2012-04-04 - Plan Commission - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑ Plan Commission
Document Type: ❑A e
g nda 0 Minutes
Meeting ate: 04/04/2012
Type of Meeting:
PUBLIC HEARING
BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION
April 4, 2012
Variation of Section 16.50.080.A.2.b of the Village Development Ordinance
Concerning the width of a driveway apron in the public parkway
528 Buckthorn Terrace
Chairman Smith called the hearing to order at 7:30 pm in the Village Council Chambers, Buffalo
Grove Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Chairman Smith read the
Notice of Public Hearing as published in the Buffalo Grove Daily Herald, explained the
procedure to be followed for the public hearing, and swore in all persons who wished to give
testimony.
Commissioners present: Chairman Smith
Ms. Bocek
Mr. Khan
Mr. Stark
Mr. Cohn
Ms. Myer
Mr. Weinstein
Ms. Johnson
Commissioner absent: None
Also present: Mr. Randy Poznansky
Ms. Beverly Sussman, Village Trustee
Mr. Andy Stein, Village Trustee
Mr. Mike Terson, Village Trustee
Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney
Mr. William Kuenkler, Village Engineer
Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner
The following exhibits were presented by the petitioner at the public hearing:
Exhibit 1: Memo from Mr. Pfeil to the Plan Commission dated March 29, 2012 containing
photos 1 through 5 of existing pavers showing the match up with the curb
poured by the Village
Exhibit 2: Packet of letters from neighbors adjacent to this home and across the street
noting acceptance of the apron as constructed
Exhibit 3: Anonymous letter dated March 29, 2012 sent to the Village
Exhibit 4: Photo of driveway
Exhibit 5: Aerial Photo of with driveway apron measurements
Exhibit 6: Photo noting shadow of adjacent mailbox area and west side paver area
Mr. Poznansky stated he lives at 528 Buckthorn Terrace and has lived there for 25 years. He
stated the problem with this apron began in 2011 when the Village replaced the curb and street
in front of their home. Once the curb was poured they noticed there was an increased curb
height of about 1 % inches along the west side of their apron and the parkway. This difference
was high enough to create an area for rain water to pool and not drain off the apron or
parkway into the street. It also created a tripping hazard between the parkway area and the
mailbox.
Mr. Poznansky stated that following seven months of discussions with the Village and early in
December, 2011 the Village finally helped them correct the problem in the apron area caused
by the higher curb. During the replacement planning process they found out that the 26% foot
apron width could not be maintained and would have to be reduced to Village code of 21 feet.
He noted they did not want to deal with the ice build up during the winter and there was not
sufficient time to go through a multi-month variance process and therefore they accepted the
reduced width design in order to get the apron as well as the replacement of the driveway
poured while the weather was still warm enough to do it.
Mr. Poznansky noted the concrete was poured in December of 2011 and soon after that they
found the driveway had an unfinished look and the location of their garbage cans were
becoming problematic for easy egress to the street. Therefore in January of 2012 they lined the
apron with decorative pavers with an approximate 3 foot wide paver platform on the east and
west side of the apron. This dressed up an awkward looking apron and also allows a safer place
for them to position their garbage cans. During the installation process they were advised by
the Village inspector that regardless of the intent of the pavers they would be considered a
driveway and apron expansion. Mr. Poznansky stated that in a desire to comply with as many
Village guidelines as possible while the inspector was there they made many costly changes to
reduce the width at the sidewalk for both the driveway and apron to be within Village
standards.
Understanding that there was no consistency in the neighborhood to be within the 21 foot
width requirement it seemed reasonable from an appearance standpoint to match the existing
curb opening that the Village poured eight months earlier in May, 2011. Therefore they cut
back and removed a significant portion of the pavers lining up with the curb opening. None of
this work was done with the intent to circumvent any permits or Village codes but rather to
beautify the front yard and allow them a safer place for their garbage cans.
