1996-08-20 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes o LTD . r,;44.-- c -.
! * .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE, ILLINOIS
TUESDAY, AUGUST 20 , 1996
I . CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Richard Heinrich called the Zoning Board of
Appeals meeting to order at 7 : 40 P . M . on Tuesday,
August 20 , 1996 in the Council Chambers of the Village
Hall , 50 Raupp Boulevard.
II . ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present : B . Entman, L . Windecker,
H . Hefler and R . Heinrich
Commissioners Absent : J . Paul and L . Arbus
Bldg . Dept . Liaison : Edward Schar,
Deputy Building Commissioner
Village Board Liaison : Charles Hendricks , Trustee
Village Attorney : Richard Skelton
III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES
July 16 , 1996 - Postponed until the next meeting .
IV. BUSINESS
A. Lot 70 , 1901 Twin Oaks Court , Scarsdale Development
Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 - New House to
Encroach 13 . 31 ' into Required 40 ' Rear Yard Setback
Mr . Schar reported that Mr . Morelli had called to say he
would be late and asked that the review be postponed .
B . Lot 89 , 2371 Apple Hill Lane , Town & Country Homes
C . Lot 92 , 2421 Apple Hill Lane, Town & Country Homes
Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020
Mirielle Subdivision - Permit Second Story Overhang
Encroach 1 ' Into Rear Yard Setback
Mr . Tony Bettanin, Operations Manager, Town & Country
Homes , Four Westbrook Corporate Center, Suite 500 ,
Westchester, IL 60154 (708) 409-8900 , representative of
Town & Country Homes , was sworn in .
Ch . Heinrich noted that Item B was published in the
Buffalo Grove Herald on August 1 , 1996 and Item C was
published in the Buffalo Grove Herald on August 2 , 1996 .
Mr . Betannin explained that both houses are identified
as Plan #7 and the engineers discovered that the second
floor overhang of these houses would encroach about ten
and a half inches ( 10-1/2 " ) into the required forty foot
(40 ' ) rear yard setback . This model has a bump out on
the second story that is about twelve feet ( 12 ' ) long
that projects out twelve inches ( 12 " ) .
Ch . Heinrich noted that these are the second and third
variances being requested for this encroachment . He
recalled asking how many similar requests would be
required and being told that only the model house needed
a variance .
Mr . Betannin said that when all the plats were checked
and it was discovered that one of the completed houses ,
2371 Apple Hill Lane , needed a variance . This house was
sold and the purchasers was transferred out of state , so
Lid the Certificate of Occupancy was revoked . The second
house is under construction . Every house with this plan
has a bump out and they hope to limit its construction
to sites that are the appropriate size . They hope that
these are the only two (2 ) variances that will be
requested, but it does somewhat limit their ability to
market this particular model . About 10% of the houses
at Mirielle are this model and it will not fit on the
standard sites without encroaching 10 " to 10 -1/2 " . It
is a projection of the master bedroom and can be used as
an entertainment area or dresser .
Ch . Heinrich had no objection to granting the variances
because it is a small projection on the second story and
it has been acknowledged that steps are being taken to
eliminate the problem. He would not want to take away
this as an option .
Lid ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
AUGUST 20 , 1996 - PAGE TWO
U' ll�
-. Lite,'
Comments from Commissioners :
Com . Windecker : Has no problem with the variance because
it a small encroachment , but he asked how many more of
these houses are under construction? He would probably
vote no if any other requests are submitted . Town and
Country should know how to design models that fit lots .
The ZBA should not be expected to legislate approval of
houses that do not fit .
Mr . Betannin said these are the only two (2 ) houses that
were under construction when the first variance was
requested . They had misinterpreted the code and had
assumed that this was an allowable projection, like a
bay window. Other models have similar bump outs and
porches , so they may need other variations . People are
asking for larger homes with more furniture space , etc .
Com. Entman verified that these are the last two (2 ) of
this model #7 , but that there could be other models .
