Loading...
1983-08-25 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE , ILL . TUESDAY, AUG. 25 , 1983 I . CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chairman John Quick called the meeting to order at 8:20 P.M. at the Village Hall on Tuesday, August 23, 1983. II . ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: H . Hefler, J . Quick , M. Kearns , D. Stolman - QUORUM Ch. Heinrich arrived at 8:23 P.M. and Com. Perlman arrived at 8:35 P.M. Building Department Liaison : Mr. Ray Henning , Housing and Zoning Inspector Village Attorney : Mr. Rick Skelton , Office of Mr. Raysa III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 19 , 1983 - Deferred. IV. BUSINESS A. 821 Dannet Road - Section 15. 36. 040 pertaining to Fences Mr. Nathan L. and Mrs . Susan A. Magit The Public Hearing Notice was read . Mr. Alfred L . Levinson , Palatine Attorney for Mr. Magit was present and Miss Terry Heraty a court reporter was present to transcribe the hearing . Mr. Nathan Magit and two neighbors : Mr. Robert Gould, 1212 Dannet Court and Mr. Kent Klein , 1200 Dannet Court; were all sworn in . Mr. Levinson summarized the background of the situation that led to the request for a variation of the Fence Ordinance . Mr. Magit purchased his house and moved in on April 28 , 1979 . He submitted the following docu- ments to the Village on July 13, 1983: 1 . Application for Variation . 2 . Plat of Survey showing location of Dog Run . 3 . Photographs of the Dog Run . 4. Hardship Letter and Homeowner ' s Deed . 5. List of adjacent property owners . 6. Check for $55. 00 - Application Fee. The variation is necessary to allow the Dog Run which was built in 1979 , to provide an area for Mr. Magit ' s 11 year old German Shepherd to exercise. The Dog Run is located at the side of the house . A 25 foot set back is required , but the run is 6 feet wide , therefore it extends into the side yard leaving a distance of 19 feet to the sidewalk. Mr. Magit ' s house is located on a corner. Dannet Court is a Cul -de-sac. Dannet Road is an East and an East and West Street. Before building the dog run , Mr. Magit called the Village to ask if permits were necessary for dog runs . He does not recall to whom, or to what department he talked with , but he was told that permits were not necessary. The dog run is built of Cedar wood, 42" high at the highest points, scalloped as shown in the 13 photographs presented. It is 6' x 16' feet with a gate. The dog is large and weighs 115 pounds. Mr. Magit did not know that he was in viola- tion of the Fence Ordinance until Mr. Henning so informed him this year. As soon as he received this information, Mr. Magit filed for a variation. Ch. Heinrich asked Mr. Magit some questions about the procedure that he followed when he called the Village in 1979 to inquire about the need for a permit. Mr. Magit said he did receive a copy of the Village regula- tions regarding watering, fences, garbage pick-ups, etc. and that is the reason he called before the put up the fence. He does not remember what department he called, nor to whom he spoke. He doesn't remember if he told the person that he lived on a corner lot, or where the run would be located. Because it was so long ago, Mr. Magit said he really cannot remember much about the call . He did not know if he discussed the construction of the run. The run was built late in 1979. The dog is not kept in the run and is not left out over night. Mr. Magit said the first he was aware that the dog run was in violation was when Mr. Ray Henning came to the house to say there had been a complaint by a previous petitioner who was denied a similiar dog run. The man had gone around the Village looking at various dog runs and fences. When he saw the Magits enclosure he asked, "If they can have one, why can't I." Regarding the decision Mr. Magit made to locate the run in the side yard was made after considering various locations. Because the rear of the house is actually the front yard of his neighbors property, and because the side yard was really the least offensive location for all other neighbors, Mr. Magit built it there. Photograph No. 10 was submitted to show the view from Mr. and Mrs. Karr's front yard at 1209 Dannet Court. Mr. Karr could not be present at this meeting and sent a letter indicating that he has no objection to the dog run. The letter was marked Exhibit 14. The dog run is constructed of cedar open slats, picket type with scallops and is 42 inches at the highest points. Mr. Ray Henning, Housing and Zoning Inspector was sworn in and testified that he was employed by the Building Department in 1978-79 but did not remember any phone call from Mr. Magit. He was not in the office all the time in 1979, but was working out in the field more. He said that such a call could have gone to one of many different offices, including across the street from the Building Department here at the Village Offices. Mr. Henning was asked why he did not cite Mr. Magit sooner, and he answered that he did never noticed the structure because it blends in so well with the house. It is not an eye sore, and is properly constructed. The color of the dog run is very compatible with the color of the house. The Commissioners asked questions of the petitioner. Mr. Magit recalled the cost of the original materials was about $150 for lumber, plus the cost of the concrete for posts and labor. It would create a hardship for the family if the run had to be removed, because they would have to walk it and he has been trained to use the run. Mr. Magit did not know how much new materials would cost, if he had to rebuild a new run. The dog would have to be walked several times a day and also at night. Mrs. Magit would have to share this responsibility. Mr. Magit would not object to planting some additional screening around the enclosures, if the variation is granted. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS August 23, 1983 - Page Two Mr. Magit had obtained permits for an Air Conditioner and gas barbeque. That is why he tried to obtain information before he built the dog run. He remembers talking to Mr. Dominic Saviano last year when he had some cement work done. The first time he saw a copy of the Fence Ordinance, was when Mr . Henning came to his house to inform him of the violation. The only portion of the ordinance that he was aware of was that there was a height requirement. Mr. Gould was asked to describe the view of the dog run from his property. He lives directly across the street on the Cul-de-sac and Photo #2 and Photo #12 are views of the run and Mr. Gould said it is a fence and is not an eyesore. Mr. Gould said he did not believe that the dog run would be a detriment to the property value of his house and lot. He has no objec- tions to the dog run. Mr. Klein was asked to describe the view of thedog run from his property. He lives in the middle of the Cul-de-sac and stated that Photo #13 depicts the view he has of the dog run. He agreed that he would not suffer loss of property value and he does not object to the location of the run. If Mr. Magit is denied the appeal and would be forced to remove the dog run, Mr. Klein said that the dog is so large that it would frighten the small children in the area. Even if the dog was on a leash, it would have to eliminate somewhere. As it is now, there is no odor, and the Magits keep the area very clean. He feels that that the run is beneficial to the area. It is presently located in the best possible location. It was noted for the record that all persons served legal notice of this public hearing is present except the Karrs, who sent the letter - Ex. 14. It was stipulated by Levinson that all these people would agree with the two previous neighbors who stated that there is no objection to the dog run. Mrs. Klein agreed with her husband that the size of the dog would indeed intimidate any children. Even if the dog is on a leash, children would be aprehensive. She felt the dog run is needed. The possibility of the dog's death was brought up. Mr. Magit answered that his dog is very healthy and that German Shepherds live 15 - 16 yrs. If he should lose the dog, Mr. Magit said he would probably get another dog of the same breed. The matter of limiting a variation to Mr. Magit's ownership of the house was discussed. It was determined that even though variations usually run with the land, limitations could be applied. Should the new owners desire a similiar variation, they could apply for one. This stipulation plus the requirement of a natural screen would be the conditions for granting the variation. The ZBA Commissioners agreed that this was a unique situation. They believed that Mr. Magit had obtained permits previously to the dog run and had acted in good faith by calling the Village to inquire about the permit requirements. The Village has in fact, failed to issue a cita- tion for four years. Compared to the previous variation for a dog run that was denied there are distinct differences: 1 . There was no call to the Bldg. Dept. before the dog run was erected. 2. This enclosure is much lower. 3. This one is much more pleasing asthetically. 4. This one is not a solid stockade fence. 5. This lot is unique, and there is no other place to locate the run. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 23, 1983 - Page Three If the run was located in the rear yard, it would be in the front yard of the Karr residence. Another factor is that all the neighbors are present to support Mr. and Mrs. Magit. There being no further comments from the Commissioners or from the audience: Com. Stolman made the following motion: I move we grant the request of Mr. and Mrs. Nathan Magit, 821 Dannet Road for a variation of Section 15.36.040 of the Municipal Code pertaining to Fences; for the purpose of permitting a dog run at the side of the house which is located at the corner of Dannet Road and Dannet Court. This motion being ratification of the 1979 erection of the dog run. Economic Hardship having been established. The granting of this variation is based upon the fact that there was a reasonable notification to the Village pursuant to testimony given at this meeting, ,8/23/83, . indicating the Village had sufficient notice during the time since 1979 in which to cite the owner for a violation of the Fence Ordinance. The Village having had ample and sufficient time to survey the premises at the time other permits were secured by the petitioner. Unique conditions existing that support this variation: 1 . Character of the fence located in the side yard is open lattice cedar, 42" in height. 