Loading...
2007-09-18 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes oao A5 SuBM loIueto7 REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 18, 2007 Chairman Entman called the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting to order at 7:33 P.M. on Tuesday, September 18, 2007 in the Council Chambers of the Village Hall, 50 Raupp Boulevard. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioner Stein Commissioner Dunn Commissioner Windecker Commissioner Shapiro Commissioner Lesser Chairman Entman Commissioners Absent: Vice Chairman Sandler Also Present: Edward Schar, Building Commissioner William Raysa, Village Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 19, 2007 minutes: Corn. Windecker made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted of the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting held on Tuesday, June 19, 2007. Com. Lesser seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE — Dunn, Windecker, Lesser, Entman NAY — None ABSTAIN — Stein, Shapiro August 21, 2007 minutes: Com. Windecker made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted of the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting held on Tuesday, August 21, 2007. Corn Stein seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE — Stein, Dunn, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro NAY — None ABSTAIN - Entman BUSINESS DRAFT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 1 of 15 — SEPTEMBER 18, 2007 u ,u 3012 SANDALWOOD ROAD, SHANTI CHARI — FENCE CODE, SECTION 15.20.040, TO CONSTRUCT A 5' FENCE THAT WOULD EXTEND BEYOND THE BUILDING SETBACK LINE ALONG RAINTREE ROAD Ms. Shanti Chari, 3012 Sandalwood Road, was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on August 30, 2007 was read. Ms. Chari explained that there is a deck in the rear of the house that extends to the end of the building. The fence would need to be located beyond the deck. This is because they have a dog. Last year, the dog had escaped many times during the winter. He needs to be taken outside at least three (3)times per day. He is a Beagle and they have heard that electric fences do not work. This would be the best option. When he needs to be taken outside several times during the day, they will not need to be rushing out. The dog would be able to jump the distance between the deck and the fence if the fence is placed along the building line. The Village Engineer came out and reviewed the site. He indicated that there would not be a line of sight issue. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Edward Schar dated September 4, 2007 which states: "I have no comments on the proposal. There is no abutting driveway." Ch. Entman confirmed the proposed fence would be a wood board on board fence. He stated that the Petitioner has a large yard and the deck takes up a lot of room. There are alternatives to an electric fence. There is approximately five feet (5') from the house to the setback line. He asked if the Petitioner has spoken with the neighbors. Ms. Chari stated that she spoke with the neighbors across the street on Raintree Road. The neighbor on Raintree, their rear yard faces a major roadway whereas her yard abuts another yard. She wants to make sure that the dog cannot climb on the deck and jump the fence. She discussed this issue with the Village Engineer and they measured a distance that they believed the dog would not be able to jump. Corn. Dunn stated that she does not find unique circumstances because of a dog. Many people have dogs. Having a dog does not make a hardship. Ms. Chari advised that she read on Beagles and has found that they can be trained. Her dog has escaped many times. She takes him for walks and runs everyday,but it is more difficult in the winter because of the weather. Com. Stein agrees with Commissioner Dunn. Owning a dog is not a hardship. Ms. Chari replied that the fence would not obstruct the line of sight and would not cause a problem. Corn. Windecker advised that a five foot (5') fence could be placed along the building line. The dog could be restrained in the yard with a chain and pulley system. He does not see a hardship in this situation. Ms. Chari replied that the dog would be able to jump the distance between the deck and the setback line. She does not want a fence for any other reason other than the dog. flD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 2 of 15—SEPTEMBER 18, 2007 Ch. Entman added that the configuration of the house, the landscaping in the yard, the size and location of the deck are all things that were created and did not exist before. He suggested a screening on the deck to prevent the dog from jumping or a chain and pulley system. Com. Lesser agrees with the other Commissioners. