Loading...
1996-10-15 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes effivirr, r V/ ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE, ILLINOIS TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15 , 1996 I . CALL TO ORDER Chairman Richard Heinrich called the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting to order on Tuesday, October 15 , 1996 at 7 : 42 P . M . in the Council Chambers of the Village Hall , 50 Raupp Boulevard . II . ROLL CALL Commissioners Present : B . Entman, L . Windecker, L . Arbus , H . Hefler, S . Sandler and R . Heinrich Commissioners Absent : J . Paul Bldg . Dept . Liaison : Edward Schar, Deputy Building Commissioner Village Attorney : Richard Skelton III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES Postponed until after the business meeting . IV. BUSINESS A. 8 Strathmore Court , Joseph Tenerelli Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 6 ' Wood Fence Along the Rear Lot Line Mr . Joseph Tenerelli was sworn in . The Public Hearing Notice was published in the Buffalo Grove Herald on September 27 , 1996 . Mr . Tenerelli summarized the reasons for requesting a variance to permit construc- tion of a six foot ( 6 ' ) wood fence along the rear lot line : 1 . The existing six foot ( 6 ' ) fence is deteriorating and needs to be replaced . 2 . The good side of the fence is facing the petitioner' s property and teenagers at the Fireside Condominiums use the fence as a ladder and cut across the yard to LgIGINED Buffalo Grove High School . A new fence will eliminate this problem. 3 . All contiguous fences on Strathmore Court are six feet (6 ' ) in height . The builder may have been given a variance to put up six foot (6 ' ) fences but there is no paper work to verify this as fact . The Commissioners had no questions or objections. There were no comments from the audience. Com. Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the request of Joseph Tenerelli, 8 Strathmore Court, for variance of Municipal Code, Section 15 .20 . 040, pertaining to Residen- tial Districts for the purpose of constructing a six foot cedar solid dog-eared fence along the rear lot line, pursuant to the plat of survey submitted with the application. Unique circumstances having been demonstrated, the proposed fence will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare This fence will replace an existing six foot (6 ' ) fence that is in need of repair. Com. Entman seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Windecker, Entman, Hefler, Sandler and Heinrich NAY - None ABSTAIN - Arbus (arrived during discussion) Motion Passed - 5 to 0, 1 abstention. Findings of Fact attached. Permit may be issued in fifteen(15) days, Oct . 31, 1996 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 15, 1996 - PAGE TWO rATTIft F I ! :1 B. 460 Highland Grove Drive, Randall Janiak Fence Code, Section 15 .20 .040 6 ' Wood Fence Along Pauline Avenue Mr. Randall Janiak 460 Highland Grove Drive was sworn in. The public hearing notice was published in the Buffalo Grove Herald on September 27, 1996 . Mr. Janiak summarized the reasons for requesting variance to permit construction of a six foot wood fence along about twenty-seven feet (27 ' ) along Pauline Avenue : 1 . Since the stop light has been installed at the corner of Pauline and Route 83, cars stack up along Pauline and the lights are very disturbing. They shine into the dining room, kitchen and on the patio. Ch. Heinrich asked Mr. Janiak if he has discussed the proposed fence with his neighbors? Mr. Janiak said he has seen some of them and there were no objections. The fence will prevent him from seeing all the cars and trucks that pile up on Pauline from Route 83 . There are no windows along the side lot line of the house and he does not want a six foot (6 ' ) fence between his house and his neighbor' s . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Arbus : Did not think twenty-seven feet (27 ' ) of fence would solve the problem and he was concerned the aesthetics because the short six foot (6 ' ) section that would be between the five foot (5 ' ) sections . He informed Mr. Janiak that typically the fence would have to taper at each end of the six foot 6 ' ) section. Mr. Janiak said the fence would not drop straight down, it would be scalloped down on each side. Com. Windecker: Asked Mr. Janiak how long he has lived in this house and how does the traffic situation differ from when he moved in? ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 15, 1996 - PAGE THREE Mr. Janiak said he bought the house last November and there was only a stop sign at the corner of Pauline and Route 83 . Between 3 P.M. and 6 P.M. there are more cars and he does not like having to look at them. Com. Windecker said he has lived in the next subdivi- sion for nine years (9) and the intersection has always been bad. It is no worse now than before. There would only be eleven feet (11 ' ) of a six foot six foot (6 ' ) fence because of the two (2) eight foot (8 ' ) sections that would be tapered at each end. Com. Refler: Asked if the fence is a rear yard or side yard fence because of the configuration of the lot it could be considered a corner of the lot? Mr. Schar said this would be considered the rear yard. Mr. Skelton concurred that this is not a corner lot and it makes no difference if it is considered the side or rear lot line. Com. Entman: Asked if has talked to the neighbor who lives at 450 Highland Grove Drive? Mrs. Eileen Grant, 450 Highland Grove Drive, was present . She was sworn in and she testified that the stop light has made a difference. Cars do pile up and sit there longer than when it was stop and go. Cars do line up as far as their property and they are also considering constructing a fence along Pauline Avenue. She asked if they could have a six foot (6 ' ) fence? Ch. Heinrich informed Mrs. Grant that Pauline is a collector street and a variance would be required to construct a six foot (6 ' ) fence. Mrs . Grant said she does not object to Mr. Janiak' s request because she understands his displeasure with the traffic pile up, especially over the weekend. The light does make the corner safer. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 15, 1996 - PAGE FOUR IA?F O " E \D Ch. Heinrich said that usually a stop light helps a situation. He asked if anyone has talked to the Village or the Highway Department to see if the lights are timed right . The proposed fence will change the character of the neighborhood and he would not want to see six foot (6 ' ) fences along Pauline Avenue. Com. Hefler did not think a six foot (6 ' ) fence will help the situation. Other residents will want similar fences and there would be a wall along Pauline Avenue. Com. Sandler observed that most cars are under five feet (5 ' ) in height . Practically, a six foot (6 ' ) fence may not be of much benefit . After discussion, each of the Commissioners expressed the same opinion that a six foot (6 ' ) fence in that location would alter the essential character of the neighborhood and could deplete the value of property. Ch. Heinrich asked Mr. Janiak if he wanted a vote to be taken. If a variance is denied, Mr. Janiak was informed that he had the right to appeal the decision to the Village Board of Trustees. Mr. Janiak asked that a vote be taken at this time. Com. Hefler made the following motion: I move we grant the request being made by Randall Janiak for variance of Municipal Code, Section 15 .20 . 040, pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of constructing a 27 . 31 foot section of (6 ' ) solid western cedar wood fence along Pauline Avenue with no gates. Variance is subject to the tapering of one section from six feet (6 ' ) down to five feet (5 ' ) at each end of the six foot (6 ' ) section. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 15, 1996 - PAGE FIVE -IS D inr,./7 , 1 1101 The proposed fence would not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and would not be detrimental to the essential character of the neighborhood. Com. Sandler seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - None NAY - Windecker, Arbus, Entman, Hefler, Sandler and Heinrich Motion DENIED - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. Mr. Janiak was advised that he has the right to appeal the decision to the Village Board of Trustees. He was directed to apply for an appeal in writing within fifteen (15) days. He was also advised to request the Engineering Department to verify the timing of the light . C. 1088 Beechwood Road, Lennart Samuelstuen Zoning Ordinance, Section 17 .20 . 030 Construction of Deck closer than 5 ' to side lot line Lennart and Ann Samuelstuen were sworn in. Notice of the public hearing was published in the Buffalo Grove Herald on September 27, 1996 . Mrs. Samuelstuen summarized their reasons for requesting a variation: 1 . The existing deck is eighteen (18) years old. It is deteriorating and is unsafe. 2 . They want to reconstruct the deck in the same location, but it is located within a foot or two (2) from the lot line. 3 . There is no other location for the deck. Ch. Heinrich asked the Samuelstuens if they have informed their neighbors of the plan to reconstruct the deck? Mrs . Samuelstuen replied that they have talked to all their neighbors and have been encouraged to rebuild the deck. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 15, 1996 - PAGE SIX DD ` r 1) L The Commissioners had no questions or comments . There were no questions from the audience. The Village Engineer' s Review, dated October 1, 1996 states : "There are no Municipal utilities within the area of proposed construction It does not appear that the existing deck has any notable affect on the drainage nor would the replacement . " Com. Entman made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board of Trustees that the request being made by Lennart Samuelstuen, 1088 Beechwood Road, for variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17 .20 . 