Loading...
1996-11-19 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE , ILLINOIS TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19 , 1996 I . CALL TO ORDER Chairman Richard Heinrich called the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting to order at 7 : 40 P . M . on Tuesday, November 19 , 1996 in the Council Chambers of the Village Hall , 50 Raupp Boulevard . II . ROLL CALL Commissioners Present : B . Entman, L . Windecker, L . Arbus , S . Sandler and R . Heinrich QUORUM . Commissioners Absent : J . Paul and H . Hefler Bldg . Dept . Liaison : Edward Schar, Deputy Building Commissioner Village Board Liaison : Bill Reid, Trustee Village Attorney : Richard Skelton III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 15 , 1996 Com . Windecker made a motion to approve . Com . Entman seconded the motion . There were no additions or corrections . Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman, Windecker, Arbus , Sandler and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 5 to 0 . Minutes of October 15 , 1996 were approved as submitted . IV . OLD BUSINESS A. Old Farm Village Identification Sign and Pier Busch Parkway and Fabish Drive Sign Code , Section 14 . 20 . 010 -Sign Ht . & Setback Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 32 . 020 -Pier Setback Item was Tabled because of the size of the monument and the reason identification was needed was unclear . APPliA Motion to remove from Table was made by Com. Windecker and seconded by Com. Entman. Roll Call Vote - AYE Unanimously Ms . Maxine Lustig, Highcrest Management, 7550 Janes Avenue, Suite 202, Woodridge, Il 60517 was sworn in. Mr. Eric Lasko, The Brickman Group, Ltd. 192 Peterson Road, Libertyville, IL 60048 (708- 367-9339) was also present . Ms . Lustig presented copies of 136 signed approval statements from Old Farm Village condominium owners . A letter from Joan Dombrowski, 115 Fabish, stated that for ten (10) years she has had to tell friends that they live one (1) block east of the Fire Station. When Lexington built Old Farm Village in 1986 there was a construction sign with landscaping, but after all the units were sold the sign and landscaping were removed. This is the only Lexington Development that does not have identification. The main entrance is on Busch Road and in 1993 plans were made to put in a landscaped entrance sign, but Busch Road was going to be widened and the plans were delayed until after the construction was completed. Bids were taken in 1995 for the construction of the brick wall . The owners want and need identification. Hidden Lakes and all the other developments on Busch Road have entrance signs . Cherbourg has walls at two (2) entrances . The Old Farm Village residents should have identification. Ch. Heinrich recalled Com. Hefler' s comments (10/15) questioning whether the size of the letters in relation to the setback would adequately identify the entrance . Mr. Lasko said the proposed sign will give OFV good identification and he did not think the sign is too large . The pier will be 5 ' 10" in height and the light fixture will be from 25" - 29" tall . They prefer the Augusta style. The sign will be twelve ft . (12 ' ) wide. The setback is in keeping with these proportions . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS November 19, 1996 - PAGE TWO HIED Comments from Commissioners : Com. Windecker: Said the distance from Busch Parkway will diminish the size of the sign and with the land- scaping, he had no problem with the variance . Com. Arbus : Said he has spent time passing the corner and observing the area. He is not comfortable with the sign in that location and with the pier on the other side of the street . The sign structure is large and he prefers the openness of the corner. Com. Entman: Said the setback is OK, but he questioned what maximum, or minimum size, sign of that type is appropriate and what the purpose of the pier would be? Mr. Lasko said the pier ties the entrance together. Com. Sandler: Verified that there are 286 homeowners at Old Farm Village and copies of the letters were distributed with copies of the form to sign. There were 136 signed responses . Ms. Lustig said two (2) condominium board members came with her, but Ch. Heinrich did not ask them to speak because it is clear that the sign is wanted by the homeowners . The ZBA will decide if the sign is in keeping with the other signs in the area. It is tastefully done and he will support the variance. After discussion, the Commissioners concurred that the size of the sign is offset by the location and the landscaping, so the variance would be recommended. The ground lights will be on a timer. Ms . Lustig said they want the sign and agreed to have them turned off at 1 : 00 AM. The bulbs in the pier lights will remain on all night . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ./ NOVEMBER 19, 1996 - PAGE THREE APPROYED Com. Windecker made the following motion: I move we recommend that a variance of Sign Code, Section 14 .20 . 