Loading...
1992-01-21 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE . ILLINOIS TUESDAY , JANUARY 21 , 1992 I . CALL TO ORDER Chairman Richard Heinrich called the meeting to order at 8 : 07 P . M . on Tuesday , January 2i , 1992 at the Village Hall , 50 Raupp Blvd . II . ROLL CALL Commissioners Present : M . Kearns , J . Paul , B . Entman , L . Windecker , L . Arbus and R . Heinrich QUORUM Commissioners Absent : H . Fields Bldg . Dept . Liaison : Edward Schar , Deputy Building Commissioner Village Board Liaison : William Reid , Trustee Village Attorneys : William Raysa and Tom Dempsey III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 17 , 1991 - Motion to approve was made by Com . Entman and seconded by Com . Windecker . Correction : Page i0 . last sentence . Strike 2/ 3 Should read : ' The Corporate Authorities can overturn a ZBA decision by majority vote , Roll Call Vote : AYE - Paui , Entman , Windecker , Arbus , Heinrich NAY - None ABSTAIN - Kearns Motion Passed - 5 to 0 , 1 abstention . December 17 , 1991 minutes were approved and will be placed on file . IV . BUSINESS A . 400 Parkchester , Joseph J . and Judith S . Novak Fence Code . Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts The Public Hearing Notice was read . Joseph and Judith Novak were sworn in . Mr . Novak presented photographs and summarized their reasons of requesting a variance of the Fence Code , for the purpose of constructing a five foot ( 5 ' ) wood fence that would extend sixteen feet ( 16 ' ) past the building line along Newtown Drive at the corner of Newtown Dr . and Parkchester Road : 1 . They would like to enclose the larger part of the back yard for security and privacy , as well as for greater use of their property . 2 . The fence will confine their American Eskimo dog and provide more freedom for him to run . 3 . Property abuts the perimeter of the park to the west . 4 . The fence is similar in style to others in Parkchester . The Village Engineer ' s Review . dated January 2 , 1992 states : The limiting factor at the intersection is the principal structure itself . ' �.J The fence would be a board-on-board arched design except along the rear property line where it would be solid arched design . Mr . Novak said they were not aware of the Fence Code limitations while they were in the process of purchasing the property . The building line is very close to the house itself and they would lose thirty feet (30 ' ) along the Newtown Drive side of the property . The fence would be sixteen feet ( 16 ' ) from the build- ing line and approximately fifteen feet ( i5 ' ) from the sidewalk . Comments from Commissioners : Ch. Heinrich had no questions . Com . Entman observed that the lot is irregularly shaped ana verified that the fence would be attached to the corner of the garage a distance of fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) from and running parallel to the sidewalk . He asked the Novaks if they had talked with their neighbors? Mr . Novak replied that they do not have many neighbors . The lots next door on Parkchester Road and across the street are still vacant . Two of the houses on Newtown Drive are models . ' Com . Kearns noted there is no stop sign at the corner . but there will be a sufficient distance for cars exiting the garage to stop on the driveway and enter the street with safety. Com . Paul said the request is reasonable and the setback is far enough back from the sidewalk . The view of the fence from across the street would have the same impact no matter what the distance from the sidewalk because the height is permissible . A fence is really necessary to make the door useful . He suggest- ed some landscaping . Mr . Novak said that would be a future goal . Com. Windecker had no questions and no objections . Com . Arbus had no questions and no objections . There were no questions from the audience . Com . Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the request of Joseph J . and Judith S . Novak of 400 Parkchester Road , for variance of Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 . pertaining to Residential Districts . for the purpose of constructing five foot (5 ' at the top of the arch) privacy fence , along Newtown Drive as incicated with the plat of survey submitted with the application . Said fence to be constructed parallel to and no closer than fifteen feet ( T5 ' ) from the sidewalk . GUNiNG BOARD OF APPEALS L„/ January 21 . 1992 - Page iwo Fence on sides of the lot to be board-on-board arched design and solid arched design along the rear property line . Fence to be constructed pursuant to the Village Engineer ' s Review. Plans to be approved by the Village . The fence will not be detrimental to the public health , safety and welfare ; and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood . Com. Arbus seconded the motion. Roil Call Vote : AYE - Kearns , Entman , Paul , Windecker . Arbus and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to O . Findings of Fact attached . Permit may be issued in fifteen days (February 6 , 1992) . B. 1298 Sandhurst Drive , Daniel and Nancy Mc Allister Fence Code , Section 15.20 . 040 . Residential Districts The Public Hearing Notice was . Daniel and Nancy Mc Allister were sworn in. Ch. Heinrich read a letter , dated January 21 , 1992 , from the Susan and Sheldon Kariinsky , 1294 Sandhurst Drive , contiguous neighbors to the south. It states : "We wish to file an objection to the zoning change request for a six foot fence on the property above . This would cause an obstruction of our street view and could cause a potential security risk . We have no objections to a 5 foot (or less) fence on the property . " The Village Engineer ' s Review , dated January 2 , 1992 . states : " The abutting property driveway is not affected by the proposed fence ; however , the proposed fence encroaches into the required sight distance and should be set back five feet (5 ' ) from the sidewalk . Mr . Mc Allister stated their reasons for requesting a six foot (6 ' ) board-on-board scalloped fence that would extend past the building line along Thompson Boulevard at the corner of Thompson Boulevard and Sandhurst Drive . Requested location of said fence was extended to the sidewalk : 1 . They have small children and a dog . The fence would offer security and privacy. 