2. There is unanimous approval of the run by surrounding residents who support the petitioner. 3. There would be hardship to the Village if the dog run was eliminated, because of the size of the dog and the necessity of having to walk him. 4. The lot is unique, in that were the run located in the rear, it would be in the neighbor's front yard. 5. The dog run is not an eye sore, and there is not other feasible place to put it where it would not be injurious to the surrounding property owners, if they were to comply with the Ordinance. Further conditions of the variation: 1 . The variance does not run with the land but with the time of the present petitioner's ownership of the property. 2. The petitioner agrees to screen the dog run appropriately with live vegetation. Com. Hefler seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Kearns, Quick, Perlman, Stolman, Hefler, Heinrich Motion Passed 6 to O. Nay - None ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 23, 1983 - Page Four Findings of Fact attached. The minutes, motion, Findings of Fact, and the transcript submitted by the court reporter will be recorded with the Deed at the Lake County, IL Recorder's Office by the petitioner. Com. Stolman asked that the record show that he is in favor of the motion, but not with the condition requiring the dog run to be torn down when the property is sold. Ch. Heinrich informed the petitioner and his attorney, that the Ordinance requires 15 days waiting period before a permit will be issued. During this time, any resident of Buffalo Grove can file an appeal of the findings of the ZBA to the Village Board. The variation cannot be recorded before Sept. 8, 1983. Also, further action could be taken through the circuit court if the party who appeals is not satisfied with the action taken by the Village Board of Trustees. The tape made by the secretary at this meeting will be kept and will be available. B. Burger King - 1515 W. Dundee Road Section 14.20.030 and Section 14.20.070 - Sign Code Addition of Drive Thru to Pylon Sign Mr. Christopher Carson and Mr. Stewart Shane of A. M. Carson, Ltd. (Signs) Mr. Sheldon Friedman, The owner of Burger King at 1515 W. Dundee Road, BG The Public Hearing Notice was read and the representatives were sworn in. Mr. Shane presented drawings and photographs showing the proposed addition and the existing sign. The existing sign is 8' x 8' on a 16 ft. pole. The new sign being requested will be 10' x 10' on a 20 ft. pole and the addition will be 2' x 10' placed under the Burger King portion of the sign. The total square footage of the sign would then be 120 sq. ft. A second request is to move the sign from its present location approximately 5 feet East. It is now situated on an island in the parking lot, but will be set in a concrete base if moved. It is necessary to move the sign because of the larger size and height. Ch. Heinrich asked if Burger King makes a "Drive Thru" appendage that will fit the 8 foot sign, and would it be permissible to use it. Mr. Friedman said yes to both, but he feels the larger sign is needed in order for the appendage to be seen from Dundee Road. Also, if the sign is not higher, it could be vandalized. The newer signs are made of abetter type of material that will not crack. The existing sign has small holes in it. Ch. Heinrich said that the larger sign almost doubles the square footage of the sign and the signage at Plaza Verde has been kept to a minimum. He would understand the addition of "Drive Thru" and possibly moving the sign, but he objects to increasing the size. He would consider increasing the height of the sign to avoid it being damaged, but he would not want;to..see the height 20 ft. A larger sign would be detrimental to Plaza Verde. Mr. Friedman described the Golden Bear sign, size and height. This sign was up before the Sign Code was adopted, but should a change ever be re- quested, the sign would have to be brought into conformance with the Code. Other signs along Dundee Road are higher and larger, but they are not in Buffalo Grove. Mr. Friedman explained that when he bought the Burger King franchise in Oct. 1982, the Drive-Thru was under construction and the signage was a part of the Village approvals. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS August 23, 1983 - Page Five Ch. Heinrich said that Plaza Verde is a well publicized shopping center and people know that Burger King is there. He would not want to see any signage increased in height because the other sign owners would also ask to have the height of their signs increased. Mr. Friedman said that signage is important to his business because the decision to stop in is often a last minute decision because of the signage. As it is, the sign is not visable because of trees on Dundee Road. He indicated that sales are not down, and are in fact above the average. The Drive-Thru has not had above average sales and that is because there is no sign out front. Com. Hefler pointed out that the Burger King sign already has one variation distance to the next sign and the set back. Mr. Henning indicated that a variance is needed to add onto the sign and . because it is located only 3% feet from the property line. The set back re- quirement is 10 feet. Mr. Henning added that he had driven back and forth on Dundee Road several times. The sign is quite visable going West, but it is hidden by trees going East. However, the addition 4 feet height would not make any difference. In the winter, when the trees lose their leaves, the sign would be seen from both directions. Mr. Friedman indicated that he has a. letter from Mr. Balling, dated 3/7/83 stating that the Village Board agrees with the Appearance Commission recom- mendations to approve the Drive Thru and the sign. He questioned the need for a variation if the 8 foot size Drive Thru is added to the existing sign. Mr. Skelton said he would agree that the Village Board could not approve a recommendation from the Appearance Commission if a variation is needed. The Village Board could have agreed with the AC that the signage is appro- priate. be Ch. Heinrich said a variation would/granted to avoid any later problems. He asked for comments from the other Commissioners. Com. Quick said he concurred with Ch. Heinrich's remarks and would approve an 8 ft. addition. Com. Perlman also agreed and added that if a height variation is granted, others would request higher signs as the trees mature. Com. Hefler repeated his statement that the sign exists with a variation. Any change to the sign also changes the legal status, and all the legal functions must be repeated. He would approve the 8 ft. addition. Com. Stolman agreed and would approve the 8 ft. addition. Com. Kearns also agreed. Mr. Friedman said that based upon the Commissioner's feelings, he would not pursue the request for a change of location or the higher sign. Com. Hefler made the following motion: I move we permit a variation for the addition of "Drive Thru" to the Burger King sign at its present location. Size to be 11 8" x 8 '' on the 16 ft. pole. Com. Stolman seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Kearns, Quick, Perlman, Stolman, Hefler & Heinrich Motion Passed 6 to 0. Findings of Fact Attached. Nay - None ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS August 23, 1983 - Page Six C. 430 Weidner Road - Jerry D. and Joanne E. Meyerhoff Article X, Section 6.3-A; pertaining to Corner Lot Set Back. The Public Hearing Notice was read and the Meyerhoffs were sworn in. Mr. Meyerhoff summarized the reasons for their request. He indicated that they would like finish the family room conversion at their house. They obtained a permit from the Building Department but during construc- tion work was stopped and they were notified that they were in violation. Mr. Henning verified the fact, a permit was issued and the zoning was approved based upon the Plat of Survey that was so marked to indicate a 25 ft.front yard setback was necessary. Unfortunately, this copy of the survey did not get back to the builder. After the work was begun, it was brought to the attention of the Bldg. Dept. that the distance looked short Mr. Henning was asked to measure the distance between the building and the property line. The problem occured because the con- tractor was measuring from the opposite side of the sidewalk. There was an error in interpretation. The contractor, Mr. Thomas. Lynch of Lynch Construction, P.O. Box 291 , Mt. Prospect, was present and was sworn in. He testified that he was . aware of the 25 ft. set back requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. When he pulled the permit he was told by the homeowner and the plat of sur- vey that he worked from showed the corner of the property was within 30+ feet. Two plans were submitted with two plats to the Building Department showing the work that was planned. In three weeks they were granted a permit and started. After the concrete was in, and the garage was up ready for the siding when the work was stopped by Mr. Henning. The Building Dept. apparently never received a copy of the survey that was submitted with the permit application showing a 25' . set back. The building will encroach approximately 4 ft.:+ some. inches. Mr. Meyerhoff indicated that a new survey has been done and it is not quite correct either because the house is off-set. The surveyor could not locate the lot line exactly. Mrs. Meyerhoff added that the closest house is about 75' to 100' feet away and since none of the neighbors are present to object . or see the addition as an eyesore, a variation is. requested. It would cost over $7000 to remove the garage. This would be a great financial hardship. The garage was designed to give more light to the entranceway and produce a less boring look from the Regent side. They never had any intention of violating