Mr. Poznansky stated the work was done during the middle of the week in daylight and at times
that made it clearly visible to many of the Village vehicles that often travel the street. It was
also during a time period when they knew the Village would be returning to evaluate the
sidewalk segments that were also recently replaced in front of their home.
Mr. Poznansky requested they be allowed to keep the apron as constructed which matches the
width of the original apron that existed at the end of the driveway for the past 30 years. It
creates a familiar and safer place for their garbage cans and makes the entrance to their drive
have an improved look and they request approval of this variance.
Commissioner Cohn asked if the new curb cut that was poured was wider than 21 feet.
Mr. Poznansky stated yes, it was 26% feet.
Commissioner Cohn noted that they cut a 26 foot curb cut and they paved to a 21 foot curb cut.
He asked what if they just left the other 5 feet as dirt.
Mr. Poznansky stated yes.
Commissioner Cohn asked the petitioner to describe what the 5 feet of unpaved and
undeveloped portion was like.
Mr. Poznansky stated it was just dirt and he could not put any sod or grass in because it was
December. To try to fit in the 25 foot width made the opening look strange.
Commissioner Cohn asked if the petitioner knew why the Village did not do a 21 foot curb cut.
Mr. Poznansky stated that at the time when the street was replaced that was the width of his
apron. He noted he did not have a problem with his apron until the new curb was poured and
the height difference was noticeable. He certain would not have been replacing the apron
unless the curb was a problem. He understood as he had been told that he could only have 21
feet and when he put the pavers in he had no clue that it would be a driveway or apron
expansion. He just did it to beautify the apron.
Commissioner Stark asked what was there before the pavers.
Mr. Poznansky stated dirt.
Commissioner Stark noted that therefore on either side of the apron there was just dirt and
grass.
Mr. Poznansky stated before the new apron was put in there was grass or sod on either side
and it looked good.
Commissioner Khan asked Mr. Kuenkler if the curb on both sides of the street was 100 percent
replaced or if replacement was only where needed.
Mr. Kuenkler stated it was 100 percent.
Commissioner Khan noted that therefore the entire width of the petitioner's curb was
depressed for his apron.
Mr. Kuenkler stated that was correct.
Commissioner Khan stated it seems to him that the curb that was repoured after removing the
existing one matched with the width of the old apron.
Mr. Poznansky stated that was correct.
Commissioner Khan noted that when the petitioner got the permit from the Village which said
he could not have a 26 foot wide apron at the curb and it would have to be cut back to 21 feet
there was a longer depressed curb on either side of the apron which seemed odd.
Mr. Poznansky stated it was very odd.
Commissioner Khan noted that typically when the Village does that and the apron is now 21
feet instead of 26 feet it is the Village's responsibility because the parkway is their land. They
would have come back and have made the repairs to the apron and would have put either seed
or sod instead of leaving the parkway in such a condition. So while you are claiming that it
looked very odd perhaps it was just a matter of time until the Village would have repaired the
parkway.
Mr. Poznansky stated he assumed that it would be himself that would end up resodding that
and was not expecting the Village to do the work. To him it looked very odd the way the
driveway was laid out and they were trying to dress it up with these pavers along the apron and
driveway with the intent to have a more reasonable flow and to have a place for their garbage
cans.
Commissioner Khan asked why the petitioner did not make another attempt to go back to
Village staff and show and discuss with them as to what should be done. He asked why the
petitioner took it upon himself to put the apron back to 26 feet.
Mr. Poznansky stated that if he had thought what he was doing was wrong he would definitely
have done that. He stated staff is wonderful to work with but he really did not think he was
doing anything wrong.
Commissioner Khan stated it seems to him that when staff members met on site and explained
what the Village code required and he agreed and signed and then picked up the permit to
build the apron per Village code he then took it upon himself to put the pavers back.