2 . The property is landscaped up to the sidewalk and they want to have it included in their usable yard . 3 . They have a hedge along the sidewalk , but it does not suffice . It has not prevented dogs or neighborhood children from entering the yard . 4 . They want to matcn the existing six foot ( 6 ' ) fence that was previously granted a variance along the rear lot line because the lot to the rear is much higher . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS January 21 , 1992 - Page Three Mr . Mc Allister said that when they first discussed the proposed fence with Susan and Sheldon Karlinsky . they did not object . but they have since expressed objection to the height . The proposed fence would be constructed in the Kariinsky ' s side yard . Mr . Mc Allister requested the fence to terminate beyond the service door instead of the back the house . He agreed to lower the height of the fence to five feet ( 5 ' ) . Ch. Heinrich said they would not need a variance to construct a five foot (5 ' ) fence along the interior lot line next to the Karlinsky ' s property . the fence could enclose the service door . The fence along Thompson Boulevard was discussed . There is a line-of-sight problem and the Zoning Board does not typically grant variances up the sidewalk . The building setback line is thirty feet (30 ' ) . Mr . Mc Allister explained that they did not intend to fence the yard , but the hedge does not offer the security they need . He presented photographs of the property that shows the existing hedge and the view from the corner of Sandhurst Drive and Thompson Boulevard . The fence would be constructed inside the hedge so it would be five feet ( 5 ' ) from the sidewalk , per the Village Engineer ' s recommendation. John and Gina Rodman, i5 Thompson Court . contiguous neighbors to the west . were present . They objected to the height of the fence and to the proposed location because it would create a safety problem with traffic coming from the corner . There is a six foot (6 ' ) fence along the rear lot line up to the building line now and the proposed fence would create more of a walled in effect , cutting off their open view of Thompson Boulevard . They recently purchased their home and one reason they chose it was because of the open sight line they have down Thompson Blvd . They do not object to the Mc Allisters having a fence , but the proposed height and location would devalue their property. Mr . Mc Allister said the Rodmans are new neighbors and they have not met them . He explained the reason for the existing six foot (6 ' ) fence is because the Rodman' s property is about two feet (2 ' ) higher than theirs . It begins to taper down toward the sidewalk at the building line where the existing six foot (6 ' ) begins . Mr . Rodman said he understands the Mc Allister ' s need for a fence . They also have a dog and hope to have children someday . They would not object to an open picket style fence Mr . Mc Allister said they would agree to lower the fence to five feet ( 5 ' ) but they would want to have the same style . scalloped board-on-board , which is very attractive . it would be constructed inside the existing hedge . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS January 21 . 1992 - Page Four Mrs . Rodman said they want to be able to see Thompson Blvd . and suggested a three foot ( 3 ' ) fence . Mr . Mc Allister described the elevation of the Rodmans property and said the hedge is about 3-1/2 to 4 feet in height , so the fence will not change their view of Thompson Boulevard . They also have some 6 to 7 foot evergreen trees in the side yard . Mrs . Rodman said evergreen trees and the green hedge are better to look at than a wood fence . Mr . Rodman added that a fence along the building line or within 10 to 15 feet from the sidewalk would be acceptable . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Paul said he understands the reasons the Mc Allisters want a fence . but he would not want it to be any higher than five feet (5 ' ) and located about twenty feet ( 20 ' ) from the sidewalk Mrs . Mc Allister described another fence in Old Farm Village that is five feet (5 ' ) in height and extends to the sidewalk . Ch. Heinrich stated that each variance request is considered upon its own unique circumstances . Mrs . Mc Allister said she knew the former owners of the Rodman ' s house and is familiar with the view from the kitchen window. The top of the existing fence is even with the bottom of the window and the house is so high up that she could look over the fence into their own backyard . The houses are built approxi- mately in the same position and the windows almost face each other so you cannot look down the street except from the side . Mr . Rodman responded that they object to having their view of Thompson Boulevard changed and the property devalued. Com . Paul said the ZBA not only considers appearance , but is concerned with the interests of the community in general and what a fence will do to the neighborhood . When he drove around to look at existing fences he saw that the area is very open. It is important to prevent a walled effect and not change the view from the Rodman' s property . Com . Windecker agreed the uppermost height of the fence should be five feet (5 ' ) and if it is setback fifteen to twenty ( 15-20) feet from the sidewalk it will maintain the essential character of the community and not be detrimental to the public health. safety and welfare . Mr . Mc Allister said there are some expensive trees about twelve feet ( 12 ' ) from the sidewalk and offered to pull the fence back to enclose them . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS January 21 , 1992 - Page Five Ch. Heinrich estimated the size of the permissible yard to be 3 . 600 square feet and said this is a good size rear yard . He would not agree to a fence farther than ten to fifteen ( 1u-15 ) feet past the building line . Com . Arbus expressed concern with the public welfare . when people purchase their homes , they do not expect to the area to be changed by variance . There will be increasing traffic on Thompson Boulevard when it is extended to Buffalo Grove Road . A five foot ( 5 ' ) fence along the building line is permissible without a variance . Some of the Commissioners have suggested a distance of fifteen to twenty ( 15-20) feet from the sidewalk . He asked Mr . and Mrs . Rodman if they find this acceptable? Mrs . Rodman' s preference would be an attractive three foot (3 ' ) fence . but the Mc Allister ' s want it higher . Mr . Mc Allister said that they could live with a fence ten feet ( 10 ' ) past the building line . Com . Arbus said he could support ten feet ( 10 ' ) past the build- ing line . but if the Board wants fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) he would not object . Com. Kearns expressed his concern about fences in side yards . Considering the fact that the yard is a substantial size , compared to some rear yards , and understanding the desire to utilize as much of the property as possible . he would support a distance of ten feet ( 10 ' ) from the house . Com. Entman agreed with the consensus of the Board . This section of Old Farm Village is extremely wide open. Because Thompson Boulevard is curvilinear there are side yards facing front yards . The photographs show how open the area is and how the existing six foot (6 ' ) fence is quite noticeable . It would be nice if everyone could utilize their entire space , but the yard is a fair size , and at best , he would support the fence ten feet ( 10 ' ) past the building line . Ch. Heinrich summarized the Board ' s consensus would be to support a fence . five feet ( 5 ' ) in height . and located ten feet ( 10 ' ) past the building line . Because the slope of the yard drops down near the building line , the Rodman' s view will not be affected very much. Aesthetically . it would not be pleasing to change the style , so the fence should match the existing fence . with a transitional piece from six feet (6 ' ) down to five feet (5 ' ) . He took a poll and the Commissioners were in agreement with a five foot ( 5 ' ) fence to be constructed ten feet ( 10 ' ) past the building line . Ch. Heinrich informed Mr . and Mrs . Mc Allister of their option to keep their request as submitted and , if it is denied . they can appeal to the Village Board : or they can amend the petition on its face . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS January 21 , 1992 - Page Six The Mc Ailisters agreed to amend the petition on its face . They will accept a fence no greater than five feet ( 5 ' ) in height , tapering down from the existing six foot (6 ' ) fence . O/ along the south property line abutting 1294 Sandhurst Drive (Lot 40 ) : and a fence no greater than five feet (5 ' ) in height . tapering down from the existing six foot ( 6 ' ) fence . and extending ten feet ( 10 ' ) from the building line along Thompson Boulevard . measuring eleven feet ( 11 ' ) from the rear corner of the house , with the fence parallel to the sidewalk . Com. Arbus made the following motion: I move we grant the amended petition of Daniel and Nancy Mc Allister , 1298 Sandhurst Drive . for variance of Fence Code . Section 15 . 20 . 040 , pertaining to Residential Districts , for the purpose of constructing a five foot ( 5 ' ) fence which would extend ten feet ( 10 ' ) beyond the north building line . Fence to be eleven feet ( ii ' ) from the northwest corner of the house and run parallel to the sidewalk along Thompson Blvd . The style of the fence is to match the existing six foot ( 6 ' ) board-on-board scalloped fence . Said fence can be tapered from the existing six feet ( 6 ' ) down to a maximum height of five feet (5 ' ) along both neighboring interior lot lines . and can be extended to the east to enclose the door . Said fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare of the community . Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roil Cali Vote : AYE - Kearns , Entman, Paul , Windecker . Arbus and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . V . LEGAL BRIEFING Village Attorneys William Raysa and Tom Dempsey were welcomed . Mr . Dempsey gave a brief history of the Zoning Board of Appeals and its authority to grant variances of the Zoning Ordinance . Fence Code and Sign Code . He also gave a fine explanation of various zoning issues that commonly occur and made suggestions for clarifying the Zoning Ordinance . A copy of Mr . Dempsey ' s presentation is attached . He was commended for his exceiient briefing . His efforts were appreciated . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS January 21 . 1992 - Page Seven VI . ADJOURNMENT Com . Kearns made a motion to adjourn. Com . Entman seconded the motion. Voice Vote was AYE Unanimously. Ch. Heinrich adjourned the meeting at 10 : 00 P. M. Respectfully submitted , Ata4P2t,— Shirley Bates Recording Secretary sb ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS January 21 , 1992 - Page Eight