Loading...
1993-07-20 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes .s-•0 . r5, r k ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE , ILLINOIS TUESDA Y , JULY 20 . 1993 I . CALL TO ORDER Chairman Richard Heinrich called the meeting to order at 8 : 06 P . M . on Tuesday , July 20 . 1993 in Room 24 at the Alcott Community Center , 530 Raupp Boulevard . II . ROLL CALL Commissioners Present : J . Paul , B . Entman . - L . Windecker . H . Hefler and R . Heinrich . Com . Arbus arrived at 8 : 15 P . M . Commissioners Absent : M . Kearns Bldg . Dept . Liaison : Edward Schar , Deputy Building Commissioner Village Attorney : Tom Dempsey IIT APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 15 , 1993 - Motion to Table was made by Com . ' Entman and seconded by Com . Hefler . Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously Minutes of April 20 , 1993 and May 19 , 1993 remain Tabled . IV . OLD BUSINESS A . 720 Horatio Boulevard . Alan and Jennifer Auerbach Fence Code . Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts Pursuant to written request of the petitioner . Dr . Alan Auerbach . motion to Table until September 21 , 1993 was made by Com . Entman and seconded by Com . Hefier . Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously . • Y B . 2921 Whisper in Oaks Drive . Edward Bakai Fence Code . Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts y , "J Motion to remove from Table was made by Com . Arbus and f4 seconded by Com . Heller . Voice Vote : AYE - Unanimously . Pursuant to written request of the petitioner . Edward t3aKa l . the petition for variance was withdrawn . f.f ate, r — s i I 1 • V. NEW BUSINESS A. 427 Lamont Terrace , Michael and Lori Kiley Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts Five foot (5 ' ) wood fence past building line The public hearing notice was read. Michael and Lori Kiley were - sworn in. Mr . Kiley summarized their reasons for requesting a variance : 1 . They want to enlarge their rear yard by removing - the existing fence , located on the building line . and moving it out twenty feet (20 ' ) . 2 . They now have two (2 ) children and the fence would increase the area in which they have to play. 3 . They would like to put up a swing set in the area. 4 . The fence would increase the value of their property should they want to sell or refinance . The Village Engineer ' s Line-of-Sight Review . dated July b , 1993 , states : " the limiting factor at the intersection is the principal structure itself . The abutting property is a far side driveway , and the fence should be set back five feet ( 5 ' ) from the sidewalk . " There were no questions or comments from the audience . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Entman asked if the Kileys have talked to their neighbors at 1215 Lockwood Dr . , about the location of the proposed fence? Mr . Kiley replied that they have not because all the neighbors - received letters and there has been a sign in the yard for several weeks . They did not want to put any pressure on their neighbors by approaching them personally and trying to influence them. Their neighbors could object discreetly or attend the public hearing to discuss the fence . Com . Paul expressed surprise that the neighbors did not come - to object because the location of the proposed fence would be in their front yard . He objected to the fence because it would be •7 detrimental to the neighborhood . :a Mr . Kiley responded that their situation is similar to others in - ::3 . the neighborhood . The rear of their lot abuts the side of their neighbor ' s lot . They are not putting up a stockade style fence . It will match their existing scalloped picket fence . They would not want to put up anything that would be objectionable to the neighbors . They have a swimming pool in the rear yard and they are required to have a four foot ( 4 ' ) fence . but they would be - • willing to taper the fence to four feet ( 4 ' ) out toward the sidewalk to minimize the obstruction of the i.r neighbors view . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 2U . l 993 - Page two .,.< Ch. Heinrich informed Mr . and Mrs Kiley that the ZBA typically does not grant variances that far into the side yard on _reverse corner lots . He asked if they would consider pulling the fence back less than twenty feet (20 ' ) from the building line? Mr . Kiley said he has compared their lot with other lots in the subdivision and finds their rear yard has less depth that others with similar variations . They would consider less than twenty feet (20 ' ) and asked what a reasonable compromise would be? Com. Paul proposed a fence half the distancc to the sidewalk or approximately twelve to twelve and a half feet ( 12 to 12-1/2 ' ) from the building tine . Com. Windecker agreed with Com. Paul ' s comments about the neighbors and said he would permit the - fence to be at least fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) from the sidewalk . He would not want the height to be less than five feet (5 ' ) because of the pool . Com. Entman said he drove back and forth in the neighbor ' s driveway and the existing fence has already created a wail , but he understands the Kiley ' s need for more space , so he agree to a variance of ten feet ( 10 '9 from the building line . The