010, pertaining to Residential Districts, requested by the Old Farm Village Condominium Association, for the purpose of constructing a ground sign at Busch Parkway and Fabish Drive, for identifi- cation of Old Farm Village, that exceeds the height limitation and would be located within the required setback, be granted. Also recommended is variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17 . 32 . 020, pertaining to Accessory Buildings and Structures, for the purpose of installing a brick pier within the required setback at the northwest corner of Busch Parkway and Fabish Drive . The Appearance Commission reviewed the sign October 24, 196 and recommended a variance . Sign conforms to the restrictions of Sign Code, Section 14 .44 . 010, Sub-section B. Condition being that the ground lights be timed to go on at dusk and off at 1 : 00 AM. Com. Sandler seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Entman, Windecker, Sandler and Heinrich NAY - Arbus Motion Passed - 4 to 1 . Findings of Fact Attached. Item will be placed on the Village Board Agenda on December 15, 1996 . B. Lot 51, 2250 Apple Hill Court South C. Lot 41, 2207 Apple Hill Lane Mirielle - Town and Country Homes Zoning Ordinance, Section 17 . 036 . 30 Driveway to Exceed 404 Coverage Limitation ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 19, 1996 - PAGE FOUR £PPO!o Motion to remove Items B and C from Table was made by Com. Arbus and seconded by Com. Windecker. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Unanimously. Pursuant to a letter from Mr. Christopher Lebling of Town & Country Homes, dated November 4, 1996, the request for a variance for Lot 41, 1107 Apple Hill Lane, was withdrawn and transferred all rights regarding the variance for Lot 51, 2250 Apple Hill Court South, to the contract purchasers, Stephen and Simona Citron. Mr. Skelton verified that the variance could be continued by the contract purchasers . Mr. and Mrs . Citron were present and they were sworn in. They now reside at 640 Hatfield in Arlington Hts. Mrs . Citron said when they purchased the property with a 3-car garage, they assumed that the driveway would accommodate (three) cars. They noticed that some of the driveways were odd shaped and became concerned about the size of their driveway. When they contacted Town & Country they were told that the Village required driveways to be a certain size . They learned that a neighbor in the subdivision had successfully petitioned for a variance of the Zoning Ordinance and when they contacted Town & Country, they were informed that applications were being made for three (3) similar variations, including their lot . They were subse-quently informed that one (1) variation was granted (2240 Apple Hill Court South - Lot 52) but two (2) requests, including their lot, had been Tabled. In a letter, dated November 18, 1996, the Citrons gave reasons for requesting the variance : 1 . They would have difficultly maneuvering cars out of the proposed driveway and into the street . 2 . Their son will be playing outside with other small children and increasing the width of the driveway would make the neighborhood safer. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 19, 1996 - PAGE FIVE &PPlriKi The Citrons submitted a new drawing of their plat and requested that the apron width at the sidewalk be 25 ' (Town & Country requested 23 ' ) and the apron width at the street be 26 ' (Town & Country requested 25 ' ) . Mr. Schar explained that the standard driveway width at setback is 27 ' but the proposed driveway exceeds the 40:coverage limitation. Driveway lot coverage is determined from the setback line to the two (2) side lot lines to the front lot line and the proposed driveway would cover 47%. This is measured at the building line straight down to the sidewalk, where it would have to taper to 24 ' to conform with the ordinance. Ch. Heinrich commented that the legal driveway would be unusable and was informed by Mr. Schar that a variance can be granted for the amount of taper. Mr. Citron said they would be satisfied with the Town & Country proposal, with a driveway width of 27 ' tapered down to an apron width of 24 ' , but they would prefer a wider apron of 25 ' at the sidewalk and 26 ' at the street . Town & Country have said that they would widened the apron if a variance is granted. The variance that was granted for Lot 52, 2240 Apple Hill Court South was reviewed. Ch. Heinrich said they should be consistent . The width of the driveway was 27 ' at the setback line and 24 . 5 ' at the sidewalk. The width at the top of the apron was 23 . 5 ' and 26 . 5 ' at the street . Com. Windecker said he had driven into this driveway and had no problem backing out into the street . Com. Arbus observed that the driveway could go over the lot line if it is extended toward Lot 25 . Town & Country should take care to widen the driveway toward the other side. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 19, 1996 - PAGE SIX OPACIEI The Commissioners agreed the driveway should be consistent with the previous variance for Lot 52 . Mr. and Mrs . Citron also agreed to match the variance granted for Lot 52, next door. There were no comments from the audience . Com. Windecker made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board of Trustees that the request being made by Pinnacle Corp. , dba as Town & Country Homes, be granted a variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17 . 