Loading...
1995-07-18 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE , ILLINOIS TUESDAY, JULY 18 , 1995 I . CALL TO ORDER Chairman Richard Heinrich called the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting to order at 7 : 40 P . M . on Tuesday, July 18 , 1995 in the Council Chambers of the Village Hall , 50 Raupp Boulevard . II . ROLL CALL Commissioners Present : M . Kearns , B . Entman, L . Windecker, L . Arbus , H . Hefler and R . Heinrich Commissioners Absent : J . Paul Bldg . Dept . Liaison : Edward Schar, Deputy Building Commissioner Village Attorney : William Raysa III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 11 , 1995 - Special Meeting . Com . Windecker made a motion to approve as submitted . Com . Kearns seconded the motion . Roll Call Vote : AYE - Kearns , Entman, Windecker, and Heinrich NAY - None ABSTAIN - Arbus and Hefler Motion Passed -4 to 0 , 2 abstentions . Minutes of July 11 , 1995 were approved as submitted . IV. OLD BUSINESS A. 1999 Sheridan Road, Marc and Marlyn Spivak Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 36 . 030 Widening of Driveway Com . Kearns made a motion to remove from Table . Com . Windecker seconded the motion . Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously . Mr . Schar announced that an Ordinance was passed by the Village Board on Monday, July 10 , 1995 that will permit the Spivaks to meet the requirements for widening the driveway as they requested . The item was removed from the Agenda . B. 193 Cottonwood Road, Nicholas and Marilyn Foster Municipal Code Section 15 . 20 . 040 Four (4) Foot Chain Link Fence Past Building Line Com. Windecker made a motion to remove from Table. Com. Kearns seconded the motion. Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously Mr. and Mrs. Foster were present . The public hearing notice was republished in the Buffalo Grove Herald on July 1, 1995 . Mr. Foster summarized the reasons for requesting a variance of the Fence Code for the purpose of constructing a four foot (4 ' ) chain link fence that would extend past the building line along St . Mary' s Pkwy: 1 . There was a split rail fence close to the sidewalk for 31 years . It was permitted by the police when it was originally constructed. It was badly dilapidated so it was removed. 2 . They now have a dog, so they would like to construct a four foot (4 ' ) chain link fence in the same location. 3 . The fence will provide additional recreation area in the rear yard and give the dog enough room in which to run. 4 . There has never been an accident at the corner of Cottonwood and St . Mary' s, so putting a chain link fence up to the front of the house will not create a problem. 5 . They have discussed the proposed fence with the neighbors and there have been no objections. The neighbor to the rear has offered to help put up the fence which will connect to his fence. The Village Engineer' s Review, dated June 20, 1995, states : "We recommend that the fence be no further west than the rear of the home so as to not be more of a restriction than 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. " Mrs . Foster said there is a row of hosta plants along the property line, and if the fence is set back five feet (5 ' ) it would create a problem. They would compromise and construct the fence about 3-1/2 feet from the property line, just past the hostas . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 18, 1995 - PAGE TWO Ch. Heinrich explained that the Zoning Board cannot grant a variance for more than the Village Engineer recommends because the Village could be held liable if there is ever an accident at the corner. It was not certain if Mr. Kuenkler knows the fence is a chain link, not solid wood. The plat was reviewed. It is an old one with a small 1" = 50 ' scale, and it appears that the house is non- conforming because there is less than a twenty-five foot (25 ' ) side yard setback. It was not known what the Village required thirty-one (31) years ago, but Ch. Heinrich surmised that only front yard setbacks were maintained. Mr. Raysa concurred that the Zoning Board should con- form with the Village Engineer' s Review, unless it is revised in writing. Comments from Commissioners: Com. Windecker: Observed that if the fence is not to be connected to the neighbor' s fence it would be out of line . He would not object if the Village Engineer modified his review. Com. Arbus : Would not approve of more than the Village Engineer' s recommendation without revision. Ch. Heinrich asked Mr. and Mrs . Foster if they would prefer to Table until the August 15, 1995 Zoning Board meeting and consult the Village Engineer to see if he would modify his recommendation. Com. Hefler: Assured Mr. and Mrs. Foster that the Commissioners were not against them and said that he agreed with the suggestion to discuss the situation with Mr. Kuenkler. Mr. Foster hesitated to wait another month because the dog has to be chained up, but after conferring with Mrs. Foster, they agreed to Table and talk to the Mr. Kuenkler, the Village Engineer. Com. Kearns made a motion to Table until August 15, 1995 . Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Hefler, Entman, Kearns, Arbus, Windecker and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 18, 1995 - PAGE THREE IV. NEW BUSINESS A. 301 Vintage Lane, Susan Raines for Contract Purchaser Wm. Polansky Zoning Ordinance 17 .40 . 020 Construction of Stairway into Side Yard Setback. William Polansky had phoned and requested postponement until the August meeting. Motion to Table until August 15, 1995 was made by Com. Kearns and seconded by Com. Windecker. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Hefler, Entman, Kearns, Windecker, Arbus and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . B. 1505 Madison Drive, Joseph and Carol Mihovilovich Zoning Ordinance, Section 17 .40 . 020 - Addition Joseph and Carol Mihovilovich were sworn in. The public hearing notice was published in the Buffalo Grove Herald on July 1, 1995 . Mr. Mihovilovich requested a variance of approximately two feet (2 ' ) into the required forty foot (40 ' ) rear yard setback for the purpose of constructing a two (2) story addition that would enlarge the family room and the master bedroom. He said the materials for the addition will match the existing structure: roof, siding, etc. All the neighbors have been informed and there have been no objections. Ch. Heinrich had no questions. The Commissioners had no objections . Com. Entman disclosed that he is acquainted with the petitioners . There were no questions or comments from the audience . Com. Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the request of Joseph and Carol Mihovilovich, for variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17 .40 . 020, pertaining to Area, Height, Bulk and Placement Regulations, for the purpose of constructing an addition that would encroach a distance of two feet (2 ' ) into the required forty foot (40 ' ) rear yard setback. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 18, 1995 - PAGE FOUR Materials are to match the existing construction in like kind and quality. Addition to be constructed pursuant to plans and specifications submitted to and approved by the Village . Petitioners having exhibited hardship and unique circumstances, the proposed addition will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The Mihovilovichs were informed that no alteration of the grade within five feet (5 ' ) of the property line or the existing swale is permitted, per Village Engineer' s Review of June 10, 1995 . Com. Kearns seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Hefler, Entman, Kearns, Windecker, Arbus and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed- 6 to 0 . Findings of fact Attached. Permit may be issued in fifteen days - August 4, 1995 . C. 630 Pinehurst Lane, Michael and Beth Kliff Zoning Ordinance, Section 17 .40 . 020 Construct Deck Over 20% Rear Yard Coverage Michael and Beth Kliff were sworn in. The public hearing notice was published on July 1, 1995 . Mrs. Kliff explained that they put in a new above ground swimming pool and they want to replace the brick patio with a wood deck to provide better access to the pool . 1 . The patio, which is in bad condition, is hot on the kids feet . 2 . The deck will improve the appearance of the yard and increase the property value. 3 . The yard slopes and the deck will be level, so it will be a safer surface. 4 . The deck will provide additional security as a barrier to the pool . Ch. Heinrich had no objections . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 18, 1995 - PAGE FIVE The Village Engineer' s Review, dated July 11, 1995, states : "It will not affect the drainage in the area. It was noted that miscellaneous drains were under construction. These need to be removed or properly continued to the storm sewer. The owner was present and advised. " Mrs. Kliff said Mr. Kuenkler has given them advice as to how to tie the drains into the sewer. They will comply with his recommendations . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Arbus disclosed that the petitioners are friends, but this will have no affect on his opinion. He has no problem with the proposed variance. Com. Windecker - No problem. Com. Kearns asked if the neighbor to the rear knows about the proposed deck? Mrs . Kliff replied that this neighbor was present when Mr. Kuenkler was out and had some questions but she did not indicate that she had any objections. Mr. Raysa said he had discussed the subject of the petition with Mr. Hruby, the Zoning Administrator, and Mr. Schar. The Zoning Ordinance requires any accessory structure to not occupy more than 20% of the rear yard. The Zoning variation authority for the ZBA is found in Section 14 . 52 . 040 A. 6 . permits variations to the pro- visions of Chapter 17 . 32 regarding accessory buildings and structures, consistent with Section 17 . 52 . 040 A. 1 . which is the 33% requirement . It is his opinion that the Zoning Board is restricted by the 33% requirement . The calculations on the plat of survey were determined to be inaccurate, and using Staff figures, the rear yard area is 2, 479 . 39 square feet . 33% of that figure is 818 . 20 square feet which is the maximum that would be allowed. The petitioners' total of 906 square feet, for the pool and the deck combined, exceeds the 33% figure by 87 . 8 square feet . Mrs. Kliff confirmed that the pool has been installed but she was not sure if it is 15 ' or 16 ' in width. Li ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 18, 1995 - PAGE SIX Mr. and Mrs . Kliff agreed to reduce the size of the deck to conform with Mr. Raysa' s interpretation of the Code. Assuming the pool area to be 456 square feet, the maxi- mum yard coverage area would be 818 . 20 square feet . The pool is 13 . 5 feet from the house and the Kliffs would be permitted variation for a combined total of 818 . 20 square feet for the pool and the deck. Final calculations would be confirmed when the permit application is submitted with a revised plat of survey. Mr. and Mrs . Kliff amended their petition on its face to request a variance that would permit the deck and pool combined not to exceed 818 .2 square feet . The Commissioners had no objections . There were no comments or questions from the audience. Com. Arbus made the following motion: I move we grant the variation requested by Michael and Beth Kliff, 630 Pinehurst Lane, of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17 . 32 . 020, Pertaining to Placement of Accessory Buildings and Structures, for the purpose of permitting a deck that, in combination with the swimming pool, would not exceed a total 818 .2 square feet . Unique circumstances having been demonstrated, due to the grading of the rear yard, the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Com. Windecker seconded the motion Roll Call Vote : AYE - Hefler, Entman, Kearns, Windecker, Arbus and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in 15 days - August 3 , 1995 . D. 951 Old Arlington Heights Court - Ralph Almerigi Municipal Code, Section 15 .20 . 040 Construction of a 6 ' and 4 ' Fence Past Bldg. . Line Ralph and Bernadine Almerigi were sworn in. The public hearing notice was published on July 1, 1995 . Mr. Almerigi Li summarized their reasons for requesting a variance: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 18, 1995 - PAGE SEVEN 1 . Their property abuts commercial property and they need a six foot (6 ' ) solid scalloped fence along the rear lot line from the west property line to the east property line, sixteen feet (16 ' ) south along Old Arlington Heights Road, then diagonally to the northeast corner of the house for privacy. 2 . They have a requested a four foot (4 ' ) scal- loped open picket fence along Old Arlington Heights Road and returning to the front of the house. The Village Engineer' s Review, dated July 11, 1995, states : " The fence is adequately set back from the intersection but needs to be set back a minimum of five feet (5 ' ) from the sidewalk." Mrs. Almerigi said she called Dick Kuenkler and asked him to come out to look at the site. He agreed to come but he said he would not change his recommendation. He did not call or come out . Mr. Almerigi contended that his lot is surrounded by commercially zoned property. Old Arlington Heights Road is considered a commercial road in Arlington Heights and he should be able to construct a six foot (6 ' ) fence, but they only want a four foot (4 ' ) decorative picket fence. The dealer uses the road for semi-trailers and the speed limit is 40 mph. Proximity to McDonald' s and Buffalo Grove High School means there are many teenage drivers and the fence would provide a safety barrier and security. Mr. Schar said based on the transportation map, this section of Old Arlington Heights Road is considered a collector street, not a major street . Six foot fences are only permitted along rear lot lines of major streets. Ch. Heinrich observed that the yard is a fair size and he would be willing to grant a variance, but not as close as five feet (5 ' ) from the sidewalk. He later changed his opinion because there is no line-of-sight problem. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 18, 1995 - PAGE EIGHT Li Mr. Almerigi presented photographs showing that if the fence is constructed five feet (5 ' ) from the sidewalk, they would have to remove two trees . They want the fence to be eighteen inches (18") from the sidewalk. They have talked to their neighbors and no one any objections. They want to keep their property beautiful . Ch. Heinrich disagreed with Mr. Kuenkler' s rationale that the fence should be set back five feet (5 ' ) from the sidewalk and he asked that the Engineering Department be represented at future Zoning Board meetings because the ZBA cannot go against the Village Engineer' s recommenda- tion. The item can be Tabled until the August meeting so the Almerigis can discuss the fence with Mr. Kuenkler. In this instance, he had no objection to a setback of one and one half feet (1-1/2 feet) . Mrs . Almerigi asked if they could construct the six foot (6 ' ) fence as proposed and Table the four foot (4 ' ) portion for a month. The sidewalk angles so the six foot (6 ' ) portion would be set back more than the recommended five feet (5 ' ) from the sidewalk and it would be in line with the four foot (4 ' ) section. Mr. Raysa and Mr. Schar agreed it was permissible to grant a variance for the proposed six foot (6 ' ) fence and Table the proposed four foot (4 ' ) fence. The Commissioners had no objections. Com. Hefler made the following motion: I move we grant the variance requested by Ralph and Bernadine Almerigi, 951 Old Arlington Heights Court, for variance of Municipal Code, Section 15 .20 . 040, pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of constructing a six foot (6 ' ) wood privacy fence as shown on the plat of survey, Exhibit A. Said fence will run along the north property line to the northwest corner, south for sixteen feet (16 ' ) then angle thirty-two feet (32 ' ) to the house. Fence to be located a distance of five feet (5 ' ) from the sidewalk along Old Arlington Heights Road Fence to be a six foot (6 ' ) solid scalloped design. Li ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 18, 1995 - PAGE NINE Said fence will not alter the essential character 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, Windecker, Arbus and Heinrich Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. Permit for six foot (6 ' ) may be issued in 15 days - August 3, 1995 . Com. Kearns made a motion to Table the variance as requested by Ralph and Bernadine Almerigi, 951 Old Arlington Court, for a four foot (4 ' ) open picket fence past the building line along Old Arlington Heights Road, until August 15, 1995 . Com. Arbus seconded the motion. Voice Vote : AYE Unanimously E. 406 Woodbury Road, Gary Abrahams Municipal Code, Section 15 . 20 . 040 Six foot (6 ' ) fence past building line Mr. Gary Abrahams was sworn in. The public hearing notice was published on July 1, 1995 . Mr. Abrahams summarized the reasons for requesting a variance: 1 . When they purchased the property, they were told by the seller that they could fence the yard to within one foot (1 ' ) of the lot line. 2 . The fence will permit maximum use of the yard by providing space for future children and a dog in which to run and play. The Village Engineer' s Line-of-Sight Review, dated July 11, 1995 states: "The limiting factor at the inter- section is the principal structure itself. The abutting property is a near driveway, and the fence should be set back a minimum of ten (10 ' ) from the side- walk. " Mr. Abrahams said he understood the reasons for the Village Engineer' s review and he would abide by Mr. Kuenkler' s recommendation. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 18, 1995 - PAGE TEN The plat of survey was reviewed. The subject property is a duplex building. It was undetermined exactly where the sidewalk is located. The property line is thirty feet (30 ' ) from the center line of Woodbury. Assuming that the sidewalk is outside the heavy black (property) line, the Commissioners agreed to a variance that would permit construction of a fence that would be nineteen feet (19 ' ) from the foundation of the house or ten feet (10 ' ) from the sidewalk, whichever is more restrictive. Mr. Abrahams said he discussed the fence with the co- owner of the duplex and he has no objections, but he has not talked to the residents to the north on Woodbury. The fence would be in their front yard. There were no questions from the audience. Comments from Commissioners : Com. Arbus noted this is the first duplex that he has been confronted with. The corner is not busy and he objected to the six foot (6 ' ) height . Com. Windecker would approve a five foot (5 ' ) fence; nineteen feet (19 ' ) from the house. Com. Kearns concurred five feet (5 ' ) in height; nineteen feet (19 ' ) from the house. Com. Entman asked if the fence would begin at the rear corner of the house? If so, he would approve a five foot (5 ' ) fence constructed nineteen feet (19 ' ) from the house. Mr. Abrahams responded the fence would go from the rear corner of the house. The six foot (6 ' ) height was objectionable to all the Commissioners and Mr. Abrahams agreed to amend his peti- tion and construct a five foot (5 ' ) solid ceder fence a distance of nineteen feet (19 ' ) from the foundation at the rear corner of the house or ten feet (10 ' ) from the sidewalk, whichever distance is farther from the sidewalk. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 18, 1995 - PAGE ELEVEN Com. Entman made the following motion: I move we grant the request of Gary Abrahams, 406 Woodbury Road, for variance of Municipal Code, Section 15 .20 . 040, pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of constructing a fence past the building line along Woodbury Road, as amended by the petitioner. Said variance subject to the following conditions : 1 . The fence to be constructed a distance no greater than nineteen feet (19 ' ) from the foundation at the rear corner of the house, as depicted on the plat of survey, or at least ten feet (10 ' ) from the sidewalk along Woodbury Lane. The intent of the ZBA being: The fence is to be at least ten feet (10 ' ) from the sidewalk, pursuant to the Village Engineer' s Line-of-Sight Study. 2 . The fence is to be five feet (5 ' ) in height . Said fence to be constructed of materials approved by the Village. Fence to be located pursuant to the amended exhibits submitted by the petitioner, and approved by the Village. Petitioner having exhibited that construction of the fence and the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare . Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Arbus, Windecker, Kearns, Entman, Hefler and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in fifteen (15) days - August 3 , 1995 . Li ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 18, 1995 - PAGE TWELVE F . 2071 Wright Boulevard, Marc and Jean Benjoya Municipal Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 Fence past building line along Jordan Terrace Mark Benjoya was sworn in . The public hearing notice was published on July 1 , 1995 . Mr . Benjoya said he is cur- currently residing at 1537 Madison Drive . The expect to close on the house about July 31 , 1995 . A letter from Mark Samuels authorized Mr . Benjoya to act on behalf of Samuels Homes , Inc . in requesting a variance in order to construct a fence that would extend past the building line along Jordan Terrace . Mr . Samuels has supplied the names of the contiguous property owners . Mr . Schar confirmed that Mike Samuels has no objections to the proposed variance and has contacted all the contiguous property owners and none of them have any objections . Mr . Benjoya summarized the reasons for requesting a variation for the purpose of constructing a four and a half foot (4 -1/2 ' ) spaced picket fence : 1 . There is a very narrow rear yard (40 ' ) and most of the rear yard is on the side . 