neighbors ' absence is not the only thing to be considered . The proposed fence would be detrimental to the neighborhood . (Com. Arbus arrived at 8 ; 15 P. M. ) Com. Hefier commented that the other Commissioners have been move liberal than he . He had previously drawn a line on his survey that was less than ten feet ( 10 ' ) from the building line , but he would agree to a variance of ten feet ( 10 ' ) . Com. Arbus said he has not heard the other comments , but he had determined that he would vote for a variance of ten feet ( 10 ' ) past the building line . He observed that the fence across the street is about five feet (5 ' ). from the sidewalk and he would prefer it to be ten feet ( 10 ' ) from the sidewalk also . Ch. Heinrich agreed the height of the fence should remain five feet (5 ' ) because of the pool . He asked Mr and Mrs . Kiley if they wanted to amend their petition and agree to construct the fence fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) from the sidewalk which would be approx i- mateiy 10 . 7 ' feet from the building line . Mr . and Mrs . Kiley indicated that they would so amend the petition„-- Com . ` Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by Michael and Lori Kiley . 427 Lamont Terrace . for variance of , the Fence Code . Section 15 . 20 . 040 . pertaining to Residential Districts , for the purpose of constructing a five foot ( 5 ' ) wood picket fence past the building line along Lockwood Drive . ,-Yt•, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS .y.� July 2U . i. �+J - Pa e 'Three Said fence to be constructed pursuant Village Engineer ' s Review , dated July 6 . 1993 . Fence should be located`a distance of fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) from the sidewalk along Lockwood Drive. The proposed fence will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare . Com. Paul seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Paul , Windecker , Arbus , Entman, Hefler and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached Permit may be issued in fifteen ( 15) days - August 5 . 1993 . . B. 902 Hilidale Lane . Daniel and Roberta Racinowski Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts Five foot (5 ' ) wood fence past building line The Public Hearing Notice was read . Daniel and Roberta Racinowski were sworn in. Mr . Racinowski summarized their reasons for requesting a variance : 1 . To protect their children from the traffic on Fabish Drive . 2 . To permit the children to play in the yard safely. 3 . To keep unwelcome people out of the yard . There were no comments or questions from the audience . Ch. Heinrich asked the Racinowskis if they have discussed the proposed fence with their neighbors . Mr . Rascinowski responded that they have talked to some of them and there have been no objections . The Village Engineer ' s Review , dated July 6 . i993 . states : -We recommend that the fence be relocated so that there is no reduc- tion in the sight distance . There is no abutting driveway . but the fence should be set back five feet (5 ' ) . from the sidewalk . - The Village Engineer ' s drawing (Exhibit A) is attached . Ch. Heinrich informed the petitioners that the fence would have to conform with the Village Engineer ' s recommended location regarding the line-of-sight and minimum distance of five feet ( 5- ) from the sidewalk . Comments from Commissioners : Com . Hefler commented that the sidewalk appears to be inside cne property line and the fence is shown three feet ( 3 ' ) from the sidewalk . In his opinion . the fence should not: go beyond ten feet ( 10 ' ) from the house . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS-. July 20 . t f3(d3 - va.e Four 1. . A long discussion followed . Mr . Racinowski asked what would ' happen if his neighbors came in and requested a new fenc—that would extend out farther than the existing fence? Ch. Heinrich proposed Tabling this request and if the neighbors file for a variance immediately , the two fences could be discus- sed at the August 17 , 1993 public hearing. The Racinowskis agreed to Table and said they would inform their neighbors of this recommendation. Com. Entman cautioned Mr . Racinowski not to tell his neighbors that the ZBA is willing to let them extend both fences past the existing fence . This would be a misconception. Mr . Racinooski asked the purpose of the line-of-sight study? Com. Entman explained the Village Engineer ' s recommendation. The line-of-sight study is done for the purpose of determining the traffic safety factor because a certain distance is required from both streets at an intersection. The proposed fence location restricted this line-of-sight so the plat was marked accordingly. Mr . Racinowski submitted photographs of other corner fences in their subdivision and commented that the rationale does not seem to apply. Some of the lots have bushes along the sidewalk . Ch. Heinrich informed him that every corner fence is sent to the Village Engineer for review and his line-of-sight study cannot be violated. Many factors apply, such as the location of the house . Mr . Dempsey informed Mr . Racinowski that there are no Village ordinances limiting landscaping . If a resident complains that bushes or trees are causing a line-of-sight problem , the police have the power to require them to be cut back . Permits are not required to put in landscaping. Mr . Schar agreed to provide information regarding the ZBA action taken when variances were granted permitting the fences depicted in the two photographs submitted by Mr . Racinowski . Com. Arbus said he would approve a fence that meets up with the existing fence and would prefer it to start at the rear of the house . He recommended permitting the fence to be six feet (6 ' ) f .. in height along Fabish Drive for aesthetic reasons . He would not .1_ agree to permit the fence to be any closer to the sidewalk than .i the end of the existing fence which is about fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) , .:.:-.. Com. Windecker said he would like to have the neighbors come in :.