36 . 030 . pertaining to Parking Regulations, to permit the driveway on Lot 51, 2250 Apple Hill Court South, to exceed the 40% coverage limitation. Driveway to be constructed pursuant to the plat of survey, (revised A-1) designated with the following dimensions : Driveway width at the setback line - 27 . 0 feet Driveway width at the sidewalk - 24 . 5 feet Apron width at the top - 23 . 5 feet Apron width at the street - 26 . 5 feet The apron should stay within the lot line extended at the street . Petitioner having demonstrated unique conditions, the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Com. Sandler seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman, Sandler, Windecker, Arbus and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 5 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. Item will be on the December 16, 1996 Village Board Agenda. Town & Country are to be notified of the variance and date of the Village Board meeting. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS LI NOVEMBER 19, 1996 - PAGE SEVEN ORM V. NEW BUSINESS A. Buffalo Grove Business Park - Hamilton Partners Sign Code, Section 14 . 36 . 010 - Real Estate Signs Permit Existing Leasing Signs to Remain on Lake Cook Road and Arlington Heights Road. Mr. Timothy Beechick, Hamilton Partners, 1130 Lake Cook Road, Buffalo Grove, IL 60089 (847-459-4225) was sworn in. Notice was published in the Buffalo Grove Herald on October 31, 1996 . Hamilton Partners is the developer and managing agent for the Buffalo Grove Business Park. He requested a variance to permit the two (2) marketing signs to remain. He summarized the process for commercial leasing. They rely on exposure to the market place by placing signs on commercial property. The Buffalo Grove Business Park is comprised of 58 acres of property with nine (9) commercial office buildings . The size and location of the proposed signs are appropriate for marketing the multi-tenant complex. There is a continual turn- over in the tenant mix and the buildings stay leased mainly because of the prime location so it is important to have exposure by means of the signs . Regarding the recommendation of the Appearance Commis- sion to grant a variance for a period of one (1) year, Mr. Beechick requested a variance that would permit continuous use of the signs with periodic review of the copy. Ch. Heinrich stated that when the Sign Code was written, the intent was to eliminate leasing signs as soon as property was substantially rented. The occupancy of each building was reviewed. Mr. Beechick said there will be vacancies within the next few months if leases are not renewed. They have a 94-95% occupancy rate most of the time, but this is due to the fact that they work hard to keep the spaces filled. They are only asking for two (2) signs for the nine (9) buildings on all 58 acres of property. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 19, 1996 - PAGE EIGHT &L,I'q He said the Buffalo Grove Business Park is a valuable asset to the community and the taxes help support the Village, so this is a joint proposal. Ch. Heinrich commented that a variance permitting these signs to remain permanently could lead to similar signs on other Hamilton Partners property. This would be a policy decision to be made by the Village Board. He would support the Appearance Com- mission' s one (1) year recommendation. Mr. Beechick had no objection to annual reviews, but said the signs are critical and as long as there is space available, they have a responsibility to their investors to market the property and to maintain it tastefully. He said there is some overgrown land- scaping around the signs that needs adjustment so the signs can be seen better. If necessary they will relocate the trees that are blocking the sign on Arlington Heights Road. Com. Entman disclosed that he is a tenant at 750 Lake Cook Road and recused himself from the discussion. Li Com. Arbus, Com. Windecker and Com. Sandler were in agreement with the one (1) year time limit with sub- sequent review and the stipulation that the shrubbery be maintained. Com. Sandler suggested simplification of copy on the signs to identify Hamilton Partners as leasing agent with the telephone number. Mr. Beechick responded that they do have some monument signs that identify the subdivision and Hamilton Part- ners as developer, then they typically have separate marketing signs near the entry that include the tele- phone number. They often get calls on cell phones by people driving by and say they saw a sign. There were no comments from the audience . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 19, 1996 - PAGE NINE L\PFAIMEI Com. Arbus made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board that the request made by Hamilton Partners for variance of Sign Code, Section 14 .36 . 