1995-08-15 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE, ILLINOIS
TUESDAY, AUGUST 15 , 1995
I . CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Richard Heinrich called the Zoning Board of Appeals
to order at 7 : 50 P . M . Tuesday, August 15 , 1995 at the
Village Hall , 50 Raupp Boulevard .
II . ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present : M . Kearns , J . Paul , L . Windecker
and R . Heinrich OUORUM .
Commissioners Absent : B . Entman, L . Arbus and H . Hefler
Bldg . Dept . Liaison : Edward Schar,
Deputy Building Commissioner
Village Attorney: Richard Skelton
Village Board Liaison : Jeffrey Braiman, Trustee
Also Present : William Reid, Trustee
III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES
July 18 , 1995 - Com. Kearns made a motion to Table .
Com. Windecker seconded the motion
Voice Vote : AYE Unanimously
July 18 , 1995 Minutes Tabled .
Ch. Heinrich announced that four (4 ) ZBA Commissioners
constitute a quorum and it takes four (4 ) affirmative votes
to grant a variance . If any petitioner wants to have the
hearing Tabled until the next meeting, it can be done any t:::. '
time during the presentation of their petition .
IV. OLD BUSINESS
A. 193 Cottonwood Road, Nicholas and Marilyn Foster WTI
Municipal Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 Mom'
4 ' Chain Link Fence Past Building Line Along St . Mary' s
Com. Kearns made a motion to remove from Table .
Com. Windecker seconded the motion .
Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously
Nick and Marilyn Foster were present . They were informed
that they were still under oath.
The Village Engineer' s Revised Review, dated August 2, 1995,
states : Petitioners would like to locate the fence 42" from
the sidewalk, which would not present a problem. The fence
can be placed west of the rear of the home, one foot (1 ' )
for every one foot (1 ' ) set back from the sidewalk. " A
diagram showing the permitted location, running diagonally
near the north west corner of the house to the sidewalk on a
45 degree angle, indicated there is a line-of-sight problem.
Mrs . Foster objected to losing part of the front yard and a
considerable amount running space for their dog. She said
the bushes in this corner are more of an obstruction than
the chain link fence would be. The previous fence existed
for thirty-three years and there has never been an accident
at that corner.
Mrs . Foster said she was told by Mr. Kuenkler that whatever
the Zoning Board decided was acceptable but she was informed
by Ch. Heinrich that the Board would not go against the
Village Engineer' s recommendation.
After further discussion, the Fosters were advised that they
could Table until next month, construct the fence 42" west
of the rear of the house, or follow the angled line as
depicted on Mr. Kuenkler' s diagram.
The Fosters agreed to amend their peition on its face and
construct the fence as proposed by the Village Engineer.
The Commissioners had no objections . mewl
Com. Windecker made the following motion:
0
I move we grant the petition of Nicholas and Marilyn 1180 193 Cottonwood Road, for variance of the
Municipal Code, Section 15 .20 . 040, pertaining to
Residential Districts, for the purpose of constructing 0111Mrq
a four foot (4 ' ) chain link fence that would extend
past the building line along St . Mary' s Parkway. 4:7)
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
AUGUST 15 , 1995 - PAGE TWO
t_.a
Said fence would be constructed on a 45 degree angle
from the northwest corner of the house toward St.
Mary' s Parkway, running to a distance of forty-two
inches (42") from the sidewalk along St . Mary' s Pkwy.
as indicated on the Village Engineer' s revised review,
dated August 2, 1995 . Fence to be constructed in
accordance with plans submitted to and approved by the
Village, including a revised plat of survey.
•
Petitioner has demonstrated unique circumstandes and
the essential character of the neighborhood will not be
affected. The proposed fence will not be detrimental
to the public health, safety and welfare.
Com. Kearns seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote : AYE - Kearns, Paul, Windecker, Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached.
Permit may be issued in 15 days - August 31, 1995 .