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Dunn made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by Shanti Chari, 3012 Sandalwood Road, for variance of Fence Code, Section 15.20.040,pertaining Residential Districts, for the purpose of constructing a five foot (5') fence that would extend thirteen feet (13') beyond the building setback line along Raintree Road, turning parallel to Raintree Road to the rear property line, then turning left to the building setback line. The fence would extend a distance of eighteen feet (18') from the north side of the house. Pursuant to Exhibit"E". Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated September 4, 2007. The Petitioner has demonstrated hardship and unique circumstances. The proposed fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Corn. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—None NAY—Stein,Dunn, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Entman ABSTAIN—None Motion Denied 6 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. Petitioner was advised of their right to appeal this decision to the Village Board. 7 COLUMBUS PARKWAY, ATILIO BERNHARDT — ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 17.40.020, PERTAINING TO AREA, HEIGHT, BULK AND PLACEMENT REGULATIONS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING A SUNROOM ADDITION THAT WOULD ENCROACH A DISTANCE OF 8'1" INTO THE REQUIRED 35' REAR YARD SETBACK Mr. Atilio Bernhardt, 7 Columbus Parkway, was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on 31, 2007 was read. Mr. Bernhardt advised that he would like to construct a sunroom to the rear of the house. His contractor was to be present to testify but has not yet arrived. The room would be constructed onto top of the existing concrete patio. The property is an odd shape. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Edward Schar dated September 6, 2007 which states: "I have no comments on the proposal." DRAFTZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 3 of 15 —SEPTEMBER 18,2007 Ch. Entman advised that the Location Map provided by the Village and included with the packet information was of the incorrect address. The correct address is two blocks to the south. Ch. Entman confirmed that the sunroom would include electrical only. There will be no plumbing or heat included. Corn. Stein advised that he is a neighbor of the Petitioner and this will not affect his decision in this matter. There were no questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by Atilio Bernhardt, 7 Columbus Parkway, for variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.40.020, pertaining to Area, Height, Bulk and Placement Regulations, for the purpose of constructing a sunroom addition that would encroach a distance of eight feet one inch(8'1")into the required thirty-five foot(35')rear yard setback. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated September 6, 2007. The Petitioner has demonstrated hardship and unique circumstances. The proposed sunroom will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Com. Dunn seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Stein, Dunn, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 6 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. Permit may be issued in fifteen (15) days — October 4, 2007. BUFFALO GROVE BUSINESS PARK, HAMILTON PARTNERS — REVIEW OF THE EXISTING FOR RENT, SALE, LEASE SIGNS AT 1110 LAKE COOK ROAD AND 135 ARLINGTON HEIGHTS ROAD Mr. Kirk Hamilton, Hamilton Partners, 1130 Lake Cook Road, Suite 190, Buffalo Grove, Illinois 60089,was present and sworn in. Mr. Hamilton reviewed the occupancy status of the buildings at 1110 Lake Cook Road and 135 Arlington Heights Road. Ch. Entman confirmed that the signs would remain the same. He also advised that he is a tenant in the Buffalo Grove Business Park and it will not affect his decision in this matter. DRAFT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 4 of 1 —5 SEPTEMBER 18,2007 A new time limit was discussed and the Commissioners agreed that the renewal should be for one(1)year. There were no questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Stein made a motion to extend the leasing signs for Hamilton Partners, Buffalo Grove Business Park, 1110 Lake Cook Road and 135 Arlington Heights Road for one (1) year. Review the existing signs to be conducted at the September 2008 regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Corn. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Stein, Dunn, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 6 to 0. Review of the leasing signs to be conducted at the September 2008 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. 