Com. Hefler had no questions but agreed with Com . Win-
decker' s comments that it is not the job of the ZBA to
ratify changes to model plans that have been approved by
the Village . Variances are granted when there are
unique circumstances . Unique does not mean "contrived . "
Ch. Heinrich asked what other models may have problems?
Mr . Betannin said that Plan #9 and Plan #5 have bump out
options and, if sold, could require variations depending
on the lot size . The bump out is standard on Plan #7
and it has been redesigned for Homesite #98 so it does
not have the projection. There are two separate plans .
The house on 2421 Apple Hill Lane is under contract and
the purchasers have been informed about the variance .
There were no comments from the audience .
Com. Windecker made the following motion :
I move we grant the variance requested by
Town and Country Homes , Westchester, IL
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
AUGUST 20 , 1996 - PAGE THREE
. t L�
DOOri
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 house at 2371 Apple Hill
Lane, on Lot 89 at the Mirielle Subdivision,
to encroach a distance of one foot (1 ' )
into the required forty foot (40 ' ) rear
yard setback.
Unique circumstances having been demonstrated,
the proposed variance will not alter the
essential character of the neighborhood.
Com. Entman seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote: AYE - Hefler, Entman, Windecker
and Henrik
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached.
Certificate of Occupancy has already been issued.
Com. Windecker made the following motion:
I move we grant the variance requested by
Town and Country Homes, Westchester, IL
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 house at 2421 Apple Hill
Lane, on Lot 92 at the Mirielle Subdivision,
to encroach a distance of one foot (1 ' )
into the required forty foot (40 ' ) rear
yard setback.
Unique circumstances having been demonstrated,
the proposed variance will not alter the
essential character of the neighborhood.
Com. Entman seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote: AYE - Hefler, Entman,
Windecker and Henrik
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached.
House is under construction. Permit has been issued.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
AUGUST 20, 1996 - PAGE FOUR
DDD
D. 1305 Westchester, William and Deborah Jacobs
Zoning Ordinance, Section 17 .40 . 020 - Screened
Porch - Encroach 13 .5 ' Into 40 ' Rear Yard Setback
Mr. Robert Dutzi, Designer Building, 1194 Franklin Lane,
Buffalo Grove, IL 60089 (634-8420) and William and
Deborah Jacobs were sworn in. The public hearing
notice was published on August 1, 1996 . Mr. Jacobs
summarized their reasons for requesting a variance :
1. He and their daughter are allergic to bees
and wasps and the screen porch will permit the
family to enjoy the outdoors in summertime.
2 . The porch will match the house - same siding,
roof pitch and shingles. It will have screens, but
no windows and no heat.
The Jacobs have discussed the proposed screen porch with
their neighbors and there have been no objections .
There were no comments from the audience.
The Commissioners had no questions or objections .
Com. Entman made the following motion:
I move we grant the request of William and Deborah
Jacobs, 1305 Westchester Terrace, for variance of
Zoning Ordinance, Section 17 .40 . 020, pertaining to
Area, Height, Bulk and Placement Regulations, for
the purpose of constructing a screen room that
would encroach a distance of thirteen and one half
feet (13 .5 ' ) into the required forty foot (40 ' )
rear yard setback.
Porch to be constructed in accordance with plans
and specifications submitted to and approved by the
Village. Construction materials are to match the
existing structure in like kind and quality.
Proposed construction will not alter the essential
character of the neighborhood.
Com. Windecker seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote: AYE - Hefler, Windecker,
Entman and Henrik
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 4 to 0. Findings of Fact Attached.
Permit may be issued in fifteen (15) days-Sept . 5, 1996 .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
AUGUST 20, 1996 - PAGE FIVE
gPFTO
D. 1100 Hidden Lake Drive - Louis & Janet Franchi
Zoning Ordinance, Section 17 .40 . 020
Jddition - 6 . 5 ' Rear Yard and 8 ' Side Yard Setbacks
Louis and Janet Franchi was sworn in. The public hear-
ing notice was published on August 1, 1996 . Mrs . Franchi
summarized the reasons for requesting a variance :
1 . They want to expand the living space on
the first floor because they recently adopted
a baby girl and want to have the children on
the first floor.
