2020-09-16 - Planning and Zoning Commission - Agenda Packet
Meeting of the Village of Buffalo Grove
Planning and Zoning Commission
Regular Meeting
September 16, 2020 at 7:30 PM
Fifty Raupp Blvd
Buffalo Grove, IL 60089-2100
Phone: 847-459-2500
I. Call to Order
2. Open Meetings Act Compliance
Pursuant to orders issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, this Public Hearing is
closed to in-person, public attendance. The hearing is being held via Zoom web
conference meeting, which permits the public to fully participate in the virtual Public
Hearing via Zoom on a computer, tablet or phone. Details on how to access and
participate in this online virtual hearing are available below. More information pertaining
to the meeting information and links to the virtual meeting can be found at:
<https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85026686050>
You are invited to a Zoom webinar.
When: Sep 16, 2020 07:30 PM Central Time (US and Canada)
Topic: PZC
Please click the link below to join the webinar:
<https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85026686050>
Or iPhone one-tap :
US: +13126266799,,85026686050# or +13017158592,,85026686050#
Or Telephone:
Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
US: +1 312 626 6799 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 929 436 2866 or +1 669 900 6833 or +1
253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799
Webinar ID: 850 2668 6050
International numbers available: <https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kcA8TIXrr4>
II. Public Hearings/Items For Consideration
1. Consider a Variation for the Proposed Sunroom Addition Which W ill Encroach into the
Rear Yard Setback at 67 W Fabish Drive. (Trustee Johnson) (Staff Contact: Nicole
Woods)
III. Regular Meeting
A. Other Matters for Discussion
1. Discuss Potential Fence Code Amendments, Which Reflect Two Types of
Variations that Have Been Consistently Sought and Approved Over the Past Five
Years. (Trustee Weidenfeld) (Staff Contact: Nicole Woods)
B. Approval of Minutes
1. Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting - Aug 19, 2020 7:30 PM
C. Chairman's Report
D. Committee and Liaison Reports
E. Staff Report/Future Agenda Schedule
F. Public Comments and Questions
IV. Adjournment
The Planning and Zoning Commission will make every effort to accommodate all items on the
agenda by 10:30 p.m. The Board, does, however, reserve the right to defer consideration of
matters to another meeting should the discussion run past 10:30 p.m.
The Village of Buffalo Grove, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, requests that
persons with disabilities, who require certain accommodations to allow them to observe and/or
participate in this meeting or have questions about the accessibility of the meeting or facilities,
contact the ADA Coordinator at 459-2525 to allow the Village to make reasonable
accommodations for those persons.
Updated: 9/11/2020 1:13 PM Page 1
Action Item : Consider a Variation for the Proposed Sunroom
Addition Which Will Encroach into the Rear Yard Setback at 67 W
Fabish Drive.
Recommendation of Action
Staff recommends approval, subject to the conditions in the attached staff report.
The Petitioner is requesting a variation for the purpose of constructing the proposed sunroom addition
which will encroach 5 feet 4 inches into the required 30 foot rear yard setback.
ATTACHMENTS:
Staff Report_67 W Fabish (DOCX)
Plan Set (PDF)
Trustee Liaison Staff Contact
Johnson Nicole Woods, Community Development
Wednesday, September 16,
2020
2.1
Packet Pg. 3
VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: September 16, 2020
SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATION: 67 W Fabish Drive
PETITIONER: Michael Constantini
PREPARED BY: Rati Akash, Village Planner
REQUEST: A variation for the proposed sunroom addition which encroaches
into the rear yard setback of the subject property.
EXSITING LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is improved with a single-family home currently
zoned R6-A.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The approved Village Comprehensive Plan calls for this property
and the immediate neighborhood to be single-family detached.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Petitioner is requesting a variation for the purpose of constructing the proposed sunroom addition
which encroaches into the rear yard setback of the subject property. The R6-A Zoning Code requires a 30’
rear yard setback, and hence a variation is required to install the sunroom addition.
PLANNING & ZONING ANALYSIS
The subject property has an existing patio in the rear yard which
will be replaced by the sunroom addition.
The proposed sunroom addition will be located in the rear yard
of the subject property as shown in Image A.
This proposed sunroom addition measures 15’ in length and 12’-
6” in width, with an approximate total area of 187.5 square feet.