301 NORTH RIVERWALK (RIVERWALK APARTMENTS), HAMILTON PARTNERS — REVIEW OF THE FIVE (5) EXISTING OFF PREMISES FOR RENT, SALE LEASE SIGNS Mr. Kirk Hamilton, Hamilton Partners, 1130 Lake Cook Road, Suite 190, Buffalo Grove, Illinois 60089, was present and sworn in. Mr. Hamilton explained that leasing has been slower than they anticipated. They currently have sixty-two (62) units leased out of the ninety (90) units. They have been tracking the sources of callers and site visits. Forty seven percent (47%) of the inquiries come from the signs. The signs are very important to them. They are putting together new strategies to try and get the lease rate up. Com. Windecker commented that the sign on Milwaukee Avenue, just north of the Lake Cook Road overpass must not be very important because the landscaping is covering over half of the sign and the sign is too dark to read. All that can be read is "Now Leasing". He asked if that sign is really needed. Mr. Hamilton replied that the sign that could be removed is the sign located the furthest north on Milwaukee Avenue. Com. Windecker reiterated the need to maintain the signs. Mr. Hamilton will address the maintenance issues with the signs. Corn. Stein stated that he stopped by the site prior to the meeting and spoke with a leasing agent who informed him that the building was over seventy-eight percent (78%) leased and for certain units, there was a wait list. He believes that it is inconsistent for the Village to allow all of the signs to remain especially since the building was built in that location. Mr. Hamilton replied that their smallest, single story units are all filled up. He also explained that the leasing agent was using a sales tactic to make it seem like you must hurry to lease before they are all gone. It is a DRAFT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 5 of 15 SEPTEMBER 18,2007 common sales tactic. Corn. Stein believes that the tenant panels on the Riverwalk ground sign and the ground for the apartment building are the only signs that should remain. Com. Shapiro stated that he agrees with Mr. Hamilton that the sign located further north on Milwaukee Avenue is unnecessary. It is hard to associate that sign with a building. He also agrees with Com. Windecker concerning the darkness of the signs. Corn. Dunn believes that Hamilton Partners has done a good job leasing the units and does not see the need for all the signs anymore, especially the sign on Milwaukee Avenue just north of Lake Cook Road. Ms. Darcy Tapper, Property Manager, 301 North Riverwalk Drive, Buffalo Grove, Illinois 60089, was present and sworn in. She advised that the smaller units are leased up, there were fewer of them. The larger units are still all available. She has been onsite since the sales trailer was there last July. Traffic has been slow. She guides people in by that signage. They have tried the billboard on Milwaukee Avenue,but that did not seem to create anymore buzz than the signs that give the phone number and"turn now"so they can find them. Com. Shapiro asked if they have found the signs to be effective. Ms. Tapper replied that the signs are hugely effective. She advertises on six Internet sites and in all the rental publications. She gets a huge amount of traffic from gas customers at the Speedway gas station. This building is set far back from the road and most people believe these are condominiums. Com. Stein asked if the customers at Speedway see the sign or the building. Ms. Tapper advised that they see the building. Corn. Stein replied that it may indicate that the signs are not needed. Ms. Tapper responded that the signs are crucial since people do not know that the building exists behind Speedway. The most crucial sign is the"turn now" sign. This building should have been leased up by now. Some of the units have not been leased at market price. They are taking a big hit on this property. Com. Lesser asked at what level of occupancy would the signs be removed. Ms. Tapper stated wA� . •- II AA• • 1 , , y.,/o. . =_an11*on al 0 e i :1a ›.,/o /o wou_c e a success _proj ec . Corn. Dunn does not want to allow the signs to remain due to the argument of the building being set back from the road. These are temporary signs. Mr. Hamilton added that they can remove the sign on Milwaukee Avenue across from Chevy Chase Drive, clean up the sign at Lake Cook Road and Milwaukee Avenue and work on a new design for the signs. Com. Stein asked out of the 47% of traffic generated from the signs, how many sign a lease. Ms. Tapper replied 28%. Corn. Stein added that back in January the price per square foot was higher than other projects in the area. Mr. Hamilton replied that this project is completing with projects at The Glen in Glenview, Deerfield and Vernon Hills. These are higher-end apartments. The rents are in line with the product. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS yR T PAGE 6 of 15 —SEPTEMBER 18,2007 Ch. Entman is not sure which signs are responsible for the leasing. He suggested returning in three (3)months to allow Hamilton Partners to clean up the signs and determine which signs can be removed. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Lesser made a motion to extend the leasing signs for Hamilton Partners, 301 North Riverwalk (Riverwalk Apartments), Buffalo Grove, Illinois 60089 for three (3) months. Review the existing signs to be conducted at the December 2007 regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Dunn,Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro,Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—Stein Motion Passed 5 to 0, 1 Abstention. Review of the leasing signs to be conducted at the December 18, 2007 Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting. 1250 RADCLIFFE ROAD, LORD'S LOVE COMMUNITY CHURCH — SIGN CODE, SECTION 14.20.010, TO INSTALL AN ADDITIONAL IDENTIFICATION WALL SIGN ON THE WEST ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING AND, IN TOTAL, WOULD EXCEED THE ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR ALL SIGNS BY 18 SQUARE FEET Reverend Jeom Kim, Lord's Love Community Church, 1250 Radcliffe Road and Mr. Chris, Lord's Love Community Church, 1250 Radcliffe Road, were present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on August 31,2007 was read. Mr. Chris explained that the entrance to the building is off of Radcliffe Road. Most members use Arlington Heights Road. New members have a difficult time locating the church and miss the turn. People will reduce speed at the intersection and may cause an accident. The sign would be in Korean since 99%of their membership is Korean. The sign is for identification of the church. Ch. Entman stated that there may be some non-Korean individuals that need to locate the building. Mr. Chris replied that they could put the English letters under the Korean letters. Corn. Shapiro confirmed that the sign would be illuminated and asked about the hours of illumination of the sign. Mr. Chris stated that during the winter the sign would be illuminated 5:00AM to 10:00PM or 11:00PM and during the summer the sign would be illuminated 7:00AM to 10:00PM. Mr. Rob Sherman, P. O. Box 7410, Buffalo Grove, Illinois 60089, was present and sworn in. Mr. Sherman explained that he has lived in the Mill Creek neighborhood for twenty-three (23) years. The church has occupied the building for two and a half(2-1/2) years. In the time that they have D R ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 7 of 15—SEPTEMBER 200 7 been they have proven to be very fine people. They are always pleasant and polite. He strongly objects to the Commission to granting their request. A Special Use was granted to the church in Ordinance 2005-28. A provision of the Special Use were that the hours of operation for all uses were to be 6:00AM to 10:00PM. The church has not complied with this condition. He is a radio talk show host and starts his program at 7:00AM. He leaves his home between 5:45AM and 6:00AM. There are always cars parked in the lot before 6:00AM and the building is open. He had difficulty understanding the testimony of the Petitioners. He did hear the words new member. If the purpose of the sign is to bring in new members, there are enough people coming in illegally before 6:00AM. They do not need more people coming into his residential neighborhood during the 5:00AM hour. They are in violation of the Special Use conditions by using the property for commercial uses. There is the Betty Haag Academy of Music that brings in three hundred (300) families a week. That is fifteen thousand (15,000) trips a year into his neighborhood, mostly between 4:00PM and 10:00PM. Parking and traffic management calls for any parking before 7:00AM is to be west of the driveway on Thornton Lane. They park wherever they want. This creates noise for the neighbors on Radcliffe Road across from the church. The operation of the management and security plan is not complied with. He went to the church building about a month ago, the doors to the building were wide open and he was unable to find anyone. He walked thru the entire building. There was no security. They had a sign for the Betty Haag Academy of Music that was in violation of the Sign Code. They did not maintain the playground until he complained to the Village about the six foot (6') weeds that had infested the playground. He asked that the request be rejected at least until such time that they stop operating their business before 6:00AM. He would like them to comply with all the provision of the Special Use. Corn. Stein addressed a question to Mr. Sherman concerning the size of the sign of the previous tenant of the building. Mr. Sherman responded that there is currently a sign near the front door facing north (Thornton Lane). That sign is comparable in size to the sign the Jacob Duman Center had. This sign is not problematic. The sign from the Betty Haag Academy of Music, which faced east (Radcliffe Road), was very problematic and that sign has been removed. He did not believe that the Jacob Duman Center had any signs facing east. He does not recall if they had any signs facing west. He would not see a sign facing west as problematic if they were complying with the ordinance. Once they get what they want,they will do anything they want. Com. Stein asked Mr. Sherman if he was aware of anyone not being able to locate the building based on the size of the signage for the previous tenant. Mr. Sherman replied that this is the only building of its type in the neighborhood, the signage is not used for