1995-05-16 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes •
D • I •g
A pl
•
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
10 EM ,
VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE , ILLINOIS .
• TUESDAY , MAY 16 , 1995
I . CALL TO ORDER
•
Chairman Richard Heinrich called the Zoning Board of Appeals " meeting
to order at 7 : 50 P . M . on Tuesday , May 16 , 1995 An the Council
Chambers Of the Village Hall , 50 Raupp Boulevard . "
II . ROLL CALL
• Commissioners Present : M . Kearns , J . Paul , •B . Entman , L . Windecker ,
H . Hefler and R . Heinrich . QUORUM .
Commissioners Absent : L . Arbus
Bldg . Dept . Liaison : Edward Schar , Deputy Building' Commissioner
Village . Attorney: Richard Skelton
Village Board. Liaison : Jeffrey Braiman , Trustee
III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES
•
April 18 , 1995 - Motion to approve was made by Com . Windecker and
seconded by Com . Kearns . Addition on Page 'Six :
(46 Fabish Drive ) Com . Windecker said that his
comment proposing that the fence be constructed
eight feet ( 8 ' ) from the building line "was omitted .
Roll Call Vote : AYE - Kearns , Paul , Entman , Windecker , Heinrich
NAY - None
LoS ABSTAIN- - Hefler
Motion Passed - 5 to 0 , 1 abstention .
The April 18 , 1995 minutes were approved with one ( 1 ) addition .
III . OLD BUSINESS •. .
A . 901 Highland Grove Drive , Arthur and Marcy Rubin 1
Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Fence past the building line •
Motion , to remove from Table was made by Com. Windecker and seconded
by Com . . Kearns . Voice Vote : AYE - Unanimously . ,
Arthur and Marcy Rubin were again present . On April 18 , 1995 ; they
had asked for the item to be Tabled to permit them to discuss the
• Line-of-Sight Review , dated March 31 , 1995 , with Richard 'Kuenkler . •
After meeting with Mr . Rubin , Mr . Kuenkler submitted a revised Line-
of-Sight Review , dated Max 15 , 1995 . It states : "We have reviewed
the revised fence plan at the above location ( 901 Highland Grove
• Drive ) which provides 'for a_ 10 ' x 10 ' angle (determined by scaling)
at the corner of the near side driveway .
This configuration is acceptable. If landscaping is places in this
triangle , it need to be maintained at a maximum height of three (3)
feet . "
I
./
�. �.
DRAFT . 13 ;11
CtF
f
• . The existing fence is ten feet (10' ) from the - sidewalk along Fabish
Drive and Mr . Rubin .said the. proposed fence .would be constructed•
. five feet (5 ' ) from the sidewalk and would be' slanted on a 45 degree
angle ten feet (10' ) feet, from the corner ,' per Exhibit
• This configuration would actually-improve. the line-of-sight situa-
tion for the near side driveway by increasing the driver ' s view
from 28-1/2 feet to approximately 32 feet from the sidewalk.
Comments from Commissioners:
•
Com. Windecker :- Would have a problem if the fence is. moved to with-
in five feet (5 ' ) from the sidewalk.
}
Com. Paul : Asked if the neighbors to the east have been advised of
• the .proposed fence adjustment?
Mr . Rubin said they were informed before the petition was • filed and. ,
. they had no objections. He added that they will comply with the.
'Village Engineer' s stipulation that there would be no landscaping
over three feet (3' ) in .height within the triangle at .the corner : ,
Com. Paul still had a problem pulling the . fence closer to the side- • .
walk , but this configuration is better than the first one.
Ch. Heinrich agreed that this line-of-sight is' better for drivers .
•
Com. Kearns : The proposed configuration would be unusual and he
still has .a problem going five feet (5 ' ) from the sidewalk because
of the safety hazard to pedestrians and kids on bikes . He would not
object to a variance that -would permit the fence to be seven to • '
seven and a half feet (7 to 7-1/2" ) from the sidewalk.
Mr . Rubin said that in April he understood- that the• problem was the
line-of-sight for drivers backing out of the driveway and when he
met with Mr . Kuenkler , that was the only concern that was addressed.
He was unaware of any other safety :issues . There are many other
fences in the area that are closer to than ten feet ( 10' ) to the
sidewalk. Some are solid fences one foot ( 1 ' ) from the sidewalk.
• Ch. Heinrich replied that . in recent years variances have not been
granted for fences that close to the sidewalk and you cannot
• extrapolate from one. variance to another because each property is
different with unique- circumstances to be considered.
Com. Ent.man observed that the line-of-sight is better but the fence.
is still too close to the sidewalk.
Com Hef l er had no. comment .
Ch. Heinrich observed that the existing 'fence can be seen : from the
front: yards' of all the houses down Fabish Drive and moving it closer
to the sidewalk makes it more of a visual problem to him without
gaining much additional yardspace.
•ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
' May 16 , 1995 - Page Two
• .]
gAi
Mr. Rubin Said hecame prepared, to address the line-of-sight issue-
and is not prepared to discuss any other considerations . He would
only be giving .up about. twelve and half square feet ( 12-1/2 sq. ft. ) •
, by cutting off the corner and they would be gaining one hundred
fifty square feet . Tw'o. thirds (2/3) of the yard slopes and this
• does not leave much of an open area in which to run and play ball-. - •
• Ch. Heinrich responded that children are very adaptable and manage
to play anywhere regardless of circumstances . This is. a tough
decision.
Coma Hefler observed that corner lots have a side yard that is
• really a front yard and fences are not permitted in front yards. •
He quoted: ` "Caveat emptor . " (Let the buyer beware. ) The Zoning
Board considers the aesthetic values of the neighborhood over a
• period of time. There is no unique hardship here that warrants •
variance that will affect the appearance of the neighborhood in
general . The petitioner will get an additional one hundred. fifty
square feet ( 150 sq, ft . ) at the expense Of future Buffalo Grove _
residents by changing the character of the -street.. .
Mr . Rubin said he too has a vested interest in keeping the neighbor-
hood intact and keeping property values up. • He does not want to •
affect the area in a negative way and does not• consider his proposal
will make anaesthetic change . in the appearance of the property.
He wants to maximize the usable area inside his yard and keep the .
aesthetic appearance from the outside.
Com. Hefter added that people foot-traffic has increased, i .e.
joggers and walkers , and the environment must be preserved.
Ch. Heinrich was not inclined to compromise and permit an additional
two (2) or three (3) feet . He would either grant the revised
reques or leaVe the fence as it i.s , ten feet ( 10' ) from the side-
. .
walk. The .issue ' is how far a fence would be allowed to encroach .
into a front yard? .
Com. Hefler suggested that the petitioner 'amend his request to seven . •
and' a ' half feet (7-1/2.' ).. .
Com. Kearns recollected .that the original variance of ten feet ( 10' )
from the sidewalk was the maximum. distance that would maintain. the
open view of the property and the area. .. At the April hearing, the
Commissioners were all opposed to going less than ten .feet ( 10' ) to
the sidewalk. The Rubins. •have .addressed the line-of-sight problem
and have made every effort to achieve some additional space. For
this reason, Com. Kearns would compromise and permit the "fence to be
constructed seven and a 'half feet (7-1/2' ) from the Sidewalk with •
the condition that no swingset or other play equipment be installed
within ,that •ar.ea. The inside area could have' low landscaping.
Mr . Rubin was not .opposed to a compromise of seven and a half .
(7-1/2' ) but he questioned shortening the line-of-sight distance'.
.'
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS'
•
• May 16 , 1995 —Page Three
•
•
•
•
•
a .
Com. Kearns recommended. maintaining the angle, as proposed, thus
making the front edge of the fence longer . . This compromise is in •
response to the effort Mr . .Rubin has made , but his actual opinion
is keep the fence- at ten feet ( 10' ) from the sidewalk.
• Mr. Rubin considered this option and the. substantial expense that is
associated with moving the fence two and a half feet (2-1/2 ' ) . They
are planning to do some landscaping and the location of the fence-
will determine whether the shrubs go inside or outside the fence.
. Ch. Heinrich /repeated his concern with, the fence being in. the front .
yard' now• and shrubs would break up the area visually. He would not
want to make this a condition because he is personally opposed to
moving the fence. He took a straw poll to' determine the Commis-
sioners '. opinions concerning a variance to permit the fence to be
constructed seven and a half feet (7-1/2' ) from the sidewalk. The
other option would. be to have a vote on the proposal and if it ,is
denied, the Rubins can appeal to the Village Board of Trustees .
•
Corn. Kearns' - Yes . Com. Windecker - No •
Com. Paul - Yes Com. Entman - No
Com. Hefler - - Yes • Ch. 'Heinrich - No
Straw Poll indicated i 3 to 3 tie.
Ch. Heinrich said that if two and• a half feet (2-1/2 ' ) will really
make a difference • to the Rubins , 'he would grudgingly change his
vote. If they accept the compromise there is no opportunity to
appeal .
•
Mr . and Mrs. Rubin conferred and Mr . Rubin said he would like to .
have a vote on the revised proposal to keep the option open to go
to the Village Board. •
•
Com. Hefler made the following motion.: •
•
I move 'we grant the petition of Arthur and Marcy •Rubin,
. • . 901 Highland Grove Drive , for variance of the Municipal Code ,
Section 15. 20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts , for . '
• • the purpose of constructing a wood fence past the building
line , along Fabish Drive., a distance of five feet (5' ) from the
sidewalk as amended by the Village Engineer ' s Line-of-Sight
Review, Exhibit "K" - dated May. 15 , 1995 . The fence will not .
change the character of the neighborhood and will not be •
• detrimental to the public health, ' safety and welfare.
' Com. Kearns seconded the motion. Mr . Skelton had •no comment .
