Loading...
2008-06-17 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 17, 2008 Chairman Entman called the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting to order at 7:42 P.M. on Tuesday, June 17, 2008 in the Council Chambers of the Village Hall, 50 Raupp Boulevard. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioner Stein Commissioner Dunn Commissioner Windecker Commissioner Lesser Commissioner Shapiro Chairman Entman Commissioners Absent: None Also Present: Edward Schar, Building Commissioner Brian Sheehan, Deputy Building Commissioner William Raysa, Village Attorney DeAnn Glover, Village Trustee APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 18, 2008 minutes: Com. Lesser made a motion to approve the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting held on Tuesday, March 18, 2008. Corn. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE — Stein, Dunn, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Entman NAY — None ABSTAIN — None Motion Passed 6 to 0. Minutes approved as submitted. April 15, 2008 minutes: Corn. Windecker made a motion to approve the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting held on Tuesday, April 15, 2008. Corn. Lesser seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE — Dunn, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Entman NAY — None ABSTAIN — Stein Motion Passed 5 to 0, 1 Abstention. Minutes approved as submitted. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 1 of 22 — JUNE 17, 2008 OLD BUSINESS 1501 BUSCH PARKWAY, HIGHLAND PARK HOSPITAL HEALTH AND FITNESS CENTER—SIGN CODE, SECTIONS 14.20.050 AND 14.40.145, FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSTALLING AN ADDITIONAL SIGN ONTO THE EXISTING GROUND SIGN LOCATED AT 1525 BUSCH PARKWAY Ms. Julie Povolick, Executive Director, Highland Park Hospital Health and Fitness Center, 1501 Busch Parkway,was present and sworn in. Ms. Povolick provided an overview of the services provided at the Center. Patients are having a difficult time locating the facility. Ms. Mariah DiGrino, DLA Piper US LLP, was present and sworn in. Ms. DiGrino explained that they are requesting approval to install a sign onto the existing ground sign located at 1525 Busch Parkway. Van Vlissingen, property manager of The Corporate Grove, will not support the request for two (2) separate signs located along Milwaukee Avenue. New sign drawings were submitted and are marked as Exhibits "Fl" and "F2". The proposed sign was reduced as well as the sign base. The proposed sign would be two feet eight inches (2'8"). The overall height of the ground sign would be eleven feet five inches (11'5"). This is almost a fifty percent (50%) reduction from the original proposed sign. Ch. Entman read the letter from Ken Gorman into the record. Corn. Windecker asked if the colors are staying the same. Ms. DiGrino advised that the colors would be as depicted on revised color renderings. Corn. Windecker asked about the size of the sign base. Ms. DiGrino stated that the overall width of the signs would be thirteen feet four inches (13'4"). The bases are slightly narrower. The existing base height is twenty inches (20"). The base that would be added onto the sign is eight inches (8") in height. Corn. Windecker confirmed that the base would be landscaped. Corn. Dunn advised that she is a member of the Highland Park Hospital Health and Fitness Center, but that will not affect her decision regarding this matter. Corn. Dunn asked about the illumination of the sign. Ms. DiGrino advised that the sign would be internally illuminated as the current Extended Stay American sign. Ms. DiGrino confirmed that the sign faces would be identical on both sides. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Mr. Raysa confirmed that the request made to install an off-premises ground sign that would be located within two hundred fifty feet (250') of an existing ground sign on the same side of the street is being withdrawn. He asked for clarification concerning Van Vlissingen's non-approval of the requested sign. Ms. DiGrino explained that Van Vlissingen does support the request but was not willing to change or amend the Covenants without the support of the Village. If this request is approved, they will proceed to formally approve the sign. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 2 of 22—JUNE 17, 2008 Corn. Dunn stated that she cannot support the request for an off-premises sign. It would set a bad precedent and could allow for every business in town to request an off-premises sign. Ms. DiGrino replied that the Highland Park Hospital Health and Fitness Center is located far away from both adjacent roadways, Busch Parkway as well as Milwaukee Avenue. Clients to do see the Extended Stay America and do not understand that Highland Park Health and Fitness Center is located behind it. The purpose of this sign is not to advertise, but to help direct clients to the location. Ms. DiGrino added that the property owner and Van Vlissingen believe that two (2) signs would clutter that parkway unnecessarily. Extended Stay America and Highland Park Health and Fitness Center have an operational relationship in that they share an entrance and parking. Also, some of the Extended Stay America clients use the fitness center. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. Com. Lesser made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board to grant the amended request made by Buffalo Grove Health and Fitness Limited Partnership dba Highland Park Health and Fitness Center, 1501 Busch Parkway, for variance of Sign Code, Section 14.20.050, pertaining to Industrial Districts; and Section 14.40.145, pertaining to Off-Premises Signs, for the purpose of installing an additional sign onto the existing ground sign located at 1525 Busch Parkway. Sign to be installed pursuant to Exhibits "F 1" and "F2". Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated March 4, 2008. Pursuant to Sign Code, Section 14.44.010, Subsection B. Corn. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE — Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Entman NAY — Stein, Dunn ABSTAIN — None Motion Passed 4 to 2. Findings of Fact attached. Item to appear on the July 7, 2008 Village Board agenda. 