Loading...
1995-07-11 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes SPECIAL MEETING ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE, ILLINOIS TUESDAY, JULY 11 , 1995 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Richard Heinrich called the Special Meeting of the Buffalo Grove Zoning Board of Appeals to order at 7;42 P.M. on Tuesday, July 11 , 1995 in the Council Chambers of the Village Hall, 50 Raupp Boulevard. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: M.Kearns, B. Entman, L. Windecker, R.Heinrich Commissioners Absent: J. Paul, L. Arbus and H.Hefler Bldg. Dept. Liaison: Edward Schar, Deputy Building Commissioner Village Board liaison: Jeffrey Braiman, Trustee III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 16, 1995 - Com. Windecker made a motion to approve as submitted. Com. Kearns seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Entman, Kearns, Windecker, Heinrich NAY - None Motion passed - 4 to 0. Minutes of May 16, 1995 approved as submitted. Ch. Heinrich informed the audience that there is a quorum of four (4) Commis- sioners present and it takes an affirmative vote of four (4) to grant a variance. Should any petitioner want to defer their request any time during their presen- tation, the item can be Tabled until the next meeting, July 18, 1995. IV. BUSINESS A. The Villas of Manchester Greens - Church Street and Manchester Drive Sign Code, Section 14.20.010 - Installation of Permanent Ground Sign Mr. Eric Barton, Project Superintendent of Red Seal Corporation, representa- tive of RSJ Manchester Limited Partnership, 425 Huehl Road, Building 18 B, Northbrook, II 60062 (272-5600) was sworn in and the public hearing notice was read. Mr. Barton summarized the reasons for requesting a variance for the purpose of installing a permanent ground sign at the entrance to The Villas of Manchester Greens on Church Street: 1. The Appearance Commission reviewed the sign last year and they thought it was approved, but when they applied for a permit,they were informed that the Appearance Commission had recommended a variance because the proposed sign exceeds the size, height and setback requirements of the Sign Code. 2. The location is within the existing landscaped area. The sign would be in the parking area if the twenty-five foot(25')setback was met and it would not be useful for identification of the Villas if it is not at the entrance. There are some existing shrubs that would have to be removed if the height limitation of five feet(5')is required. The Commissioners had no objections to the six foot seven inch(6'7") height, the ten foot(10')setback or the forty-four square foot(44 sq.ft.)size. The Village Engineer's Review,dated June 20, 1995,states:"The required line-of-sight is not affected by the proposed sign." No questions or comments from the audience Corn. Kearns made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board granting of the request by RSJ Manchester Limited Partnership,425 Huehl Road, Building 18 B, Northbrook, IL for variance of Sign Code, Section14.20.010, pertaining to Residential Districts,for the purpose of installing a ground sign that would exceed thirty-two square feet(32 sq.ft.)in size, exceed five feet (5')in height and be located within the required setback,as submitted. Corn.Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE-Entman, Kearns,Windecker and Heinrich NAY-None Motion Passed-4 to 0. Findings of Fact Attached. An Ordinance will be prepared and the item will be on the Village Board Agenda,August 7, 1995. B. 1043 East Plum Grove Circle, Frank and Sylvia Guercio Municipal Code. Section 15.20.040-5'Wood Fence Past Bldg. Line Frank and Sylvia Guercio were sworn in the and public hearing notice was read. Mrs. Guercio summarized their reasons for requesting a variance: 1. The fence will provide security for their 3-year old child and for the baby they are expecting. The fence will enclose the rear yard. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 11, 1995-PAGE TWO 2. The house is located across from Cooper Jr. High School and the busses stop right in front of the house. Kids run through the yard. 3. The actual building line would cut the yard almost in half and there is a tree about three feet (3') from the sidewalk. They would like the fence to be as close to the sidewalk as possible, preferably one and a half feet (1-1/2') from the sidewalk with the tree inside the fence. The Village Engineer's Line-of-Sight Review, dated June 20, 1995, states: "The limiting factor at the intersection is the principal structure itself. The abutting property is a far side driveway, and the fence should be set back five feet (5') from the sidewalk." Ch. Heinrich informed Mr. and Mrs. Guercio that the Village Engineer's Review is a minimum recommendation and not meant to be the actual distance from the sidewalk. He asked Mr. Schar to inform Mr. Kuenkler to reword his reviews. Ch. Heinrich observed that the building line is approximately three feet (3') from the house which would leave a fairly large yard. He told Mr. and Mrs. Guercio that the Zoning Board has been permitting corner fences to be about one-half(1/2) the distance between the building line and the sidewalk. He recomemmended a distance of twelve feet (12') from the sidewalk, or sixteen feet (16') from the corner of the house. Mr, Guercio responded that they wanted to maximize the use and value of their property, and they would prefer to have the tree inside the yard. Comments from Commissioners: Com. Windecker: Fences on corner lots become front yard fences to the next door neighbors and they could jeopardize the property value of the neighbor. He had no objection to a fence twelve feet (12') from the property line. Mrs. Guercio said their neighbors have deciduous trees that go all the way to the sidewalk. They were informed that landscaping does not require permits. Corn. Kearns: Concurred with the twelve foot (12') distance. The Village has an open space policy and reverse corner lots present fencing problems. Corn. Entman: Observed that they will increase the size of the yard by 20%. The proposed twelve foot (12') distance will not impede the neighbors' view. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 11, 1995 -PAGE THREE There were no questions or comments from the audience. Ch. Heinrich repeated the necessity for four (4) affirmative votes and gave the Guercios the option of Tabling the request until the next meeting when more Commissioners may be present, or amending their petition, or asking for a vote on the original request. If the vote is denied, they can appeal to the Village Board. Mr. and Mrs. Guercio discussed the location, agreed to amend their petition and requested a variance to permit construction of a cedar board-on-board fence that would be sixteen feet (16') from the foundation of the garage. Com. Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the request of Frank and Sylvia Guercio, 1043 Plum Grove circle, for variance of Municipal Code, Section 15.20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of constructing a cedar board-on-board that would extend a distance of twelve feet (12') from the property line ((sixteen feet (16') from the foundation of the garage)) along Indian Hill Drive. Unique circumstances having been demonstrated, the fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. Fence to be constructed in accordance with a revised plat of survey that is to be submitted with the building permit application, and approved by the Building Department. Corn. Kearns seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Entman, Kearns, Windecker and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed -4 to 0. Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in fifteen (15) days - July 27, 1995. C. 412 Gregg Lane, Ron and Sheila Rotstein Zoning Ordinance. Section 17.40.020 - Enclosure of Front Porch Ron and Sheila Rotstein were sworn in and the public hearing notice was read. Mr. Rotstein summarized the reasons for requesting a variance: 1. They want to enlarge the living room and add closet space to the 3,100 square foot house, by enclosing the existing front porch. The porch consists of a concrete slab, that is connected to the foundation of the house, with a roof. The addition will match the existing materials: shingles, siding, etc. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 11, 1995 - PAGE FOUR Ch. Heinrich said the Building Department would have to approve the construction plans and asked Mr. Schar if the bay window could encroach an additional three feet (3') into the front yard setback? Mr. Schar said the bay window could not extend into the front yard more than the distance of the variance, i.e. twenty-one feet (21) past the building line. Mr. Rotstein understood that to mean they would have to have a flat window. The Commissioners had no comments or objections. There were no comments from the audience. Corn. Entman made the following motion: I move we grant the variance requested by Ron and Sylvia Rotstein, 412 Gregg Lane, of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.40.020, pertaining to Area, Height, Bulk and Placement Regulations, for the purpose of enclosing the existing front porch to expand the living room and permit the structure to encroach a distance of four feet (4') into the required twenty-five (25') front yard setback, including whatever window is put in.. Materials are to be of like kind and quality as the existing structure, and the addition is to be constructed pursuant to plans and specifications submitted to and approved by the Building Department. Unique circumstances having been demonstrated, the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Corn. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Kearns, Entman, Windecker and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0. Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in fifteen days (15') - July 27, 1995. D. 1021 Belmar Lane, Jeffrey Mathe and Phyllis Creek Municipal Code, Section 15.20.040 - 8' Fence Abutting Rt. 83 Jeffrey Mathe was sworn in and the public hearing notice was read. Mr. Mathe said that the reconstruction of Route 83 was started after they purchased the house. He listed three (3) reasons for the variance: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ,,• JULY 11, 1995 - PAGE FINE 1. Noise abatement, because Route 83 is now higher and much closer to their property. 2. The sidewalk is now six inches (6") from their existing six foot (6') fence. People walking past the house can look into the yard. Bikers, roller bladers and people in cars can easily see the patio and into the kitchen. 