Roll Call Vote: AYE - None •
NAY - Paul , Windecker , Kearns , Entman,
• Hefler and Heinrich•
'
VARIANCE DENIED - 6 to 0. Findings of Fact. Attached.
Mr . and Mrs . Rubin were advised that they can appeal ..in writing , • . '
within fifteen ( 15) days . ' .
• - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS • •
May 16 , 1995 -. Page Four. • .
• Items B, C, D and' E- are all requests for identical fences :
B. 1113 Devonshire Road , Ms . Lori Knepper •
C. 1117 Devonshire 'Road, Edward • and Teri Mino
D. 1121 Devonshire Road, , Mars.hall and Gail Goldstein
• E. 1125 Devonshire Road, Ronald and Robin Borok
Fence Code , Section . 15 . 20.040..- Residential Districts
Purpose: Construction of eight foot (8 ' ) fence along Rt . 83
Ch. Heinrich swore in the following petitioners :
Ed Mino - 1117 Devonshire Road
Gail and. Marshall Goldstein -• 1121 Devonshire Road;
Ron Borok - 1125 Devonshire Road
Lori Knepper was not present , but her petition was considered: .
The public hearing notices were published in the Buffalo Grove,
Wheeling , Long Grove Herald on April 28 , 1995 . The addresses
• were listed. •
Mr . Goldstein acted as spokesman. The petitioners all have six
foot (6 ' ) fences that are deteriorating and they would like. to
replace them with eight foot (8 ' ) stockade fences.
•
All their rear yards abut 'IL ,Route 83 , a 45 MPH highway that .
has recently been widened. The road is now within twelve ( 12)
to fifteen feet ( 15' ) from the property lines and the roadbed
is two feet (2 ' ) above ground level . The six foot fences are
• not high enough to provide a noise' barrier, privacy and
security. Mr . Goldstein added that he can look over the fence
and see people looking into the yard from the road. .
Ch. Heinrich read the attached letter of objection from .Mr . •
Howard Toisky, 809 Dannet . Road in the Devonshire subdivision.
. Ch. 'He.inrich said a line-of-sight study was not required,
• because the houses are not located at a corner . He was not
opposed to eight - foot (8 ' ) fences on Route .83.. Similar
variances have been granted for eight foot (8 ' ) . fences along
Lake Cook Road and .they do mitigate noise.
Comments from Commissioners:
Ch. Hefler concurred that' the road- bed has been raised and he
has no objection• to the .variance, but he suggested sending a
copy to the Village Engineer with a request for. his opinion.
•
•
. Com. Entman disclosed that he knows Mr. Borok , but this will •
• have no impact .on his opinion. The road is bad due to the •
reconstruction. A variance was granted for an eight foot (8 ' )
fence at the corner , as cited in Mr . Tolsky' s letter and one.
was granted for the corner of Checker Road and Rt . 83 . He
agreed that the Village Engineer' s.hould be asked .to review the
fences , but he had no objections.
. • ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
May 16 , 1995 - Page five •
1:1 lir
* . ItAilrla 1:: 11)
•
•
•
@Offf: &F § ' had no problem, The fences are located far enough
away from the corner so they will not affect the turns. He
has no problem With the Aesthetics and the petitioners' reasons
for requesting the fence are, adequate to support their need.
Com. Paul had no problem with the variances.
Com. Windecker drove along Route 83 and there would not be a
• line-of-sight problem. He had no objections to the variances.
Com. Windecker made the following motion:
A. I move we grant the request of Ms . Lori Knepper ,
1113 Devonshire Road, for variance of Municipal Code,
Section 15 . 20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts ,
for the purpose of constructing an eight foot (8 ' ) wooden
stockade fence along the 'rear' lot line abutting Route 83.
Unique circumstances having been demonstrated; the 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 , Paul , - •
Windecker and Heinrich
NAY - None ,
Motion Passed - 6 to 0. Findings of Fact Attached.
Permit may be issued in fifteen ( 15) days - June 1 , 1995. •
•
Com. Windecker made the following motion:
B. I move we grant the request -of Edward and Teri Mino ,
1117 Devonshire Road, for variance of Municipal Code, . .
Section 15 . 20.040 , .pertaining to Residential Distracts,' •
for the purpose of constructing an eight foot (8 ' ) wooden
privacy fence along the rear lot line abutting Route 83.
Unique circumstances having been demonstrated,' the 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, Paul ,
Windecker and Heinrich
NAY - None •
Motion Passed 6 to 0. Findings of Fact •Attached. •
Permit may be issued in fifteen ( 15) days - June 1 , 1995. •
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
4.� May 16 , 1995 Page Six
•
•
• . .
bRA
GO.
Coma Windecker. made the following motion:
C. I move we grant the request of Marshall and Gail Goldstein
1.121 Devonshire Road, for variance of Municipal .Code, •
Section 15.20:040, pertaining to Residential Districts ,
for the purpose of constructing an eight foot (8 ' ) wooden
• privacy fence along. the' rear lot line abutting Route 83 . ,
Unique circumstances having been demonstrated, ' the fence •
will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood'
and will not .be detrimental to the public health, safety •
and welfare.