1501 BUSCH PARKWAY, HIGHLAND PARK HEALTH AND FITNESS CENTER - SIGN CODE, SECTIONS 14.20.050; 14.20.070 AND 14.40.145, TO INSTALL AN OFF- PREMISES GROUND SIGN THAT WOULD BE LOCATED WITHIN 250' OF AN EXISTING GROUND SIGN ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE STREET AT 1525 BUSCH PARKWAY Petitioner withdrew this request. 100 MCHENRY ROAD, BUFFALO WINGS AND RINGS — DEVIATION TO THE TOWN CENTER SIGN CRITERIA TO ALLOW 3 WALL SIGNS THAT ARE NOT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 3 of 22 — JUNE 17, 2008 CONSTRUCTED OF INDIVIDUAL CHANNEL LETTERS AND WOULD EXCEED THE HEIGHT ALLOWED 100 MCHENRY ROAD, BUFFALO WINGS AND RINGS — ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 17.44.060.E.6,TO ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL WALL SIGN ON THE EAST ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING AND WOULD ALLOW EACH OF THE TWO PROPOSED WALL SIGNS TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM LIMITATION OF 75 SQUARE FEET BY APPROXIMATELY 8 SQUARE FEET Mr.Ron Cummings,100 McHenry Road,and Mr.Aby Jacob,100 McHenry Road,were present and sworn in.The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on May 1,2008 was read. Mr.Cummings explained that there are two(2)requests.A deviation to the Town Center Sign Criteria and a Sign Code variation request.Based on the comments of the April 15,2008 Zoning Boar of Appeals meeting,they have amended their request have only two(2)wall signs;one on the north elevation of the building and one on the east elevation of the building.They have also amended their request in that the name would be constructed of individual channel letters.The buffalo head logo would remain as depicted on the revised color renderings submitted and marked as Exhibits"E2"and"E3". They will not install a sign on the south elevation of the building. Com. Windecker confirmed that the individual channel letters will be red and raised from the building.The buffalo head logo is a separate box sign.He agrees that the sign would better serve the petitioner on the east elevation of the building instead of the south elevation. Com.Dunn agrees with Com.Windecker regarding the east elevation sign.No sign on the south elevation. Corn.Stein agrees with Corn.Windecker. Com.Shapiro asked if the ampersand will be in white rather than red.Mr.Cummings confirmed that the ampersand would be white.Corn. Shapiro recommended that the ampersand be in red. Ch.Entman agreed. Ch.Entman asked about the buffalo head logo.The black and white will reverse at night when illuminated. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn.Windecker made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board to grant the amended request made by Cummings and Holdings, LLC, 1089 Queen Ann Lane, Lake Zurich, Illinois d/b/a Buffalo Wings and Rings,100 McHenry Road,for variance of Zoning Ordinance,Section 17.44.060.E.6,pertaining to Signs,for the purpose of allowing an additional wall sign on the east elevation of the building ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 4 of 22—JUNE 17,2008 and would allow each of the two (2)proposed wall signs to exceed the maximum limitation of 75 square feet by approximately 8 square feet. Signs to be installed pursuant to Exhibits "E2" and "E3". No sign to be installed on the south elevation of the building. The ampersand is to be red. Pursuant to Sign Code, Section 14.44.010, Subsection A. 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. Item to appear on the July 7, 2008 Village Board agenda. Com. Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by Buffalo Wings and Rings, 100 McHenry Road, for deviation to the Town Center Sign Criteria to allow two (2) signs that would not be constructed of individual channel letters and would exceed the height allowed. Com. Dunn seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Stein,Dunn, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 6 to 0. NEW BUSINESS 500 HALF DAY ROAD, HARRIS BANK — SIGN CODE, SECTIONS 14.20.030 AND 14.20.080, TO ALLOW 3 ADDITIONAL WALL SIGNS THAT DO NOT FACE THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY 1300 N. ARLINGTON HEIGHTS ROAD, BANK OF AMERICA — SIGN CODE, SECTIONS 14.20.020 AND 14.20.125, TO INSTALL A ROOF SIGN ON THE WEST ELEVATION OF THE DRIVE-THRU; TO REPLACE THE EXISTING GROUND SIGN WITH A NEW GROUND SIGN IN THE SAME LOCATION; AND THE COMBINATION OF ALL SIGNS WOULD EXCEED 32 SQUARE FEET 1355 W. DUNDEE ROAD, BANK OF AMERICA — SIGN CODE, SECTIONS 14.20.030; 14.20.070 AND 14.20.080, TO REFACE THE EXISTING GROUND SIGN THAT IS LOCATED WITHIN 250' OF 3 EXISTING GROUND SIGNS ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE STREET AND IS LOCATED LESS THAN 10' FROM THE PROPERTY LINE; TO INSTALL AN ADDITIONAL WALL SIGN ON THE NORTHEAST ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING THAT DOES NOT FACE THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY; AND TO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 5 of 22—JUKE 17, 2008 INSTALL AN ADDITIONAL GROUND SIGN ON THE SOUTHEST ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING THAT DOES NOT FACE THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY 1200 W. DUNDEE ROAD, EL POLLO LOCO — SIGN CODE, SECTIONS 14.20.030; 14.20.070; 14.20.080 AND 14.40.025, TO INSTALL A GROUND SIGN THAT WOULD BE LOCATED LESS THAN 3' FROM THE PROPERTY LINE; TO INSTALL A MENU BOARD GROUND SIGN WITH CHANGEABLE COPY; TO ALLOW A WALL SIGN ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING THAT WOULD EXCEED THE SIZE ALLOWED; TO ALLOW 2 WALL SIGNS ON THE NORTH ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING THAT DOES NOT FACE THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY; AND TO ALLOW A WALL SIGN ON THE EAST ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING THAT EXCEEDS THE SIZE ALLOWED 1250 RADCLIFFE ROAD, LITTLE UNIVERSITY — SIGN CODE, SECTION 14.20.010, TO INSTALL AN ADDITIONAL WALL SIGN ON THE WEST ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING THAT WOULD EXCEED THE NUMBER OF SIGNS ALLOWED AND WOULD EXCEED THE ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR ALL SIGNS BY APPROXIMATELY 40 SQUARE FEET. CHEVY CHASE BUSINESS PARK, HAMILTON PARTNERS — REVIEW OF THE EXISTING LEASING SIGNS AT MILWAUKEE AVENUE AND LAKE COOK ROAD, 1001 JOHNSON DRIVE AND 1098 JOHNSON DRIVE Request was made to Table the above listed public hearings until the next regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals, scheduled for 15, 2008. PP July Com. Windecker made a motion to Table the requests made by Harris Bank, 500 Half Day Road; Bank of America, 1300 N. Arlington Heights Road; Bank of America, 1355 W. Dundee Road; El Polio Loco, 1200 W. Dundee Road; Little University, 1250 Radcliffe Road; and Chevy Chase Business Park, Hamilton Partners. Com. Dunn seconded the motion. Voice vote — AYE was unanimous. 