010, pertaining to Real Estate Signs, for the purpose of permitting the two (2) existing Buffalo Grove Business Park leasing signs to remain, be granted for a period of one year, with the stipulations that the signs are to be repainted and the landscaping adjusted. Petitioner having met the conditions of Sign Code, Section 14 .44 . 010; variance is granted pursuant Sub-Section A. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Ch. Heinrich disclosed that the attorney for his corporation is a tenant at the Buffalo Grove Business Park, but this has no impact on his vote . Roll Call Vote : AYE - Sandler, Windecker, Arbus, and Heinrich NAY - None ABSTAIN - Entman Motion Passed - 4 to 0, 1 abstention. Findings of Fact Attached. Item will be on the December 16, 1996 Village Board Agenda. B. AMLI at Chevy Chase (Formerly Lincoln Club) Johnson Drive at Milwaukee Avenue Sign Code, Section 14 .20 . 010 Height and Setback from Johnson Drive Ms . Nancy Mahar, Community Manager of AMLI at Chevy Chase, 1701 Johnson Drive, Buffalo Grove, IL 60089 (847-537-9299) and Mr. Bill Eagen, E & S Marketing Resources, Inc . 4903 E. 23rd Street, Indianapolis, IN 42618, were sworn in. Notice was published in the Buffalo Grove Herald on October 31, 1996 . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 19, 1996 - PAGE TEN IROYEI AL, Ms. Mahar said the reason for requesting a variance is to permit a new sign to be installed on the existing brick base that is more aesthetically pleasing than the illuminated plastic sign is there now. The new sign will reflect the clientele and the style of the buildings as well as enhance the community. AMLI is a real estate investment trust and they purchased the property in March of 1996 . It is typical for AMLI to rename its investments. The occupancy rate is now 92% and they like to average 95% to 96% . On October 24, 1996, the Appearance Commission re- viewed the sign and recommended that a variance be granted. The sign will be twelve feet (12 ' ) wide and the total height is 8-1/2 feet including the base. It will not be higher that the stone caps on the base . It will have a redwood finish and gold leaf lettering. It will have ground lights that work on a photocell . The time of illumination was discussed. Mr. Mahar requested that the lights be on at all times because they have residents that travel who sometimes come and go late at night . It will also be useful for guests arriving after dark. Mr. Schar said a variance is required because the sign exceeds five feet (5 ' ) in height, 32 sq. f t . in size and is located within the required setback from Johnson Drive. A turn-off time was discussed and it was agreed that this sign is not in a residential district and given the more transient nature of an apartment complex, the lights will not be detrimental to the neighbor- hood because there are many other lights in the area. There were no comments from the audience. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 19, 1996 - PAGE ELEVEN VD-41191U Com. Entman made the following motion: I move we recommend that the request made by AMLI at Chevy Chase Apartments, 1701 Johnson Drive, for variance of Sign Code, Section 14 . 20 . 010, pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of installing a new ground sign on the existing brick base (formerly Lincoln Club) be granted. The sign would exceed the height limitation and be located within the required setback from Johnson Drive . The sign will be 6 ' x 12 ' and it will be installed on the existing brick base, located pursuant to the exhibits submitted by the petitioner. Sign to be constructed in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to and approved by the Village. Petitioner having complied with Sign Code, Section 14 .44 . 010, Sub-section B, has shown the need and importance of the sign. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman, Windecker, Arbus, Sandler and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 5 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. Item will be on the December 16, 1996 Village Board Agenda. C. Country Court Shopping Center - New Ground Sign 125-165 W. Dundee Road Sign Code, Sections 14 . 20 . 030 and 14 . 20 . 070 20 ' in Height. Closer than 20 ' to Lot Line Ms . Joan Kwak, Property Manager, Dan Development, Ltd. , 10 E. 22nd Street, Suite 116, Lombard, Il 60148 (630-627-0606) was sworn in. The notice was published in the Buffalo Grove Herald on October 28, 1996 . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 19, 1996 - PAGE TWELVE kill Irk Ms. Kwak said Dan Management has owned the shopping center for three (3) years . She summarized the reasons for requesting a variance : 1 . They want to replace the existing sign with a sign that will match the new color and renovated design of the shopping center. 