identification as to where the building, but rather for information about the tenant of the building. The church had a sign on a shed on the south side of the property. That sign has been removed. Any size sign visible from the street would accomplish the goal. They are not trying to attract new members from Koreans that are just driving down the street. Mr. Ron Mraz, 1261 Radcliffe Road, Buffalo Grove, Illinois 60089, was present and sworn in. Mr. Mraz explained that signs from the Jacob Duman Center did not face any residential property. They wanted to keep it a residential neighborhood and not a commercial property. A chain goes across the drive out because the homeowner on the corner could never get out of her driveway. The drive is still there for emergency vehicle access..He does not want the sign facing DRAFTZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JJ PAGE 8 of 15 SEPTEMBER 18, 2007 his house. The Betty Haag Academy of Music was facing his house. He thought that they were not supposed to have any renters unless they were affiliated with the church. He would like to keep his neighborhood a residential subdivision. With the development across Old Arlington Heights Road in Arlington Heights, it is too difficult to get out from that intersection. He has been a resident for thirty(30) years. Rev. Kim responded that the Village of Buffalo Grove came through the building and advised of some issues that needed to be addressed. They are working on those issues. The morning worship starts at 6:00AM, but sometimes members arrive early. Their current membership is approximately one hundred fifty (150) members. Many visitors also visit the church and use the playground. They are trying to follow the ordinance. Ch. Entman asked if there is a music academy inside the building. Rev. Kim replied that they moved the music academy and it is not in the building. Mr. Schar added that the music academy is in the building, but the sign for the music academy has been removed. Ch. Entman confirmed that there is only one(1) sign currently on the north elevation of the building. Ch. Entman stated that the testimony he has heard from the audience is not relevant to the request for the variation for a sign. Any violation of the Special Use for the church would need to be addressed with the Village, either directly to the Village or at a Village Board meeting. Concerning the sign, he has an issue with the sign being in the Korean language only. However, he is not suggesting that the sign be in different translations either. He does not believe that the sign would have an impact on the residences. He asked if the members of the church are bi- lingual. Rev. Kim responded that members are bi-lingual. Corn. Stein added that the building is not mistakable with any other building in the area. If the sign on the north elevation is reduced, he could possibly support the request. Corn. Windecker commented that the sign should identify the building for someone that does understand the Korean language. He agrees with Corn. Stein concerning the size of the sign. He also believes that the sign would impact residents on Radcliffe Road. The hours of illumination would be restricted if approved. Com. Lesser agrees with the other Commissioners. Ch. Entman asked if the sign would be for prospective members or guests of members to locate the building. Mr. Chris replied that some new members from other towns have difficulty finding Old Arlington Road and end up on Dundee Road. Ch. Entman suggested that the Petitioner provide additional proposals with the sign in both languages with the overall dimensions of the proposed sign to remain the same. He also suggested that the Petitioner should have the sign contractor available to answer any questions. The Petitioner, Rev. Kim, requested to Table their request to the next meeting to provide the additional information as requested. DRAFT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 9 of 15 SEPTEMBER 18, 2007 Corn. Lesser made a motion to Table the request made by Lord's Love Community Church, for variation of Sign Code, Section 14.20.010 to the next regular meeting scheduled for Tuesday, October 16, 2007. Corn. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Stein, Dunn, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 6 to 0. Item to appear on the October 16, 2007 Zoning Board of Appeals agenda. 