any Village Ordinances. Ch. Heinrich said this was another unique situation. The ZBA can allow up to 1/3 variance to the side yard requirement. He would approve, based upon the fact that the original plat was not accurate. Two residents adjacent to the property were present and had no objections: Mr. Bob Neal at 445 Regent, and A. Schulman at 418 Weidner Road. Also present: Polarmo at 447 Weidner and Geiger at 457 Weidner Road. A petition was submitted signed by all surrounding property owners. Com. Hefler made the following motion: I move we grant the petition of Mr. and Mrs. Jerry D. Meyerhoff, 430 Weidner Road for a variation of Article X, Section 6.3-A. A variation of 5 feet side yard set back for the purpose of constructing a garage. cont'd ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS August 23, 1983 - Page Seven Meyerhoff motion continued: 1 . Financial hardship having been established. 2. Unique condition for variance was caused by ambivolence and improper information on the official plat of survey used when the application was filed by the Meyerhoffs, a permit was granted based on this plat of survey dated May 22, 1968 Com. Kearns seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Quick Perlman Stolman Hefler Kearns Heinrich Nay - None Motion Passed 6 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. The construction may be resumed in 15 days. Ch. Heinrich suggested that a new survey should be made. Bench marks can be located. D. 1009 Beechwood Road - Mr. T. E. Sashko Article X, Section 6.4-A; pertaining to Rear Yard Requirements The Public Hearing Notice was read and Mr. Sashko was sworn in. He summarized his request for a variation of the rear yard limitations for the purpose of screening in a portion of his patio complex that is attached to his house. Com. Quick said he had been to see the property and described the series of decks that occupy most of the rear yard, and is high quality construction. Mr. Sashko described the proposed porch. It will enclose only the upper level , making a 14 foot screened area with a 4 foot open porch. It would be entered through a screen door off of the 6 ft. 4" area shown on the plat. There would not be direct access from the house. He further des- cribed the construction. The property directly behind 1009 Beechwood is the Buffalo Grove High School driving instruction area. The neighbors on each side could see the proposed porch, but they do not object. Ch. Heinrich said other similiar requests have been granted and referred to the hardships listed in Mr. Sashko's letter of August 15, 1983 as sufficient to warrant a variation. In order to meet the requirements of the Code, the size had to be reduced from 18 ft. to 14 ft. leaving a 4 ft. open porch and a Rear Yard of 21 ft.- 2% i n. A variation of 9 feet may be granted. Com. Quick made the following motion: I move we grant the request of Mr. T. E. Sashko, 1009 Beechwood Road for a variation of Art. X, Sec. 6.4-A for the purpose of enclosing a deck. Variation being approximately 9 feet. Hardship having been demonstrated. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS August 23, 1983 - Page Eight Com. Kearns seconded the motion. (Sashko - 1009 Beechwood Rd. ) Roll Call Vote: Aye - Perlman Stolman Hefler Kearns Quick Heinrich Nay - None Motion Passed 6 to O. Findings of Fact Attached. A permit will be issued in 15 days. V. ANNOUNCEMENTS Com. Quick made reference to the late start of the meeting and suggested that the Secretary resume calling the Commissioners to determine if they are coming. It is unfair to petitioners and residents to be inconvenienced. Ch. Heinrich said he would talk to Mr. Frank Hruby concerning the matter. He also said that Com. Fern Manzo had called to tell him she would have to resign. A new Commissioner will be sought immediately. The ZBA was satisfied with the response to the inquiry made of Wheeling regarding the Tahoe Village garbage removal . Mr. Balling should be thanked. It was noted that the Village Board did not uphold the Zoning Board of Appeals request that the power to vary Special Uses be returned to the ZBA. The item was taken off the Agenda. Mr. John Marienthal did speak on behalf of the request. He did vote in favor to changing the Zoning Ordinance. A Public Hearing must be scheduled and Ch. Heinrich will attend. It was noted that as the Village grows, more and more special use requests will be made, and the work loads will change. It would better to foresee this and make provision. Other Villages have given the Zoning Board this function. It was noted that Barry's has many beer signs. It was noted that a special liquor license allowing the sale of single cans of beer to be sold from the carry out. A liquor authority would be a good board to have to review A recommendation was made to tighten the Sign Ordinance. VI. ADJOURNMENT Com. Perlman made a motion to adjourn. Com. Kearns seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Shirley Bate , Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals sb ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS August 23, 1983 - Page Nine