•:..:. and discuss the situation together . He agreed the fences would have to meet and they should not be any closer to the sidewalk . - • It was noted that if the fence is pulled back it could go closer to the front of the house and conform with the line-of-sight . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS .July 20 . 1993 - Page S i x Com. Entman observed that the, property to the rear, 901 Hobson Dr. , , has a fence that has been constructed on top of some type of wall. This fence stops short of the petitioners' requested location and the end result would be a ridiculous configuration, so his recom- mendation was to permit the Racinowskis to construct a fence that would extend no farther from the sidewalk than the neighbors' fence. Com. Paul asked what they were going to do about the rear lot line? The existing fence has been constructed on landscaped timbers that are separating causing the fence to lean dangerously toward the Racinowski's yard. He asked Mr. Schar if the Building Department is aware of the situation? Mr. Schar replied that he sent a Building Inspector out and the condition of the wall will be addressed. Mrs. Racinowski said the house has been sold and the new owner plans to construct a new fence this year. Mr. Racinowski said the neighbors plan. to remove the timers and reconstruct the wall with interlocking bricks that will be stepped up and the fence will be on top of this new wall . They need the fence because there is a pool in the rear yard. He recalled the original ZBA discussions regarding t,he previous owner's request for a variance and expressed appreciation for the kind decision permitting the pool and fence to remain as constructed because none of the neighbors objected. At that time, he had asked the ZBA Commissioners about construction of a future fence to enclose his yard and was told that he would be given every consideration also. Com. Paul described the appearance of a five foot (5') fence next to the eight foot (8') fence and if the neighbor's wall is stepped up there will be a gap between the fences. Mr. Racinowski replied that he plans to work with his neighbors to fill in the gap with some kind of fencing. The neighbors planned to do the work this September or October, but they have discussed the possibility of doing it sooner, if necessary. Ch. Heinrich informed Mr. Racinowski that the neighbors will have to apply for a new variance before they can do anything. A new ruling has been made regarding changing the existing grade. LA: Mr. Schar said residents are not permitted to violate the existing MEM grade by artificially raising it to get a higher fence. The wall may have to be removed and the original grade restored. Com. Paul described the grade and said it was raised in order to : put in the pool . The grade dropped off dangerously and the fence would not have been high enough. He agreed with Com. Entman that mow the Racinowski's fence should not extend past the end of the neighbor's fence. 4:7' ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 20. 1993 - Page Five • • Mr . Racinowski stated that he was willing to wait until next month , but said it would be unacceptable to him to have fence located at the end of his neighbors ' existing fence . It would not be possible to have the neighbors ' fence taper down because it would be much too low for the safety of the pool . Their children climb on the wall now and must be told to get down . He agreed to discuss the situation with the neighbors and would suggest that they apply for a variance . Mr . Schar informed Ch . Heinrich that processing time must be allowed and said the neighbors should come in by Friday of this week ( July 23 , 1993 ) in order to appear on August 17 , 1993 . At the end of the discussion , motion to Table until August 17th was made by Com . Arbus and seconded by Com . Windecker . Voice Vote was AYE Unanimously . VI . ANNOUNCEMENTS • A resident who has requested a variance for a fence past the building line was present . She asked some general questions about ornamental fences and about why fences are set back 'at least five feet ( 5 ' ) from the sidewalk . Her petition will be heard on August 17 , 1993 . VII . ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn was made by Com . Entman and seconded by Com . Hefler . Ch . Heinrich adjourned the meeting at 9 : 12 P . M . Respectfully submitted , Shirley Bates Recording Secretary ,;;}.74w44 i 3 • -wt 4' ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS _ _ , July 20 . 1993 - Page Seven :: ,