1981-04-21 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes 1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE, ILL.
Tues., April 21, 1981
I. CALL TO ORDER
The Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order at 7:35 P.M. on Tuesday, April 21,
1981 at the Village Hall. New Commissioners Fern Manzo and Dave Stolman have been
appointed.
II. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Quick, Schroeder, Hefler, Kearns, Manzo and Heinrich.
Commissioner Stolman was not present at Roll Call, but arrived at 7: 42 P.M.
Staff Present: James D. Griffin, Asst. Bldg. and Zoning Adm. and Wm. Raysa, Atty.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Com. Kearns made a motion to approve the minutes of March 17, 1981. Com. Quick
seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Quick, Kearns, Hefler and Heinrich.
Abstain - Schroeder and Manzo.
Nay - None
March 17, 1981 ZBA Minutes Approved.
IV. BUSINESS
A. 7 Cambridge Court - Harvey B. and Betty J. Goetsch
Fence Variation - Municipal Code: Chap. 15.36; Sect. 15.36.040
The Public Hearing Notice was read and Mr. and Mrs. Goetsch were sworn in.
Mr. Goetsch explained their reasons for requesting a 6 ft. stockade fence across
the rear of their property. Because of excessive foot traffic using the path
behind their house, privacy is needed. A school is located behind the house and
there is also a row of Condominiums abutting their rear lot. A gravel path has
been put in and it is heavily traveled by children as well as adults, some of
whom walk their pets. These people do not stay on the path, but also use the
Goetschts yard. A five ft. fence would not be sufficient to provide privacy.
Also. there is a six foot similar fence two lots down and they wish continue
the appearance of a continuous fence. There are also other 6 ft. fences: near.
One other condition exists that will soon be a problem and that is the construc-
tion of two-story townhomes immediately behind their house. only 30 feet from
the rear lot line. The Goetschts house is 40 feet from the lot line.
Discussion was opened and Com. Quick, having visited the home, agreed that the
six foot fence is needed. Conditions are as have been stated by Mr. Goetsch.
The Townhomes are being built somewhat higher than the Goetsch house.
Com. Schroeder also visited the property site and agreed with the need.
There were no further questions and no neighbors were present to testify.
Com. Quick made the following motion:
I move the request by Harvey B. and Betty J. Goetsch,
7 Cambridge Court; for a variation of the Fence Ord.
Chapter 15.36, Section 15.36.040- be granted to allow
a six (6) foot fence along the rear lot line. It has
been indicated that such fence will not be detrimental
to health. safety and welfare.
Com. Kearns seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Hefler, Schroeder.
Kearns. Quick. Manzo.
Stolman and Heinrich.
Motion Passed 7 to 0. Nay - None
f
_1
B. 8 Cambridge Court =Mervin A. Comfort •
Fence,Variation. :.'Municipal Code: Chapter 15.36, Sect. 15.36.040
The Public Hearing Notice was read and Mr. Comfort was sworn in.
Mr. Comfort testified that they live next door to Mr. and Mrs. Goetsch. The
same conditions exist that prompt them to request a six foot fence along the
rear of their property. The constant flow of traffic behind their house has
created a need for privacy. The principle reasons are children and people,
who walk their pets along the path behind the house, sometimes tresspass into
the yard. Condos are also to the rear and construction of new townhomes
has begun. A fence would increase property values.
The fence was described on the plat. Mr. Comfort said a five foot fence would
not be adequate and a six foot fence will not be detrimental to health, safety
and welfare.
Com. Quick commented that after viewing this property, he agreed with the need
for a privacy fence. There were no further comments or questions. No neigh—
bors were present to testify.
Com. Kearns made the following motion:
I move the petition requested by Mervin A. Comfort,
be granted for a six foot fence. The variation
being from Ord. No. 15.36.040 as it has been proven
that health, safety and welfare will not be effected
by this fence. Property located at 8 Cambridge Court.