2 . They want to stay in their house in
Buffalo Grove.
They have informed all their neighbors and there have
been no objections .
The addition and materials will match the existing
building and the side yard section will wrap around
from the rear. This is a play room.
Comments from Commissioners :
Com. Hefler: No questions.
Com. Entman: No objections.
Com. Windecker: Asked if another variance was required
to move the fence?
Mr. Schar said there should not be a problem but he
would have to review the variance and the location of
the fence.
Mrs. Franchi explained that one section of the fence
would be removed and replaced on an angle.
Com. Hefler made the following motion:
I move we grant the request of Louis and
Janet Franchi, 1100 Hidden Lake Drive, for
variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section
17.40 . 020, pertaining to Area, Height, Bulk,
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
AUGUST 17, 1996 - PAGE SIX
AP PAT
Li
and Placement Regulations, for the purpose
of constructing an addition that would
encroach a distance of six and one half feet
into the required forty foot (4 0 ' ) rear yard
setback and encroach a distance of eight feet
(8 ' ) into the required thirty foot (30 ' ) corner
side yard setback.
Unique circumstances having been demonstrated,
granting of the variance will not alter the
essential character of the neighborhood.
Village Engineer' s Line-of-Sight Review, dated
August 14, 1996, states the limiting factor at
the intersection is the existing fence.
Com. Windecker seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote: AYE - Entman, Windecker,
Hefler and Henrik
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact attached.
Permit may be issued in fifteen (15) days-Sept. 5, 1996 .
,A� Lot 70, 1901 Twin Oaks Court, Scarsdale Development
Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.40 . 020 - New House to
Encroach 13 .31 ' into Required 40 ' Rear Yard Setback
Mr. Frank Morelli, Vice-President Scarsdale Homes, Inc .
1608 Barclay Road, B.G. (808-8568) was sworn in and it
was noted that the notice of public hearing was
published on August 1, 1996 .
Mr. Morelli reviewed the history of Lot 70 . A variance
was granted to permit construction of four (4) other
models at 1901 Twin Oaks Court but a purchaser has
requested a permit to construct Model #525 . This is a
new model, not available when the variance was granted,
but has been constructed on other Rolling Hills lots .
Lot 70 is an odd shaped lot and model #525 will fit
better than the other models that were included in the
variance.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
AUGUST 20, 1996 - PAGE SEVEN
•
DDDn
Ch. Heinrich noted that a variance on this lot would
have an affect on residents on Twin Oaks Court and at
1914, 1918 and 1922 Sheridan Road.
Some residents were present and made comments :
Mr. Andrew Alldredge. 1918 Sheridan Road, was sworn in.
He has looked at the proposed plat of survey and said
they are making the best of a bad situation. He asked
if the same conditions that were placed on the first
variance would be included in this variance? The pur-
chasers were to be notified and required to sign an
agreement not to request any other variations. The
addition would be very close to the corner of his
lot where his garden is located. He does not want to
have bad relations . The footprint seems to be larger
than the other models, but it does not have as many
corners, so it doesn' t look bad.
Mr. Joseph Affrunti. 1911 Twin Oaks Court, was sworn in.
His lot is directly north of Lot 70 and the front of
his house will face the side of the subject property.
They did not expect the house on Lot 70 to front on
the cul-de-sac. They understood that the house would
face the street . He thought the developer should have
been able to construct a house that fit the lot a little
better. Mr. Affrunti asked that the area be kept clean
and a protective fence be put up during construction.
There are a lot of children who live on the cul-de-sac .
Ch. Heinrich observed that the garage on the proposed
house will be on the other side, so the view from his
front window should be better.
Com. Hefler noted that the proposed house will be 16 . 9 '
from the lot line and asked Mr. Affrunti how far his
house is from the side lot line?