2 . They want to have the use of as much of the rear yard as possible for his two (2 ) daughters and their Golden Retriever to have room to play . Mr . Benjoya described the proposed fence . It would be approximately forty feet (40 ' ) in length along Jordan Terrace , starting near the rear corner of the house . No driveways are affected and after discussing the Line-of-Sight with the Village Engineer, Mr . Benjoya said he would amend his request from one foot ( 1 ' ) from the sidewalk to three feet (3 ' ) from the sidewalk . The Village Engineer' s Review, dated July 11 , 1995 , states : "The limiting factor at the intersection is the principal structure itself , however, the fence should be setback a minimum of five feet ( 5 ' ) from the sidewalk . No driveways are affected . " ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 18 , 1995 - PAGE THIRTEEN ..d \... ..1 .., i.1 \-1 Ch . Heinrich informed Mr . Benjoya that the Zoning Board �./ has been consistent in limiting fences to about halfway between the house and the property line to keep the openness of the area . He observed that the contiguous property owner of Lot 19 will most likely request a variance for a similar fence . Mr . Benjoya said he is acquainted with Sam Brown (#19 ) and he is planning to apply for a similar variance . The variance will permit space for his children and dog room to run and play and they will have as much use of the yard as possible . A three foot (3 ' ) fence would be too low to confine his dog . Ch . Heinrich said five feet (5 ' ) is too close to the sidewalk . The yard is approximately 3 , 100 sq . ft . He is not opposed to giving some relief to increase the amount of yard . There is no line-of-sight issue , the issue is how the fence will affect the surrounding area . If it was not for the fact that there is only one neighbor, he would not be willing to grant any variance . He proposed a fence that would be located twenty feet (20 ' ) from the house or ten feet ( 10 ' ) from the sidewalk . Mr . Benjoya responded that the fence would be about ninety feet ( 90 ' ) from Wright Boulevard and it would be a picket fence . The neighbors do not object to the Village Engineer' s recommendation . He offered to lower the fence to a height of four feet (4 ' ) . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Hefler said the Engineer only recommended a minimum setback . There are other issues to be considered, such as pedestrian safety. He objected to the variance . Com. Entman said people are entitled to use and enjoy their property . Considering the size of this yard, he would only be willing to ten feet ( 10 ' ) from the house . Com . Kearns commented that ten feet ( 10 ' ) from the house would give adequate space . He expressed concern that the total length of this fence plus the neighbors ' fence would be eighty feet ( 80 ' ) of fencing . Com . Windecker, in consideration of the aesthetics of the area, concurred with construction of a fence ten feet (10 ' ) from the house . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 18 , 1995 - PAGE FOURTEEN Com . Arbus asked if Mr . Ruskin (#9 ) and Mr . Kritz (#8 ) had been personally informed because they would see the fence from the front of their house . The proposed fence would alter the essential characteristics of the neighborhood and he agreed with the suggestion of ten feet ( 10 ' ) from the house . Mr . Benjoya said he had informed the contract purchasers of the fence and none of them have any objections . He disagreed with the Commissioners opinion that the fence would not look good in the area . He asked how far a three foot (3 ' ) fence would have to go before it could be higher and he was informed that it could be raised to five feet (5 ' ) at the building line without a taper . Com . Arbus commented that if this was an interior lot , the rear yard would be about the size that the ZBA is willing to grant . Just because it is a corner lot does not mean that it can automatically be used as desired . Mr . Benjoya gave some reasons for needing additional space . They want to put a swing set in the side yard, do some landscaping and permit enough space for the dog to run . He asked if the Board was amenable to anything closer than twenty feet (20 ' ) from the sidewalk . Ch . Heinrich said that a variance is not an entitlement . Special circumstances and unique conditions are required . He proposed going fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) which is half the distance from the sidewalk and has been done in the past . Com . Arbus said he saw no special circumstance to warrant changing his mind . Com . Windecker asked Mr . Benjoya what unique circumstance or hardship exists? Mr . Benjoya replied that it would be a hardship not to be able to use as much of his property as there is available and because this is a corner, there will be traffic so they will lose privacy . Com. Windecker responded that a picket fence does not provide privacy . A dog does not constitute a unique circumstance . He has personally raised a large dog on a smaller lot with no fence . He waited to hear other comments before making a decision . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 18 , 1995 - PAGE FIFTEEN ...i .., ..i ..i Com. Hefler concurred with Com . Kearns ' observation that the total length of fencing could be eighty feet ( 80 ' ) and he also agreed there are no unique circumstances . The ZBA has always been against corner fences because they impact the neighborhood and future purchasers who may not want to live across the street from a fenced yard . "Caveat Emptor" - Let the buyer beware ! Com. Entman said he has not heard anything that would change his opinion, and Com. Windecker concurred . Com . Kearns opinion was the same and he added the pos- sibility of the neighbor requesting a fence that would tie into this fence and use this as a precedence . Ch . Heinrich explained the options to Mr . Benjoya : 1 . Amend the petition and construct the fence ten feet ( 10 ' ) from the house . 2 . Pursue the proposed request and, if it is denied, an appeal can be made to the Village Board of Trustees . 3 . Table until the August 15th meeting . Mr . Benjoya said he has lived in Buffalo Grove for ten ( 10 ) years and has seen numerous fences much closer to the sidewalk . He may want to put in a pool someday but he could not say for sure at this time . They just want to use as much of the yard as possible . He conceded there is no traffic problem or safety issue . He asked if he opts to put up a three foot (3 ' ) fence closer the sidewalk, can he go higher at the ten foot (10 ' ) distance with the variance? He was informed that he could go from three feet (3 ' ) to five feet (5 ' ) at the building line , but no taper would be permitted and he could go to four and a half (4 -1/2 ' ) at the ten foot (10 ' ) distance , without a taper, if the variance for ten feet ( 10 ' ) is granted . Mr . Benjoya asked if he could appeal the decision if he amended the petition and his wife disagreed? Ch . Heinrich informed Mr . Benjoya that he could not appeal an affirmative vote . If the original proposal is denied and the Village Board does not overturn the ZBA decision, he could reapply for a variance and pay another $55 . 00 filing fee . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 18 , 1995 - PAGE SIXTEEN Com. Arbus suggested driving through the Village and observe that in the newer subdivisions , the fences are not as close to the sidewalk as in older neighborhoods . The ZBA is trying hard to keep the newer areas open and prevent a "walled in" look . Mr . Benjoya considered the options and said he would amend the petition to request a variance to construct a four and a half foot (4 - 1/2 ' ) picket fence a distance of ten feet ( 10 ' ) from the house . If his neighbor requests a four foot (4 ' ) fence , he would also lower his fence . Com. Arbus stated that the neighbor may not necessarily get the same variance because circumstances may differ . Whether the ten feet ( 10 ' ) is measured from the house or the building line , or the sidewalk, was discussed . The Commissioners agreed to measure twenty feet ( 10 ' ) from the sidewalk and Mr . Schar said this was permissible . Com. Windecker made the following motion : Lel I move we grant the request of Marc and Jean Benjoya for variance of the Municipal Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 , pertaining to Residential Districts , for the purpose of constructing a four and a half foot (4 -1/2 ' ) picket fence at 2071 Wright Boulevard, that would be a distance of twenty feet (20 ' ) from the sidewalk, as indicated on a revised plat of survey submitted with the application for a building permit . The proposed fence will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood and not be detri- mental to the public health, safety and welfare . Mr . Raysa asked if the fence is to be constructed from the corner of the house or past the end of the house as depicted on the survey? Mr . Benjoya said the fence would come to the corner of the house . Com. Kearns seconded the motion . Roll Call Vote : AYE - Kearns , Entman, Hefler, Windecker, Arbus and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . Permit may be issued in fifteen ( 15 ) days - August 3 , 1995 (Proof of ownership to be submitted . ) ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 18 , 1995 - PAGE SEVENTEEN I G . Chatham East and Chatham Place Condominiums Sign Code , Section 14 . 36 . 