B. 301 Vintage Lane, William Polinsky
Zoning Ordinance. Section 17 .40 . 020 - Side Yard Setback
Com. Windecker made a motion to remove from Table.
Com. Kearns seconded the motion.
Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously
Mr. Schar announced that Mr. Polinsky submitted construction
drawings, pursuant to the Village Engineer' s request but Mr.
Mr. Kuenkler did not have time to review them today.
Mr. Polinsky was informed that the petition would have to
be Tabled until September 19, 1995 . He had no objection.
1111,
Com. Windecker made a motion to Table until Sept . 19, 1995 .
Com. Kearns seconded the motion.
Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously
:1:22
C. 951 Old Arlington Court, Ralph Almerigi
Municipal Code, Section 15 .20 . 040 align
4 ' Fence past building line along Arlington Heights Rd. mommi
Com. Windecker made a motion to remove from Table .
Com. Kearns seconded the motion. C.)
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
AUGUST 15, 1995 - PAGE THREE
Ralph and Bernadine Almerigi were present . They were
informed that they were still under oath. Their petition
is for a four foot (4 ' ) open picket fence to be installed
approximately one foot (1 ' ) from the sidewalk along Old
Arington Heights Road. There was no revised line-of-sight
review from the Village Engineer.
Mr. Schar said he spoke with Richard Kuenkler and was told
that the fence could be constructed as requested as long as
it is on the petitioners' propety and at least one foot (1 ' )
from the sidewalk.
Mr. Almerigi agreed to these conditions and said it would
probably be about eighteen inches (18 ' ) from the sidealk.
The fence would be angled to connect to the six foot (6 ' )
fence that was approved at the July 18, 1995 ZBA meeting.
The Commissioners had no objections. .
Com. Paul made the following motion:
I move we grant the request being made by
Ralph and Bernadine Almerigi, 951 Old Arlington
Court, for variance of Municipal Code, Section
15 .20 . 040, pertaining to Residential Districts,
for the purpose of constructing a four foot (4 ' )
scalloped picket fence that would be located
one foot (1 ' ) east of the sidewalk along Old
Arlington Heights Road, with the stipulation
that the fence be constructed within the property,
pursuant to the Village Engineer' s statement.
The proposed fence will not alter the essential
character of the neighborhood and not be detri-
mental to the public health, safety and welfare .
:::23
Com. Windecker seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote : AYE - Kearns, Paul, Windecker, Heinrich
NAY - None
• Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached.
Permit may be issued in fifteen days - August 31, 1995 .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS r AUGUST 15, 1995 - PAGE FOUR
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. 2106 Sheridan Road, Ilya and Simona Golub
Municipal Code, Section 15 .20 . 040
ix foot (6 ' ) Privacy Fence
Ilya and Simona Golub were sworn in and the public hearing
notice was read. Mr. Golub summarized their reasons for
requesting a variance :
1 . Past experience of Mr. Golub in Chicago.
His sister' s friend was molested by a stranger
who saw the girls playing the backyard.
Mrs. Golub is pregnant and they want to prevent
a similar situation.
2 . They have a large dog (Doberman) that could
possibly jump over a five foot (5 ' ) fence.
3 . While their house was under construction, blow-
ing debris dented the garage door at the five
foot (5 ' ) height.
4 . The six foot (6 ' ) fence would provide better
security for the family and protect the neighbors
from the dog.
Ch. Heinrich asked if they have talked with their neighbors
because a six foot (6 ' ) fence would wall in the yard .
Mr. Golub said there is one neighbor across the street but
the houses around them have not been constructed. He said
the lot to the rear is graded higher than theirs .
Ch. Heinrich objected to the six foot (6 ' ) fence because
the Golubs have not convinced him that it is necessary.
The future neighbors will be affected by the fence and
they have not had the opportunity to object . The fence
will be permanent and the debris issue is not applicable .
Comments by Commissionrs :
own
Com. Windecker observed this is a new subdivision and he is ammi
not in favor of six foot (6 ' ) fences in new subdivisions.
