Loading...
1996-06-18 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MICRO VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE , ILLINOIS JUNE 18 , 1996 I . CALL TO ORDER Chairman Richard Heinrich called the Zoning Board of Appeals to order at 7 : 40 PM on Tuesday, June 18 , 1996 in the Council Chambers of the Village Hall , 50 Raupp Boulevard II . ROLL CALL Commissioners Present : J . Paul , B . Entman, L . Windecker, L . Arbus , H . Hefler and R . Heinrich Commissioners Absent : None Bldg . Dept . Liaison : Edward Schar, Deputy Building Commissioner Village Attornery : Richard Skelton Village Engineer : Richard Kuenkler III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 21 , 1996 - Motion to approve was made by Com. Hefler . Seconded by Com . Entman . There were no additions or corrections . Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman, Paul , Arbus , Windecker and Heinrich NAY - None ABSTAIN - Hefler Motion Passed - 5 to 0 , 1 abstention . IV. OLD BUSINESS A. 1551 Rachel Lane , Mark and Janice Swimmer Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 - Garage Addition Encroach 8 . 33 ' into Required Side Yard Setback Motion to remove from Table was made by Com . Windecker and seconded by Com. Entman . Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously Mr . Swimmer was present . The item was Tabled to permit Mr . Swimmer to meet Village Engineer Richard Kuenkler to discuss the Review, dated May 15 , 1996 , which states : "While it is acknowledged that this is not a high traffic area, we do not support any reduction in the sight distance `./ and therefore recommend against the proposed construction . " r r ,.j..f:..J is RIIWEI Mr. Kuenkler was asked to provide a specific line-of-sight review. He was present and Ch. Heinrich asked him to explain his review, dated May 30, 1996, which states : "Per your request, I have prepared and attached the stopping distance diagram for the existing and proposed condition at the above location. The approach speeds are 27 m.p.h. (existing) and 24 m.p.h. (proposed) . Prevailing speeds in subdivision areas are generally 26-28 m.p.h. The Rachel Lane approach would of course, be less since it is a "T" intersection (probably around 20 m.p.h. ) . " Mr. Kuenkler clarified his first review and said he simply stated that he did not support any reduction in the sight distance. Basically the normal and customary setbacks in the Village do not create any regular problems at inter- sections . This is a conservative approach and he did not encourage any reduction of line-of-sight . His second review included the attached drawing which shows the various stopping site distances for the existing and proposed conditions. The approach speeds would be 27 m.p.h. under the existing condition and 24 m.p.h. under the pro- posed condition. The general range of speeds in residential sections is 26-27 m.p.h. Generally, at a T-intersection, like Rachel Lane, the speed is a little less . Ch. Heinrich observed that the diagram indicates that the garage addition would actually encroach into the sight distance at the intersection. Mr. Kuenkler said the proposed garage additon would reduce the safe stopping distance to 24 m.p.h. or less . Mr. Swimmer asked for clarification of the statement that if the speed is reduced about 2 m.p.h. the recommendation would be positive and the addition would not encumber the traffic? ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 18, 1996 - PAGE TWO Li APP) `111 1E0 Mr. Kuenkler said the numbers he provided are roughly in the range of the speeds that would be expected in the subdivision. They were exact calculations, but it is difficult to predict if the speed is 1 or 2 m.p.h. one way or the other. He saidi t is correct to say the addition would not encumber the traffic if the speed is reduced. Ch. Heinrich noted the posted speed limit on Rachel Lane and Countryside Drive is 25 m.p.h. Mr. Swimmer compared the area to a cul-de-sac where the only people who use the streets live there or have business there. He said they like the neighborhood and schools. They want to stay in the area and want to improve their property. Comments from Commissioners : Com. Paul said his objections go beyond the traffic issue. Side yard construction, including fences is taken very seriously. He had a problem last month because the proposed garage would be a brick structure that is the height of the house and would close in the entrance to this part of the subdivision. Based on that he would not favor this variance. Com. Windecker said the garage would restrict the line-of- sight . It appeared to him that the street is used by more than a few local cars . He recalled Mr. Swimmer' s statement that they have three (3) cars and need the garage . Mr. Swimmer said they have two (2) cars, but he now has three (3) children and they need storage space for bikes, etc. They also have future plans to expand the house to the rear and someday they would like to add a second story. The garage is Phase I and they want to stay in the house. The house has a basement . Com. Windecker said he would not object to expanding the house to the rear with some storage space, but he could not support the variance. He suggested putting a pad next to the house for an additional parking space. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 18, 1996 - PAGE THREE . j &FFNE Com. Arbus cited the Zoning Ordinance criteria for granting a variance , from Section 17 . 52 . 070 that requires unique circumstances be demonstrated and that the proposed con- struction would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood . He does not have the same objections as the other Commissioners , but in his opinion, adding a 3rd car garage would change the neighborhood . Mr . Swimmer' s circumstances do not fit the criteria . The basement would take care of some of the storage issues . Mr . Swimmer said this statement appears to be a comment on his lifestyle . Com. Entman asked Mr . Kuenkler to clarify his statement that if the proposed variance is allowed, then the line-of-sight distance is reduced and the proposed approach speed would have to be reduced . He asked if Mr . Kuenk1er' s second review indicates that since it is a "T" intersection the approach speed would probably be less . Did he change his opinion? How do the the reviews coincide with each other? Mr . Kuenkler said he was asked to be more specific regarding what changes when the sight distance is reduced . His first memo reflects his nature not to reduce the sight distance at the intersection and it would would not be his first choice to do so, but that does not cover all the factors . The safe stopping distance is reduced, but does not appear to be reduced outside of the range of the speed that is expected in the area . Com . Entman said he is always hesitates to do anything if the Village Engineer' s report indicates possible difficulty . Com. Hefler recalled that a similar variance was granted for Route 83 and Old Checker Roads . Whenever he goes by he realizes that the nature of the neighborhood is changed . The driveway was widened because of a unique circumstance . The family had elderly parents moving in with them and therefore , hardship was demonstrated . He asked Mr . Swimmer what his unique situation is? ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 18 , 1996 - PAGE FOUR Fn.'FAG: WEE Mr. Swimmer replied that his lot is larger because it is on a corner which allows him more space and gives him the ability to request a variance. Com. Hefler said the Zoning Ordinance was written for the future preservation of the neighborhood' s condition and aviance. From time to time, variations have been granted for unique circumstances, but he is not inclined to vote for this variance. Mr. Swimmer asked how he could make the situation workable? He suggested moving the garage back to open up the sight line. Ch. Heinrich told Mr. Swimmer that the line-of-sight is not the issue. He has three (3) children and at one time they had five (5) cars with a 2-car garage . They managed, so this not a unique circumstance. That is one of the criteria for granting a variance, and the other one is that the proposed construction would not alter the character of the neighborhood. He agrees with the other Commissioners that the propose garage would alter the neighborhood. Mr. Swimmer wondered if Mr. Kuenkler' s first report had been more explicit, would the variance been granted? He got the impresssion that the Commissioners never vote against the Village Engineer' s Review. It' s like a red flag. Ch. Heinrich recalled that two (2) of four (4) Commissioners present on May 21, 1996 would not have voted favorably. If the Village Engineer says there is a line-of-sight problem, it is true the Zoning Board would have turned it down. Mr. Swimmer was given the opportunity to Table so they could get a clarification from Mr. Kuenkler and so that more Commissioners would be present to decide. With only four (3) Commissioners present, 2 negative votes would have been an automatic denial . Each request is considered separately. Basically, all six (6) Commissioners agree the garage will change the character of the neighborhood. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 18, 1996 - PAGE FIVE ahDAITIF Mr. Swimmer said this decision is hard to accept as a ten-year taxpayer in Buffalo Grove. He wants to stay in house and the Board is telling him that he has to move in order to expand his situation. He is not happy. There were no comments from the audience. Com. Arbus made the following motion: I move we grant the request of Mark and Janice Swimmer, 1551 Rachel Lane, for variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17 .40 . 020, pertaining to Area, Height, Bulk and Placement Regulations, for the purpose of constructing a garage addition that would encroach a distance of eight and thirty- three hundredths feet (8 . 33 ' ) into the required twenty-five (25 ' ) side yard setback. In his opinion, the petitioner has not demonstrated that he has met the criteria in Section 17 .40 . 020, in that he has not demonstrated that his plight is due to unique circumstances; or that the proposed variation will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - None NAY - Entman, Hefler, Paul, Windecker, Arbus and Heinrich Motion DENIED - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. Ch. Heinrich informed Mr. Swimmer that he has the right to appeal to the Village Board of Trustees . Written request for an appeal should be filed with Mr. Frank Hruby, Director Building and Zoning, within fourteen (14) days and it will then be placed on the Village Board Agenda. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 18, 1996 - PAGE SIX 1 � n.P.ALIEB B. 21 Whitehall Court, Timothy Doyle Zoning Ordinance, Section 17 .40 . 020 Roofed Over Front Porch Encroach 2 ' Into Required Front Yard Motion to remove from Table was made by Com. Entman and seconded by Com. Windecker. Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously. Item was Tabled May 21, 1995 to permit republication. Mr. Timothy Doyle was present . The public hearing notice was read. Testimony had been given on May 21, 1996 and the Commissioners had no objections to the proposed construction of a roofed over front porch that would encroach two feet (2 ' ) into the front yard setback and enhance the house . There were no comments from the audience at this time. Com. Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the request of Timothy Doyle, 21 Whitehall Court, for variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17 .40 . 020, pertaining to Area, Height, Bulk and Placement Reglations, for the purpose of constructing a roofed over front porch that would encroach a distance of 2 ' into the required front yard setback. Unique circumstances having been demonstrated, the proposed construction 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, Paul, Windecker, Arbus and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in fifteen (15) days - July 5, 1996 . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 18, 1996 - PAGE SEVEN V. NEW BUSINESS A. 196 Raupp Boulevard, Gary and Ann Marie Gilimeister Zoning Ordinance, Section 17 .40 . 020 - Garage Addition Encroach 1 ' Into Required Side Yard Setback Mr. Gary Gillmeister was sworn in and the public hearing notice was read. Mr. Gillmeister requested a variance to permit construction of an addition to the existing garage by extending it to the rear. The lot is not wide enough to widen the existing garage and he does •not want to construct a garage in the back yard. He said he actually only needs a variance of less than one foot (1 ' ) . The Village Engineer' s Review, dated June 13, 1996, states : The proposed addition need not affect the existing drainage in the area. " Mr. Schar said the existing garage complied with the zoning requirements at the time it was constructed but a variance is required to make it conform with the current side yard requirements. There were no questions or comments from the audience. The Commissioners had no objections to the proposed variance. The Village Engineer' s Review, dated June 13 , 1996, states : "The proposed addition need notaffect the existing drainage in the area. " Com. Hefler made the following motion: I move we grant the request being made by Gary and Ann Marie Gilimeister, 196 Raupp Boulevard, for variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17 .40 . 