030, pertaining to Building Height, Bulk and Lot Coverage, for the purpose of constructing a deck that would be closer than five feet (5 ' ) from the lot line on the east side of the property, be granted. Deck to be located in the same place as the existing deck and is to be constructed pursuant to plans, specifications and materials submitted to and approved by the Village. Unique circumstances having been demonstrated, the proposed construction will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The Village Engineer' s Review, dated October 1, 1996 states that "it does not appear that the existing deck has any notable affect on the drainage nor would the replacement . " Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Arbus, Windecker, Entman, Hefler, Sandler and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. Item will be on the October 21, 1996 Village Board Agenda. Permit may be issued October 31, 1996 . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 15, 1996 - PAGE SEVEN ppruEni LAI u LL9 D. Old Farm Village Ground Sign and Pier Busch Parkway and Fabish Drive Sign Code, Section 14 .20 . 010 - Residential Dist . Height and Setback of Identification Ground Sign Sign Code, Section 14 . 32 . 020 - Accessory Bldgs. Pier Within Required Setback Mr. Eric Lasko, The Brickman Group, Ltd. , 192 Peterson Road, Libertyville, IL 60048 (708-367-9339) was sworn in. He has been authorized to represent the Old Farm Village Condominium Association. Mr. Lasko summarized the reasons for requesting a variance: 1. There is a need to identify the Busch Road entrance into the Old Farm Village Condominiums . 2 . The size of the ground sign was determined by the size of the lettering. On the west side of the intersection, there will be a post with a light that matches the end of the sign structure on the east side of the intersection. Ch. Heinrich questioned the need for the sign now, since Old Farm Village has been there for many years . Mr. Lasko said visitors do not know where to turn in and the Association has funds for the improvement . When the project was under construction there were signs at the intersection. Some of the landscaping was removed when the sign was removed and they want to add plantings with the sign for aesthetic reasons . The Appearance Commission reviewed the proposed sign and matching pier on September 28, 1996 . A variance was recommended. Com. Hefler observed that the post with the light is about ten feet (10 ' ) in height and the whole structure is very large. The letters are approximately twelve inches (12 ' ) in height . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 15, 1996 - PAGE EIGHT £FF[' LL Mr. Lasko said the light fixture has not been chosen and the size of the brick structure is needed to accommodate the lettering or it will not be seen. The letters are non-illuminated black on white stone with a masonry cap. There will be ground lights within the shrubbery at the base of the sign. The size and location of the sign was discussed. The Commissioners agreed that the sign is attractive but it is much larger than signs for similar developments . It was noted that the Cherbourg entrance signs were installed by the developer as part of the marketing of the property. If approved, this type of sign may be requested for other subdivisions. Com. Arbus is familiar with the intersection and there is a sign at Busch and Weiland. He would not approve the proposed sign because it is unnecessary. Ch. Heinrich recommended Tabling the sign until the next meeting when the Condominium Association can be present to express an explanation for a need other than vanity. The Village Engineer' s Review, dated October 1, 1996 states: "The proposed sign does not appear to conflict with the desired sight distance. Village ordinance does not allow landscaping encroachments within twenty feet (20 ' ) of the corner property point . " Com. Hefler observed from the location drawing that the sign structure is setback some distance from the road and may not help to identify the entrance. The bulk of the new landscaping is in front of the sign. The lettering is so low that it will be obscured by the growth of the shrubbery or snow. Com. Sandler questioned whether the sign would be confusing to visitors wanting to enter the single family section of Old Farm Village. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 15, 1996 - PAGE NINE U � U Ch. Heinrich gave Mr. Lasko the option of having a vote taken and if the sign is denied, the Association can appeal the decision to the Village Board. Mr. Lasko agreed to have the proposal Tabled. Com. Windecker made a motion to Table the Old Farm Village ground sign and pier until November 19, 1996 . Com. Arbus seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Arbus, Windecker, Entman, Hefler, Sandler and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Ch. Heinrich asked that Maxine Lustig be notified of the action taken and suggest that she attend the meeting with some members of the condominium board. E. Lot 52, Mirielle, 2240 Apple Hill Court South F. Lot 51, Mirielle, 2250 Apple Hill Court South G. Lot 41, Mirielle, 2207 Apple Hill Lane Town & Country Homes, Zoning Ordinance, Section 17 . 