This expanded sunroom addition will encroach 5’-4” into the
required 30’ rear yard setback.
The proposed sunroom addition will be located approximately
24’-8” from the rear property line.
This proposed sunroom opens out into a proposed patio to the
west. This proposed patio meets Code.
Image A
2.1.a
Packet Pg. 4
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
_
6
7
W
F
a
b
i
s
h
(
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
S
u
n
r
o
o
m
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
W
h
i
c
h
W
i
l
l
E
n
c
r
o
a
c
h
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
a
r
Y
a
r
d
The Planning and Zoning Commission is allowed to grant sunroom additions which encroach up to
33% into the rear yard setback. In this case, the proposed sunroom rear yard encroachment of 5’-4”
constitutes 18% of the required 30’ rear yard setback and meets the requirement.
Variations requested
A rear yard variation from Section 17.40.020 from the Buffalo Grove Zoning Code to allow the
encroachment of a sunroom addition.
The following is a recently approved setback variations for corner side yard fences:
Address Sunroom addition
encroachment
Percentage encroachment
425 Mayfair 13’-4” 33%
860 Holly Stone Lane 10’ 33%
958 Parker Lane 5’-6” 17%
2324 Acorn Place 12’ 30%
DEPARTMENTAL REVIEWS
Village Department Comments
Engineering The Village Engineer has reviewed the proposed sunroom addition, and
does not have any engineering concerns with the location of the
proposed sunroom.
SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS
Pursuant to Village Code, the contiguous property owners were notified and a public hearing sign was
posted on the subject property. The posting of the public hearing sign and the mailed notifications were
completed within the prescribed timeframe as required. As of the date of this Staff Report, the Village has
received one call inquiring about the proposed fence variation, however no objections were expressed.
STANDARDS
The Planning & Zoning Commission is authorized to grant variations of the Fence Code based on the
following criteria:
1. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances;
2. The proposed variation will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood;
3. The proposed variation will not be detrimental to the public health safety and welfare.
The petitioner has provided a written response to the standards for a variation which are included in
this packet.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Village staff recommends approval for the purpose of constructing a sunroom addition that would
encroach 5’-4” into the rear yard setback:
1) The proposed sunroom addition shall be installed in accordance with the documents and plans
submitted as part of this petition.
2.1.a
Packet Pg. 5
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
_
6
7
W
F
a
b
i
s
h
(
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
S
u
n
r
o
o
m
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
W
h
i
c
h
W
i
l
l
E
n
c
r
o
a
c
h
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
a
r
Y
a
r
d
ACTION REQUESTED
The Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) shall open the public hearing and take public testimony
concerning the variation. The PZC shall make a final decision on whether or not to approve the variation.
Suggested PZC Motion
PZC moves to grant a variation to Section 17.40 of the Buffalo Grove Zoning Code to allow for a proposed
sunroom addition in the rear yard which encroaches 5’-4” into the required rear yard setback on the subject
property. The sunroom shall be constructed in accordance with the documents and plans submitted as part
of this petition.
2.1.a
Packet Pg. 6
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
_
6
7
W
F
a
b
i
s
h
(
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
S
u
n
r
o
o
m
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
W
h
i
c
h
W
i
l
l
E
n
c
r
o
a
c
h
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
a
r
Y
a
r
d
Michael and Robyn Costantini
67 West Fabish Drive
Buffalo Grove IL 60089
Variance letter request:
To the Village of Buffalo Grove:
We are planning to build an addition to our home. Because of the required rear yard setback this
cannot be accomplished. We have hired an architect and we believe our plans will be a beautifull
addition to our home and our neighborhood.
Please grant our variance to title 17.40.020 B.