484 FORESTWAY DRIVE, RICHARD AND SYLVIA WESTGARD — FENCE CODE, SECTION 15.20.040, TO REPLACE THE EXISTING 6' FENCE WITH A NEW 6' FENCE ALONG THE REAR PROPERTY LINE Mr. Richard Westgard and Mrs. Sylvia Westgard, 484 Forestway Drive, were present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on May 30, 2008 was read. Mr. Westgard explained that they would like to replace the existing six (6) foot fence with a new six (6) foot fence along the rear property line. Their property backs up to the baseball diamond at Long Fellow School. The fence is used as a backstop and they constantly get balls in their yard. Surrounding neighbors also have six (6) foot fences along their rear property lines. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Edward Schar dated June 2, 2008 which states: "I have no comments on the proposal." Mr. Westgard has seen this report. L ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 6 of 22 — JUNE 17, 2008 Ch. Entman confirmed that the proposed fence would be a solid cedar fence. Corn. Dunn asked if a gate would be installed along the rear property line. Mr. Westgard advised that there would be a gate. Corn. Shapiro stated that he has a child that attends Long Fellow School, but this will not affect his decision. Corn. Windecker asked about the new fence installed along the side property lines. Mr. Westgard stated that the new fence complies with the Fence Code as it is five (5) feet in height. A permit was obtained. 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 Richard and Sylvia Westgard, 484 Forestway Drive, for variance of Fence Code, Section 15.20.040,pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of replacing the existing six (6) foot fence with a new six (6) foot fence along the rear property line. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated June 2, 2008. The Petitioner has demonstrated hardship and unique circumstances. The proposed fence will not be detrimental to .1 the public health, safetyand welfare and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Corn. Windecker 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—July 3, 2008. 1470 LARCHMONT DRIVE, CAREY GOLDBERG — FENCE CODE, SECTION 15.20.040, TO CONSTRUCT A 4' CHAIN LINK FENCE BEYOND THE BUILDING SETBACK LINE ALONG KNOLLWOOD DRIVE Mr. Carey Goldberg, 1470 Larchmont Drive, was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on May 30, 2008 was read. Mr. Goldberg explained that he has been a resident of Buffalo Grove for over a year. He has done extensive renovations to the home. He has a two (2) year old son and would like the fence to keep his son in the yard. He would like to put a pool and swing set in the back yard. He has taken out the ten (10) foot tall bushes as shown in the photographs submitted with the application ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 7 of 22—JUNE 17, 2008 and marked as Exhibit "E". The proposed chain link fence would provide visibility. The neighbor's fence to the rear is also a chain link fence that extends out to about two(2)feet from the sidewalk.He would like to match his fence up with the neighbor's fence.The neighbor was granted a variation for his fence over twenty (20) years ago. Additional photographs were submitted and marked as Exhibits"E2"and"E3". Ch.Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Edward Schar dated June 5, 2008 which states: "We have reviewed the attached proposal and recommend against any restriction of the line of sight beyond that which would be created by a building constructed at the building line. There is no abutting driveway."Mr. Goldberg advised that he has seen this report. Ch.Entman read a letter supporting the request dated June 4,2008 from Richard G. Smith and JoAnn B.Smith into the record. Com. Stein asked Mr. Schar if a pool could be placed in the side yard.Mr. Schar stated that a pool could be placed in the side yard. Com.Stein confirmed with the Petitioner that there will not be any slats inserted into the chain link fence. 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 Carey Goldberg, 1470 Larchmont Drive,for variance of Fence Code, Section 15.20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of constructing a four(4)foot chain link fence that would extend beyond the building setback line beginning at the northeast corner of the house and extending north to a point approximately two (2)feet from the sidewalk,then turning west to the rear property line. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated June 5,2008.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. Com.Dunn seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote:AYE—Stein,Dunn,Windecker,Shapiro,Entman NAY—Lesser ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 5 to 1.Findings of Fact attached.Permit may be issued in fifteen(15)days—July 3,2008. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 8 of 22—JUKE 17,2008 3260 INDIAN CREEK DRIVE, JEFFREY CHIENG — FENCE CODE, SECTION 15.20.040, TO CONSTRUCT A 6' FENCE BEYOND THE BUILDING SETBACK LINE ALONG BUFFALO GROVE ROAD Ms. Debbie Chieng, 3260 Indian Creek Drive, was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on May 30,2008 was read. Ms. Chieng explained that she lives at the corner of Buffalo Grove Road and Indian Creek Drive. The request is based on the alteration to Buffalo Grove Road. Since the project, traffic flow, noise and speeding has increased along Buffalo Grove Road. Also, commercial traffic is now present on the roadway. They have concerns for safety since the roadway project. Some steps can be taken to alleviate these issues such as modifying the speed limit, have police monitor the roadway and limitation of commercial traffic. Cars use their driveway to turn around when traffic is backed along the road. She filed a police report on April 2, 2008 that addresses this concern. She is worried about the safety of their children and the children of the neighborhood when cars are turning around in the driveway. She has received information concerning a noise study. She will be requesting a higher fence once the requests of her neighbor's have been approved. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Edward Schar dated June 2, 2008 which states: "I have no comments on the proposal."The Petitioner has seen his report. Ch. Entman confirmed that the proposed fence would be a six (6) foot board on board fence. Corn. Shapiro confirmed with the Petitioner that the remainder of the rear yard would not be fenced in. He asked why they are requesting a six (6) foot fence. Ms. Chieng advised that the fence would then match the fence that exists along Buffalo Grove Road. Corn. Lesser believes that a five (5) foot fence would address the safety issue. He does not support the request for a six (6) foot fence. Ms. Chieng asked why they can not have a six (6) foot fence. Com. Lesser stated that they try to keep fences under six (6) feet in height. Ms. Chieng stated that she would be open to tapering the fence from six (6) feet to five(5) feet. Com. Windecker asked if the Petitioner has contacted the Police Department to discuss her concerns with cars using her driveway to turn around. She stated that she has not. Corn. Windecker stated that he cannot support the request for a six (6) fence across the front. He would support the request if the fence tapered from six (6) feet to five (5) feet. Corn. Dunn agrees with the other Commissioners' comments. Mr. Alex Kelrikh, 7 River Oaks Circle East, Buffalo Grove, Illinois, was present and sworn in. Mr. Kelrikh stated that addressing the concerns with the Police Department may be helpful but it will not alleviate the traffic or stop traffic from turning around in her driveway and making illegal U-turns. The traffic bottlenecks in front of the Petitioner's house. Buffalo Grove Road used to be a local drive, until the road project. Now traffic speeds down the road. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 9 of 22—JUNE 17, 2008 Ch. Entman stated that he understands the need for safety. A six (6) foot fence is not necessary. A five (5) foot fence would accomplish the goal. He would support tapering the fence from six (6) feet to five (5) feet in one eight (8) foot section. Ms. Chieng stated that they requested a six (6) foot fence for aesthetic reasons. Mr. Xiangdong Xu, 4 River Oaks Circle West, Buffalo Grove, Illinois, was present and sworn in. Mr. Xu stated that the height of the fence will reduce the noise level of the traffic. The fence will improve their quality of life. He supports the request. Ms. Weili Wang, 9 River Oaks Circle East, Buffalo Grove, Illinois, was present and sworn in. Ms. Wang stated that since the roadway project in 2005, the noise level had increased dramatically. Last year, the bridge was replaced and created more traffic congestion and more noise. She supports the request. Ms. Chieng stated that she would like to proceed with the request as submitted for a six (6) foot across. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no additional questions or comments from the audience. Com. Stein made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by Jeffrey Chieng,, 3260 Indian Creek Drive, for variance of Fence Code, Section 15.20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of constructing a six (6) foot fence beyond the building setback line that would extend from the southeast corner of the house to the east property line. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated June 2, 2008. 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. Dunn 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 the decision to the Village Board. 1101 OLD BARN ROAD, BETH MAX — FENCE CODE, SECTION 15.20.040, TO CONSTRUCT A 4' FENCE 7' BEYOND THE BUILDING SETBACK LINE ALONG DEERFIELD PARKWAY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 10 of 22 — JUNE 17, 2008 Ms. Beth Max, 1101 Old Barn Road, was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on May 30,2008 Ms. Max explained that she is proposing to construct a black wrought iron fence with landscaping on the inside of the fence. The fence would extend seven (7) feet beyond the building setback line. Ch.Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Edward Schar dated June 5, 2008 which states:"I have no comments on the proposal."Ms.Max has seen this report. Com.Windecker confirmed that the proposed fence would be a new fence. Com.Lesser asked if the fence were to be installed on the building line,would the fence interfere with the existing landscaping.Ms.Max replied that the fence would interfere with the existing landscaping. Corn.Shapiro confirmed that the fence would be parallel to Deerfield Parkway and would be a four(4)foot wrought iron fence. Com.Stein asked about a hardship.Ms.Max stated that to put the fence along the building line would ruin existing landscaping.She planned to put in bushes on the inside of the fence. Com.Dunn stated that the property location is unique and she supports the request. Com.Lesser supports the request. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Com.Dunn made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by Beth Max, 1101 Old Barn Road,for variance for Fence Code, Section 15.20.040,pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of constructing a four(4)foot fence beyond the building setback line that would extend south from the southeast corner of the house a distance of seven(7)feet,then turning east to the rear property line,then turning north and returning to the building setback line. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated June 5, 2008. 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—Stein,Dunn,Windecker,Lesser,Shapiro,Entman NAY—None ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 11 of 22—JUNE 17,2008 ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 6 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. Permit may be issued in fifteen (15) days—July 3, 2008. 