3. The existing fence was damaged and needs replacement, so they would like a higher fence for privacy and security Their neighbors have been informed and there are no objections. Comments from Commissioners: Com. Windecker observed from the plat of survey that the existing fence is outside the property line. Mr. Schar confirmed that if the plat is correct, the existing fence is 1.9 feet over the property line on one side and 1.75 feet over the property line on the other side. The proposed fence would have to be constructed on the property line. Mr. Mathe requested that the Zoning Board grant the variance to permit the fence on the property line but he would like to contact the State to secure the right to reconstruct the fence in the present location. Mr. Skelton was consulted. Mr. Mathe was informed that he has the right to contact the State and try to get permission to put the fence on State property. However, the Zoning Board cannot grant a variance past the property line. Corn. Windecker also observed that the property is not lower than the road- way an Is wou L IL on y eig fool , lence a ong Liell on la! side of the street. The grade of the land across the street, where there are eight foot (8') fences, is much lower. If the other Commissioners do not have any objections, he would not vote to deny the fence. Ch. Heinrich commented that Route 83 is an appropriate place for eight foot (8') fences because they have been proven to abate noise. He told Mr. Mathe that even if the State grants permission for the fence, he could be told to move in at any time in the future. Corn. Kearns: No problem with the eight foot (8') height at the property line and the Village has no control if the State grants permission for the fence to be over Mr. Mathe's property line. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 11, 195 - PAGE SIX Corn. Entman asked if the whole fence is going to be replaced? He has no problem with the eight foot (8') height along Route 83 only. Mr. Mathe said he only plans to replace the eight feet (80') of fence along Route 83. He talked with the Field Supervisor of the Route 83 Project about the possibility of reconstructing the fence. Ch. Heinrich informed Mr. Mathe that the State would have to petition the Village for a variance because the property is in the Village. He predicted the chances for this happening was between slim and none. No eight foot (8') fence could be constructed past the property line without a variance. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Kearns made the following motion: I move we grant the request of Jeffrey Mathe and Phyllis Creek, for variance of Municipal Code, Section 15.20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of constructing an eight foot (8') wood fence along the rear property line. Said fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Entman, Kearns, Windecker and Heinrich Nay - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0. Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in fifteen days (15') days - July 27, 1995. NOTE: It will be necessary for the State to apply for a variance if the fence is to be constructed past the rear property line. E. 1521 Madison Court North, Helmut and Hilma Sanft Zoning Ordinance. Section 17.32.020 - Permit Existing Shed to Remain Helmut Sanft was sworn in and the public hearing notice was read. Mr. Sanft explained that in 1989 they got a permit to put in a swimming pool and a fence. Subsequently, they secured a permit to construct a shed the required distance from the property line in accordance with the original plat of survey. In 1991 a new survey was made, for refinancing purposes, and the pool, shed and fence were properly shown. However, their neighbor recently had a plat of survey made by the same surveyor and it shows the fence to be seven feet (7') off the property at the most easterly point. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 11, 1995 - PAGE SEVEN The shed is anchored on four (4) concrete piers that are forty-two inches (42") deep and it would be a hardship to move it. A photograph was submitted. The variance will permit the shed to remain as constructed. Mr. Schar referred to the Village Engineer's Review, dated July 10, 1995. It is attached to an accurate plat of survey dated September 13, 1994. The fence is to the north, or northwest, of the property line with the shed shown in relation to the property line. This plat is a combination of two plats and shows accurately what has taken place. The fence is actually on the property of the neighbor to the north. Ch. Heinrich observed that the shed is located on the Sanft's property at 1521 Madison Court North and would be located on the easement, one foot six inches (1'6") from the actual property line. Mr. Sanft said he has discussed this situation with the neighbors. They all understand that if either property is sold, the fence would have to be moved. The Village Engineer's Review, dated June 10, 1995, states: " we do not allow any encroachments into the easement. We do understand the chain of events surrounding the fence and shed construction. There are no municipal utilities in the easements, and the drainage in this area is not affected. If the Board approves this request, we would suggest that the approval be terminated if the shed is ever rebuilt." Mr. Skelton said there is concern about building any kind of structure within the easement, but Section 17.32.020 can be varied in accordance with the Variation Authority of Section 17.52.040 A.6. This has been construed to mean that it goes beyond the one third requirement, because these are not required yards. Mr. Raysa and Mr. Skelton suggest that if the variation is granted, that it be made subject to the existing easement rights of the Village, such that if the Village ever had to use that easement, the shed would have to be moved. A second condition would be that the variance would terminate if the shed is ever rebuilt. The Commissioners had no questions or objections to the variance with the conditions stated. The shed would be permitted as a non-conforming use. Mr. Sanft was in agreement with the condition that the variance would terminate if the shed is ever rebuilt and the easement rights of the Village.. There were no questions or comments from the audience. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 11, 1995 - PAGE EIGHT Corn. Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the request of Helmut and Hilma Sanft, 521 Madison Court North, for variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.32.020, pertaining to Location of Accessory Buildings and Structures, for the purpose of permitting the existing shed to remain as constructed, less than five feet (5') from the side lot line, subject to the following conditions: 1. The easement rights of the Village of Buffalo Grove 2. The variance will terminate if the shed is ever rebuilt Unique circumstances and hardship having been exhibited, the proposed variance will not be detrimental to the essential character of the neighborhood. Corn. Kearns seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Entman, Kearns, Windecker and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed -4 to 0. Findings of Fact Attached. It will be unncessary for any building permits to be issued unless the fence or shed is ever reconstructed. F, 380 Blue Ash Drive, Seymour and Barbara Stoller Municipal Code, Section 15.20.040 - 7' Wood Fence/Port Clinton Road Seymour Stoller was sworn in and the public hearing notice was read. Mr. Stoller said the reasons for requesting a variance are for privacy, security and safety. Variances for identical fences have been granted for all the other residents on Blue Ash Drive abutting Port Clinton Road. There have been instances of property being stolen from the rear yards of the neighbors. The fence will prevent high school students from cutting across the yard. The contract purchasers of the remaining lot are planning to request a similar fence. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Comments from Commissioners: Corn. Windecker said he observed the fence that is in violation has not been moved. Is this lot next to that lot and if so how will the fences be connected? ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 11, 1995 - PAGE NINE Mr. Schar said the Kesslers have been informed of the violation and they are in the process of relocating their fence; but this fence will be connected to the fence at the other end of the block. Corn. Entman and Com. Kearns had no objections if the fences match and if there have been no objections from any neighbors. Ch. Heinrich and Corn. Entman are acquaintances of the Stollers. Corn. Entman made the following motion: I move we grant the variance requested by Seymour and Barbara Stoller, 380 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') wood fence along the rear lot line abutting Port Clinton Road. Said fence to be constructed in accordance with the exhibits submitted with application and approved by the Village. Unique circumstances having been demonstrated, the proposed fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. Com. Kearns seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Windecker, Kearns, Entman and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0. Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in fifteen (15) days - July 27, 1995. G. 641 Checker Drive, William and Karren Capre Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.40.020 - Construction of 2 Additions. William Capre was sworn in and the public hearing notice was read. Mr. Capre described the proposed additions to their Buckingham model. They would like to construct a new garage in front of the existing garage and in order to have some additional storage space for tools, camping equip- ment, bikes, etc. they are requesting an additional two feet (2') into the required seven and a half foot (7-1/2') side yard setback. They are planning an addition at the rear of the house that would encroach a distance of approximately six and a half feet (6-1/2') into the required thirty foot (30') rear yard setback. The addition will consist of a study and a fourth (4th)bedroom. This addition will be even with the existing twelve foot (12') patio. Ch. Heinrich asked Mr. Capre if he has considered the cost of the proposed additions in comparison with purchasing a different house? ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 11, 1995 - PAGE TEN Mr. Capre said he and his family do not want to move because they like their neighbors and the location which is near the school. They plan to remain in Buffalo Grove for a long time even if they never recover their investment. He has talked to their neighbors and there have been no objections. The materials used for the additions will match the existing structure. The Commissioners.had no questions or objections. Corn. Kearns made the following motion: I move we grant the request of William and Karren Capre, 641 Checker Drive, for variance of the Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.40.020, pertaining to Area, Height, Bulk and Placement Regulations, for the purpose of constructing an addition the would encroach a distance of six and one half feet (6-1/2') into the required thirty foot (30') rear yard setback and for the purpose of constructing a garage that would encroach a distance of two feet (2') into the required seven foot (7') side yard setback. Materials are to match the existing structure, pursuant to plans submitted to and approved by the Village. Unique circumstances having been demonstrated, the proposed variance will alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Corn. Entman seconded the motion. The Village Engineer's Review, dated June 20, 1995, states: "The proposed addition need not affect the existing drainage in the area." The homeowner was "advised that no alteration within five feet (5') of the property line or the existing swale is permitted." Roll Call Vote: AYE - Entman, Kearns, Windecker and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0. Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in fifteen (15) days - July 27, 1995. H. 320 Lakeview Court, Robert and Becky Bronswick Municipal Code, Section 15.20.040 - 5' Fence Past Building Line Robert Bronswick was sworn in and the public hearing notice was read. Mr. Bronswick summarized the reasons for requesting a variance: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 11 , 1995 - PAGE ELEVEN 1. They want to maximize the use of the property. They have future plans so they want to construct a five foot(5')wood fence that would extend twenty feet(20')past the building line. 2. The fence will provide safety for their two(2)children. 3. They have a large dog that likes to run. The fence will confine him. 4. The fence would be ten feet(10')from the sidewalk and will not affect the neighbors. The neighbors have no objections. Ch. Heinrich observed that the lot is substantial size and the Zoning Board typically requires fences to be farther back from the sidewalk. He suggested a distance of twelve to thirteen feet(12- 13')away from the sidewalk. Mr. Bronswick said the neighbors have a fence fifteen feet(15')from the building line and he offered to amend his petition to this distance. The fence will be a cedar board-on-board and it is a$4,000 investment. Ch. Heinrich and the other Commissioners had no objection to this compro- mise.The fence would be approximately fourteen feet(14')from the sidewalk. The Village Engineer's Review,dated June 20, 1995,states: "The limiting factor at the intersection is the principal structure itself. The abutting property has no driveway affected." No comments or questions from the audience. Corn.Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the request of Robert and Becky Bronswick, 320 Lakeview Court,for variance of Municipal Code, Section 15.20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts,for the purpose of constructing a five foot(5')board-on-board, a distance of sixteen feet(16')from the foundation of the building as indicated on the plat of survey submitted with the application. Unique circumstances having been demonstrated,the proposed fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. Corn. Kearns seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE-Entman, Kearns,Windecker and Heinrich NAY-None Motion Passed-4 to 0. Findings of Fact. Permit may be issued in fifteen(15)days-July 27, 1995. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 11, 1995-PAGE TWELVE I. 102 Lilac Lane, Michael Judith Garber Zoning Ordinance. Section 17.32.020 - Construction of Storage Shed Application was withdrawn July 7, 1995 - $55.00 fee to be refunded. J. 1999 Sheridan Road, Marc and Marlyn Spiivak Zoning Ordinance. Section 17.36.030 -Widening of Driveway A Text Amendment to this section of the Zoning Ordinance was passed by the Village Board on July 10, 1995. The amendment would permit wider driveways. This variance may not be necessary if the Spivaks comply with the terms of the amendment. Corn. Windecker made a motion to Table until July 18, 1995. Com. Kearns seconded the motion. Voice Vote -AYE Unanimously. K. 193 Cottonwood Road, Nicholas and Marilyn Foster Municipal Code, Section 15.20.040 -4' Fence Past Building Line The Fosters asked for their petition to be Tabled until July 18, 1995. Corn. Windecker made a motion to Table until July 18, 1995. Corn. Entman seconded the motion. Voice Vote -AYE Unanimously. L. 126 Toulon Drive, Veniamin and Liliya Dontsis Municipal Code. Section 15.20.040 - 6' Fence Veniamin Dontsis was sworn in and the public hearing notice was read. Mr. Dontsis summarized the reasons for requesting a variance: 1. There is heavy traffic on Buffalo Grove Road and the house is close to the road. There is a lot of noise. 2. People walking past the house can look into the rear yard. 3. They plan a future deck and a six foot (6') fence will provide privacy. 4. The fence will provide safety and protection for their small child. 5. The neighbors have been informed and they do not object. Ch. Heinrich observed that there is an outlot between the property and Route 83. This property is a detention pond and is unbuildable. Com. Windecker said he observed an existing chain link fence and asked if the fence along Route 83 is going to be wood? What permits are required? ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 11,1995 - PAGE THIRTEEN Mr. Schar said that apermit was issued for constructing the existing five foot (5') fence. If the variance is granted, a second permit will be issued after the fifteen (15) day waiting period. There will be an eight foot (8') section that tapers from six feet (6') to five feet (5') at both ends of the six foot (6') wood fence. Ch. Heinrich and the Commissioners had no objections. Corn. Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the request of Veniamin and Liliya Dontsis, 126 Toulon Drive, for variance of the Municipal Code, Section 15.20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of constructing a six foot (6') wood fence along the side lot line. The fence will be tapered from six feet (6') to five feet (5') along the first eight foot (8') section of the rear lot line and will also be tapered from six feet (6') to five feet (5') from the side lot line returning to the front of the house. Corn. Kearns seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Entman, Kearns, Windecker and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0. Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in fifteen (15) days - July 27, 1995. V. ANNOUNCEMENTS The regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting will be held on July 18, 1995. VI. ADJOURNMENT Corn. Kearns made a motion to adjourn. Corn. Entman seconded the motion. Ch. Heinrich adjourned the meeting at 9:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Shirley Bates Recording Secretary ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 11,1995 - PAGE FOURTEEN