Thank you,
Mike and Robyn Costantini
July 31, 2020
List of neighbors:
Jeri Laureano
71 W. Fabish Drive
Laura Kushner Gammons
63 W. Fabish Drive.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 7
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
l
a
n
S
e
t
(
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
S
u
n
r
o
o
m
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
W
h
i
c
h
W
i
l
l
E
n
c
r
o
a
c
h
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
a
r
Y
a
r
d
S
e
t
b
a
c
)
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 8
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
l
a
n
S
e
t
(
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
S
u
n
r
o
o
m
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
W
h
i
c
h
W
i
l
l
E
n
c
r
o
a
c
h
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
a
r
Y
a
r
d
S
e
t
b
a
c
)
Response to Standards: Costantini-67 W. Fabish Drive. September 4, 2020
1. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances;
Your Evidentiary Statement: Our unique circumstances are that Robyn Costantini is
disabled due to Major Neurocognitive Disorder DSM5 with a compromised immune
system. One of the consequences of this disability is that she has frequent bouts of
imbalance walking and vertigo and is a fall risk. Our current deck has a step down and
then a step up and Robyn needs assistance to perform this movement. The addition will
have a flat floor with the same elevation as our family room. If and when we need
wheelchair access the addition will be easy to access. Robyn also is allergic to bees and
bug bites; having such an addition will allow her to enjoy the outdoors without any
reaction issues.
2. The proposed variation will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood;
Your Evidentiary Statement: The addition will be structurally smaller than our current
deck and canopy and therefore visually there should be no change. Anecdotally, our
back yard gets daily compliments from our neighbors and the addition will not alter
that. The architect has tastefully created a design that blends beautifully with our home
that was built in 1985.
3. There are practical difficulties or particular hardships in carrying out the strict letter of
this Chapter which difficulties or hardships have not been created by the person
presently having an interest in the property; and,
Your Evidentiary Statement: The current permit only allows for a few feet of addition
beyond our current floor plan. We are 58 and 55 years old and plan on retiring in this
current home. With both our parents in their 80s, our home has become the central
meeting point of our families and children. We need more space than our current
home allows and this addition will help tremendously. It is these issues along with
Robyn’s disability that has given us the incentive to build the addition.
4. The proposed variation will not be detrimental to the public health safety and welfare.
Your Evidentiary Statement: This addition will not negatively affect public safety nor
welfare. It will enhance safety by having a floor level with our family room; this will
reduce the fall risk inherent to Robyn’s disability.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 9
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
l
a
n
S
e
t
(
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
S
u
n
r
o
o
m
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
W
h
i
c
h
W
i
l
l
E
n
c
r
o
a
c
h
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
a
r
Y
a
r
d
S
e
t
b
a
c
)
Proposed Sunroom Addition
Rear Yard Setback 30’
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 10
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
l
a
n
S
e
t
(
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
S
u
n
r
o
o
m
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
W
h
i
c
h
W
i
l
l
E
n
c
r
o
a
c
h
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
a
r
Y
a
r
d
S
e
t
b
a
c
)
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 11
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
l
a
n
S
e
t
(
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
S
u
n
r
o
o
m
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 12
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
l
a
n
S
e
t
(
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
S
u
n
r
o
o
m
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
W
h
i
c
h
W
i
l
l
E
n
c
r
o
a
c
h
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
a
r
Y
a
r
d
S
e
t
b
a
c
)
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 13
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
l
a
n
S
e
t
(
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
S
u
n
r
o
o
m
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
W
h
i
c
h
W
i
l
l
E
n
c
r
o
a
c
h
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
a
r
Y
a
r
d
S
e
t
b
a
c
)
Updated: 9/11/2020 1:34 PM Page 1
Action Item : Discuss Potential Fence Code Amendments, Which
Reflect Two Types of Variations that Have Been Consistently
Sought and Approved Over the Past Five Years.
Recommendation of Action
Staff recommends discussion on the potential amendments.
The Buffalo Grove Fence Code was last amended in August, 2011. In recent years, two types of
variations have been consistently sought and approved: fences in the corner yard setback and fences
that are six feet and solid. Staff is seeking to modify the fence code so to align with these variation
approvals.
ATTACHMENTS:
Fence Code Amendment Memo (DOCX)
Trustee Liaison Staff Contact
Weidenfeld Nicole Woods, Community Development
Wednesday, September 16,
2020
3.A.1
Packet Pg. 14
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 1, 2020
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Rati Akash, Village Planner SUBJECT:
Proposed Fence Code Amendments
BACKGROUND
The Buffalo Grove Fence Code was last amended in August, 2011 and has served the Village in
providing regulations for the height, style, type, and placement of fences in the community. In
recent years, a pattern has emerged where two types of variations have been consistently sought
and approved:
1. Fences in the corner yard setback, and
2. Fences that are six feet and solid.
These two types of requests have accounted for approximately 35 variations in the past five years.
As a result of the volume of fence variations, staff is seeking to modify the fence code so to align
with these variation approvals.