36 . 030 - Parking Regulations Driveway to Exceed 40% Coverage Limitation Mr. Chris Lebling, Operations Manager for Town and Country Homes, Four Westbrook Corporate Center, Suite 500, Westchester, IL 60154 (708-409-8900) was sworn in. The public hearing notices were published in the Buffalo Grove Herald on September 27, 1996 . Lot 52 at 2240 Apple Hill Court South was discussed separately from Lots 51 and 41 . Mr. Lebling requested a variation to permit the paved surface of Lot 52, 2240 Apple Hill Court South, to exceed the 40% coverage requirement of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.36 . 030, pertaining to Parking Regulations. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 15, 1996 - PAGE TEN r-- rir k\.1 The lot is a premium home site situated on a cul-de- sac and the house is one of the larger models with a 3-car garage and the driveway tapers down to the street . The taper is sharp and is more difficult to negotiate entering and exiting the garage. The house is constructed at the front building line and there was not enough room to move it back to permit more front yard. The house is also one foot (1 ' ) from the rear setback line. The driveway that has been put in does not meet the 40% limitation and part of it would have to be removed before the Village would issue a Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Tom Happ, contract purchaser of Lot 52 was present . At this time he and his wife are residing with his in-laws, Myron and Sandy Braunstein, at 3019 Huntington Lane in Arlington Heights, IL. Mr. Happ was sworn in and he said they hope to move into the house later this month (October) before his wife gives birth to triplets . He expressed concern for the safety of these children as they grow up and for others that would find it difficult to drive a car into the garage if the driveway is cut back to the required width at the sidewalk. Ch. Heinrich stated he owns a house on a cul-de-sac and he shares the driveway with his neighbor. He emphasized with Mr.Happ' s situation and said he has no problem with the variance. Comments of Commissioners : Com. Arbus expressed his dissatisfaction with the developer, Town and Country Homes, because they have come before Zoning Board a number of times requesting variances for certain houses on lots and they did not originally contemplate that the houses would not fit . The intent of the ordinance is to eliminate concrete cul-de-sacs covered 100% with driveways . He sympathized with purchasers who want to buy a house with a 3-car garage expecting that it will come with a 3-car driveway. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 15, 1996 - PAGE ELEVEN Thi ' h. th', He has a problem with the aesthetics of the area. The developer should not build large luxury homes on small lots. When they plot out the subdivision, they should put in less houses so there is enough space to give people what they need. He is concerned with the number of times that this developer has come in just before a house is completed and asked the Zoning Board to grant a variance because there is a real hardship. Mr. Lebling recalled that Mr. Ron Braver at 2260 Apple Hill Court South was granted a variance for a similar driveway after he moved into his house. Ch. Heinrich commented that Mr. James Truesdell, who is now the Director of Forward Planning for Town & Country Homes, used to be the Planner for the Village of Buffalo Grove and he knows the ordinances because he drafted most of them. Com. Windecker said he told the representative of Town & Country during the last instance that he would not vote for another variance of this type because they L, have chosen to have the ZBA legislate in compliance to their inefficiency. He has sympathy with people who purchase houses on cul-de-sacs, but in his experience with other developers, he has been told what houses will fit on which lot and purchasers do not have a choice unless they take a different lot . Town & Country has chosen to put a third car where some of the models had another room, and the suggestion to amend the Zoning Ordinance would be done to accommodate the developer. Buffalo Grove should not amend its ordinances. Developers should plan their houses on the proper lots to accommodate the original subdivision plat that was approved by the Village. He has built nine (9) houses all over the country and he has not known of another developer who has repeatedly defied the a Village to protect the value of a house. He sympathizes with this purchaser because he was sold a house with a 3-car garage on a house that should not have been put on that lot with a 3-car garage. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 15, 1996 - PAGE TWELVE i LJLJ Town & Country is asking the Zoning Board to legislate approval for every lot in that subdivision that does not comply so they can sell 3-car garages. He said Lot 41 at 2207 Apple Hill Lane has a street light and fire hydrant in front of the driveway. It will be impossible to widen that drive- way. This is absurd and he will vote no. Mr. Braunstein said he did not object to the comments that were made but he asked the Commissioners to take into consideration what the purchaser has gone through. They did not see the plat of survey until the house was under construction. They bought from plans and they were shown a drawing of the house with a 3- car garage that had a 3-car driveway. This is what they bought . They are due to close at the end of the month and his daughter hopes to be moved into before the triplets are born. The driveway has been put in and the house is almost ready for occupancy. Mr. Braunstein said he could not speak about the other two (2) lots, but it would cause an tremendous undue hardship to deny the variance for Lot 52 because the driveway would have a dangerous curve, not a gradual curve. There would be a cut that comes from the edge of the third car garage all the way to the center of the driveway. It will not only be difficult to get into the garage, but it will be almost impossible. Children have been killed by people backing out of driveways and he is concerned about safety when the expected triplets are walking and growing. Ch. Heinrich said the problem is that the issue transcends this case. The Happs are in the middle of the situation. Mr. Braunstein agreed and said his only concern is with Lot 52 . The situation is dangerous for the expected children and it would be inviting disaster to deny the variance. The Happs bought this house, sold their house and moved in with them in January before they knew what the driveway would look like. The permitted driveway would affect the future sale of the house . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 15, 1996 - PAGE THIRTEEN L-4.11E b L IiJ t IA) Com. Entman reviewed the situation from the beginning. He asked Mr. Happ when they became aware that this could only be a 2-car driveway without a variance? Mr. Happ responded that they were never told that it could only be a 2-car driveway. They purchased the house with a 3- car garage in November. He was shown a pre-construction survey about last March and it was at that time that they contacted the Village about a variance. They have tried all types of options . They thought they could possibly move in with the permitted driveway and then apply for the variance, but the developer said the driveway would have to be cut off before they can get a certificate of occupancy. Now there is a time issue and Mrs. Happ is under a lot of stress because of the problem. Com. Entman said he moved into a new house this year and had problems so he has empathy with the Happs . He asked why it has taken so long to bring the matter before the Zoning Board? Mr. Happ explained that when he was told the owner of the property had to apply for a variance, he pursued the matter with Town & Country and has been trying for several months to get them to submit the application. Town & Country did not seem interested in helping them correct the situation so he took matters into his own hands and contacted the president of Town & Country Homes. It was through him that the application was filed. Com. Entman understood that developers want to sell homes. The Happs saw this beautiful house with a 3- car garage and they wanted it . The developer sells the house without mentioning the tapered driveway is all that will fit on that lot so now when "push comes to shove" the developer says let' s get the Zoning Board or some other Village department to solve the problem. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 15, 1996 - PAGE FOURTEEN ;; r o , ,ttri LO [I; He agreed with Com. Windecker' s comments about not selling houses without acknowledging to the buyer that some lots will not accommodate houses with 3-car garages and a 3-car driveway. The Zoning Board understands what the petitioners are going through, but they must understand that this is not the first case in which the ZBA has been asked to solve a problem that was created by a third party for their own benefit . Ch. Heinrich recalled the time when the Village required another developer (Hoffman Homes) to tear out ten (10) foundations because of repeated requests for variations. They were told that enough is enough. The Commissioners understand the plight of the petitioners. Developers are given approval by the Municipal Authorities to construct specific houses on lots that comply with the ordinance. The Board cannot trust Town & Country. Mr. Truesdell knows better than to do