Com. Paul seconded the motion.
• Roll Call Vote: AYE - Hefler , Entman, Kearns, Paul ,
Windecker and Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed, - 6 . to 0. Findings .of Fact Attached.
Permit may be issued in fifteen .( 15) days - Junef 1 , 1995 .
.Com. Windecker 'made the following motion:
•
I move we grant the request of Ronald and Robin Borok,
1125 .Devonshire Road, for variance' of Municipal Code, - .
Section 15. 20.040', pertaining to Residential Districts ,
for the purpose of constructing an eight. foot '(8 ' ). wooden .
privacy fence along the rear .lot line abutting RoUte 83 .
Unique' circumstances having been demonstrated, the '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 , Paul ,
. Windecker and Heinrich
. NAY‘ - None '
• Motion Passed - • 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. • •
•
Permit may be issued in fifteen ( 15) days .-. June 1 , 1995.
E. 992 Country Drive , Larry and Gayle Kantro
Fence Code, Section- 15. 20.040 - Fence past building line.
•
Mr . Larry Kantro was sworn in and the public ' hearing notice was .
read. He summarized, the reasons for requesting a variance that
would permit construction of a five foot (5 ' ) wood fence that
would extend past the building line along Stonegate Drive:
• . 1 . When they purchased the house, they were .told they
could replace the existing three foot (3 ' ) fence 'with
• • • a five foot (5 ' ) fence in the same location which is
about five feet (5 ' ) from , the sidewalk. The three
. foot (3 ' ) fence" does not provide enough safety for
• their .children.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.
May 16., .1995 - Page Seven •
•
•
•
tito .FT C :y .
2 . The yard., inside the..building line , is small . and it
is not level . It cannot .be used for ball games or . ,
for picnic tables when they have family gatherings. .
3_. . When they host, outdoor parties , the entire yard
is visible from Stonegate Drive , so the fence would
provide privacy and permit the children to play on
. the flat are of the side yard.
4. They do not want their children to play outside a
• fence because they need supervision for safety.
5. . They quality fence they want to install will improve
. the neighborhood. •
Ch. Heinrich explained that the proposed• fence would not only
be too close, to the sidewalk but it would be in the front yards
of all the residents along Stonegate Drive. They have a back.
yard and children .do play in side yards without fences.
•
Comments from- Commissioners:
Comm. Paul agreed with Ch. Heinrich' s comments .
•
Com. Windecker. said .variances have not been granted that close
• to the sidewalk when the fence would affect other.'houses in the
vicinity.
Com. Kearns agreed with the previous comments and said .he would
' not object to a fence located ten feet ( 10' ) from the house,
Com. Entman agreed the fence would be too close to the sidewalk
•
Com. Hefler referred to the second paragraph of Mr. Kantro's
letter about being told the existing fence could be replaced..
The Zoning Board can only vary the codes when unique-.circum-
stances exist . He sees no reason for granting. the .request , A
- fence that protrudes into the front yard setbacks of other
residents does change the . character of the neighborhood.
Ch. Heinrich said even though the Village Engineer's Line-of
• Sight Review, dated May '1995 states there is no obstruc .
tion, the fact remains that the neighborhood is affected. He
added that the existing fence is • too close to .the sidewalk and
. was probably constructed before permits were required.
In response to Mr . Kantro' s comment that the neighbors have not -
objected, Ch. Heinrich said neighbors seldom object but they •
would not want to have a board-on-board fence in their front
- yard. The existing rear yard is approximately 2700 square feet -
and Ch. Heinrich suggested that a fence twelve feet ( 12 ' ) 'from
the building line would only increase- the rear yard by approxi-
mately 600 square feet .
•
. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS .
May 16 , 1995 - Page Eight •
• URAFT '- COPY _. .
. • •
The other Commissioners concurred with this compromise and Mr.
Kantro was informed of his option to accept the proposal or •
' appeal to the Village Board. He agreed to amend his petition -
Lod to request the fence to be constructed a distance of twelve -
feet (12' ) from the sidewalk. •
• . There were no comments from the audience.
• Com. Paul made the following Motion: •
•
I move we grant: the request Of .Larry and Gayle Kantro,• •
• 992 Country Lane , for variance of the Municipal Coder,
Section 15.20 .040, pertaining to Residential Districts,
for the purpose of constructing a. five foot (5 ' ) wood •
fence that would be located twelve feet ( 12 ' ) from the
sidewalk along Stonegate Drive.
• The fence would . not be detrimental. to the public health-,
safety and welfare
Com. Windecker seconded the motion. "
Roll Call Vote: AYE .- Kearns., Entman, Hefler , Paul., •
Windecker and Heinrich
NAY .- None •
-
Motion Passed - 6' to 0. Findings of Fact_Attached.
Permit may be issued in fifteen ( 15) days June 1 , 1995.
F. 3 Chestnut Terrace , Steven and Emily Gorelik
Municipal Code, Section. 15 .20.040 - Fence past building line.