Com. StolmRn seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye — Quick, Schroeder,
Kearns, Manzo.
Heller, Stolman,
and Heinrich.
Motion Passed 7 to 0. Nay — None
C. Anden Corp. — 103 Horatio Blvd. — Request to use model for office purposes.
Article X, Section 9.1 under the provisions of Art. XIII, Sec. 4.1—a
Mr. Jerry De Grazia, Associate of Anden Corp. vas sworn in after the Public
Hearing Notice was read. He testified that Anden Corp. is a large corporation
with offices in Chicago, New Jersey, Washington, D.C., Calif.and Paris, France.
He has been currently working outof their Hoffman Estates Office but because
of the present economic conditions, they have had to cut their office staff
from 30 down to 6. Three employees would like to have their offices in the
103 Horatio Blvd. model. Mr. De Grazia is at the office about one day per week.
Mr. Wilkinson, Division Manager is to be there daily; and an accountant/ sec.
who would be there daily. This would NOT be a Corporate office. Most of the
activity is handeled by the Los Angelos office. Anden has developments in
Vernon Hills and Bartlett and therefore chose Buffalo Grove because of its
central location.
At the Buffalo Grove location, there is an existing parking lot.
There is no need to change either the exterior or the interior of the house.
Some office furniture has been brought in and the bedrooms are being used
as offices. This is to be a temporary arrangement. As soon as business picks
up and more staff is needed, other facilities will be sought. There is also a
Sales Office in this model and the salesman is there daily.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
April 21, 1981 — Page Two.
e'
• n a
•
i
n • n w
•
•
•
•
•
'- •
•
•
•
•
A •
A
•
•
Anden Corp. also owns 16 acres of property immediately South of the B:: G.
site and are currently working with the Village toward development.
In response to the question about having been cited by the Village for moving
into the model without a permit, Mr. Grazia explained that through an over-
sight the model was converted to offices and business began operating before
they knew a variation was necessary.
Mr. Griffin confirmed that Anden had, in fact, moved in and sent out notices
to the Village. Upon receipt of the notice, they were ticketed.
They did not relocate because they had already moved out of their former
premises. Mr. De Grazia said when they learned of the situation they decided
to request permission for temporary occupancy of the premises as offices.
He apologized and said the move was made before he was aware of it.
Two neighboring residents were at the public hearing:
469 Armstrong - Thomas Ahto
102 Lilac - Mr. and Mrs. Michael Garver
Mr. Ahto asked if a variation of this kind had a time limit. He was concerned
with the parking lot because it is located in a residential area.
There is a 1 year time limit and at the time the project is sold out, the
parking area must be converted into a house lot.
Mr. Ahto also asked what would happen if the office staff is increased?
The variation would be granted for use by 3 people only.
Mr. Rays8. confirmed this information and added that a requirement for the
variation is that the use must be incidental to the development of the district.
'If a variation'is granted, at the end of the year, if an extension is desired,
re-application must be made and a public hearing held. Residents would be
notified again.
After further discussion, both residents, stated they had no objections to
the request.
Regarding transfer of the variation to another party, if there is a sale of
assets it could not be transferred. If there was a sale of stock, it would
be transferable.
In answer to the requirement that use of the property must be incidental to
the Northwood project, Mr. De Grazia testified that mortgage closings are
handled there as well as all the paper work.
With regard to the business hours, Mr. and Mrs. Garver confirmed that the
office is closed about 6 P.M. and that traffic is not a problem. It is pos-
sible that during office hours, other employees such as an engineer, or a
sub-contractor; or possibly a homeowner would becoming to the offices.
Requirements of the,Ordinance (Art. X, Sec. 9.1 under provisions of Art. XI II
Section. 4.1-a) were noted and restrictions that would be required by the ZBA
were also noted. Ch. Heinrich stated he felt all the criteria had been met
and called for a motion.