The dog will probably not go over a five foot (5 ' ) fence.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS�./ AUGUST 15, 1995 - PAGE FIVEr
321:;
The fence will not have any effect on the garage door
because the garage is in the front of the house. He sees
no reason to permit a six foot (6 ' ) fence.
Com. Paul said Buffalo Grove is one of the safest communi-
ties in the United States. He is not convinced there is
a need for a fence that would wall in the neighbors. These
are large houses on small lots and he would prefer to keep
the area open. The other neighbors may not want a six foot •
(6 ' ) fence and they could not be notified.
Com. Kearns observed that this rear yard is enclosed by
three other yards and will not be exposed to the street .
He agreed that the neighbors should be made aware of the
fence . The dog should be controlled if it can jump a
five foot (5 ' ) fence. The fence is around the rear yard
will not prevent construction debris from blowing into the
front yard. He would consider discussing such a fence
after the neighboring houses are occupied and the owners
can be notified.
There were no comments from the audience.
Ch. Heinrich informed Mr. and Mrs. Golub that the four (4)
Commissioners agree that there are no reasons to permit the
six foot (6 ' ) fence. Should they want to Table until next
month when three (3) more Commissioners may be present, it
is still doubtful that they would be granted a variance .
They are permitted construct a five foot (5 ' ) fence .
Mr. Golub asked if they could construct a five and a half
foot (5-1/2 ' ) fence?
Ch. Heinrich repeated the concerns of the Commissioners
about how the fence would affect the neighbors. He concur-
red with Com. Paul' s comment about the safety of Buffalo
:111111112
Grove . There is an excellent police department here . The
lot has an interior rear yard and the fence could attract HET:
more attention to the house.
atimmi
• Com. Kearns suggested a "Beware of Dog" sign on the fence
with the added information that you train attack Dobermans . •
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 1:::)
AUGUST 15, 1995 - PAGE SIX
t •r
2=44
Com. Kearns made the following motion:
I move we grant the request of Ilya and Simona
Golub, 2106 Sheridan Road, 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 illustrated on the site plan, Exhibit "A" -
along the rear and side lot lines.
.
Com. Paul seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote: AYE - None.
NAY - Windecker, Paul, Kearns, Heinrich
Variance DENIED - 4 TO 0 . Findings of Fact Attached.
It was noted that the proposed fence would alter the
essential character of the neighborhood and would be
detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare.
Ch. Heinrich informed Mr. and Mrs . Golub of their right to
appeal to the Village Board of Trustees. Written appeal
should be submitted to the Director of Building and Zoning
in fifteen (15) days. They were advised that they can
`J apply for a permit for a five foot (5 ' ) fence at any time.
B. 241 Rosewood Avenue, Thomas and Geraldine Kajohn
Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.40 . 020
Construction of Addition 6 ' 10" into Front Yard Setback
Thomas and Geraldine Kajohn were sworn in and the public
hearing notice was read. Mrs . Kajohn summarized their
reasons for requesting a variance :
1 . They would like to have a covered front entryway.
2 . Mr. Kajohn has slipped on ice on the front walk. "tee
He is retired and he will enjoy a porch.
3 . They have informed all their neighbors and none
of them object to the proposed construction. 171
4 . They want to improve the house and property. immq
The porch will be constructed on a wood deck and the basic
construction will be wolmanized material . The house has a 4:1)
new roof and all materials will match the existing house.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
AUGUST 15, 1995 - PAGE SEVEN '42
Comments from Commissioners:
Com. Windecker: No problems. There are similar porches
on neighboring houses.
Com. Paul : The porch will add to the house, which is in
immaculate shape, and will be an asset to the neighborhood.
Com. Kearns : No problems.
No comments from the audience.
Com. Windecker made the following motion:
I move we grant the request of Thomas and
Geraldine Kajohn, Jr. 241 Rosewood Avenue,
for variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section
17 .40 . 020, pertaining to Area, Height, Bulk
and Placement Regulations, for the purpose
of constructing a front porch that would
extend a distance of six feet ten inches
(6 ' 10" ) into the required twenty-five foot
(2 5 ' ) front yard setback.