Mr. Poznansky stated there were no pavers there to begin with. I honestly did not view the
pavers as a driveway but as a decorative finish to the driveway and apron itself. The pavers
actually extended past the curb opening when he first put them in. If he was looking for
trouble he certainly would not have gone beyond the 26% foot original width. He had another
three feet on either side of the apron just for a decorative look. But then staff came by and
stated it was a problem and while he was there he had the landscapers start cutting up all the
pavers near the sidewalk for both the driveway and apron and then at the curb level to try to
bring to code at the sidewalk but bring it within what he thought was reasonable at the apron
level knowing that he would probably have to come forth and ask for a variance.
Commissioner Khan stated he would prefer to have more grassy area than a hard surface. He
noted his dilemma centers on where the Village starts to apply the Village ordinance as there
will always be some that will fall outside of the code. The Village had a cut off date noting that
anything prior to this date is a legal non-conforming driveway but going forward from that date
everyone applying for driveway or apron permits must meet the Village ordinance.
Mr. Poznansky stated he understood that but their intent was not to circumvent the code at the
time. It was just to beautify and make apron area more functional so they had a place for
garbage cans and it looked reasonable. Had they left it the way it was people pulling into the
driveway would probably be following the opening in the curb and they would be driving over
the grass all the time. We just wanted to make it look reasonable. The apron drawing has a
sort of opposite flow to the way you would normally drive into the driveway. He noted they
made an attempt to bring it back as close to code as possible. They did not want to rip it all out
and felt if they could just leave it to the existing opening in the curb that was there it would not
be offensive to anyone and that is why he is here tonight.
Commissioner Bocek noted that the Village is not questioning the pavers that are on each side
of the actual driveway and asked if the only question is with regards to the apron width.
Mr. Pfeil stated that is correct. It is a Development Ordinance variation for the portion that is in
the public parkway.
Commissioner Bocek then noted that the actual driveway is in conformance even with the
pavers.
Mr. Pfeil stated that is correct. He noted that the driveway expansion was done pursuant to
the permit issued by the Village. The improvement complies with the applicable zoning
regulations that pertain to the private property side of the sidewalk.
Commissioner Bocek stated it looks to her that the 21 feet dimension is actually larger than the
23 feet 9 inches. She asked if that is just a distortion on the photo or did someone actually
measure this.
Mr. Pfeil stated that staff from the Building and Zoning department did field measurements, so
the numbers are correct, although the photo drawing might be somewhat visually misleading in
terms of how wide the apron appears.
Mr. Poznansky stated it is actually wider at the sidewalk which is allowable.
Commissioner Bocek asked what does the Village tell the next twenty people should this
approval be granted?
Mr. Poznansky noted there was another person some time ago who received approval and he is
not sure of what the board said in approval of that one. He would hope they would say the
same thing in support of what he is trying to do here. He just tries to have his property looking
good for the neighborhood and that was his intent.
Commissioner Bocek asked where do you draw the line? The ordinance was changed because
people have more cars and kids with cars and she is not buying the fact that a bigger driver is
needed here just for the garbage cans.
Mr. Poznansky noted once again that it was just a change look to it and did not seem finished.
Commissioner Johnson stated her question was regarding the safety and she is trying to
understand the timeline. As she understands it the Village came in and repaired the street and
put in a new curb with the old apron which was wider. Then the petitioner went in and put in a
new apron which was narrower. Who is responsible then if you put in a narrower apron to
have the curb match the new apron that is within code? Should the homeowner do that when
they are putting in a new apron or does the Village go back and repair it as part of public works
and correct safety issues?
Mr. Poznansky reviewed a photo showing the height difference between the new curb and the
old apron which is 26% feet wide. This is what started the whole chain of events to occur. You
can see how the water is building up and they were concerned about what would happen in the
winter when all that water would turn into ice. That is when they went to the Village and the
Village elected to assist them to replace the apron. They paid for part of it and he paid for part
of it. Throughout the entire neighborhood and other streets the curb entrances were very
smooth. At our home it was not correctly and he had a choice to either live with it or try to
correct. He opted to correct because it would have been a problem during the winter. He
noted in the photo how much higher the curb is in the parkway area where the water was
building up as well. There is about a 1 % inch difference between the level of the curb and the
apron. He stated his asphalt driveway was not perfect and did not need to be replaced
immediately although it was coming to that so he thought he would do the driveway as long as
he was getting this new apron. During the planning stage of the new driveway he was told he
could not have the 26% feet but 21 feet instead.