Steven and Emily Gorelik were sworn in and the public hearing
• notice was read. He summarized their reasons for requesting a
variance:
1 . They do not have a fence but they have a toddler and
are expecting a second 'child. They would also like '
to get a dog. They have been playing with their son •
on the deck. and they cannot use their rear yard.
• • 2. The house is at the corner of Chestnut and Prairie.
• Cars travel very fast down Prairie and people , .
walking their dogs on Prairie , often let the dogs
- leave droppings in the yard. The fence would keep
• •animals out of the yard' and away 'from the baby.
3. • They are requesting a six foot (6' ) wood fence that
would be �similar. to the existing fence across the
street along Prairie Road. The fence would taper '
to" a four fOot (4' ) fence along the rear lot line. . . •
The Village Engineer ' s Review, dated May 9, 1995 , states:
"If considered, it (the fence) should be - set back five to ten •
feet (5 -. 10' ) from the right-of-way line of Prairie Road. "
• • ZONING BOARD OF-APPEALS
May 10 , 1995 - Page Nine.
•
ILI lir
•
Mr . Gorelik asked for- an explanation 'of this requirement and
said the fence across- the street at 2 Chestnut Terrace is
approximately one foot ( 1 ' ) from the sidewalk along Prairie
Road. A variance was granted far this fence and the Goreliks
want to construct a similar fence for aesthetic reasons.
Ch. Heinrich recalled granting the variance at 2 Chestnut
Terrace, but the Zoning Board does not violate the Village •
Engineer ' s recommendations. He did question Mr. Kuenkler 's
reasoning and' asked Mr . Skelton if the item should be Tabled or
if the variance could be \granted subject to the Village
Engineer 's reconsideration of the proposed fence? -
Mr . Gorelik objected to having to wait until the June public
hearing when there is no line-of-sight problem and there is an
'existing similar fence. just across the street .
Mr . Skelton: said it would be permissible to grant the variance
subject 'to the Village Engineer ' s concurrence that there is no
line-of-sight issue.
Mr . Gorelik agreed -to this provision and said if the Village
Engineer has any objection, he will • construct the fence five
feet (5 ' ) from, the sidewalk. He does not want to wait another
month for a decision.
Com. Hef ler made the following motion:
I move we grant the variance requested by Steven and
Emily Gorelik, 3 Chestnut Terrace, for variance of the• . ,
Municipal Code, Section 15 . 20.040, pertaining to
Residential Districts , for the purpose• of constructing '
a four foot ('4' ) wood fence that would be connected to a
six foot (6' ) wood fence that would extend past the
building line along the rear lot line, continuing down
Prairie Road, a distance of one foot ( 1 ' ) from the lot -
line along Prairie Road , and returning to .the house.
•
Variance, is subject-to the Village Engineer's concurrence
that there is not a line-of-sight issue , as stated in his ,
opinion dated May 9 , 1995 ; to wit : the petitioner will
return on June 20, 1995 for further review of his opinion.
Said fence will not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood and not be detrimental to the public health,
safety and welfare.
Com. Paul seconded the motion. •
Roll Call" Vote: ' AYE - Kearns , Entman, Hefler , Paul ,
Windecker and Heinrich.
• NAY - None
Motion Passed - 6 to 0. Findings of Fact Attached.
. Permit may be issued in fifteen ( 15) days -- June 1 , 1995.
L.01 • ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
May 16 , 1995 Page Ten
•
• . i
Mr . Skelton advised Ch. Heinrich that the item"• should be Tabled.
to the next meeting in the event that the Village Engineer 's
comments are not in agreement with .the action taken. •
Com. Kearns made a motion to Table the request of Steven and
Emily Gorelik, 3 Chestnut Terrace, to June 20; 1995.
•
•
Com. Windecker seconded the motion.
Voice Vote: AYE- - Unanimously.
•
Mr . Schar was directed to inform Mr .- Kuenkler •of this action
and request a revised written opinion if he concurs with the
action taken by the Zoning Board.
•
G. 46 W. Fabish Drive, A. Gregg and Robin G. French . -
Municipal Code, Section 15,20.040 - Fence past building line.
•
Gregg and Robin French were sworn in and the public hearing •
• notice was read. •
•
Mr . French informed the Commissioners that they' did. not fully
understand their option to Table when they amended their
petition on April 18 , 1995 and were granted a variance that
would permit them to construct a five foot (5 ' ) wood fence a
distance of eight feet (8' ) past the building line along
Hilldale. Lane.
They have •reconsidered their situation. They have a tree in
their side yard that is 'nine and one half feet (9-1/2' )' from
the building line and they want to have the tree inside their
yard,. so they reapplied for a variance that would permit
construction of a five foot (5' ) fence a distance of fourteen
feet ( 14' ) from the building line on Hilldale Lane.
The fence would be a safe distance from the sidewalk. With
regard to aesthetics , the fence would match their neighbor 's
fence and the tree would look better inside the yard.