010 , Part 0 ( 1 ) Real Estate Signs , Dundee and Weidner Roads LI Purpose : To Permit Existing Signs To Remain Mr . Robert Barrett , Jr . , General Partner, Chatham Place Condominiums of Buffalo Grove , 760 Weidner Road, Buffalo Grove , IL 60089 (520-5868 ) was sworn in . The public hearing notice was published in the Buffalo Grove Herald on July 1 , 1995 . Mr . Barrett described the sign program, related to the condominium sales efforts , that includes the existing billboard sign on Dundee Road and three smaller signs that direct people to the sales office . There is only one ( 1) unit left at Chatham East and two (2 ) units left at Chatham Place . They expect sales to be completed within ninety days ( 90 ) but they need the sign on Dundee Road to attract buyers and the smaller signs to direct the people to the sales office . The original request was for a six ( 6 ) month variance , but Mr . Barrett said he would amend the petition and asked for a ninety ( 90 ) day variance , at which time , all the signs would be removed . Mrs . Pauline Shanker, 833 Weidner Court South, was present and she objected to the sign at the corner of Dundee and Weidner Roads is on property that belongs to Chatham Manor and they do not have approval for the sign . She said a letter was written by McGill Management , 1314 N. Rand Road, Arlington Heights , IL requesting removal of this sign but they have not received a response . Mr . Barrett confirmed this information and said they originally had permission to install the sign . He was willing to remove the sign, if necessary, in order to have the variance granted . Mrs . Shanker also objected to the ground light on the billboard sign because it ' s on Chatham Manor property and it shines into one of the apartments . She also noted that the ground sign reads "Sales and Rentals" but none of the units are for rent . She asked what would happen after ninety ( 90 ) days? ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 18 , 1995 - PAGE EIGHTEEN "1 ...1 ..d .,..,i \...1 .., Mr . Barrett agreed to remove or relocate the light if it is on Chatham Manor property. Ch . Heinrich informed Mrs . Shanker that the petitioner would be required to remove all the signs after ninety days ( 90 ) but he could apply for another variance . Comments from Commissioners : Com . Arbus and Com . Windecker had no objection to the variance for ninety ( 90 ) days . Com . Hefler recalled that when the Sign Ordinance was revised earlier the year, one purpose was to limit the size and number of signs . With only three (3 ) units left to sell , this developer has more than enough identifi- cation . The large sign has been kept in good repair but it would be appropriate to paint out the word "Rental . " Mr . Barrett agreed to comply with the suggestion . Com . Kearns and Com . Entman had no objections . Com . Hefler made the following motion : I move we recommend approval of the request of Chatham Place and Chatham East Condominium Development Companies for variance of Sign Code , Section 14 . 36 . 010 , Part 0 ( 1) pertaining to Real Estate Signs , for the purpose of granting a variance that would permit the following existing signs to remain for ninety ( 90 ) days : 1 . 8 ' x 20 ' Billboard Sign on Dundee Road 2 . Two 3 ' x 5 ' directional signs for the property entrance 3 . Two 3 ' x 5 ' wall signs identifying the model building 4 . Two balcony banners identifying the model unit . Signs are to be removed on October 31 , 1995 . The variance is subject to the following conditions : 1 . Removal of the existing 3 ' x 5 ' sign at the corner of Dundee and Weidner Roads . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 18 , 1995 - PAGE NINETEEN 2 . Removal of ground light on the billboard sign if it is on Chatham Manor property . 3 . Painting out of the word "Rental" on the billboard sign . Variance granted pursuant to Sign Code , Section 14 . 44 . 010 , Sub-Section A. Com. Kearns seconded the motion . Roll Call Vote : AYE - Windecker, Arbus , Kearns , Entman, Hefler and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . An Ordinance will be prepared for Village Board approval . VI . ANNOUNCEMENTS Ch . Heinrich asked Mr . Schar to request that the Village Engineer, or a representative , be present at future Zoning Board of Appeals meetings . VII . ADJOURNMENT Com . Arbus made a motion to adjourn . Com . Entman seconded the motion . Voice Vote : AYE Unanimously. Ch . Heinrich adjourned the meeting at 10 : 07 P . M . Respectfully submitted, Shirley Bates Recording Secretary sb ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 18 , 1995 - PAGE TWENTY \.1