these things. When the first request for a variance of this type was considered, the Zoning Board was told that there would be more, but they did not specify how many. Mr. Lebling responded that Town & Country would prefer not to have to come here and they did not knowingly violate the green space requirement . It is a matter of calculation. If you calculate the area from the front of the house they would comply. Unfortunately, the way the formula works, calculations are made from the front setback lines in front of the garage. There is no problem on standard home sites, but there is a problem on cul-de-sacs. They have restriction lists with reference to what homes fit on every home site prior to sales, but they do not do surveys until after the lots are sold. He has surveyed other houses in the Village with 3-car garage/driveways and every one has a taper. The situation on Lot 52 is more extreme than most . Their original calculations were not accurate. He has tried to work out some solution with the Happs but they could not agree on any other option. He did not know how many more variances they will need. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 15, 1996 - PAGE FIFTEEN s r 7 These are the three (3) houses that are the farthest along. He did consider bringing in more but some are lots that are not sold. He can go back and restrict the sites to certain houses that will accommodate 3- car garages. There could be more on a curve or arch. There is one cul-de-sac in Phase II and they usually put four (4) or five (5) houses on a cul-de-sac . Some may be under contract . He does not know which ones do not meet the 40% limitation. Mr. Lebling asked about the plight of the other two (2) home sites in this request? Lot 41 is almost complete and Lot 51, next to Lot 52, is also nearing completion. Com. Windecker projected a problem at 2280 Apple Hill Court South. Town & Country are experienced builders and they have architects who should know how to calculate better. Ch. Heinrich recommended Tabling the other two (2) lots until November so that the purchasers can be informed of the circumstances. Lot 52 needs to be resolved now. There are two (2) separate issues . One (1) is how the ZBA will deal with Town & Country regarding other variances and two (2) there is this particular situation. Com. Hefler said he feels sorry for Mr. Happ because he is not the person who is responsible for his predicament . He does not want to see the wrong person punished. What action can be taken to ensure that the developer is given the discipline? Ch. Heinrich repeated his statement about keeping the two (2) situations separate. He advised the Board to treat this situation as if the owner is coming in and treat all future requests in a different way. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 15, 1996 - PAGE SIXTEEN tr- ,i! ti 13 After a much longer discussion, a poll was taken to determine if the Commissioners would recommend a variance for Lot 52, 2240 Apple Hill Court South: The Commissioners voted 5 to 1 for the recommendation. Com. Arbus made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board of Trustees that the request made by the Pinnacle Corporation d/b/a Town & Country Homes, for variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17 . 36 . 030, pertaining to Parking Regulations, to permit the driveway to exceed the 40% coverage limitation, be granted. Driveway to be constructed pursuant to the plat of survey designated Exhibit A-1 . The petitioner having demonstrated unique circum- stances, the proposed variance will not alter the essential characteristics of the neighborhood. The contract purchaser has been advised that the house is being constructed almost back to the forty foot (4 0 ' ) rear yard setback line with the understanding that should he consider any future construction he should contact the Building Department to determine if a variance would be required. Com. Sandler seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Arbus, Entman, Hefler, Sandler and Heinrich NAY - Windecker Motion Passed - 5 to 1. Findings of Fact Attached. Item will be placed on the October 21, 1995 Village Board Agenda. Ch. Heinrich suggested that Mr. Lebling and Mr. Happ might want to attend the Village Board meeting in the event that the item is pulled from the Consent Agenda. Com. Hefler exhorted Mr. Lebling about creating a hardship that put the Zoning Board in the position of having to grant variation. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 15, 1996 - PAGE SEVENTEEN . ' P i i.)L \II r:„ , li: Lots 51 and 41 were discussed. Mr. Lebling said that L Lot 41 is nearing completion and the contract purchas- ers are aware of the situation. Ch. Heinrich recommended Tabling Lot 51 and asked Mr. Lebling to notify the the contract purchasers and ask them to attend the Zoning Board meeting on November 19, 1996 . He said if prospective buyers were told up front that a standard 3-car driveway will not fit on these lots, they would not want to build these large houses on these lots. Mr. Lebling said Mr. Truesdell is aware of the issues and had planned to come to this meeting but could not make it . The problems were caused by mis-calculations made the surveyors. The driveway on Lot 41 has been poured in error and a certificate of occupancy will not be issued unless the driveway is modified. The contract purchasers have seen the driveway but they do not know of the problem. He offered to withdraw the requests for variances on Lots 51 and 41 . L/ Com. Hefler objected to Town and Country selling houses that they know do not fit on certain lots . This forces the Zoning Board to go against the ordi- nances and legalize something that should not have been been constructed in the first place. Ch. Heinrich asked Mr. Lebling Town and Country can correct the problem in the future even if they have to inform purchasers that they cannot build certain houses on specific lots? Mr. Lebling said he did not know how many more similar variances would be requested. He did not know exactly how strict is too strict of a taper. The cul-de-sacs are a problem. He has looked at a lot of driveways in Buffalo Grove and all driveways have some taper. Mr. Schar stated that before the ordinance was changed driveways could be 27 ' straight down, now they can be any width at the top, but no wider than 27 ' at the property line. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 15, 1996 - PAGE EIGHTEEN f It The problem with these driveways is that they exceed the 40% front yard coverage limitation. When third garage is added to model with a 2-car garage a brick pier is put in between and these piers are 3 ' to 4 ' wide increasing the width of the driveway from 27 to 30 feet . Some of the criteria that was used to determine the 27 ' width was the length of today' s cars and the turning radius backing out the garage compared to garages years ago when cars were smaller and narrower. Cars may be smaller but they take the size of a standard car for a turning radius. Com. Sandler said this may be the industry standard, but the issue here is that people are buying a house with some expectations that exceed minimum standards but they are getting minimum standard construction. Mr. Skelton recommended that Town and Country begin telling buyers that the house will meet the ordinace, and they can apply for variations after they take title. He said these variations exceed the ordinance by approximately 10% of the required coverage. After discussing the issues at length, Com. Arbus made a motion to Table Mirielle Lots 51 and 41 until November 19, 1996 . Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Voice Vote was AYE Unanimously. Mr. Lebling apologized for coming in with these variations and said they would notify future contract purchasers of the variances. Ch. Heinrich said that in the past, the Zoning Board has always dealt with property owners. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 15, 1996 - PAGE NINETEEN V. ANNOUNCEMENTS A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1 . July 16, 1996 - Motion to approve as submitted was made by Com. Windecker and seconded by Com. Hefler. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Entman, Windecker, Arbus and Heinrich NAY - None ABSTAIN - Hefler and Sandler Motion Passed - 4 to 0, 2 abstentions. Minutes of July 16, 1996 were approved. 2 . August 20, 1996 - Motion to approve as submitted was made by Com. Arbus and seconded by Com. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Entman, Windecker, Hefler, and Heinrich NAY - None ABSTAIN - Arbus and Sandler Motion Passed - 4 to 0, 2 abstentions . Minutes of August 20, 1996 were approved. 3 . September 17, 1996 - Motion to approve as submitted was made by Com. Windecker and seconded by Com. Entman. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Entman, Windecker, Arbus and Heinrich NAY - None ABSTAIN - Hefler and Sandler Motion Passed - 4 to 0, 1 abstentions . Mintues of September 17, 1996 were approved. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 15, 1996 - PAGE TWENTY B. Mr. Skelton briefly reviewed two (2) recent court cases in which Buffalo Grove was involved: 1 . Buffalo Grove won a motion on #2619 . Manchester Greens was claiming that two (2) Buffalo Grove Ordinances were unconstitutional regulatory taking. 2 . Buffalo Grove also won the Vernon Hills case in the Appellate Court regarding annexation. Mr. Skelton distributed copies of these cases and said he would discuss them more fully at a later date. VI . ADJOURNMENT Com. Entman made a motion to adjourn. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Voice Vote: AYE - Unanimously Ch. Heinrich adjourned the meeting at 10 :30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Shirley Bates Recording Secretary ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 15, 1996 - PAGE TWENTY-ONE