Commissioner Johnson asked why the curb cuts were not corrected at the same time since he
was working with the Village.
Mr. Poznansky stated they just matched the curbs with the new apron. The curbs stayed the
same.
Commissioner Johnson then asked where the safety issue was.
Mr. Poznansky noted the mailbox is just to the left and every time you walk to the mailbox it is
a tripping point.
Commissioner Johnson noted that had been corrected.
Mr. Poznansky said yes.
Commissioner Johnson noted that if the petitioner had just put seed or sod in where the old
apron was there would be no tripping issue.
Mr. Poznansky stated there was not a safety issue as far as tripping after the new apron was
poured. The only problem was about 2% feet of the space being looked at was not driveway
any more and that is typically where they put their garbage cans and that space was gone so
driving out the cans were in the way. Also the apron did not look good to them afterwards nor
did the rest of the driveway so they put in the decorative pavers along either side and along the
driveway.
Commissioner Johnson asked if seed or sod would not have made it look good.
Mr. Poznansky stated it would have helped but it still did not look right to them. If they thought
it would look good they would not have invested all the money they did in putting the pavers
in.
Commissioner Johnson noted she has a recently expanded driveway and went through the
process with the Village and they have the standard 21 foot driveway and lots of garbage cans
and they still manage to back out around them without an issue so she is not sure she
completely agrees about the garbage cans.
Mr. Poznansky stated it was one of the things they experienced going from their 26% feet
down to the 21 feet.
Commissioner Cohn asked the petitioner if anyone from the Village stated that when the
project was finished they would come back and put in 5 more feet of curb and resod the
parkway.
Mr. Poznansky stated no.
Commissioner Cohn asked staff why no one offered that to the petitioner.
Mr. Kuenkler stated they would not do that.
Commissioner Cohn then noted the Village was telling the petitioner that he needed to put in a
21 foot wide apron but 5 feet of curb gap would be left and that was just the way it was going
to be.
Mr. Kuenkler stated they have never done it.
Commissioner Cohn asked if there are driveways right now in the Village where there is
depressed curb that is wider than the width of the apron.
Mr. Kuenkler stated yes and it is normal when someone replaces their driveway to bring it
within code.
Commissioner Cohn asked if it is a good policy for the Village to leave an unfinished looking
curb cut and parkway after driveways are restored to 21 feet in these kinds of situations or
would a better policy be for the Village to come and re-landscape the parkways to make it
conform as it should.
Commissioner Cohn noted he does not understand why you would cut a curb 26 feet and then
tell someone to pave the driveway 21 feet and then not offer to restore the parkway that is
owned by the Village. It just does not make sense and he is very sympathetic to the petitioner
who was basically cleaning up the mess that the Village would not repair. He asked if a
homeowner could hire a cement contractor to put in curb.
Mr. Kuenkler stated you could, but it would probably not be a good idea as it would disturb the
street pavement and produce more headaches.
Commissioner Khan noted the Village came first and did the repairs of the curb and the street
and then when there was lip between the back of the curb and the apron that was holding back
the water the petitioner decided to replace the whole apron. The Village would not have left
that apron with a 1 % lip. They would have cut back part of the apron and repoured the apron
so that it matched with the back of the curb. However, the petitioner initiated a request or
discussion to cut a deal with the Village to do this project and get a whole new apron.
Mr. Poznansky stated it was a big uphill 7 month long problem to get this problem corrected. It
was his decision to replace the driveway as he thought since there was a construction guy
already out there who was going to be pouring concrete so he might as well replace it since it
would be needed soon enough. At the same time there were some problems with the sidewalk
which the Village allowed the contractor to repair while he was there. That is how things
started.