020, pertaining to Area, Height, Bulk and Placement Regulations, for the purpose of constructing a garage addition that would encroach a distance of one foot (1 ' ) into the required side yard setback. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 18, 1996 - PAGE EIGHT 000 ^ 19 Unique conditions having been presented, the proposed construction 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 - Paul, Windecker, Arbus, Entman, Hefler and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in fifteen (15) days - July 5, 1996 . B. 1072 Harvard Lane, Peter Livorsi and Amy Slav-Livorsi Fence Code, Section 15 .20 . 040- 6 ' Fence Mr. Peter Livorsi was sworn in and the public hearing notice was read. Mr. Livorsi summarized the reasons for requesting a variance for the purpose of constructing a six foot (6 ' ) wood fence surrounding the rear yard: 1 . In March 1996, the existing six foot (6 ' ) wood fence was damaged beyond repair and they want to replace it with a similar fence. 2 . There was no height limitation when the fence was originally constructed. He has talked to his neighbors and they have no objections. The existing fence is a stockade fence and the new one will be more contemporary, a dog-eared or shadow box style . The Commissioners had no objections and agreed that a new fence will be an improvement . There were no comments from the audience . Com. Entman made the following motion: I move that the request made by Peter T. Livorsi and Amy Slav-Livorsi for variance of Municpal Code, Section 15 . 20 . 040, pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of constructing a six foot (6 ' ) fence surrounding the rear yard, be granted. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 18, 1996 - PAGE NINE zi9E The six foot (6 ' ) wood fence is to be constructed pursuant to the survey attached and submitted as an exhibit with the petition. Materials, location and construction to be approved by the Village. The petitioner having exhibited that the proposed fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Paul, Windecker, Arbus, Entman, Hefler and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in fifteen (15) days - July 5, 1996 . C. 861 Checker Drive, Joel and Alisa Wasserman Zoning Ordinance, Section 17 .40 . 020 - Garage Addition Encroach Five Feet (5 ' ) into Corner Yard Setback The Wassermans were not present . Item was deferred until the end of the business meeting. D. 1011 Alden Lane, John Kotsonis Zoning Ordinance, Section 17 . 32 . 020 Shed - 2 ' into required 7-1/2 ' side yard setback Mr. John Kotsonis was sworn in and the public hearing notice was read. Mr. Kotsonis summarized the reasons for requesting a variance: 1 . They need additional storage space to move the mower, snow blower and firewood, etc. out of the garage. 2 . The shed would be constructed along the side of the garage and there is an access door from the garage. The door of the shed would face the front . The Village Engineer' s Review, dated June 13 , 1996, states : "The proposed construction need not affect the existing drainage in the area. " ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 18, 1996 - PAGE TEN ,, AIPPRIE Mr. Kotsonis said he has not talked to the neighbor next door at the side of the house facing the proposed shed. The sign has been up for several weeks and the neighbor has not mentioned it . The shed is a pre-fabricated item and it will be constructed with materials and colors that match the garage siding and it will have the same shingles. The Commissioners had no objections or comments and agreed the storage shed is appropriate for that location. Mr. Kotsonis asked how far from the property line can he put in a concrete slab to make entry cleaner in wet weather? Mr. Schar informed him that he cannot put anything within five feet of the property line because it could affect the drainage . He only has about six inches (6") of extra space. Com. Paul made the following motion: I move we grant the request of John Kotsonis, 1011 Alden Lane, for variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17 . 32 . 020, pertaining to Location of Accessory Buildings and Structures, for the purpose of constructing a storage shed that would encroach a distance of two feet (2 ' ) into the required seven and one half foot (7-1/2 ' ) side yard setback. Unique circumstances having been demonstrated, the proposed construction will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Entman, Hefler, Paul, Windecker, Arbus and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued after 15 days - July 5, 1996 . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 18, 1996 - PAGE ELEVEN E. 1101 Gail Drive, Arkady Rivtis Municipal Code, Section 15 .20 . 040 Fence Chain Link 4 ' Past Building Line Mr. Arkady Rivtis was sworn in and the public hearing notice was read. He summarized the reasons for requesting a variance for the purpose of installing a fence past the building line along Green Knolls Drive: 1 . He has a permit to construct a fence along the building line, but it would decrease the size of the yard by about 30% . 2 . They have two (2) children and a dog. The fence would give them more space in which to play safely. 3 . The yard would be landscaped and it would look beautiful . Ch. Heinrich said he lives down the block and the previous owners did not need a fence. He objected to the fence because it would be the first fence in a side yard in the neighborhood. He asked Mr. Rivtis if he has talked to the neighbors? Mr. Rivtis said he just bought the house two (2) months ago and does not know the neighbors . Comments from Commissioners: Qom. Arbus : Said he would not want to see a fence at that corner right acros from the Green Knolls Lake parking lot . Even though it is chain link he would not approve it . Com. Windecker: Observed that the yard is a good size and a fence past the building line would detract from the appearance of the neighborhood. He would not support a variance because the fence would be in the front yards of the people down the block. Com. Paul : A chain link fence is better than a solid fence but he would not want to see a fence in that location. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 18, 1996 - PAGE TWELVE RDD 47A1137 Com. Entman: The rear yard is large and a fence past the building line and he would not support a variance for a fence along Green Knolls Drive. Com, Hefler; Explained to Mr. Rivtis that variances have been granted for fences past building lines where the house is across from commercial property on a busy corner with higher speed limits. It is important to preserve the value of the homes in the neighborhood and this fence would be at the entrance to the subdivision. Ch. Heinrich: Said it would not be in the best interest of the neighborhood to have a fence that would be in the front yards down the rest of the block. He informed Mr. Rivtis that he could install a three foot (3 ' ) ornamental fence past the building line if it has a break every thirty feet (30 ' ) and a higher fence along the side and rear lot lines. He asked Mr. Schar how much of a break would it have to be? Mr. Schar replied that six inches (6") to one foot (1 ' ) would be acceptable. Mr. Rivtis decided to install a three foot (3 ' ) past the building line . Com. Hefler suggested Tabling the request to permit Mr. Rivtis the opportunity to discuss the specifics of the Code and explain what kind of fence he would be permitted to install . There were no comments from the audience. Motion to Table until July 16, 1996 was made by Com. Windecker and seconded by Com. Hefler. Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously F. 251 Thompson Boulevard, Robin and Judith Weiss Municipal Code, Section 15 .20 . 040 8 ' Fence Along a Portion of the South Lot Line Mr. Robin Weiss was sworn in and the public hearing notice was read. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 18, 1996 - PAGE THIRTEEN iJ J TPiaL,nri„l77-1'1,Q Mr. Weiss summarized the reasons for requesting a variance for the purpose of constructing an eight foot (8 ' ) wood fence along a portion of the south lot line : 1 . There is a 2 to 3 foot grade difference between their yard and their neighbor' s along the south lot line. 2 . The proposed fence would be a level five feet (5 ' ) in height and would not alter the character of the neighborhood. 3 . The neighbors have no objections . 4 . The fence will provide privacy for the family. Comments from Commissioners : Com. Windecker: Observed that there are utility lines along the side yard. The fence would only be about fifty feet (50 ' ) in length and will enhance the property. Com. Paul : Observed that there is a drain in the low area, and five foot (5 ' ) fence would not be feasible and would alter the character of the neighborhood. Com. Arbus and Ch. Heinrich disclosed that they know the Weiss family but this would not affect their decision. They had no objections to the fence. Com. Entman and Com. Hefler: Had no comments or objections. There were no comments from the audience. Com. Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the request of Robin and Judi Weiss, 251 Thompson Boulevard, for variance of Municipal Code, Section 15 .20 . 040, pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of constructing an eight foot (8 ' ) wood cedar fence along a portion of the south lot line, tapering from five feet (5 ' ) to eight feet (8 ' ) at the ground level at each end of the eight foot (8 ' ) section in order to maintain a height of five feet (5 ' ) to meet the fence on the south side. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 18, 1996 - PAGE FOURTEEN b-I\1 [fig V Lb Fence to be constructed pursuant to the plat submitted with the application. Unique circumstances having been demonstrated, the proposed fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. Com. Hefler seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman, Hefler, Paul, Windecker, Arbus and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in fifteen (15) days - July 5, 1996 . G. 30 W. Canterbury, Georgia Lane Zoning Ordinance, Section 17 .40 . 020 Sun Room - 4 ' into 30 ' Required Rear Yard Setback Ms. Georgia Lane was sworn in and the public hearing notice was read. She summarized the reasons for requesting a variance for the purpose of constructing an unheated sun room: 1 . Ms . Lane is allergic to insect bites and bee stings, so she cannot enjoy the back yard. The enclosure will be screened in and will be unheated. 2 . She has informed all her neighbors and there were no objections . The Commissioners had no comments or objections. There were no comments from the audience. The Village Engineer' s Review, dated June 13, 1996 states : "The proposed addition need not affect the existing drainage in the area. " Com. Hefler made the following motion: I move we grant the request of Ms . Georgia Lane, 30 W. Canterbury, for variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17 .40 . 020, pertaining to Area, Height, Bulk and Placement Regulations, for the purpose of ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 18, 1996 - PAGE FIFTEEN constructing a Three Season Room that would encroach a distance of four feet (4 ' ) into the required rear yard setback. Unique circumstances having been demonstrated, the proposed construction will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Paul, Windecker, Arbus, Entman, Hefler and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached Permit may be issued in 15 days - July 5, 1996 . H. 500 Castlewood Lane, Mark and Karen Bruk Zoning Ordinance, Section 17 .40 . 020 Addition - 3 ' 6" into Required 30 ' Front Yard Setback Mr. Mark Bruk was sworn in and the public hearing notice was read. He summarized the reasons for requesting a variance for the purpose of constructing an addition that would encroach three feet six inches (3 ' 6") into the required front yard setback: 1 . The family wants to remain in the house. They like the neighborhood, parks, schools and many family members live within walking distance of the house. 2 . The house has no basement and their three (3) sons are growing, so living space and storage space is limited. They want to add a 20 x 20 ' garage in front of the existing garage and convert the existing garage into a family room. The variance will permit construc- tion of a 20 ' long closet along the new garage wall . 