PROPOSED FENCE CODE CHANGES
The following provides more detail for each of the proposed Fence Code modifications:
1. Allow for open fence and semi-open fence up to 5 feet in height in the corner yard setbacks.
Current Code: The Code does not allow for 5
foot open and semi-open fences in the
corner yard setbacks.
Proposed Modification: Allow for open and
semi-open fences up to 5 foot tall fence in
the corner yard setbacks which will be
setback 4’ from the property line.
VILLAGE OF
BUFFALO GROVE
Corner Yard Setback
3.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 15
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
F
e
n
c
e
C
o
d
e
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
M
e
m
o
(
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
F
e
n
c
e
C
o
d
e
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
,
W
h
i
c
h
R
e
f
l
e
c
t
T
w
o
T
y
p
e
s
o
f
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
h
a
t
H
a
v
e
Page 2 of 3
Rationale:
This has been a common variation requested to the PZC
which has historically been approved.
In the last 5 years, the PZC has approved 29 corner yard
fence variations for both open and semi-open fences at
least 4’ from the property line.
The modification aligns the majority of the surrounding
communities, and best practices.
There are presently 7 proposed corner yard setback
variations requests that are pending approval
2. Allow for 6’ solid fences
Current Code: The current Fence Code does not allow for
6 foot solid fences. The Code only allows for solid fences
up to 5 feet in height which are within the building setback
line.
Proposed Modification: Allow for 6 foot solid fences in the
rear yard and side yard which are within the building
setback line.
Rationale:
This has been a common variation requested to the PZC which has historically been
approved.
In the last 5 years, there have 6 variation requests which have been approved.
The modification aligns with the fence code in about half of the surrounding communities
and best practices.
There are presently 4 proposed six foot solid variations requests that are pending
approval
SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES
Staff has reached out to surrounding Communities including Palatine, Schaumburg, Arlington
Heights, Lombard, Wheeling, Lincolnshire, Mount Prospect and Rolling Meadows with a list of the
questions regarding the type of the fences that are permitted.
After analyzing the responses and the adjoining Communities Fence Code, Staff has found that:
Majority of the adjoining communities allow for fences up to 5 feet in height which are
open and semi-open style fences in the corner yard setback at least 5 feet from the
sidewalk.
Approximately half of the adjoining communities allow for 6 foot tall fences in the rear
yard.
Solid Fence
Semi-open Fence
Open style fences
3.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 16
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
F
e
n
c
e
C
o
d
e
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
M
e
m
o
(
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
F
e
n
c
e
C
o
d
e
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
,
W
h
i
c
h
R
e
f
l
e
c
t
T
w
o
T
y
p
e
s
o
f
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
h
a
t
H
a
v
e
Page 3 of 3
IMPLICATIONS
Modifying the Fence Code will ultimately help the Village’s achieve its goal of modernizing the
code. Moreover, it will reduce the number of fence variation requests which can be time
consuming for the PZC, Residents and staff. This is particularly true given this year’s influx of fence
variations and fence permits. To date, the PZC has approved 11 fence variances this year and staff
has 11 more fence variance requests in the pipeline for both corner yard setback fences and 6 foot
solid fences.
NEXT STEPS:
Staff will discuss the proposed changes of the Fence Code with the PZC. Following the PZC’s feedback,
staff will develop an amendment to the Village Code for a public hearing.
3.A.1.a
Packet Pg. 17
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
F
e
n
c
e
C
o
d
e
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
M
e
m
o
(
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
F
e
n
c
e
C
o
d
e
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
,
W
h
i
c
h
R
e
f
l
e
c
t
T
w
o
T
y
p
e
s
o
f
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
h
a
t
H
a
v
e
08/19/2020
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE
VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 50 RAUPP BOULEVARD,
BUFFALO GROVE, ILLINOIS ON WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 19, 2020
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:34 PM by Chairman Frank Cesario
2. Motion To: Open Meetings Act Compliance
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
AYES: Moodhe, Spunt, Cesario, Goldspiel, Au, Richards, Worlikar
ABSENT: Zill Khan, Mitchell Weinstein
Public Hearings/Items For Consideration
1. Consider a Variation for an Accessory Structure at 1551 Rachel Lane (Trustee Johnson)
(Staff Contact: Chris Stilling)
Mr. and Ms. Swirsley described their petition for a swimming pool which exceeds the
permissible rear yard coverage for an accessory structure.