Mr. Affronti was not sure and Com. Hefler commented that
even if his hours is seven feet (7 ' ) or eight feet (8 ' )
the distance is not bad in relation to other lots . The
cul-de-sac may be part of the problem because of the
shape. There is probably more space than he realizes .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
AUGUST 20, 1996 - PAGE EIGHT
3 . Mr. Semyon Sorsher, 1921 Twin Oaks Court, looked at
the survey and expressed concern about having the area
kept cleaned up during construction. His house was
seven (7) months overdue and then he was without grass
and a driveway for five (5) months. There are a lot of
small children who they play in the piles of dirt, and
safety precautions should be taken.
Ch. Heinrich asked Mr. Morelli if the configuration of
the house could be changed to lessen the variance?
Mr. Morelli responded that when they did the land plan,
they assumed this would be the side yard, not the rear
yard. This house has more shape and it is the best
elevation in the subdivision. There is a contract
purchaser and they are aware of the variance.
Ch. Heinrich informed Mr. Morelli that the contract
purchasers would be required to submit written confirma-
tion that they understand the stipulations of the
variance. The residents that are present have not
objected to the variance, but they are concerned about
the area during construction. He asked what would be
done to keep the area cleaned up and safe?
Mr. Morelli said they would try to keep it cleaned up.
It is more difficult because it is an infill lot and
this house will complete the area. Weather permitting
it should meet the next construction cycle and it will
be built over the winter for delivery early next year.
The lot will be graded and have a gravel driveway. Then
the site work will be done in the spring.
Mr. Schar said they will need a deletion letter for the
Certificate of Occupancy (C/O) to be issued without the
driveway, etc. and the letter is signed by the contract
purchasers.
Ch. Heinrich asked Mr. Morelli to agree to a condition
that the house will be decked before winter. The
residents are concerned about the safety of their
children.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
AUGUST 20, 1996 - PAGE NINE
Mr. Morelli had no objection to this condition and said
the house would be decked in November.
Com. Windecker: No problem with variance. The residents
have no objections. As V.P. Mr. Morelli should be able
to control the situation and get the foundation decked.
Com. Entman: Asked if there are any other models that
would fit on this lot without a variance?
Mr. Morelli said there is no house that would fit on
this lot without a variance. The other models are all
larger. This is one of the smaller models .
Mr. Hefler: No comments or objections .
Com. Windecker made the following motion:
I move we grant the request made by Scarsdale
homes for variance of Zoning Ordinance,
Section 17 .40 . 020, pertaining to Area, Height,
Bulk and Placement Regulations, for the purpose
of constructing a house, Model 525 on Lot 70 in
the Rolling Hills Subdivision at 1901 Twin Oaks
Court, that encroach a distance of 13 .31 feet
into the required forty foot (4 0 ' ) rear yard
setback, with the following conditions:
1. Construction of models 200, 1200 and
1700 are to be excluded.
2 . Houses for remaining plans as similar
to that shown on Exhibit A-2 including
Model #525 .
3 . This variance is limited to the foot-
prints of those remaining houses and the
builder may add the standard 1-story bay
option to the breakfast room, but it cannot
extend beyond the encroachment line.
4 . Contract purchasers are have written
notice of the variance and proof of this
notification is to be submitted to the
Village prior to the approval of the permit .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
AUGUST 20, 1996 - PAGE TEN
IJU
5 . The deed and terms of the variance are
to be recorded with the exception of the
bay window, no other construction work is
to be permitted without a specific variance.
6 . The foundation is to be decked by the
end of November 1996 . If decking cannot
be completed during the month of November,
then the foundation of the house is not to
be started.
Unique circumstances having been demonstrated,
the proposed variance will not alter the
essential character of the neighborhood.
Com. Hefler seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote: AYE - Entman, Hefler,
Windecker and Henrik
NAY - None
Motion Passed 4 - 0 . Findings of Fact Attached.
Permit may be issued in fifteen (15) days - 9/5/96 .
V. ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
VI . ADJOURNMENT
Com. Windecker made a motion to adjourn.
Com. Hefler seconded the motion.
Ch. Heinrich adjourned the meeting at 8 :50 P.M.
Respectfully submitted
Shirley Bates
Recording Secretary
sb
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
AUGUST 20, 1996 - PAGE ELEVEN