3 . There is a support beam and a load bearing wall with footings that would have to be removed if they meet the required front yard setback. This would raise the cost approximately $4, 000, and the variance would permit them to meet their line of equity credit . 4 . There are similar additions on many of the Roxbury models in the Strathmore subdivision. The siding, roof lines and shingles will match the existing house. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 18, 1996 - PAGE SIXTEEN L 1 11 Li �S V �b 5 . They have talked to all their neighbors and there were no objections . The Commissioners had no questions or objections . Similar variances have been granted. There were no comments from the audience. Com. Paul made the following motion: I move we grant the request of Mark and Karen Bruk 500 Castlewood Road, 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 three feet six inches (3 ' 6") into the required thirty foot (3 0 ' ) front yard setback. Unique circumstances having been demonstrated, the proposed addition will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Entman, Hefler, Paul, Windecker, Arbus an Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in fifteen (15) days (July 5, 1996) . I . 328 Melinda Lane, Catherine E. Finneran Municipal Code, Section 15 .20 . 040 Construction of 6 ' Fence Surrounding the Rear Yard Ms . Catherine Finneran was sworn in and the public hearing notice was read. She summarized the reasons for requesting a variance for the purpose of constructing a six foot (6 ' ) wood fence around the rear yard: 1 . There is two foot (2 ' ) grade difference at the rear of the lot . 2 . A six foot (6 ' ) fence will provide safety and security for their three (3 ' ) young children. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 18, 1996 - PAGE SEVENTEEN - 1 a 3 . Two (2 ) contiguous neighbors have large above-ground swimming pools . They have talked to all their neigh- bors and they have no objections . There were no questions or comments from the audience . Comments from Commissioners : Commissioners Paul , Windecker and Hefler had no questions or objections . Commissioner Arbus said he did not see the need for a six foot ( 6 ' ) fence . Com . Entman was not generally in favor of six foot ( 6 ' ) fences along interior lot lines , but there is a grade difference and if the neighbors do not object , he would not oppose a variance . Com . Entman made the following motion : I move that the request of Catherine Finneran, 328 Melinda Lane , for variance of Municipal Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 , pertaining to Residential Districts , for the purpose of constructing a six foot ( 6 ' ) wood shadow box fence surrounding the rear yard, be granted . Said fence to be located pursuant to the survey attached to the application . Location, materials and construction to be approved by the Village . Petitioner having exhibited that the proposed variance and fence itself will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare . Com . Windecker seconded the motion . Roll Call Vote : AYE - Paul , Windecker, Entman, Hefler and Heinrich NAY - None ABSTAIN - Arbus Motion Passed 5 to 0 , 1 abstention . Findings of Fact Attached . Permit may be issued in fifteen (15 ) days - July 5 , 1996 . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 18 , 1996 - PAGE EIGHTEEN U-TTITifTP7[m, t�' t J. 1129 Devonshire Road, Robert and Haley Sommer Municipal Code, Section 15 . 20 . 040 - 8 ' Fence Mrs. Haley Sommer was sworn in and the public hearing notice was read. She summarized the reasons for requesting a variance for the purpose of constructing an eight foot (8 ' ) wood fence along the rear lot line along Route 83 : 1 . The fence will help limit the noise of traffic along Route 83 and provide security. 2 . They are the only family on their block without an eight foot (8 ' ) fence along the rear lot line. The Commissioners had no comments or objections. There were no comments from the audience. Com. Arbus made the following motion: I move we grant the petition of Robert and Haley Sommer, 1129 Devonshire Road, for variance of Municipal Code, Section 15 .20 . 040, for the purpose of constructing an eight foot (8 ' ) wood stockade fence along Route 83 . Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Entman, Hefler, Paul, Windecker, Arbus and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in fifteen (15) days - July 5, 1996 . K. 671 Aberdeen Lane, Richard and Paula Shopiro Zoning Ordinance, Section 17 .40 . 020 Screen Room - 3 ' 6" into Rear Yard Setback Mr. Richard Shopiro was sworn in and the public hearing notice was read. He summarized the reasons for requesting a variance for the purpose of constructing an addition that would encroach a distance of three feet six inches (3 ' 6" ) into the required rear yard setback: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 18, 1996 - PAGE NINETEEN n "1 ;. DAD ( WEE 1 . The family likes to eat outside and cannot because of the insects, and their two (2) small daughters cannot play outside because of insects . 2 . There is a park to the rear and the yard is surrounded by bushes, so the addition will not be seen. 3 . The required rear yard setback would only permit construction of a 6 . 88 ' room and that would not be large enough to accommodate their picnic table. 4 . The siding, roof lines and materials of the addition will match the existing house. 5 . He has talked with three (3) of his four (4) neighbors, including the closest neighbor and there have been no objections. The Commissioners had no comments or objections . Com. Arbus disclosed that he knows the Shopiros but this will not affect his decision. The Village Engineer' s Review, dated June 13 , 1995, states : "The proposed addiiton need not affect the existing drainage in the area. " Com. Hefler made the following motion: I move grant the request of Richard and Paula Shopiro, 671 Aberdeen Lane, 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 that would encroach a distance off three feet six inches (3 ' 6" ) into the required thrity foot (30 ' ) rear yard setback. Unique circumstances having been demonstrated, the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Com. Arbus seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Entman, Hefler, Paul, Windecker, Arbus and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in fifteen (15) days - July 5, 1996 . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 18, 1996 - PAGE TWENTY AIDIDRIF LA, ith 0 L[1, L. 2530 Apple Hill Court North, Lot 4 at Mirielle Zoning Ordinance, Section 17 .40 . 