Chairperson Cesario asked the petitioners for some additional information.
Ms. Swirsley said because of COVID-19 a swimming pool gives her the ability to stay
home and enjoy the summer and exercise.
Com. Au asked staff if the proposed swimming pool was 18’ in diameter or 15’.
Ms. Swirsley said the pool she was purchasing was 18’ in diameter.
Com. Au told staff that there was a discrepancy in the packet for the petitioner. Noting
that the packet page 4 says the pool is 18’ in diameter, but on packet page 10 for the
response to standards it says 15’ in diameter.
Village planner, Akash verified the petitioner’s pool was 18’ in diameter and that the
wrong response to standards was pulled into the packet and is a copy of the next
petitioner’s response to standards for their swimming pool.
Com. Moodhe asked the Village Attorney if the petitioner should read their response to
standards for the record.
Village Attorney, Brankin said the petitioner could read their response to standards or if
we could pull up the response to standards would help.
Deputy Community Development Director, Woods brought up the correct response to
standards for the commissioners to review.
Com. Goldspiel asked the commissioners what they would do with the pool in the winter
time.
Mr. Swirsley said they would winterize the pool.
Com. Moodhe noted that he went by and there is plenty of space in the back yard for the
pool.
Chairperson Cesario entered the staff report as exhibit one.
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 18
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
A
u
g
1
9
,
2
0
2
0
7
:
3
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
08/19/2020
The petitioners thanked the commissioners for their time.
The public hearing was closed at 7:57
Chairperson Cesario spoke in favor of the petitioners request for an 18’ pool given the
limitations to COVID.
Com. Moodhe made a motion to approve the request for a variation for a swimming
pool which exceeds the permissible year yard coverage and shall be installed in
accordance with the documents and plans submitted as part of the petition.
Com. Richards seconded the motion.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
AYES: Moodhe, Spunt, Cesario, Goldspiel, Au, Richards, Worlikar
ABSENT: Zill Khan, Mitchell Weinstein
2. Consider a Variation for an Accessory Structure at 692 Hickory (Trustee Weidenfeld)
(Staff Contact: Chris Stilling)
Mr. Kaput described his petition to keep their 15’ in diameter swimming pool. The
petitioners noted that they installed the pool without a permit and was notified by the
Village that it was a violation and needed a permit.
Ms. Kaput commented on the necessity of the pool for her children to remain active
during quarantine.
Chairperson Cesario thanked them for their description.
Com. Moodhe asked staff that they would not need a variation if their garage was
attached to their home.
Village Planner, Akash confirmed that was correct.
Com. Moodhe commented that he understands the difficulty the detached garage can
cause in cases such as this one.
Com. Au asked what the divider was in the backyard behind the pool and detached
garage.
Ms. Kaput responded that it was a retaining wall that divides the upper part of the
backyard and the lower half of the back yard. She noted that it was there when they
moved in.
Com. Goldspiel asked if the yard was fenced in.
Mr. Kaput said yes the yard was fenced in and they are in the process of fixing the fence.
Com. Goldspiel asked staff if the yard had to be fenced with an above ground pool.
Village Planner, Akash said above ground pools do not require a fence, but in-ground
pools do.
Com. Moodhe commented on the fence issue noting he believes the missing fence is a
life safety issue.
Mr. Kaput understands the life safety issue as it pertains to other community members
and not his children and plans to complete the fence project very soon. He noted that the
stairs are up and locked when not in use.
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 19
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
A
u
g
1
9
,
2
0
2
0
7
:
3
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
08/19/2020
Chairperson Goldspiel asked staff review the requirements for above ground pools and
potentially add a required fence.
Com. Moodhe agrees, but thanked the petitioner for the information on both the fence
and the stairs to the pool.
Com. Goldspiel asked the petitioners how they would care for the pool in the winter.
Mr. Kaput described how he would winterize the pool.
Chairperson Cesario entered the staff report as exhibit one.
The petitioners thanked the commissioners for their time.
The public hearing closed at 8:13 pm.
Com. Moodhe made a motion to approve the existing swimming pool in the rear yard
which will exceed 3.37% of the required rear yard coverage provided. The swimming pool
shall be installed in accordance with the documents and plans submitted as part of this
petition.