Commissioner Khan noted that if the petitioner had not got involved with the total replacement
of the apron the Village would have done the project including the restoration. What
happened here the Village had negotiated a deal with the petitioner to contribute some money
toward the replacement of the apron and at that point the Village project was over and the
petitioner's project began. So anything that was done after that negotiation ended was the
petitioner's project and the Village presumed they were done with the project. Had he not
done a total replacement of the apron the Village would have cut back part of the apron,
matched it with the back of the curb and had the restoration done on both sides. This is his
understanding.
Chairman Smith stated there were some assumptions that he would like to get confirmation
about from the Village. Is what Commissioner Khan said true?
Mr. Kuenkler stated he was never involved entirely. The street project is his but what
transpired over seven months he was not involved with until the driveway permit. He may
have heard some talk about this deal but not many details.
Chairman Smith asked if the Village would have come in and redone or finished up some of the
issues being spoken about before the petitioner had gone ahead.
Mr. Kuenkler noted that part of the thing complicating the issues here is that the driveway had
been settling for a long time. It was not flush with the curb that was built in the street
improvement project. There was some discussion about why they could not match it. The
petitioner is correct that on some properties in the subdivision the curb and apron are at the
same level. He stated he is not sure you could have taken a piece of that driveway out because
it is very flat from the sidewalk to the curb.
Commissioner Stark asked the petitioner if he had to move the mailbox.
Mr. Poznansky stated no.
Mr. Raysa noted the photo was number one and was included in Mr. Pfeil's packet and is
labeled as the west side view of the pavers.
Commissioner Stark asked what the hardship is here that requires asking for a variance.
Mr. Poznansky stated the hardship would be a cost standpoint to remove the pavers and to
deal with less clearance than what they have had for 25 years.
Commissioner Johnson asked what the purpose of having a curb is about if we do not need to
have it in some instances or do not bother to replace it in some instances then is it for safety or
to keep your seed and grass in. You stated she can see how the petitioner might feel that it is
not safe as a car could drive right up without a curb to stop the car and it might be difficult to
grow grass there as it would wash out into the streets. It seems as if all the rules are being
followed but the rules are not working together. She stated she does not know why the
Village cannot put that five feet of curb back in if they are going to require the smaller
driveway.
Mr. Kuenkler noted that it would just disturb the brand new pavement.
Commissioner Bocek asked the petitioner if he contracted for both the apron and the driveway
and did he pay for both?
Mr. Poznansky stated he paid for all of the driveway and about 50 percent of the apron.
Commissioner Cohn what happens when a street is being repaved and you come across a
non-conforming driveway what is done with the curb cut. Is the curb cut put back in with the
width of the non-conforming driveway or is the person notified and asked what he is going to
do about it.
Mr. Kuenkler stated that what happens often is they match the aprons and do not put the full
curb and the depressions are created indirectly by matching the driveways that have largely
settled. When you go through the subdivision some are matching extremely well, some will
have the full roll curb and some will have a depressed curb and some are somewhere in
between.
Commissioner Cohn noted that if someone was in the process of re-evaluating their driveway at
the same time that the Village was repaving the street, it seem as if that would be a situation
where they should be in sync because the person putting in a new driveway should be wanting
a 21 foot cut and the Village would be repaving the street with a 21 foot cut. But if someone
has a driveway that is 26 feet wide that they will fix later and the Village puts in a 26 foot cut
and then leaves the driveway in a condition where the homeowner feels it is necessary to fix
their driveway because it does not look right now, they are stuck because they will be left with
this five foot curb cut that is really inappropriate and there is no good remedy for that.
Mr. Poznansky stated he would not have replaced his apron if he did not have this problem that
was created. He would have replaced his driveway but not his apron. He reiterated he did not
know it was going to go from 26%feet down to 21 feet until the eleventh hour.
