2018-07-09 - Planning and Zoning Commission - Minutes07/9/2018
MINUTES OF THE RESCHEDULED 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 MONDAY, JULY 9, 2018
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:32 PM by Chairman Frank Cesario
Public Hearings/Items For Consideration
1. Consider a Variation for a Fence in the Corner Side Yard at 14 Chestnut Court (Trustee
Stein) (Staff Contact: Chris Stilling)
Ms. Jie Chen, 14 Chestnut Ct W, was present and sworn in.
Ms. Chen explained that she would like to build a fence to line up with her neighbors. She
just bought the house. She has a daughter and wants the fence for safety and security.
She wants to match the neighbor’s fence for the aesthetics. The fence will allow her to
care for her yard. The contractor is Fence Solutions.
Com. Goldspiel asked about the style of fence. Katie Bashum, Fence Solutions, was
present and sworn in. Ms. Bashum explained that the proposed fence will be a dog ear
style. Instead of the top being flat, the edges of the fence boards are cut off. A picture
was shown displaying the dog ear style fence.
Com. Moodhe stated that the proposed fence is keeping with the neighbor’s fence, they
are very similar. He is also impressed that the fence will go around the tree, rather than
cutting the tree down. The fence will not encroach any more than other corner fences that
have been allowed. He asked how far the fence would be off the property line. Ms.
Bashum advised the fence would be ten (10) off the property line.
Com. Weinstein stated that the Plat in the packet does not show the fence going around
the tree. Ms. Chen confirmed that the fence will go around the tree. Com. Moodhe
advised that there is a rendering further in the packet that reflects the fence going around
the tree.
There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners.
Ch. Cesario entered the Staff Report dated July 9, 2018 as Exhibit 1.
There were no questions from the audience.
The public hearing was closed at 7:40 PM.
Moved by Com. Weinstein, seconded by Com. Lesser, to grant the variation subject to
the following conditions:
07/9/2018
1. The fence must be a dog ear solid wood fence, five (5) foot tall and setback a distance of
ten (10) feet from the property line in accordance with the documents submitted as part of
this petition.
Ch. Cesario has no issues with the proposed fence and advised that relief is commonly
granted for these types of requests.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mitchell Weinstein, Commissioner
SECONDER: Scott Lesser, Commissioner
AYES: Moodhe, Cesario, Cohn, Goldspiel, Khan, Lesser, Weinstein
ABSENT: Amy Au
2. Consider a Variaition for a Fence in the Corner Side Yard at 1403 Westchester Road
(Trustee Ottenheimer) (Staff Contact: Chris Stilling)
Mr. Greg Morand, 1403 Westchester Road, was present and sworn in.
Mr. Morand explained that he is requesting to install a fence in his rear yard, consistent
with his neighbor’s fence, for the safety of his grandchildren.
Com. Goldspiel commented that there have been a lot of requests for solid fencing on
corner lots. He will not hold up the Petitioner’s request. Rather, he wants to bring up the
larger issue regarding solid fences and how they block the views. Open-style fencing
provides a better sense of community and looks better. Mr. Morand advised that the front
part of the fence would be open. He has a pie-shaped lot and the fencing in the rear
probably will not be seen. The proposed fence will be setback over eight (8) feet from the
property line and nine (9) feet (2) inches from the sidewalk. The proposed fence will not
obstruct any views. He would like the privacy for his pets and grandchildren. Com.
Goldspiel would like to see the Village encourage more open-style fencing.
Com. Moodhe asked about the fencing on the interior side of the house and believes the
fence would be close to the neighbor’s sidewalk. Mr. Stilling advised that the fence on the
interior side of the property would be on or within the Petitioner’s property line. Com.
Moodhe stated that the neighbor’s fence is four (4) feet in height and the proposed fence
is five (5) feet in height. He asked why the Petitioner is requesting five (5) feet. Mr.
Morand stated that a five (5) foot high fence is more secure and provides better privacy.
In addition, the neighbor’s fence is existing. Com. Moodhe asked if the Petitioner
considered a four (4) foot high fence. Mr. Morand replied no, he prefers a five (5) foot
high fence.
Ch. Cesario stated that the property is well treed and he appreciates that.
There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners.
Ch. Cesario entered the Staff Report dated July 9, 2018 as Exhibit 1.
There were no questions from the audience.
07/9/2018
The public hearing was closed at 7:50 PM.
Moved by Com. Weinstein, seconded by Com. Cohn, to grant the variation subject to the
following conditions:
1. The fence must be a solid privacy fence, five (5) feet tall and setback a distance of (8)
feet and two (2) inches from the property line in accordance with the documents
submitted as part of this petition.
Ch. Cesario stated that he likes open green space. He also believes that a homeowner
should be allowed to build the fence type of fence they want so long as it is consistent
with the area but with a preference to an open look..
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mitchell Weinstein, Commissioner
SECONDER: Matthew Cohn, Commissioner
AYES: Moodhe, Cesario, Cohn, Goldspiel, Khan, Lesser, Weinstein
ABSENT: Amy Au
3. Public Hearing- Small Wireless Facility Regulations (Trustee Ottenheimer) (Staff
Contact: Chris Stilling)
Mr. Stilling, Director of Community Development, was present and sworn in.