30 TIMBER HILL ROAD, CHRIS BARTOSIK — FENCE CODE, SECTION 15.20.040, TO CONSTRUCT AN 8' FENCE BEYOND THE BUILDING SETBACK LINE AND BEYOND THE FRONT LINE OF THE HOUSE Mr. Chris Bartosik, 30 Timber Hill Road, was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on May 30, 2008 was read. Mr. Bartosik explained his property abuts Lake Cook Road. There is a ten (10) foot easement adjacent to Lake Cook Road that he does not want to disturb. Since the Lake Cook Road construction has completed, the traffic levels have increased. He has security concerns as well. He has found strangers standing at his garage as well as people cutting through the yard. He would also like to eleviate some of the noise generated by the traffic. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Edward Schar dated June 3, 2008 which states: "There are several dimensions indicated on the proposal that are not to scale. We recommend that the fence be so located as to comply with the corner restriction requirements."Mr. Bartosik has seen this report. Ch. Entman confirmed that the proposed fence would be the same type of fence that currently exists on the property. Com. Shapiro stated that he is familiar with the property and would support the request subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum. Com. Lesser stated that the Petitioner has unique circumstances and asked if any type of landscaping has been considered. Mr. Bartosik stated that he is concerned with the soil quality and the easement. He has several trees that are setback about twelve (12) to thirteen(13) feet that are struggling. He is also concerned about winter road salt on any landscaping. Corn. Lesser stated that he would support the request in this case. Com. Windecker supports the request. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Shapiro made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by Chris Bartosik, 30 Timber Hill Road, for variance of Fence Code, Section 15.20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of extending the existing eight(8) foot fence by approximately sixty-one(61) feet to the east. Said fence would be located beyond the building setback line and beyond the front line of the building. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 12 of 22—JUNE 17, 2008 Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated June 3, 2008. 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. Lesser 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 — July 3, 2008. 3 RIVER OAKS CIRCLE EAST, YOUNG KOH AND SUNHEE HAM — FENCE CODE, SECTION 15.20.040, TO CONSTRUCT AN 8' FENCE BEYOND THE BUILDING SETBACK LINE ALONG BUFFALO GROVE ROAD The Petitioners were not present at this time. This hearing has been deferred. 4 RIVER OAKS CIRCLE WEST, XIANGDONG XU AND YAYA LIU — FENCE CODE, SECTION 15.20.040, TO CONSTRUCT A 10' FENCE BEYOND THE BUILDING SETBACK LINE AND WOULD EXTEND 12' BEYOND THE FRONT LINE OF THE BUILDING Mr. Xiangdong Xu and Ms. Yaya Liu, 4 River Oaks Circle West, were present and sworn in. The g g Y public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on May 30, 2008 was read. Ms. Liu explained that they moved into the house in 2004. At that time, the neighborhood was quiet. Since the bridge project, there is a lot more noise. Their children get woken up at night by the traffic noise. They are also concerned with the speed of traffic. There are seven (7) children that reside in the cul-de-sac. Cars are constantly turning around in the cul-de-sac. Their major concern is the safety of the children and the noise. They have pine trees and spruces that are over eight (8) feet in height. The trees do not block the noise. They are willing to accept an eight (8) foot fence. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Edward Schar dated June 5, 2008 which states: "I(n) reviewing the submitted materials there presumably may be some testimony, particularly related to 9 River Oaks East, that the elevation, at the location of the proposed fence, is "5'-8' below the roadway". No supporting documentation is included and I would estimate that the variation grade ranges from near level at 3 River Oaks Circle East to something in the range of 3 feet vertical difference towards the north end of the petitioners presented. �� Ch. Entman also read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Edward Schar dated June 5, 2008 which states: "I have no comments on the proposal." ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 13 of 22 — JUNE 17, 2008 The Petitioner has seen these reports. \.„i Corn.Dunn confirmed that the Petitioner is amending their request from a ten(10)foot fence to an eight(8)foot fence.The fence would be a board on board style fence.Com.Dunn asked why they are requesting to extend the fence twelve(12)feet beyond the front of the house.Ms.Liu stated that they had measured and that they actually need the fence to extend fifty-five(55)feet. Photographs were submitted by the Petitioners and marked as Exhibits"El", "E2","E3",and "E4".Ms.Liu stated that by extending the fence twelve(12)feet,the fence would fit through the opening in the landscaping. Mr.Xu stated that their main concern is the traffic. Corn.Lesser stated that he understands their concerns.Installing an eight(8)foot fence will not solve the problem with the children playing in the driveway and cars turning around. He is supportive of the fence idea but is not supportive of bringing the fence into the front yard.They need to create a buffer.The fence will create some buffer and landscaping could create more. Corn. Windecker stated that keeping the children from playing in the driveway will solve the safety issue. Many houses have driveways with basketball courts. He is not supportive of increasing the length of the fence. Corn.Windecker asked if anyone had measured the decibel readings for both five(5)and six(6) foot fences.There is not much difference.Ms.Liu stated that they are trying to abate the noise level.They have written letters to the County regarding the change in the noise level since the bridge project.The combination of the road material and the increase in height of the bridge has made the noise level unbearable.Ms.Liu asked why the properties along Lake Cook Road could have an eight(8)fence and not them. Corn.Shapiro stated that the driveway is located approximately fifty(50)feet from the fence.He asked why there are not requesting an eight(8)fence along the rear property line to help with the noise.Also,the fence would