2 . The existing sign is thirteen feet (13 ' ) in height and setback thirteen feet (13 ' ) . It cannot be seen by eastbound traffic. They want the new sign to be twenty feet (20 ' ) high. 3 . The sign is needed to attract new tenants as well as direct customers to the center. Ch. Heinrich commented that when the Sign Code was revised, the height of ground signs was restricted because it was determined that the height of signs does not attract business . He would not approve the request . When signs are revised, they must be brought into conformance with the Sign Code. Mr. Kwak described existing signs at Dunell Center and White Hen that are twenty feet (20 ' ) in height and installed very close to the sidewalk. The Barry' s Ribs sign obscures the existing Country Court sign. If the sign is moved back to twenty feet (20 ' ) it would be in the middle of the parking lot . The front elevation of Country Court is set back a distance from Dundee Road and the signs are difficult to see from Dundee Road. The signs for the stores on the east elevation cannot be seen at all from Dundee Road. If they do not get the variance for the height, they will not consider installing the new sign. Comments from Commissioners : Com. Windecker said twenty feet (20 ' ) is too high. Com. Arbus said the center needs help but they will not gain anything with a higher sign and it could detract from the area. It is difficult to access the center. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 19, 1996 - PAGE THIRTEEN £FPI ) Com. Entman would not permit the height to be increased. They should comply with the ordinance. Com. Sandler said he drove up and down the street going eastbound it is very difficult to see the sign for the center. The Barry' s sign and the trees do interfere with the existing sign. He suggested a compromise of somewhere between thirteen (13 ' ) and twenty foot (20 ' ) height that would be more accept- able and would give Country Court better identity. He recommended Tabling to give time for consideration of alternatives. Ms. Kwak said the reason the owners spent over $30, 000 to renovate the center with new awnings and new facade to improve the appearance and attract people. The new sign was designed with a peak that matches the build- ing. The estimate for the sign was about $30, 000 and if they do not get the sign as proposed, they will probably not want to change the color of the existing sign. She would have to consult the owner. Com. Entman told Ms. Kwak that it might be possible to get the visibility they want and comply with the ordinance. Ch. Heinrich agreed that there could be a better location for the sign and he advised Ms. Kwak to Table until December. There were no comments from the audience. Ms . Kwak agreed to Table. Com. Arbus made a motion to Table. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Windecker, Arbus, Sandler and Heinrich NAY - Entman Motion to Table Passed - 4 to 1 . Z)NING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 19, 1996 - PAGE FOURTEEN ] [T6E11 11\PP D. Plaza at Buffalo Grove - Berkson & Sons, Ltd. Sign Code, Section 14 .36 . 010 - Real Estate Signs Per "For Lease" Sign to Remain Petitioner was not present. Com. Arbus made a motion to Table. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote - AYE Unanimously E. 733 Aspen Drive - Mark Levit Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.32 . 020 Permit Shed to Remain Within the Setback Mr. Mark Levit was sworn in. Notice was published in the Buffalo Grove Herald on November 4, 1996 . Mr. Levit said they purchased the property six (6) months ago. The house had been vacant for a year and was in need of improvement. They have worked on the exterior and the interior of the house to make it more livable. They needed more storage space for the lawn mawer and bicycles, etc. so they installed a small 6 ' x 8 ' shed in the side yard. The rear yard is very steep and the only level area is on the side that faces the cul-de-sac. The shed is of good quality and it matches the house. It is in line with the existing shrubbery. Mr. Levit submitted a list signed by the following neighbors who have no objection to the shed: 1. Arthur Slavik, 750 Aspen Drive 2 . Marjory Podraza, 721 Aspen Drive (next door) 3 . Renee Prodsky, 738 Aspen Drive 4 . Caryn Kraus, 3 Aspen Court; Harold and Caryn Kraus also wrote a letter, dated 11/19/96, in support of the variance. If the variance is not granted, they would lose the storage space and have to store the items in the garage, so their car would be left outside. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 19, 1996 - PAGE FIFTEEN U U ii)/- Ilk, V JiLLJ Mr. Levit did not know there was an ordinance to be followed or that a permit was required. He said he could not move the shed without damaging it. Mr. Schar said an inspector was sent out to look at the shed after some calls were received and Mr. Levit was informed that the shed is not in compliance. The following neighbors were present : 1. George Schneider, 762 Aspen, said they have lived in the neighborhood for 22-1/2 years. The ordinances have kept the neighborhood open and other people have lived within the restrictions. The shed appears to be in the front yard so the setback restrictions should be enforced. 