Com. seconded the motion.
Chairperson Cesario thanked the petitioners for their time.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
AYES: Moodhe, Spunt, Cesario, Goldspiel, Au, Richards, Worlikar
ABSENT: Zill Khan, Mitchell Weinstein
3. Consider a Variation for a Fence at 3 Crestview Terrace (Trustee Johnson) (Staff
Contact: Chris Stilling)
Ms. Patel described their petition to install a 6’ solid wood fence in her rear year. The
petitioner told the commissioners that the fence was originally permitted for a 6’
shadow-box fence, but there was some confusion with company that installed the fence.
She would like to keep her 6’ solid wood fence.
Chairperson Cesario thanked the petitioner for her description of the fence.
Com. Moodhe spoke in favor of the fence for several reasons specifically due to the
multi-family residential development behind her home.
Com. Worlikar also spoke in favor of the fence.
Com. Au asked staff if the fence variation was for the whole yard as shown on packet
page 69 or if it was just the rear yard.
Com. Goldspiel asked if the chain link fence was her fence.
Ms. Patel responded that the chain link fence is not hers.
Village Planner, Akash replied that the variation is only for the rear yard.
Chairperson Cesario asked if there were any complains made.
Village Planner, Akash said none that were a complaint.
Chairperson Cesario entered the staff report as exhibit one.
The public hearing was closed at 8:27 pm
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 20
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
A
u
g
1
9
,
2
0
2
0
7
:
3
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
08/19/2020
Chairperson Cesario commented on the common miss understandings of the different
types of fence.
Deputy Community Development Director, Woods commented that staff has begun to
put together new forms and information with pictures to help make it easier for
residents when applying for permits and filling out forms.
Chairperson Cesario noted that would be helpful as well as the new forms.
Com. Moodhe made a motion to approve the variation to allow for the existing solid
wood fence installed on the subject property.
Com. Spunt seconded the motion.
Chairperson Cesario thanked the petitioner for her time.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
AYES: Moodhe, Spunt, Cesario, Goldspiel, Au, Richards, Worlikar
ABSENT: Zill Khan, Mitchell Weinstein
4. Consider a Variation for a Fence at 741 Shady Grove (Trustee Weidenfeld) (Staff
Contact: Chris Stilling)
Mr. Park explained his petition for a variation for a 6’ solid wood fence that was
originally permitted for a 6’ shadow box fence. Mr. Park explained that he would like to
keep the existing fence.
Chairperson Cesario thanked the petitioner for his explanation.
Com. Moodhe commented on the fence. He noted that he dove past the property and
the solid fence actually looks more open than their neighbor’s fence.
Com. Au asked if what kind of fence the neighbors had.
Village Planner Akash said they have a solid would fence.
Com. Moodhe commented on the gaps in the petitioner’s fence and spoke in favor of the
proposed variation.
Com. Worlikar also spoke in favor of the variation due to the gaps in the solid fence and
is in line with other fences in the neighborhood.
Chairperson Cesario asked if there were any complains
Village Planner, Akash replied no.
The commissioner spoke again about the
Chairperson Cesario entered the Village staff report as exhibit one.
The public hearing was closed at 8:41 pm
Chairperson Cesario thanked the petitioner for their time and that the fence looks very
nice.
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 21
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
A
u
g
1
9
,
2
0
2
0
7
:
3
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
08/19/2020
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
AYES: Moodhe, Spunt, Cesario, Goldspiel, Au, Richards, Worlikar
ABSENT: Zill Khan, Mitchell Weinstein
Regular Meeting
Other Matters for Discussion
None.
Approval of Minutes
1. Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting - Aug 5, 2020 7:30 PM
RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS]
AYES: Moodhe, Spunt, Cesario, Goldspiel, Au, Richards, Worlikar
ABSENT: Zill Khan, Mitchell Weinstein
Chairman's Report
None.
Committee and Liaison Reports
Staff Report/Future Agenda Schedule
Deputy Community Development Director spoke about the next meeting and upcoming agenda
items and workshops ahead.
Public Comments and Questions
None.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 PM
Chris Stilling
APPROVED BY ME THIS 19th DAY OF August , 2020
3.B.1
Packet Pg. 22
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
A
u
g
1
9
,
2
0
2
0
7
:
3
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)