not block the noise from the second floor of the house.He cannot support the request to extend the fence into the front yard.Mr.Xu replied that they are trying to resolve the noise issue.Corn. Shapiro asked what would solve the problem.Mr.Xu stated that hopefully the County would perform the noise study.Corn.Shapiro asked if the Petitioners were aware of the roadway project when the purchased the home.Mr.Xu responded that they were not aware of the project. Corn. Lesser suggested moving the basketball court to the back yard. Mr. Xu stated that they have a retention pond in the back yard.They have also planted trees as a sound barrier. Mr.Robert Heape,35 River Oaks Circle East,Buffalo Grove,Illinois was present and sworn in. Mr. Heape presented a slide show to the Commissioners. He moved into the back of the subdivision.He found no real noise levels when he took decibel readings at peak traffic times. He would support the enforcement of the speed limit on Buffalo Grove Road or an increase in the timing of the green light.He has been provided with a study on the movements of deer.There ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 14 of 22—JUKE 17,2008 is a defined deer corridor that runs through the area. He sees at least two (2) to three (3) deer a day. At peak times during the season, he can see ten (10) to twenty (20) deer a day in the area. The deer cannot pass under the bridge. Deer can be deadly to man. Stressed deer are unpredictable. As mankind builds more, it could cause the deer path to be re-routed onto highways. Deer can also cause disease. A child in the subdivision was found to have a deer tick on them. A new corridor would force the deer into his yard. He would like the matter considered seriously. This is a single access subdivision. He has safety concerns for the children that wait at the corner for the buses. An accident involving a deer could delay emergency responders. Natural landscaping creates a natural buffer. The proposed fences are inconsistent with the approved site plan concerning open space. Mr. Alexander Kelrikh, 7 River Oaks Circle East, Buffalo Grove, Illinois, was present and sworn in. Mr. Kelrikh stated that he supports the Petitioners request for an eight (8) foot fence. It will help with some of the noise. Corn. Stein stated that he is supportive of the request for an eight (8) foot fence but not supportive of the fence extending past the front of the house. Ms. Liu stated that the property is next to the bridge and the bridge creates noise. Corn. Shapiro added that a fence would not help with the noise issues on the second floor of the house. Ms. Liu added that they cannot open their windows due to the noise. Ch. Entman read the following items into the record: ` • Printed presentation from Robert Heape, 35 River Oaks Circle East —marked as Exhibit `, "F"; • Email from Michelle McMullen-Tack, 11 River Oaks Circle East dated June 16, 2008 — marked as Exhibit"G"; • Email from Yaya Liu, 4 River Oaks Circle West dated June 11, 2008—marked as Exhibit • USDA Wildlife Study—marked as Exhibit"I"; • Plan Commission meeting minutes dated May 19, 1999—marked as Exhibit"J"; and • Village Board meeting minutes dated September 13, 1999—marked as Exhibit"K" Ch. Entman stated that the road will always be busy and noisy. There is no evidence that a fence will resolve that. He is not supportive of the request. He believes that the criteria have not been met. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioner. There were no additional questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Stein made the following motion: I move we grant the amended request made by Xiangdong Xu and Yaya Liu, 4 River Oaks Circle West, for variance of Fence Code, Section 15.20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of constructing an eight (8) foot fence beyond the building setback line along the east property line and also would extend twelve(12) feet beyond the front line of the building. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 15 of 22—JUNE 17, 2008 Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandums dated June 5, 2008. 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. Dunn seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Stein NAY—Dunn, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Entman ABSTAIN—None Motion Denied 5 to 1. Findings of Fact attached. The Petitioner's were advised of their right to appeal this decision to the Village Board. 3 RIVER OAKS CIRCLE EAST, YOUNG KOH AND SUNHEE HAM — FENCE CODE, SECTION 15.20.040, TO CONSTRUCT AN 8' FENCE BEYOND THE BUILDING SETBACK LINE ALONG BUFFALO GROVE ROAD Mr. Young Koh, 3 River Oaks Circle East, was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on May 30, 2008 was read. Mr. Koh explained that since the road widening project traffic has increased. He is not sure how the fence can affect the noise problem but it is the only thing he can do for now. `-/ Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Edward Schar dated June 5, 2008 which states: "I(n) reviewing the submitted materials there presumably may be some testimony, particularly related to 9 River Oaks East, that the elevation, at the location of the proposed fence, is "5'-8' below the roadway". No supporting documentation is included and I would estimate that the variation grade ranges from near level at 3 River Oaks Circle East to something in the range of 3 feet vertical difference towards the north end of the petitioners presented." Corn. Lesser stated that his comments are similar to the previous Petitioner. A fence is not a remedy. Mr. Koh said that the biggest problem is the noise. Corn. Lesser replied that a fence would be permanent and may not solve the noise issue. He is not supportive of the request. Corn. Shapiro stated that significant landscaping would buffer the property from the road. This property is the furthest from the bridge. Mr. Koh stated that they cannot open their windows during the day. The noise was not as bad before the roadway project. There is twice as much traffic as before. Corn. Shapiro would like the County to verify the noise issues. He believes that there is another remedy. He is not supportive of the request. Corn. Stein is supportive of the request. Corn. Windecker asked the Petitioner when they determined there was a noise issue. Mr. Koh stated in 2004. Com. Windecker asked why the Petitioner had not requested a fence before now. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 16 of 22—JUNE 17, 2008 Com. Lesser believes the noise issue requires further study before a decision can be made. Mr. Tim Tack, 11 River Oaks Circle East, Buffalo Grove, Illinois, was present and sworn in. Mr. Tack stated that they have tried to contact the County. They have sent three (3) letters with no response. He asked the Village to assist them in trying to contact the County. He believes that the noise can be addressed with a fence. He also believes that a fence will help with the visual issues they face. He can see the vehicle tires from his house. The whole neighborhood recognizes that there is a problem. He also addressed the comment from Mr. Heape regarding deer ticks. Deer ticks live in the grass and trees,not just on deer. Mr. Jeff Graham, 1725 W. Graham, Deerfield, Illinois, was present and sworn in. He is a Lake County Scout Master. He is concerned about the deer issue and the safety of children. Mr. Ken Wickstrom, Gurnee, Illinois, was present and sworn in. Changing animal patterns is a safety concern. He is a motorcyclist and is concerned about the possibility of getting into an accident with a deer. The weight ratio of a car is much different than that of a motorcycle. Mr. Xiangdong Xu, 4 River Oaks Circle West, Buffalo Grove, Illinois, was present and sworn in. Mr. Xu stated that the proposed fence will not affect the current deer pattern. Ch. Entman does not believe that a fence will resolve the issue. He also does not believe that the criteria have been met to grant a variance. Mr. Raysa confirmed that the proposed fence would replace the existing six (6) foot fence in the same location. Ch. Entman read the following items into the record: • Printed presentation from Robert Heape, 35 River Oaks Circle East— marked as Exhibit «F,,. • Email from Michelle McMullen-Tack, 11 River Oaks Circle East dated June 16, 2008 — marked as Exhibit"G"; • Email from Yaya Liu, 4 River Oaks Circle West dated June 11, 2008 —marked as Exhibit "H,,. • USDA Wildlife Study—marked as Exhibit"I"; • Plan Commission meeting minutes dated May 19, 1999—marked as Exhibit"J"; and • Village Board meeting minutes dated September 13, 1999—marked as Exhibit"K" There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no additional questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by Young Koh and Sunhee Ham, 3 River Oaks Circle East, for variance of Fence Code, Section 15.20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts for the purpose of constructing an eight(8) foot fence beyond the building setback line along Buffalo Grove Road. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 17 of 22—JUNE 17, 2008 Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated June 5, 2008. 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. Com. Dunn seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Stein NAY—Dunn, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Entman ABSTAIN—None Motion Denied 5 to 1. Findings of Fact attached. The Petitioner's were advised of their right to appeal this decision to the Village Board. 5 RIVER OAKS CIRCLE EAST, STEVEN BERKOWITZ ANDJACKI UNGER—FENCE CODE, SECTION 15.20.040, TO CONSTRUCT AN 8' FENCE ALONG THE REAR PROPERTY LINE Ch. Entman read an email received from Steven Berkowitz dated June 11, 2008 request to postpone his public hearing until the July regular meeting. Corn. Windecker made a motion to Table the request made by Steven Berkowitz and Jacki Unger, 5 River Oaks Circle East, until the next regular meeting scheduled for July 15, 2008. Corn. Lesser 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 July 15, 2008 Zoning Board of Appeals agenda. 7 RIVER OAKS CIRCLE EAST, ALEXANDER AND ALLA KELRIKH — FENCE CODE, SECTION 15.20.040, TO CONSTRUCT AN 8' FENCE ALONG THE REAR PROPERTY LINE Mr. Alexander Kelrikh, 7 River Oaks Circle East, was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on June 2, 2008 was read. Mr. Kelrikh explained that in 1999, when he purchased the home, he was not aware of the future road project and would not have had any idea of where to look for that kind of information. He purchased the property because of the trees on the lot. At that time, you could not see into the yard. His lot was considered a premium lot. Now, you can see cars traveling on the road and they can see into the yard. While sitting in his yard, he cannot hear the person sitting across from you because of the traffic noise. A fence will help to restore the peace they previously had. He understands that a fence will not eliminate the noise completely, but it will help to reduce it. A study has indicated that the average homeowner stays in their home about seven (7) years. He is willing to invest in the fence. The County has not been willing to help. Addressing the comments ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 18 of 22—JUNE 17,2008 from Mr. Heape, if a deer can jump a six (6) foot fence, he does not want a deer jumping into his yard. He could get seriously injured. The additional two (2) feet of fence will change his life. All of the proposed fences would be a uniform style. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Edward Schar dated June 5, 2008 which states: "I(n) reviewing the submitted materials there presumably may be some testimony, particularly related to 9 River Oaks East, that the elevation, at the location of the proposed fence, is "5'-8' below the roadway". No supporting documentation is included and I would estimate that the variation grade ranges from near level at 3 River Oaks Circle East to something in the range of 3 feet vertical difference towards the north end of the petitioners presented." Com. Lesser stated that he does not believe that the Zoning Boar of Appeals is the governmental body to address this issue. The Village Board may have better remedies. If a fence was the only solution, then he would think differently. He cannot support the request. Mr. Kelrikh stated that prior to the roadway project, the road would bottleneck so the traffic was not that bad. Now, it is more convenient to travel this road. The road is higher than it previously was. He used to feel privacy in his