2 . Angela Schneider, 762 Aspen, told Mr. Levit that their objections were not personal. The neighbors who support the variance do not live where they can see the shed. The shed is very visable when driving down Aspen Drive and it would be more appropriate to have it in the rear yard. Aspen is a collector street and many people use it . 3 . Mr. Ben MacNamara, 757 Aspen, said Mr. Levit has done a lot of work on the house and has improved the property, except for the shed. The neighborhood is attractive and the quality of maintenance is good. The ordinances preserve the uniformity of the neighborhood and should be enforced. The shed does not belong in the front yard. 4 . Mrs. Margaret MacNamara, 757 Aspen, said they have nothing personal against the Levits. They moved into the area from California because the property is kept up. Corner lots have two (2) front yards and no one would put up a shed on their front lawn. They can see the shed from their front door. The ordinances protect the residents of Buffalo Grove. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 19, 1996 - PAGE SIXTEEN ARTIE 5 . Mr. Howard Kraus, 3 Aspen Court, said he can see the shed from his front window and it does not present a problem. In the three (3) years they have lived in the house, there have been at least four (4) families who have lived at 733 Aspen Drive. The Levits have been the most responsible homeowners and will maintain the shed so it does not become an eyesore to the community. Even if the shed is moved to the rear yard, it would be just as visible to people when they turn the corner. He supports the variance. 6 . Ms. Adrian Slavik, 750 Aspen Drive, had nothing to add. It's nothing personal, but' the shed does not belong in that location. Comments from Commissioners : Com. Windecker stated that on corner lots the side yard becomes somebody' s front yard. Fences, air conditioners and shed are not permitted on the side. He observed that the shed blocks the door on the side of the house. The shed blocks an exit and, in case of fire, could be a hazard. The shed belongs in the rear yard even if the grade has to be built up. He would not support the variance. Com. Arbus residents of Buffalo Grove get the benefits from the zoning ordinances. They are established for the benefit of homeowners. The Zoning Commissioners consider reactions of the people who will be the most affected by the variance. These are the people who have come are in the direct line of sight. They expect to be protected by the zoning ordinace. He is sympathetic with Mr. Levit' s need for the shed, but it would alter the essential character of the neigh- borhood. The shed could be put in the rear yard even if it means the expense of grading and landscaping. He would not support the variance. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 19, 1996 - PAGE SEVENTEEN iOnagj: lif Com. Entman agreed with Com. Arbus' comments about the ordinances. He is familiar with the lot and knows about the slope. It has a lot of exposure. He would like to permit the shed, but in view of the objections of the neighbors who are present, the ordinance should be enforced. It is unfortunate that Mr. Levit did not check to see where he could put a shed. He asked Mr. Levit if he has explored moving the shed to the rear yard? When they comply with the ordinance, the neighors will be happy and the neigh- borhood will be preserved. Com. Sandler said he has the same concerns that have been expressed. He hopes Mr. Levit finds a way to keep the shed. Ch. Heinrich concurred that putting a shed on the side of a corner lot is like putting the shed is in a front yard. There should be some way to put a level place in the rear yard where the shed can be located. He uses his garage for storage and has to park cars on the driveway, so lack of space is not a hardship. Ch. Heinrich informed Mr. Levit of his right to appeal a negative decision to the Village Board. Com. Arbus made the following motion: I move we grant the request of Mark Levit, 733 Aspen Drive, for variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.32 . 020, pertaining to Location of Accessory Buildings and Structures for the purpose of permitting the existing storage shed to remain as constructed within the required setback on the side of the lot. Petitioner having demonstrated hardship and unique circumstances, the proposed variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 19, 1996 - PAGE EIGHTEEN MOOED Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - None NAY - Entman, Sandler, Arbus, Windecker and Heinrich Motion DENIED - 5 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. Ch. Heinrich informed Mr. Levit that he can appeal the decision by submitting a written request for a hearing before the Village Board of Trustees to Mr. Frank Hruby, Zoning Administrator within fifteen (15) days. VI . ANNOUNCEMENTS - None. VII . ADJOURNMENT Com. Arbus made a motion to adjourn. Com. Entman seconded the motion. Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously Ch. Heinrich adjourned the meeting at 10 :15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Li Shirley Bates Recording Secretary sb • ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBE 19, 1996 - PAGE NINETEEN Li