Mrs. Bobbie Rascinowski , 902 Hilldale Lane and Mrs. Barbara
Sterret , 904 Hilldale Lane, were present to .support the . •
request . Their houses are directly across the street from
the proposed fence and they have. no objections to the fence
being fourteen feet ( 14' ) from the building line.
Mr. French presented photographs of their house , yard and area.
The Commissioners discussed the placement of the fence. It was
observed that the sidewalk is actually within the •property line ,
and if the fence is fourteen feet (14' ) from the building line
it will be approximately six (6 ' ) to seven feet (7 ' ) from the
• sidewalk. The tree appears to be small enough that it could
possibly be moved. This would still be the only fence extend
ing toward the sidewalk along Hilldale Lane. ' .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS •
May 16 , 1995 - Page Eleven
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mr . French responded that the houses at 42 and 43 Canterbury
also have side yards along Hilldale. He did not see how the
houses farther down on Hilldale would be affected by the fence.
The Commissioners' consensus of opinion was not to grant a.
variance of fourteen feet ( 14' ) from the building line. . .
•
• Mr. French asked if they could compromise? If they construct
the fence twelve feet ( 12' ) from the building ,line , it would be .
at least eight feet (8' ) from the sidewalk. ' •
The Commissioners had no objection to this proposal . A fence
twelve feet (12 ' ) from the building line would permit the tree
to grow to a diameter of four feet (4.' ) and that would take a
• ldng' time.
Mr . and Mrs. French amended their petition On its face
Com. Kearns made the following motion: •
• I move we grant the petition of A. Gregg and Robin_ French,
46 Fabish Drive for variance of Municipal Code, Section
15.20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts , • for the
. . purpose of permitting construction of a five foot (5 ' )
that would extend a distance of , twelve feet (12' ) past .
the building line along Hilldale Lane.
This fence will not' alter the essential character of the
neighborhood and will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety and welfare.
, It was noted that there was no line-of-sight problem with
the fence as it was first proposed on April 18 , 1995.,
Com. Hefler seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote: AtE - Paul , Windecker , •Kearns, • Entman,
Hef,ler and Heinrich
NAY - None •
Motion Passed 6 to 0. Findings of Fact Attached.
• Permit may be issued in fifteen ( 15) days.
H. 1016 Highland Grove Court North, Howard and Wendy Lettvin
Fence Code , Section ' 15..20.040 - Six foot (6' ) high dog run:
Howard and Wendy Lettvin were sworn in and the public hearing
notice was read. Mr. Lettvin summarized. their reasons for
requesting a variance:
•
1 . They are planning to get a German Wirehair Pointer
and they have been advised that this type of dog is
capable of jumping over a five foot (5' ) fence.
•
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
May 16, 1995 - Page Twelve
2. They have informed their neighbors that they would
like to construct a, six foot (6' ) chain link fence
and none of them have any objections.
3 . The fence would extend from the front of the house to
the side lot line and run toward the rear a. distance
• of thirty two feet (32 ' ) . The neighbors on this side
also have a dog.
The Commissioners had not objections .'
Coma Hefler made the following motion:
•
I move we grant the request of Howard and Wendy Lettvin,
• 1016 Highland Grove Court North, for variance of Municipal
• Code, Section 15.20.040, pertaining to Residential .
Districts , for the purpose of constructing a six foot (6 ' )
high chain link dog run along the side of the house as
indicated on the plat 'of , survey submitted with the
application.
The fence will not alter the essential characteristics of
the neighborhood and will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety and welfare.
Com. Windecker seconded the motion. .
Roll Call Vote: AYE - Kearns , Entman, Hefler, Paul ,
Windecker and Heinrich
NAY - None-
Motion Passed 6 to 0. Findings of Fact Attached.
Permit may issued in fifteen ( 1.5) days - June 1 1995.
I . 232 Anthony Court , Sam and Tsilya Shvarts
Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.40.020 - Deck 'within setback.
Mr . Tony Levitt was sworn in. He represented his father-in
law, Mr . Sam Shvarts . The public hearing notice was read.
Ch. Heinrich read a letter from Kathleen and Jeff McDaniel ,
222 Anthony Road, stating they have no objection to the place-
ment of the deck:` They are the only neighbors that would be .
affected by the construction of the proposed deck.
'The deck will be built upon a cement slab. If permitted, it
would encroach a distance of two feet (2' ) into the required
six foot (6' ) side yard setback and extend up to the front
building line with a five foot (5' ) fence in front of the deck.
• • The Commissioners had no objections and agreed the lot is very
long and narrow with almost no rear or side yards. There is no
', drainage problem per the Village Engineer's Review, dated
May , 1995. There were no comments from the audience.
• • ZONING 'BOARD OF APPEALS
`,,,/ May "16 , 1995 Page Thirteen
LOU'
Com. Kearns made the .following motion:
I move we ,grant the request of .Sam:'and Tsilyn Shvarts ,
, 232 Anthony Court , for variance of Zoning Ordinance,
Section 17 .40.020, pertaining 'to Area, Height , Bulk and
Placement Regulations , for the purpose of constructing 'a
wood deck that would encroach a' distance of two feet (2'.)
into the required six foot (6' ) side yard setback. .