305 TIMBER HILL ROAD, JEFFREY ANDERSON — FENCE CODE, SECTION 15.20.040, TO ALLOW THE EXISTING 6' FENCE TO REMAIN AS CONSTRUCTED THAT ENCLOSES THE REAR YARD Mr. Jeffrey Anderson, 305 Timber Hill Road, was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on August 30,2007 was read. Mr. Anderson explained that his family moved in to the house in April 2006. At that time, the fence was already constructed and was told by the owners and the realtors that there had been a permit for a six foot (6') fence. The owners that they purchased the home from only owned the property for about six (6) months. The fence was constructed by the owners prior to them in 2002. In March 2007, he received a letter from the Village stating that the fence was in non- compliance. He immediately called the Village and spoke with Brian Sheehan. Mr. Sheehan stated that he would look into the matter. The same day, the inspector, Richard Jensen, came by the house to look at the fence. He spoke with Mr. Jensen who stated that he was the inspector that inspected the fence and approved it. He did not recall the specific details of the inspection. It was determined that the fence was out of compliance and that a variation would need to be applied for. The reasons given by the realtors that fence was approved for six feet (6') was that the back of yard sloped down into the neighbor's yard. Even with a six foot (6') fence, it looks more like a four foot (4') fence. They also stated another reason it was allowed was for their dogs. He is requesting to allow the fence to remain. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Edward Schar dated September 4, 2007 which states: "I have no comments on the proposal." Ch. Entman wanted to know who specifically told the Petitioner that a variation was approved. Mr. Anderson replied that the owners before them,who purchased the home in 2005, only owned the property for approximately six (6) months. The previous owners received the information from the owners they purchased the home from. The seller's realtor, as well, had stated that the fence was approved. Ch. Entman asked who the realtor was. Mr. Anderson stated that it was George Severns. Mr. Anderson added that he did not know the requirements at the time and a selling point of the house was there was a six foot(6') fence. Ch. Entman asked if the Petitioner had verified that the fence was approved. Mr. Anderson replied that he did not. Ch. Entman confirmed that Mr. Anderson spoke with Mr. Jensen. He asked if Mr. Jensen said that he approved the six foot (6') fence. Mr. Anderson replied that Mr. Jensen said he did approve the fence. DTRAC ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 10 of 15—SEPTEMBER 18, 2007 Mr. Anderson submitted a proposed contract from Cedar Rustic Fence, the fence contractor, marked as Exhibit"F"and Exhibit"G". The contract shows a six foot(6') fence with the six foot (6') crossed out and five foot (5') is written in. Then on the side of the contract, it states six foot (6') solid fence. It is very confusing. Mr. Schar advised that when a fence inspection is conducted, the inspector reviews the Plat of Survey approved with the application. There is a stamp used that includes the height and type of fence to be installed. Back in 2002, the Plat of Survey indicates a five foot (5') fence. There is conflicting information on the proposed contract, but the permit and Plat of Survey approved with the permit indicates a five foot (5') fence. Mr. Schar submitted to the Commissioners a memorandum from Richard Jensen addressed to Edward Schar dated September 17, 2007. Portions of the memorandum were read which states to the best of his knowledge he approved a five foot(5') fence and that he made a subsequent inspection in March 2007 which revealed a six foot(6') fence. Ch. Entman believes that the fence was approved based on the Plat of Survey submitted with the permit application which is in conflict with the testimony given. How did a six foot (6') fence end up on the property. He finds it troubling that the seller and the realtor said that it was approved. He asked if there was any paperwork provided concerning the approval of the fence. Mr. Anderson advised that the information given to them was all verbal. His neighbors attested to him that the fence that is there now, was the original fence installed. He also added that the height of the fence in the area that is most visible from the front is about five foot eight inches (5'8")high. It may have been a visual inspection. Com. Stein asked if the six foot (6') fence was a selling feature of the house. Mr. Anderson stated that it was. Com. Stein asked if fence issue was brought up during a home inspection prior to the purchase of the property. Mr. Anderson replied no. Corn. Stein asked what brought up the feature of the height of the fence. Mr. Anderson stated that the seller's realtor brought up the fence because of the sloping back yard into the neighbor's yard. Com. Stein stated that he believes that the fence existed when the Petitioner purchased the home and he does not feel it would be equitable to require the Petitioner to take the fence down. Com. Lesser agrees with Corn. Stein. He is normally opposed to six foot (6') fences except in extenuating circumstances. He does not believe the current owner should have to pay the cost of having to reduce the height of the fence. Mr. Schar confirmed that no variation was applied for or granted for this address. Com. Windecker does not have any issues with the fence. Ch. Entman stated that he has no objection in this situation. However, he would like to have