020 2nd Story Overhang of 1 ' on Model House Mr. Tony Bettanin, representative of Town & Country Homes, Four Westbrook Corporate Center, Suite 500, Westchester, IL 60154 (708) 409-8900, was sworn in and the public hearing notice was read. He summarized the reasons for requesting a variance: 1 . There is a ten foot (10 ' ) wide cantilever that has been constructed, on the second floor of a model house, that projects one foot (1 ' ) into the required forty foot (40 ' ) rear yard setback. 2 . The architect misinterpreted the Code which says that a one-story projection is permitted. It would be cost prohibitive to reconstruct the house and it would not represent the actual model . 3 . The house is 98% completed and time would be lost if the projection had to be removed. Ch. Heinrich informed Mr. Batannin that it would be necessary to inform the purchaser of the house that a variance has been granted. Comments from Commissioners : Com. Paul observed that this lot abuts a factory. He asked if variances would be required when this model is built on other lots? Mr. Bettanin replied that they will not construct this model on lots that would require a variance. Mr. Schar said the Zoning Ordinance permits a 1-story bay window to project into the yard, not the existing projection on the second story. The other Commissioners had no comments or objections . There were no comments from the audience . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS `./ JUNE 18k 1996 - PAGE TWENTY ONE lirE lirlr Com. Paul made the following motion: I move we grant the request of Town & Country Homes, for variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17 .40 . 020, pertaining to Area, Height, Bulk and Placement Regulations, for the purpose of permitting the second story overhang of the model house at 2530 Apple Hill Court North on Lot 4, at the Mirielle Subdivision to encroach a distance of one foot (1 ' ) into the required forty foot (4 0 ' ) rear yard setback. Unique circumstances having been demonstrated, the proposed variation will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman, Hefler, Arbus, Windecker, Paul and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in fifteen (15) days - July 5, 1996 . M. 1802 Brandywyn Lane, Ishfaq and Marie Niazi Fence Code, Section 15 .20 . 040 6 ' & 5 ' Fence Past Building Line along Brandywyn Ln. Mr. Ishfaq Niazi was sworn in and the public hearing notice was read. He summarized the reasons for requesting a variance of the purpose of constructing a fence past the building line along Brandwyn Lane : 1 . They live on a busy corner (Aptakisic and Brandywyn) and they have three (3) small children. The fence will provide security for the children. 2 . The exits to the house are on the east side and the fence will permit access to the yard. 3 . Pine trees and bushes have been planted past the building line and most of the proposed fence will be behind these plantings. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 18, 1996 - PAGE TWENTY TWO 4 . He has spoken to the neighbors and there are no objections. The neighbors' children play in the yard so the fence will provide saftey for then also. 5 . He requested a five foot (5 ' ) fence that would be from 10 ' -14 ' past the building line and the six foot (6 ' ) fence along Aptakisic Road to be extended ten feet (10 ' ) past the building line along Brandywyn Lane. Comments from Commissioners : Com. Paul observed that proposed fence is really separate sections and he would prefer to see a straight fence just inside the landscaping. This would provide more security. Most of the trees and bushes will be outside the fence and people would be able to come into the yard through the open areas and in the winter there will be even larger openings . Mr. Niazi said he could add bushes to enclose the yard. There are some trees that he cannot go around. He did not object to the construction of a straight fence. He would like some of the trees inside the yard. Com. Paul said this is the first house in the subdivision and the proposed configuration would alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Ch. Heinrich recommended a straight fence about nine feet (9 ' ) past the building line. The sections will not provide security because kids can get between the spaces . Also, the visual effect may not be pleasing. Com. Windecker observed that there are sections separated by eight feet (8 ' ) and he could not grant a variance for security. Children can crawl under trees. Ch. Heinrich agreed the corner is very busy and the children would not be secure. Com. Arbus did not see a reason for any variance because the yard is very large at the building line. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 18, 1996 - PAGE TWENTY THREE r I l Mr. Niazi said all the entrances to the house are on the east side and the fence would only be about 3 ' or 4 ' away from the house. Other variances have been granted for yards of the same size. He has provided comparisons. Com. Entman agreed the yard is large but he would give some relief if the fence has no breaks . He would permit a fence 8 ' to 9 ' past the building line, to give access to the yard with a gate. Com. Hefler commented that the fence design is appealing and would beautify the yard. However, it would not accomplish what is being stated as the reason for a variance . The yard is large and variances are generally granted to provide additional space. The entrances are on the wrong side of the house and he would support a variance to accommodate this situation. A straw poll indicated the Commissioners, with the exception of Com. Arbus would permit a variance of eight feet (8 ' ) past the building line along Brandywyn Lane. There were no comments from the audience . Mr. Naizi agreed to amend the petition. Com. Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the amended request of Ishfaq and Marie Niazi, 1802 Brandywyn Lane, for variance of the Municipal Code, Section 15 .20 . 040, pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of extending the existing six foot (6 ' ) cedar wood shadow box fence along the rear lot line a distance of eight feet (8 ' ) past the building line, connected to a five foot (5 ' ) cedar wood shadow box fence that would extend a distance of eight feet (8 ' ) past the building line along Brandywyn Lane, as indicated on a revised plat of survey to be submitted with the permit application. The six foot (6 ' ) fence may taper down to the five foot (5 ' ) fence along Brandywyn Lane. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 18, 1996 - PAGE TWENTY FOUR /417) 1. [Pa Unique circumstances having been demonstrated the proposed fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. The Village Engineer' s Review, dated June 13 , 1996, "The proposed fence does not appear to conflict with the desired sight distance. Village ordinance does not allow encroachments within twenty-five feet (25 ' ) of the current property." Com. Hefler seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Entman, Hefler, Paul, Windecker and Heinrich NAY - Arbus Motion Passed - 5 to 1. Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in fifteen (15) days - July 5, 1996. N. 800 Wedgewood Court, Martin J. Clark Construction Co. Zoning Ordinance, Section 17 .40 .20 - Custom House Encroach 13 ' into Required 40 ' Rear Yard Setback Mr. Martin Clark was sworn in. He acted as agent for the owner of the property. Mr. Clark and the owner of the property had signed the application for variance. Mr. Skelton confirmed that Mr. Clark may act as agent for the owner. The public hearing notice was read. Beth and Bruce Butler, purchasers of the lot and proposed house were present . The Butlers are scheduled to close on the lot within the next few days. Mr. Clark summarized the reasons for requesting a variance : 1 . Lot is unusual in that it is a large half acre corner lot with 40 ' setbacks on the front, side and rear, leaving less buildable space on the lot . 2 . The neighbors have been informed and none of them objected to the proposed 5, 000 sq. ft . house which is smaller than other houses in the Woodlands of Fiore. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS `./ JUNE 18, 1996 - TWENTY FIVE R �? :�trrl'11i r'� - �I�°� ` ' 1A1111111.1i2UV l.� 3 . The Butlers prefer to build the house toward the rear of the lot and keep the large front and side yards . The house is the only house the Butlers will consider having constructed. It is their "Dream House. " Ch. Heinrich asked Mr. and Mrs. Butler if they are aware that this is the only construction that would ever be considered for the rear yard and it is possible that they could not construct a fence past the building line. The house is too large for the lot. Mr. Clark said they considered requesting a side yard variance, but decided that it would not be compatible with the neighborhood. They tried putting the house on an angle and other options, but nothing worked. Comments from Commissioners : Com. Entman observed that if they only had a 2-car garage, the house would not require a variance. Mr. Clark responded that all other houses have 3-car garages and some have 4-car garages, that are two (2) deep. Com. Arbus said the ZBA is are being asked to permit a large piece to be taken out of the rear yard setback. Ch. Heinrich said it is not unusual to take 1/3 out of a 30 ' rear yard setback and they have granted 1/3 of other 40 ' rear yards, so this is not the first request . Com. Arbus said the house would be close to the house at 2670 Acacia Terrace. Mr. Clark said they contacted those owners before they applied for the variance. They had no objections . Com. Hefler was in agreement with Com. Arbus in that the zoning setbacks were established for a reason and this is a variance by design not because of a hardship. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS `,/ JUNE 18, 1996 - PAGE TWENTY SIX Lf'L[ Lfti \JLLL,H..i:i) In response to Com. Arbus' question about the minimum square footage in this distict, Mr. Schar said 1, 500 sq. ft. is the minimum size for a house in the R-1 Zoning District . Ch. Heinrich said prefers the contemporary style of this house to a "boxy" style. Com. Paul said there are a number of other designs that would be more appropriate for this lot . It is a beautiful house, but it is the wrong lot for it . Mr. Clark said he does respect the Buffalo Grove Codes and they are applying for a variance that is permitted in the Zoning Ordinance. The house has been designed by Mr. and Mrs . Clark and it is within the median range of what is being built in this subdivision. It is smaller than some of the homes that have been constructed on these lots. There is a unique circumstance because of the three (3) 40 ' setbacks : front, side and rear. They were originally going to ask for a seventeen foot (17 ' ) variance, but when Mr. Schar informed them that the maximum variance was thir- teen feet (13 ' ) they reduced the size of the garage to conform with the limitation of 33-1/3 per cent . The house ftd will not look out of place in the neighborhood and none of the neighbors have objected. It will not set a precedence. They can find another lot but this is the lot they want . Mr. Butler explained that they did design the house for this lot, and they tried to do the right thing, but if they have to change the plans it will cost money and they have paid the architect a lot already. At this point, Bruce and Elizabeth Butler, 3941 Procter Circle, Arlington Heights, IL were sworn in. Ch. Heinrich informed them that typically, 5, 000 to 7, 000 square foot houses in this area have large back yards . The Butlers will have a very small back yard. Eventually, when they want to sell the house, buyers may want something different . He suggested looking at redesigning the house with a larger rear yard. This is an estate house and the architecture is beautiful, but the lot is smaller. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 18, 1996 - PAGE TWENTY SEVEN nAjnielE0 Mr. Butler said they looked at houses with smaller rear yards and there is a spec house on Acacia with a small yard. Com. Arbus recalled that in the past they have had petition- ers that have had builders design houses that do not meet the zoning requirements. The ZBA is sympathetic when addi- tional expense is incurred. When architects design a house, they are to be responsible to know the zoning requirements. Corner lots have are pros and cons. People like them and pay taxes on them but when they want to construct fences they find there are detriments to owning one. There are two (2) front yard setbacks and people end up with unusable space. Mr. Clark repeated that these are the reasons that they designed the house to meet the front and side yard setbacks. There is a good size yard in the rear and the Butlers do not plan to put a fence in the side yard. They wanted to keep as many trees in front as possible and the trees were taken into consideration when designing the house. Com. Windecker wondered why the the architect could not design a house to fit properly on a 20, 189 square foot lot. This house is basically square with some bays protruding in different directions. Mr. Michael Martin, resident at 2791 Acacia, was sworn in. He is an executive with Coldwell Banker and has handled other vacant lot sales in this subdivision. He is very familiar with property in this area. This house is the most aesthetically pleasing house that could be built on this lot . If it is not built, there will be something of lesser value. It is the type of house that the neighbors would like see constructed. He is friendly with many of the residents in the area and he has spoken to them about the property. The Butlers have worked for a long time to put the plan together. It would be much less desirable and much less valuable to put the garage facing the street or on the other side facing Acacia Terrace because the side of the house would face the cul-de-sac. Custom building-wise, in his experience, this is the best house for this lot . He walked the dimensions of the house with the next door neighbor and he has no objections . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 18, 1996 - PAGE TWENTY EIGHT ft.‹$1 Mr. Martin disclosed that he has a business relationship with Mr. Clark and has an interest in this property. Com. Paul ageed with the observation that this is an elegant house and will enhance the neighborhood. People driving by will not know there is no back yard and that is a positive prospective. On the other hand, someday the owners will wish they had a larger back yard. The previous petitioner had a 4, 000 sq. ft . rear yard that he said was too small. If the trees remain on the rear corner and there is no fence, there is not a defined property line and lots appear to be joined. Normally he would be totally against the variance, but if the Butlers are satisfied, he would not object . The plat of survey was reviewed and Ch. Heinich said it was obvious that considering the lot has three (3) 40 ' setbacks there is not much buildable space and most houses would encroach on the rear yard lot line. There is only fifty-six feet (56 ' ) of buildable space and it would be difficult to put a typical house on this lot without a variance. And he would defend a variance it at the Village Board level if the Zoning Board denies this request . Com. Paul repeated that as long as the purchasers and the neighbors want this house, he would not object. He would not consider a front or side yard variance. Mr. and Mrs. Butler affirmed their desire for the house and added that they are due to close on the property in three (3) days . It would be a disappointment to have the variance denied. Com. Windecker said the rear yard of twenty-seven feet (27 ' ) could affect the sale of the property and the adjoining property. Com. Arbus said in is his position as a Zoning Board of Appeals Commissioner, he has been consistent in not super- imposing his judgement on any general neighborhood views and he believes this is the wrong house on this lot, but with the petitioners' present, he will not oppose the variance . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 18, 1996 - PAGE TWENTY NINE i r ! ti ,r1PliJJçjrt U The neighbors have had the opportunity to come in and there have not been any objections called or written in. As this neighborhood grew the houses got larger and more expensive. This house would have to be much smaller to fit on the lot and meet the setbacks. Com. Paul made the following motion: I move we grant the request of Martin J. Clark Construction Company, 555 N. Wolf Road, for variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17 .40 . 020, pertaining to Area, Height, Bulk and Placement Regulations, for the purpose of constructing a house at 800 Wedgewood Court, that would encroach a distance of thirteen feet (13 ' ) into the required forty foot (40 ' ) rear yard setback. Unique circumstances having been demonstrated, the proposed construction will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The Village Engineer' s Review, dated June 13, 1996, states : "The proposed addition need not affect the existing drainage in the area. Care will be required in the design of the rear yard . swale. Com. Arbus seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Arbus, Windecker, Paul, Entman, Hefler and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in fifteen (15) days - July 5, 1996 . Mr. Clark said the architect had called the Village to ascertain the setbacks, but there was a misunderstanding regarding corner lot setbacks. He thanked the Zoning Board and the Building Department Staff for the time and help they have given throughout the process of obtaining this variation. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 18, 1996 - PAGE THRITY () FIT!`1.- r-r11"7 i4A1',2.)1;--10! i\rq u huUr LX9 VI . ANNOUNCEMENTS C. 861 Checker Drive, Joel and Alisa Wasserman Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.40 . 020 Construction of Garage Addition that would Encroach 5 ' Into Corner Yard Setback Because the Wassermans did not appear throughout the public hearing and did not withdraw their petition: Motion to Table until July 16, 1996 was made by Com. Hefler seconded by Com. Arbus. Voice Vote: AYE - Unanimously 1 . Mr. Schar informed the Commissioners that Scarsdale has submitted an application to construct a house on Lot 4 in the Rolling Hills Subdivision that is different from the three (3) models that were to be permitted when a variance was granted in December of 1994 . He asked if a second variance would be required and the Commissioners agreed that they wanted to see the plat with the configuration of the new model and it would require a new variance. 2 . Several of the Commissioners took offense to a remark that was made by the Coldwall Banker representative, before he was sworn in, suggesting that the Zoning Board does not like people to have larger homes then the members do. VII . ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn was made by Com. Hefler seconded by Com. Entman. Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously Ch. Heinrich adjourned the meeting at 10 :40 P.M. Respectfully submitted. Shirley Bates, Recording Secretary sb ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 18, 1996 - PAGE THIRTY ONE