Ms. Heidi Goetting at 422 Buckthorn Terrace stated she feels their driveway looks lovely and
given that the curb cut is wider doing something like this makes the best of the situation. She
noted she was not asked to come but volunteered to come and they should be allowed to leave
the pavers in.
There being no further comments or questions from anyone else present, Chairman Smith
closed the public hearing at 8:25 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary
APPROVED BY:
ERIC SMITH, Chair
Board or Commission: ❑ Plan Commission
Document Type: ❑A e
g nda 0 Minutes
Meeting ate: 04/04/2012
Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING
BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION
April 4, 2012
Poznansky property, 528 Buckthorn Terrace—Variation of Development Ordinance
Concerning width and taper of driveway apron in the public parkway
Chairman Smith called the meeting to order at 8:25pm in the Village Council Chambers, Buffalo
Grove Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois.
Commissioners present: Chairman Smith
Ms. Bocek
Mr. Khan
Mr. Stark
Mr. Cohn
Ms. Myer
Mr. Weinstein
Ms. Johnson
Commissioners absent: None
Also present: Mr. Randy Poznansky
Ms. Beverly Sussman, Village Trustee
Mr. Andy Stein, Village Trustee
Mr. Mike Terson, Village Trustee
Mr. William Raysa, Village Attorney
Mr. William Kuenkler, Village Engineer
Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Moved by Commissioner Bocek, seconded by Commissioner Khan to approve the minutes of
the regular meeting of January 18, 2012. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and
the motion passed unanimously with Commissioners Star, Myer and Weinstein abstaining.
Moved by Commissioner Khan, seconded by Commissioner Weinstein to approve the minutes
of the regular meeting of February 15, 2012. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion
and the motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Myer abstaining.
Moved by Commissioner Stark, seconded by Commissioner Johnson to approve the minutes of
the public hearing of February 15, 2012. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the
motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Myer abstaining.
COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS
Commissioner Stark attended the Village Board meeting on March 19, 2012 where Noodles &
Company in Plaza Verde was approved for a Class E liquor license. Also they were discussing
the revised sign code and noted they were going to re-evaluate the sign code.
Commissioner Khan attended the Village Board meeting on March 5, 2012 where the Board
approved the amendment to the PUD for the Plaza Verde East shopping center. In that
meeting Trustee Stein still had some concerns that the high school kids would be crossing the
drive through lane and felt signage alone was not sufficient and asked the Village to work with
the contractor to put some rumble strips in. At that point the Village Manager stated he will
discuss the issue with Village staff.
Commissioner Johnson attended the Village Board meeting on April 2, 2012 where two items
were approved. The traffic signal by Dominicks north of Dundee on Buffalo Grove Road and the
fagade improvements for that facility were approved and the Chase Bank drive through was
also approved. There was also a pre-application conference for the Turnberry development
which is just south of the Deerfield Bakery. There is a proposal to the Board for a lease to own
apartments to condos.
Commissioner Stark noted the Plan Commission approved the Chase Bank and the traffic light
some time ago but it just came to the Village for a vote recently and he asked if there were any
changes made.
Mr. Pfeil stated November 30 was the Plan Commission's special meeting to have the
recommendation hearing. The time lag was really more related to the infrastructure
agreement relative to how the traffic signal would be guaranteed to be built and financial
guarantees. There was a modification to the site plan that the commission talked about
relative to the area in front of the Continental Restaurant and there was a site plan that did
modify what the commission ended up with. The Commission deferred to staff to work it out
with the developer. There are now pedestrian crossings in the area and the travel lane was
pulled out a bit away from the parking spaces and there is a stripe that makes it as clear as can
be for people traveling north and south in the aisle and can understand that there may be
parked cars that may be pulling in and out of spaces. The plan was modified we think very
responsively to what the Plan Commission directed staff to do.
