
contact
regarding what their options are should theArchitectural
Review Committee deny the fences and if the • co sal
. action to have them taken down. y could cause
Mr. Rosenbaum asked what would happen
• approval from the Committee in wriitingiand f hthe , atey get
date, the decision was changed? n at a later
•
•
•
Ch. Heinrich repeated his advice to contact an attorney and
•
Mrs. Rosenbaum asked if they would have to re-petition •
a six foot (6' ) fence if the seven foot (7' ) fences
are for
permitted? ces not
•
' Mr. Schar responded that according
Port Clinton is not considered major ostreetranspo and only fly fin Act ,
foot (5' ) fences would be ve
permitted without a variance.
Com. Arbus said he would be inclined to change
his
AYE, with regard to the seven foot (7 ' ) fences vhee to
petitioners do get the approval of the Architectural if the
Committee.. tural Review
V. ANNOUNCEMENTS - None.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Motion to adjourn was made by Com. Kea
rns and seconded by
Ch. Heinrich adjourned Voice
Vote - AYE Unanimously
the meeting at 8: 40 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
•
AA9c,;.4,4ee":/ /aite,=, .
Shirley Ba es
Recording Secretary
•
•
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
March 21 , 1995 - Page Eight