`./ Materials are to match the exsting construc-
tion in like kind and quality. Addition to
be constructed pursuant to plans submitted to
and approved by the Village of Buffalo Grove.
•
Petitioner having exhibited hardship and
unique circumstances, the proposed construc-
tion will not alter the essential character
of the neighborhood.
The Village Engineer' s Review, dated August 2, 7voral
1995, states in part : "It appears that the
structure is elevated above the floodplain,
and the construction would be permissible. "
Com. Paul seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote : AYE - Kearns, Paul, Windecker, Heinrich amtm,
NAY - None Imummi
Motion Passed- 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached.
Permit may be issued in fifteen days - August 31, 1995 .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 47) _
Li AUGUST 15, 1995 - PAGE EIGHT
C. 386 Arbor Gate Lane, Calvin and Eleanor Kramer
Zoning Ordinance, Section 17 .40 . 020
Construction of Garage 20" into Side Yard Setback
Calvin and Eleanor Kramer were sworn in and the public
hearing notice as read. Mr. Kramer said they have a
Buckingham Model with no basement . They are going to
reconstruct the garage into a storage kand den area.
He summarized the reasons for requesting a variance:
1 . They want to construct a garage in front of
the existing garage but the configuration of
the house on the lot requires a variance of
twenty inches (20") in order to continue the
straight lines of the house.
2 . The garage would have to be constructed on
an angle if it is designed within the side
yard setback line and would shut off part
of the front door. This would decrease the
value of the property and be an eyesore to
the neighborhood.
. Mr. Kramer said the materials for the garage would match
the existing house. They have informed their neighbors
and they have no objections.
The Commissioners had no comments or objections .
There were no comments from the audience.
Com. Paul made the following motion:
I move we grant the petition being made by
Calvin and Eleanor Kramer, 386 Arbor Gate Lane,
for variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section
17 .40 . 020, pertaining to Area, Height, Bulk, ::1:;
and Placement Regulations, for the purpose of
constructing an addition that would encroach a210141
distance of twenty inches (20" ) into the
required seven and five tenths foot (7 . 5 ' ) side
yard setback on the north side of the house. IMO
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Cial'.
AUGUST 15, 1995 - PAGE NINE
Hardship and unique circumstances having been
demonstrated the proposed construction will not
be detrimental to the essential character of the
neighborhood.
Village Engineer' s Review, dated August 2, 1995,
states : "The proposed addition need not affect the
existing drainage in the area. "
Com. Windecker seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote: AYE - Kearns, Windecker, Paul, Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached.
Permit may be issued in fifteen (15) days - August 31, 1995 .
D. 42 W. Canterbury Lane, Carol Singer
Municipal Code, Section 15 .20 . 040
5 ' Fence Past Building Line Along Hilldale Lane
Miss Carol Singer was sworn in and the public hearing
notice was read. Ms. Singer summarized the reasons for
requesting a variance:
1 . The yard is small and she would like to have
full use of the property for recreation and
to plant flowers and a vegetable garden.
2 . The fence will add value to the property.
3 . The house to the rear is very close and
the residents can look into her kitchen.
The fence will provide needed privacy.
With regard to the privacy aspect, Ch. Heinrich informed
Miss Singer that she canput upa five foot fence along
the rear lot line to restrict the view of her neighbors .
The Village Engineer' s Review, dated August 2, 1995, :::21
states : "The limiting factor at the intersection is the
principal structure itself. Nun
The abuttingfar side property is a driveway, and the sommi
fence should be set back a minimum of five feet (5 ' ) from
the sidewalk. " C11)
rg::)ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
AUGUST 15, 1995 - PAGE TEN m117477
The request is for the fence to be twenty feet (20 ' )
from the building line, about one foot (1 ' ) from the
sidewalk which is within the property line.