The deck is to be constructed per plans submitted to and
approved by the Village.
Unique circumstances having been demonstrated,
construction of the deck will not alter the essential
character of the neighborhood. `
Com. Paul seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote: AYE - Hefler , Entman., Kearns , Paul ,
Windecker and Heinrich
NAY - None •
Motion_ Passed - 6 to- 0. Findings of. Fact Attached.
Permit may be issued in fifteen . (15) days - June 1 , 1995.
J. Mill Creek Drive and Miller Lane, Mill Creek Swimming Pool
Municipal Code, Section . 15.20.040 - Eight foot (8' ) fence.
Ms. Theresa Dixon, Highcrest Management Co. , 7550 .Janes Ave. , .
Suite 202 , Woodridge, IL 60517 (985-3303) is the agent for the
Mill Creek Condominium Association. Ms. Dixon was sworn in and
the public hearing notice. was read. She summarized the reasons
for requesting a variance:
1 . There is an existing six foot (6' ) chain 'link fence
surrounding the swimming pool area. The fence has
deteriorated and is in need of replacement..
•
2. There have been a number of. .problems relating to the
pool , including vandalism, Teenagers ,and younger
children have scaled the fence to use the pool after
hours.
3. . The Buffalo Grove Police Department has been called
several times and even though they patrol the area,
children are still able to get into the pool area.
4. They are hopeful that an eight foot (8 ' ) fence will
provide more security.
Ch. Heinrich observed that the pool abuts the single family
homes that are on the cul-de-sac.
Ms. Dixon estimated that the pool area is approximately one •
hundred feet ( 100' ) from the single family homes. '
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
May 18 , 1995 - Fourteen
' AF
•
Ch. Heinrich had no problem with the request and the other
Commissioners had no questions or objections.
There were no comments from the audience.
Com. Windecker made the •following motion:
I move we grant the request made by the Mill Greek
Condominium Association's agent , Ms . Theresa Dixon,
Highcrest Management Company, 7550 S. .Janes Avenue,
Suite 202, Woodridge, IL 60517 , for variance of
Municipal Code , Section 15 . 20.040, pertaining to
Residential Districts , for the purpose of installing an.
eight foot (8' ) chain link fence around the Mill Creek
Swimming Pool on Mill Creek Drive at Miller Lane.
The 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 '- Hefter , Entman, Kearns , Paul ,
Windecker and Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 6 to 0. Findings of .Fact Attached. •
Permit may be issued in fifteen (15) days - June 1 , 1995 .
K. 910 Shady Grove Lane, Gregory and Celeste French
L Municipal Code, Section 15.20.040 - 8. foot fence on Rt. 83
Mr . Gregory French was sworn in and the public hearing notice
was read. He •summarized the reasons for requesting. a variance:
1 . They have a six foot (6' ) fence that is in need •
• of repair. They would like to replace it with an -
eight foot (8' ) wood fence.
2. The recent expansion .of Route 83 has brought the
traffic and noise closer to their house.
3. Trees were removed to make way for the road. and
this has given them even less privacy. People' can
see into their kitchen from the road because the
roadbed was raised approximately two feet. (2' ) .
Mr . French said the eight foot (8' ) fence would not only abate
the noise and provide security, it would enhance the property.
They talked to their neighbors and there were no objections..
One other neighbor has installed an eight foot (8' ) fence and
others are planning to do the same.
Ch. Heinrich and the other Commissioners had no objections'..
There were no comments from the audience.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ,
May 18, 1995. Page Fifteen
•
• Com. Entman made the following motion
I move ' we ' grant the request of Gregory and Celeste French,
910. Shady Grove Lane, for variance of Municipal Code,.
Section 15. 20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts,
for the purpose of constructing an eight foot (8' ) wood
board-on-board fence along the rear lot line abutting.
Route 83. '
The fence is to 'be constructed with materials in
accordance with specifications pursuant to the exhibits
submitted with the application and approved by the
Village.
The proposed fence will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety and welfare. •
Com. Windecker seconded the motion.
Roil Call Vote: AYE - Kearns, Entman, Hefler , Paul ,
Windecker and Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 6 to 0. Findings of Fact. Attached.
Permit may be issued in fifteen ( 15' ) days.
L. 100 McHenry.'Road, K.C. Masterpiece Barbeque and Grill .
Zoning Ordinance, Section 1.7.44.020.E.6.a. (ix)' - Sign
•
Coma Hefler recused himself and prepared to make the presenta-
tion of the sign for K. C. Masterpiece Barbecue and Grill at
100 McHenry Road at. the Town Center .
•
Mr. Skelton observed that since Mr . Hefler is the sign con-
tractor , it could be considered unethical for him to act as
an agent and make the presentation because he wduld have an
economic interest .