Equipment that was moved includes; 3 desks, file cabinets, copy machine,
2 typewriters and a stamp machine. This was moved in about the middle of
March 1981: - Mr. Raysa said that the
variation should have no influence upon the court proceedings because Anden
was in violation when theiticket was written. The court date is May 19, 1981.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
April 21, 1981 - Page Three
_ .
^~`�
. . .
~ ' '
'
_�
- '
���
,
. - -
` . '
`
, ,
.�
`
`
-
_
' - _
�
. `
^
~ '
. ,
.
`
'
�
'
`
- �
_ ' . -
` � - _ ���
� '
,
.
- .
. .
'
'
" .
.
' ~ '
- ' - '
�
, '
�
-
-
. `
. , ' , `
.
_ '
~ ^
'
'
,
- '
, - ' �.w�
'
- ,
_
Com. Schroeder made the following motion:
_ move that we approve the request by the
Anden Corp. of Hoffman Estates, 103 Horatio
Blvd. (B.G. ) regarding Article X, Section 9.1
and under the provisions of Art. XIII, Section
4.1—a. This to be for a period of one year,
used for an office staff not to exceed three (3)
people. The activities of said staff to be
during normal working hours.
The time limit shall be earlier than one (1) year
if all lots are sold before that date (4/21/81) .
Also, any such use ._must be incidental to the
Northwood Sub—division.
Com. Kearns seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye — ._Quick,
Hefler
Schroeder
Kearns
Nay — Manz()
Stolman
Heinrich
Motion Passed 4 to 3.
This recommendation goes to the Village Board fft_ enaetmeat of an
ordinance. The Board meets in two weeks.
The ZBA then made Findings of Fact and Conclusions which are attached
to these minute s.
Com. Quick made the following comments:
1) He is generally opposed to businesses in residential
districts. In this instance. the addition of three
people III this parti ct l salere office will not change
the character of the neighborhood; and may enhance the
selling of additional lots by showing the activity in
the area;
2) He is very much opposed to petitioners coming in after
the fact, to obtain a variation. But in: this case, an
honest mistake was made in that the 'petitioner did
notify the Village and afterward was cited.
Ch. Heinrich stated his reason for voting against the variation was _ because
he believes that developers should show a greater de► ee of care 'uess in
these matters. Pleading ignorance, in these instances, by a developer, who
reads the Ordinances all the time is not ipiTper and not permissable.
Mr. De Grazia explained that was really not aware of the situation because
his role is somewhat nebulous. He was outside the situation. It was Mr.Wil_
:: o` mom: the office over there because he had seen other develop—
ers do the same thing. He is not as aware of the ordinances and Mr. De
Grazia was out of town. Mr. Wilkinson did in fact print up the card and
send it to the Village offices.
Com. Hefler said: I voted for the variation because I share Mr. Quick' s
feelings. However. I would not like to see a larger trailer go in across
the street. It is our obligation as a Board to lend an honest ear and be
understanding of the economic problem that is besetting the building in—
dustry at this time. We also represent the community and it would be
possible to circumvent the Ordinance by erecitiag a larger trailer.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
April 21, 1981 — Page Four
V. ANNOUNCEIE NTS
Concern was expressed because of,the possibility of many developers moving
offices into models. Signage could become a problem as well as the need
for some screening. The economic situation is a reality.
The possibility of renting office space is one solution, but it it more than
likely that developers would move trailers in. It is better to control the
situations if restrictions are placed upon developers.
The Board discussed stricter enforcement of all businesses in Buffalo Grove.
Mr. Raysa said one hinderance to taking people to court is the fact that
seldom will a neighbor agree to go to court with the needed evidence con—
cerning exact activities connected with the business.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Com. Kearns made a motion to adjourn at 9:15 P.M.
Com. Hefler seconded the motion. All were in favor of adiournment.
Respectfully submitted.
Shirley Bates. ecretary
Zoning Board of Appeals
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
April 21, 1981 — Page Five
sb
_ V
I �
V