the realtors come in and testify about the fence. Mrs. Cindy Anderson, 305 Timber Hill Road, was present and sworn in. She believes that the realtor was pointing out the features and the benefits of the home. The house had been on the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DRAFTPAGE 11 of 15—SEPTEMBER 18, 2007 market a long time. She pointed out that a six foot (6') fence is not something your see very often. Ch. Entman asked who the realtor was. Mrs. Anderson replied that George Severns was the buyer's agent and Peggy Colburn was the seller's agent and the one who mentioned the six foot (6') fence. She contacted the fence company and asked about the installation of the fence. The company had sold in March 2004 and all the information prior to that was no longer available. They checked their records which showed that they had only done two (2) fence installations in Buffalo Grove since 2004, neither of which was their address. All the neighbors agree that this is the original fence installed. Ch. Entman would like to get more information about the fence and speak to the realtors involved. Com. Stein commented that it does not appear that there is anything in writing and he does not see the need to have the Petitioner return. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Com. Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by Jeffrey Anderson, 305 Timber Hill Road, for variance of Fence Code, Section 15.20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of allowing the existing six foot (6') fence to remain as installed that encloses the rear yard as shown on the Plat of Survey submitted with the application. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated September 4, 2007. The Petitioner has demonstrated hardship and unique circumstances. The fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Corn. Dunn seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Stein,Dunn, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro NAY—Entman ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 5 to 1. Findings of Fact attached. 317 TIMBER HILL ROAD, SHAUL ANBINDER— FENCE CODE, SECTION 15.20.040, TO ALLOW THE EXISTING 6' FENCE TO REMAIN AS INSTALLED EXTENDING FORM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE HOUSE TO THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE ON THE NORTH, THEN EAST ON THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE TOWARD THE REAR PROPERTY LINE APPROXIMATELY 8' AND ALSO EXTENDING FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE HOUSE TO THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE ON THE SOUTH, THEN EAST ON THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE TOWARD THE REAR PROPERTY LINE APPROXIMATELY 15' DRAFT ZONING BOARD OF APPEA LS PAGE 12 of 15—SEPTEMBER 18, 2007 Mr. Shaul Anbinder, 317 Timber Hill Road,was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on August 30, 2007 was read. Mr. Anbinder explained that he is asking to retain the existing six foot (6') fence. A previous chain link fence was in disrepair and needed to be replaced. He had found evidence of someone in his backyard. He was a told by neighbors that school children use his yard as a shortcut going to and from school. In addition, the owners at 318 Windsor Drive installed a six foot (6') fence that divided the yards. Last year, there were a couple of cases of someone entering his backyard. He called 911 once because the intruder was looking through and knocking on the windows of the house in the back. Lawn furniture was also moved around. The following spring, he felt the chain link fence was not enough security to prevent intruders. He was not aware that he needed a permit since he was replacing an existing chain link fence in the same location. He was also told by the contractor that he did not need a permit since he was replacing a fence. He matched the height of the other existing six foot(6') fences of his neighbors at 305 Timber Hill Road and 318 Windsor Drive. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Edward Schar dated September 4, 2007 which states: "I have no comments on the proposal." Ch. Entman asked the Petitioner if a contractor was used or if the he installed the fence himself. Mr. Anbinder responded that he did use a contractor. Ch. Entman asked the name of the contractor used. Mr. Anbinder does not recall. Ch. Entman asked if a written proposal was received. Mr. Anbinder has a bill that shows that amount charged. Ch. Entman asked the cost of the fence installation. Mr. Anbinder stated it cost $1,100.00. The total length of fence installed was only about fifty feet (50'). The contractor was guy with a truck that someone had recommended to him. Ch. Entman asked if any other neighbors had a fence. Mr. Anbinder stated that the neighbor at 329 Timber Hill Road has a four foot (4'0) chain link fence. Ch. Entman asked if the receipt from the contractor showed the height of the fence. Mr. Anbinder stated that it did show a six foot (6') fence. Ch. Entman asked if the previous fence was a six foot (6') fence. Mr. Anbinder replied that it was a four foot(4') fence. He did not know that height played a role, only the location of the fence. The neighbor at 293 Timber Hill Road also has a six foot (6') fence on three (3) sides of the yard as well. Ch. Entman asked if he measured the fence. Mr. Anbinder replied that he did not measure the fence. He could tell by looking at it. Ch. Entman asked if there were any other neighbors that had five foot(5') fences. Mr. Anbinder stated that he believes so. Ch. Entman asked if the Petitioner had spoken with the neighbors that have six foot (6') fences before installing his fence. Mr. Anbinder stated that he spoke to Mr. Anderson, 305 Timber Hill Road, and told him that he was planning to install a fence match the height of his and he was approached by the owner of 318 Windsor Drive when their fence was installed asking if the Petitioner minded. At that time, he advised them that he was going to install a six foot (6') fence. Neither party had any issues with one another's fence. They did not discuss the height of the fence. Corn. Windecker confirmed that 318 Windsor Drive had their fence installed prior to the Petitioner and asked if the Petitioner used the same contractor as 318 Windsor Drive. Mr. Anbinder replied he did not use the same contractor. His contractor was referred by a co-worker. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DRAFT PAGE 13 of 15—SEPTEMBER 18,2007 Corn. Dunn stated that this situation is different than the previous petition for 305 Timber Hill Road. This fence was installed without any investigation into the regulations concerning fences. Ignorance is not a defense or a hardship. The neighbor was having issues with the Village a month or two before this fence was installed. Mr. Anbinder advised that he was not aware of any issues with the neighbor's fence until after installing his fence. He is using ignorance not as a defense, but as a circumstance. He had intruders come into his yard and he has filed police reports concerning this. He has also noticed other things moved or altered in his yard. Com. Dunn stated that the Petitioner has not demonstrated hardship or unique circumstances. Corn. Lesser also finds this situation to be different that at 305 Timber Hill Road. He would like to know who the contractor was and would like to see a copy of the bill. He would like to know when the fence at 318 Windsor Drive was installed relative to the installation of the Petitioner's fence. Corn. Stein asked Mr. Anderson, 305 Timber Hill Road, why the fence at the rear of the property at 317 Timber Hill looks lower than his fence. Mr. Anderson responded that the fence at 318 Windsor Drive is located on the slope at the rear of the yard. There is about a ten inch (10") difference. Mr. Raysa confirmed that the only part of the fence that is six foot (6') is what is shown on the Plat of Survey submitted with the application and marked as Exhibit "A". Mr. Anbinder added that he only wanted to block the view into his yard. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Stein made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by Shaul Anbinder, 317 Timber Hill Road, for variance of Fence Code, Section 15.20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of allowing the existing six foot (6') fence to remain as installed extending from the northeast corner of the house to the side property line on the north, then east on the side property line toward the rear property line approximately eight feet (8') and also extending from the southeast corner of the house to the side property line on the south, then east on the side property line toward the rear property line approximately fifteen feet (15') as shown on the Plat of Survey marked as Exhibit «A„ Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated September 4, 2007. Petitioner has demonstrated hardship and unique circumstances. The fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Corn. Dunn seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Stein, Windecker, Shapiro NAY—Dunn, Lesser, Entman ABSTAIN—None DRAFT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 14 of 15—SEPT EMBER 18, 2007 Motion Denied 3 to 3. Findings of Fact attached. Petitioner advised of their right to appeal to the Corporate Authorities. ANNOUNCEMENTS It was requested that information concerning the requirement to obtain permits be included in the Village Newsletter. Mr. Schar replied that the Building and Zoning Department has already addressed the issue of communication with the public through the Village Newsletter, Channel 6 and the Village's website. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Corn. Lesser and seconded by Com. Stein. Voice Vote—AYE was unanimous. Ch. Entman adjourned the meeting at 9:58 P.M. Submitted by, OAPI^ J ie Kamka R cording Secretary DRAFT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 15 of 15—SEPTEMBER 18, 2007