Mr. Stilling explained that he is presenting the final draft Ordinance concerning regulating
small cell wireless facilities in response to the State regulations that were recently
passed. He advised that if a small cell wireless unit is to be located in a right-of-way, the
Village has to allow it. If the utility pole is located in an easement, it is only allowed in
certain zoning districts. The Village took the IML draft Ordinance and maximized the
Village’s rights concerning fees, height, etc. A new Chapter will be created in the Zoning
Ordinance to address small cell wireless facilities. The Village would still have the ability
to regulate them in Residential Districts and Planned Unit Developments. A Petitioner
could request a variation if the proposed antenna height would exceed what is permitted
under the proposed Ordinance.
Com. Moodhe asked about the definitions of Municipal utility pole and Utility pole. Mr.
Raysa explained that via the definitions, a Municipal utility pole is a type of utility pole. He
also advised that the definitions come straight from the State Act. Com. Moodhe asked
about a standard height for street lights. Mr. Stilling advised that the Village has a
standard height for Village-owned street lights. However, street lights owned by others,
such as the County, have their own standards. Com. Moodhe as ked about abandonment
and how it is to be determined that the facility has been abandoned. Mr. Raysa
responded that the Village can ask the provider. Mr. Stilling added that the Village will
have more control over facilities on Village-owned poles.
Ch. Cesario asked Mr. Raysa which county would handle legal disputes regarding this
matter. Mr. Raysa responded that because Village Hall falls within Cook County, any
legal dispute would be brought in Cook County.
Com. Cohn also asked about abandonment and if it was considered to request a bond
from a provider. Mr. Stilling responded that the Act allows the Village to address
abandonment, but the Village may not be able to on a County-owned pole. He added that
07/9/2018
the Village could invoke the County to address, if needed. Com. Cohn asked about the
height limitations and if they can extend ten (10) feet above the top of the pole or forty
five (45) feet above ground level. Mr. Stilling responded that the Act allows that. They are
limited to six (6) cubic feet for equipment with an overall twenty five (25) cubic feet in
volume.
Ch. Cesario confirmed that the equipment cannot extend more than forty five (45) feet off
the ground.
Com. Lesser stated that the Village can include language that pertains to maintenance,
restoring, etc., on municipal poles. However he asked that a follow up question to the IML
be asked regarding poles that are not owned by the Village and how will they be
handled? Mr. Stilling advised that the Ordinance may change after its passage as these
small cells roll out. He believes that there is an annual fee. However that may only pertain
to Village-owned poles. Com. Lesser stated that the purpose of the Ordinance is to hold
the providers accountable. It would be nice to collect a deposit.
Com. Goldspiel asked about the percentage of poles that would have these small cell
facilities on them. Mr. Stilling advised that he does not know. He believes that these small
cells are to provide capacity for the upcoming 5G roll out. Soon they may be so common
you will not even see them anymore. He does not believe they will be as intrusive as the
towers and they will hopefully replace the towers, except for emergency response
communications. Com. Goldspiel asked about the range of the small cells. Mr. Stilling
stated that it could be anywhere from 200-1,000 feet. It will vary with the 5G.
Com. Moodhe asked about the height restrictions. Mr. Stilling responded that the
equipment may not exceed the higher of either ten (10) feet above the pole or forty five
(45) feet in height. Com. Moodhe asked about a bond requirement and asked why the
State did not require. Mr. Raysa will ask the IML attorney.
Ch. Cesario stated that the proposed Ordinance was drafted to maximize what the
Village can do under the State Act. He believes this is a good solution but does not like
that it is being dictated. He asked about the timeline to act on these regulations. Mr.
Raysa advised that the Village must have regulations in place by August 1, 2018 or the
Village will not be able to charge fees. Mr. Stilling added that the Village can re-address
some issues after the passage of the Ordinance.
Mr. Raysa will contact the IML attorney about the bonding issue.
Com. Moodhe commented that the State dictating the rules is frustrating. He would like
the Village to go back and look at the bonding issue.
There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners.
Ch. Cesario entered the Staff Report dated July 9, 2018 as Exhibit 1.
The public hearing was closed at 8:17 PM.
07/9/2018
Moved by Com. Weinstein, seconded by Com. Khan, to make a positive recommendation
to the Village Board to approve the Ordinance.
Com. Cohn supports the motion and asks staff to explore the issue with abandonment.
RESULT: RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
Next: 7/16/2018 7:30 PM
MOVER: Mitchell Weinstein, Commissioner
SECONDER: Zill Khan, Commissioner
AYES: Moodhe, Cesario, Cohn, Goldspiel, Khan, Lesser, Weinstein
ABSENT: Amy Au
Regular Meeting
Other Matters for Discussion
None.
Approval of Minutes
1. Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting - Jun 20, 2018 7:30 PM
Moved by Com. Weinstein, seconded by Com. Lesser, to approve the minutes of
the June 20, 2018 regular Planning & Zoning Commission meeting as submitted.
RESULT: ACCEPTED [5 TO 0]
MOVER: Mitchell Weinstein, Commissioner
SECONDER: Scott Lesser, Commissioner
AYES: Cesario, Goldspiel, Khan, Lesser, Weinstein
ABSTAIN: Adam Moodhe, Matthew Cohn
ABSENT: Amy Au
Chairman's Report
None.
Committee and Liaison Reports
None.
Staff Report/Future Agenda Schedule
Ms. Woods advised that the next meeting will be on July 18, 2018. There will be two (2) public
hearings; one for Bucky's ground sign and one for the Courtyards at the Woodlands signs. The
training has been pushed back to October. Most likely it will be a Special meeting since the
trainers do not like to have anything on the agenda.
Public Comments and Questions
None.
07/9/2018
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:21 PM
Chris Stilling
APPROVED BY ME THIS 9th DAY OF July , 2018