POZNANSKY PROPERTY, 528 BUCKTHORN TERRACE— VARIATION OF DEVELOPMENT
ORDINANCE CONCERNING WIDTH AND TAPER OF DRIVEWAY APRON IN THE PUBLIC PARKWAY
Moved by Commissioner Weinstein, seconded by Commissioner Stark to recommend approval
to the Village Board of the petition for the property at 528 Buckthorn Terrace for a variation of
Section 16.50.080.A.2.b. of the Village Development Ordinance concerning the width of a
driveway apron in the public parkway to allow the apron to remain the apron as constructed
rather than removing the portion that is currently in violation of the ordinance.
Commissioner Weinstein stated this is a struggle for him because there are the conflicting
issues of complying with the ordinance and acknowledging the circumstance that the apron
was originally constructed wider than 21 feet. The curb cut width is an issue— there was a 26
foot curb cut and now the property owner would have to reduce it to 21 feet, which is an
appearance issue for the resident. He said is leaning toward voting "no" and requiring the
apron to be brought into conformance with the current ordinance standard.
Commissioner Johnson stated that because of the way things happened and because the
property had a 26 foot apron and curb cut, she will vote in favor of the motion.
Commissioner Bocek stated that based on the information presented it seems as though the
driveway was having issues well before the Village poured this new curb. At some point you
were going to have to replace your driveway anyway and it just happed that this new curb
expedited the situation.The ordinances and codes are written for a particular reason. Typically
she is not a fan of making exceptions to that unless there is a hardship and she does not see the
hardship in this case because you could put sod there and have it look nice without having a
problem.Therefore she will not be voting in favor.
Commissioner Cohn noted this is a very sympathetic petitioner who is trying to do the right
thing and trying to make the house look nice and the Village somewhat led them down the path
that this is what you are going to be left with. The petitioner tried to make the best of the
situation the Village created when it repaired the street. We should be supporting and
encouraging people who are trying to do the right thing and working cooperatively with the
Village and this is a situation where an exception is warranted. He agrees the code is there for a
reason but believes the Village has the discretion to be sympathetic in certain factual situations
and this is one of them. He noted he had previously stated that the Village needs to figure out
how it is going to implement this going forward because it will not be the first time we have a
problem and he does not see much value in having to come together with all these people
every time we have this kind of problem to evaluate it on a case by case basis. It is not
productive and better way needs to be found.
Commissioner Stark noted the memo which states that there are many driveways which are out
of compliance and we will need to find a way to figure out something with all these driveway
issues.
Chairman Smith stated he agrees with Commissioner Cohn. This is a sympathetic petitioner and
as long as we are going case by case on these and there are reasons for this and the reasons are
creditable then we will just have to wait until the system is changed and in this case he feels the
variance is warranted so he will be voting in favor of the motion.
Chairman Smith called for a vote on the motion and the vote was as follows:
AYES: Stark, Cohn, Myer, Johnson, Smith
NAYS: Bocek, Khan, Weinstein
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion passed 5 to 3.
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT— None
FUTURE AGENDA SCHEDULE
th
Mr. Pfeil stated there is nothing ready for April 18 agenda so will probably be cancelled. May
could still be the off-track betting matter.
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS— None
STAFF REPORT
Mr. Pfeil stated he has been going to meetings of the Northwest Suburban Housing
Collaborative with Arlington Heights, Palatine, Mt. Prospect, Buffalo Grove and Rolling
Meadows who have gotten together to discuss housing issues. The origins were for
affordability issues, finding places for work force housing and things of that type. However,
with the economy and the implications for the housing market relative to foreclosures, vacant
property, and abandonment are more prominent in the discussion now. Buffalo Grove has not
had as many problems as some of the other communities but the potential is a great concern
for all the communities. The building and zoning staff do the monitoring of abandoned housing
and try to keep the neighborhood in good repair and deal with property owners and bank
owned properties.
NEW BUSINESS— None
ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Commissioner Weinstein, seconded by Commissioner Khan and carried unanimously
to adjourn. Chairman Smith adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary
APPROVED BY:
ERIC SMITH, Chair