Miss Singer said she discussed the proposed fence with her
neighbors and at first they had no objections, but later
they asked if the existing bushes would be inside the fence?
The bushes belong to Miss Singer and she wants them inside
the yard. •
The neighbors, Mr. Saroj Mangalik and his mother, at
913 Hilidale Lane, were present . Mr. Mangalik said it is
not possible to look into the petitioner' s house unless
they are in their front yard. He listed several objections
to the proposed fence:
1 . The existing bushes, which belong to Miss Singer,
are on the property line and they are concerned that
the fence would be constructed on their property.
2 . They are also concerned that the trees and rocks
on the corner of their property would be distrubed
when the fence is constructed.
Miss Singer responded that the bushes are about one foot
(1 ' ) inside her property line.
Ch. Heinrich explained that Miss Singer has requested a
variance to construct a fence closer to the sidewalk than
the Fence Code permits in order to increase the size of the
side yard. The Zoning Board does not get involved in dis-
putes about property lines. There is a common property
line between lots and it can be determined by surveyors.
The Village Engineer' s Review was discussed. His recommen-
dation is for the fence to be constructed five feet (5 ' )
from the sidewalk.
:3:21
Ch. Heinrich said that typically, the Zoning Board has marl
granted variances to permit construction of fences about
half the distance between the building line and sidewalk. sommi
He proposed the fence to be located ten feet (10 ' ) from the
sidewalk.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
AUGUST 15, 1995 - PAGE ELEVEN
— ...sip►'
• (:ti
Trustee Braiman said there is a similar fence on the south
side of the street on Fabish Drive that is ten feet (10 ' )
from the sidewalk. This fence should match that distance.
Comments from Commissioners :
Com. Windecker confirmed that the Zoning Board granted a
variance for that fence and it is ten feet (10 ' ) from the
sidewalk. He agreed this fence should line up with it.
Ch. Heinrich told Mr. Mangalik and his mother said that
Miss Singer has the right to construct a fence on the
property line. The bushes would have to be cut back if
they extend over the property line and the fence will keep
the bushes from growing across the property line.
Com. Kearns and Com. Paul had no objections to a fence
constructed ten feet (10 ' ) from the sidewalk.
Miss Singer agreed to amend the petition and construct the
fence ten feet (10 ' ) from the sidewalk along Hildale Lane.
Ch. Heinrich recommended that after the fence contractor
spots the fence, the Building Department should be called
to check it for placement on the property line.
Com. Windecker made the following motion:
I move we grant the request of Carol Singer,
42 Canterbury Lane, for variance of Municipal
Code, Section 15 .20 . 040, pertaining to
Residential Districts, for the purpose of ;:::,
constructing a five foot (5 ' ) wood fence
ten feet (10 ' ) from the sidewalk along
Hilldale Lane to match the fence on the
2:23
south corner of Fabish Drive and Hilldale Lane .
Fence to be constructed as indicated on the plat
of survey submitted with the application for a "mommi
building permit .
ism.)
QemieRN
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS .,,R
AUGUST 15, 1995 - PAGE TWELVE •�,;:;�-...z
Petitioner having exhibited unique circumstances,
the essential character of the neighborhood will
not be affected and the fence will not be detri-
mental to the public health, safety and welfare.
Said fence will more than comply with the Village
Engineer' s recommendation regarding placement.
Com. Kearns seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote: AYE - Paul, Kearns, Windecker, Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached.
Permit may be issued in fifteen (15) days - August 31, 1995 .
VI . ANNOUNCEMENTS
None .
VII . ADJOURNMENT
Com. Kearns made a motion to adjourn.
Com. Windecker seconded the motion.
Voice Vote : AYE - Unanimously
Ch. Heinrich adjourned the meeting at 9 : 00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
rat,
Shirley Bates
Recording Secretary
sb 2:23
sommi
417)
41110
A.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - .
AUGUST 15, 1995 - PAGE THIRTEEN