After some discussion, Mr . Hefler was advised by Mr. Skelton •
that he could describe the proposed sign and' then •leave the
room during the discussion by the Zoning Board Commissioners. •
Mr. Hefler was sworn in. Mr. Hefler is president of Sign-4-
Rama, 80 W. Dundee 'Road, Buffalo Grove, IL 60089 and
designated agent for K. C. Masterpiece and Grill , per Exhibit .
• "E" - a letter , dated April 28 , 1995, from Mr. Robert Dickson,
Vice President , of K.C. Masterpiece and Grill , 10985 Metcalf
Avenue, Overland Park, KS 66210 '(913) 345-1199. It designates
Mr . Hefler "to act in our behalf in this zoning matter . " The•..' •
sign was also approved by Melvin Simon and Associates.
The public hearing notice was read. Mr . Hefler stated that
K.C. Masterpiece Barbeque and Grill is unique because it will
be located at the Town Center and signs are controlled by the
B5 Section of the Zoning Ordinance.
`,,l ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS •
May 18 , 1995. - .Page Sixteen
r x
The proposed sign would meet the Town Center sign criteria if
it is installed on. one ( 1 ) -line . The three foot (3 ' ) letters ,
• would fit within the permitted twenty-five foot (25 ' ) length
and would total seventy-five (75) square feet .
However , the architect , the owner and Melvin Simon ' s Tenant
Coordinator agree that a two ( 2 ) line configuration is better , .
but because it requires more space, including the area between '
the two ( 2 ) rows o.f copy , it totals one hundred four ( 104 )
square feet . The sign will face Route 83 . The building' front- V
age is one hundred twenty feet ( 120 ' ) long , the sign would only.
occupy 9% of the area . They have only requested one ( 1 ) sign .
Drawings of the two ( 2 ) options were presented. "K. C . Master-
piece " will be white channel letters with red trim caps and
returns - "Barbeque and Grill " will: be Town Center red .
K . C . Masterpiece will be located next to the clock tower at the
south end of the shopping center and the proposed location , on
the east elevation is right for this sign . There will be no
signs on the north or south elevations .
The Appearance Commission reviewed the sign on May 11 , 1995 , and .
recommended that a variance be granted . The vote was 5 to 0 .
• Mr : Hefler asserted that the sign will be manufactured and it
will be installed . The only question is whether it will be on.
one ( 1 ) line or on two ( 2 ) lines . He will not profit any more ; '
or less , regardless of placement . There are other Town Center
signs with two ( 2 ) rows of copy . Sign-A-Rama has. done other
signs at Town Center and in Buffalo Grove . They want to do'
what is right and they comply with the rules of the Sign Code . .
Mr . Hefler left the . room .
The Commissioners had no questions , comments or objections .
Com . Entman made the following motion:
I move we recommend to the Village Board that the
•
request being made by K. C . Masterpiece Barbeque and
Grill , 100 McHenry Road , for variance of Zoning •
Ordinance , Section 17 . 44 . 060 . E . 6 . a . ( ix )., pertaining '
to Town Center Signs , for the purpose of installing
a wall sign that would exceed the allowable square
••
feet , be granted .
Sign tb. be installed pursuant to the plans and
specifications identified in the petition and the
• exhibits , relative to location, submitted to and
approved. by the Village .
Sign recommended pursuant to Sign Code , •
Section 14 . 44 . 010 , ' Sub-section B.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.
May 16 , 1995 , - Page Seventeen - • ,
•
•
Com . Windecker seconded the motion .
Roll Call Vote : AYE .- Paul , Windecker , Kearns ,
Entman and Heinrich
Motion Passed - 5 to 0 . ' Findings of Fact Attached .
An Ordinance will be 'prepared and the item will be on the
June 5 , 1995 Village Board Agenda .
VI . ANNOUNCEMENTS • .
Ch . Heinrich said Mr . Hruby , Mr . Balling and .President . Mathias have
had a request from a , resident in the Westchester Subdivision for a' -
Special Zoning Board meeting to ' consider a variance for an eight
foot • ( 8 ' ) fence . The petitioner 's property abuts a park .
Mr . Schar informed the Commissioners that it takes at least twenty
( 20 ) days to publish an item and give proper notification . The
resident has been given the application and filing instructions . :
Up to this time , nothing has been submitted , ' so . a. special meeting
could not be held before the first week in June at the earliest . .
Ch.. Heinrich said he did not think a special meeting is appropriate `
because it would set a bad precedent . A straw poll was taken to •
determine the pleasure of the other Commissioners :
Roll Call : AYE -, None ,
• NAY - Entman , Kearns , Heller , '
• •
• Paul and Windecker
•
•
• ' Poll was 6 to 0 against holding a special public hearing unless
• there would be an emergency situation .
VII . ADJOURNMENT •
Com . Windecker made a motion to adjourn .
Com . Kearns seconded the. motion ,
Respectfully submitted , •
1.1f;t,eti
Shirley Bates
Recording Secretary '
sb
•
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
May 16 , 1995 - Page Eighteen