back yard. Now, people can see into the yard. Speed will not stop people from looking in. Corn. Shapiro asked if the Petitioner has inquired with Lake County personally. Mr. Kelrikh replied that he has not. He knows that the County will not lower the road. Corn. Stein comments are similar to his previous comments. It was suggested that all the residents of the subdivision go to Lake County collectively. It may lead to a resolution. It was also suggested to speak with a Lake County Commissioner. Ch. Entman read the following items into the record: • Printed presentation from Robert Heape, 35 River Oaks Circle East — marked as Exhibit «F9,. • Email from Michelle McMullen-Tack, 11 River Oaks Circle East dated June 16, 2008 — marked as Exhibit "G"; • Email from Yaya Liu, 4 River Oaks Circle West dated June 11, 2008 — marked as Exhibit «H99. • USDA Wildlife Study — marked as Exhibit "I"; • Plan Commission meeting minutes dated May 19, 1999 — marked as Exhibit "J"; and • Village Board meeting minutes dated September 13, 1999 — marked as Exhibit "K" There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no additional questions or comments from the audience. Com. Dunn made the following motion: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 19 of 22 — JUNE 17, 2008 I move we grant the request made by Alexander and Alla Kelrikh,7 River Oaks Circle East,for variance of Fence Code,Section 15.20.040,pertaining to Residential Districts,for the purpose of constructing an eight(8)foot fence along the rear property line. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated June 5, 2008. 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. Com.Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote:AYE—Stein NAY—Dunn,Windecker,Lesser,Shapiro,Entman ABSTAIN—None Motion Denied 5 to 1.Findings of Fact attached.The Petitioner's were advised of their right to appeal this decision to the Village Board. 9 RIVER OAKS CIRCLE EAST, SCOTT YIN AND WEILI WANG—FENCE CODE, SECTION 15.20.040,TO CONSTRUCT A 10'FENCE ALONG THE REAR PROPERTY LINE Mr.Scott Yin and Ms.Weili Wang,9 River Oaks Circle East,were present and sworn in.The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on May 30,2008 was read. Ms. Wang explained that they are requesting a ten (10) foot fence for several reasons: 1) to reduce the noise levels due to the new road surface and bridge;2)safety for their children and other neighborhood children that play in their backyard;3)the fence will protect their property values.The existing six(6)foot fence does not block the view of the traffic.They recently had an appraisal of their property done and the report showed that the value of the property was reduced.The appraiser noted that the reduced value was due to the roadway and bridge project. They measured the noise levels at 6:30A.M. (date not included) and submitted the decibel readings along with photographs. The documents were entered and marked as Group Exhibit Mr.Yin added that the noise levels fluctuate between high and low all the time.In his opinion, the decibel numbers stated by Mr.Heape do not make sense.The road level is now five(5)feet higher than the base of the fence.The proposed fence would be six(6)inches thick to absorb the noise. Ch.Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Edward Schar dated June 5, 2008 which states: "I(n) reviewing the submitted materials there presumably may be some testimony,particularly related to 9 River Oaks East, that the elevation, at the location of the proposed fence,is"5'-8'below the roadway".No supporting documentation is included and I would estimate that the variation grade ranges from near level at 3 River Oaks Circle East to something in the range of 3 feet vertical difference towards the north end of the petitioners presented." ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 20 of 22—JUKE 17,2008 Ch. Entman read the following items into the record: • Printed presentation from Robert Heape, 35 River Oaks Circle East — marked as Exhibit • Email from Michelle McMullen-Tack, 11 River Oaks Circle East dated June 16, 2008 — marked as Exhibit"G"; • Email from Yaya Liu, 4 River Oaks Circle West dated June 11, 2008—marked as Exhibit «H,,. • USDA Wildlife Study—marked as Exhibit"I"; • Plan Commission meeting minutes dated May 19, 1999—marked as Exhibit"J"; and • Village Board meeting minutes dated September 13, 1999—marked as Exhibit"K" Mr. Tim Tack, 11 River Oaks Circle East, was present and sworn in. He asked if anyone had ever approached the County concerning the Lake Cook Road project. Ch. Entman stated that he is not sure. Corn. Stein asked if any surveys or engineer reports have been prepared to support the suggested ten (10) foot fence height. The Petitioner responded that there have not been any reports prepared. Corn. Shapiro asked how the Petitioner obtained the decibel readings. Ms. Wang stated that she borrowed a decibel meter. This was not a scientific study. Mr. Yin added that they took multiple readings. Mr. Schar added that the properties along McHenry Road had a lot of their yards taken during the road widening project. That is why they were granted the variances for the eight (8) foot fences. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no additional questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by Scott Yin and Weili Wang, 9 River Oaks Circle East, for variance of Fence Code, Section 15.20.040,pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of constructing a ten(10) foot fence along the rear property line. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated June 5, 2008. 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. Dunn seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Shapiro NAY—Stein, Dunn, Windecker, Lesser, Entman ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 21 of 22—JUKE 17,2008 ABSTAIN — None Motion Denied 5 to 1. Findings of Fact attached. The Petitioner's were advised of their right to appeal this decision to the Village Board. ANNOUNCEMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Com. Windecker and seconded by Corn. Dunn. Voice Vote — AYE was unanimous. Ch. Entman adjourned the meeting at 11:45 P.M. Submitted by, Aotie,6L_ J ie Kamka Recording Secretary ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 22 of 22 — JUNE 17, 2008