Loading...
2013-02-19 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes Appmags AS sugmMEC. 3I19I(3 REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 19, 2013 Chairman Entman called the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting to order at 7:32 P.M. on Tuesday, February 19, 2013 in the Council Chambers of the Village Hall, 50 Raupp Boulevard. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioner Cesario Commissioner Steingold Commissioner Windecker Commissioner Lesser Commissioner Shapiro Commissioner Au Chairman Entman Commissioners Absent: None Also Present: Les Ottenheimer,Village Trustee William Raysa, Village Attorney Brian Sheehan, Deputy Building Commissioner Greg Boysen, Director of Public Works David Haisma, Superintendent of Water Operations APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 15, 2013 minutes: Com. Lesser made a motion to approve the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting held on Tuesday,January 15, 2013. Corn. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Cesario, Windecker, Lesser, Au, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN —Steingold, Shapiro Motion Passed 5 to 0, 2 Abstentions. Minutes approved as submitted. NEW BUSINESS 201 HASTINGS DRIVE, BARRETT MOVING & STORAGE - FENCE CODE, SECTION 15.20.060, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ERECTING AN EIGHT (8) FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE TO BE INSTALLED IN A LOCATION OTHER THAN THE LOT LINE. SAID FENCE WILL BEGIN ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 19, 2013 PAGE 1 of 15 THE BUILDING AND EXTEND SOUTH INTO THE PARKING LOT A DISTANCE OF TWO HUNDRED FIFTEEN (215) FEET; THEN TURN EAST A DISTANCE OF THREE HUNDRED FORTY TWO (342) FEET Mr. Ross Papke, Freeman Fence, 3515 Cleveland Avenue, Brookfield, Illinois 60513, was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on January 28, 2013 was read. Mr. Papke explained that Barrett Moving & Storage is requesting an eight (8) foot high chain link fence. Currently, the Code allows an eight (8) foot high chain link fence along the property line. The tenant is part of a commercial property in the Chevy Chase Business Park. Barrett is asking for the fence to be erected at the requested height along the tenant lease space line. Currently they are limited to a six (6) foot high fence. Barrett is trying to prevent theft from the trailers. There is another moving company located in Buffalo Grove that does have an eight (8) foot high chain link fence. Barrett is trying to duplicate that with the thought that if someone breaks into the trailers to steal something, it would be more difficult to try and lift it over an eight (8) foot high fence as opposed to a six (6) foot high fence. Ch. Entman read the Letter of Authorization dated January 16, 2013 into the record. Ch. Entman also read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated January 29, 2013 which states: "I am writing in follow-up to your 1/24/13 memo, RE: "Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing — February 19, 2013" concerning the proposed fence installation at 201 Hastings Drive, Barrett Moving & Storage. Based on our review, there are no intersection or driveway visibility issues or any other Engineering concerns related to this proposed fence installation." Corn. Lesser asked Mr. Papke if his reference to another moving company with an eight (8) foot fence was concerning Graebel Moving and asked Mr. Papke to describe the location of that fence. Mr. Papke stated that Graebel is located in an industrial park. Corn. Lesser asked if that chain link fence is located along the property line. Mr. Papke stated that he believes that is correct. Barrett is looking to fence the area that is their tenant lease space. Corn. Shapiro asked if there are any other security measures in place such as cameras. Mr. Papke stated that currently Barrett does not have any cameras. He has spoken with Mr. Gename about mounting a camera near the gate area. There will be sliding gate that will be locked but will also be equipped with a Knox box for which the Deputy Fire Marshal will have a key for. The back area along the railroad tracks will not have any fencing. Barrett is considering installing a camera in that back area. Com. Shapiro asked if there is anything about the chain link fence that would prevent it from being cut and allowing someone to enter. Mr. Papke stated that with the right equipment someone could cut the fence. Com. Shapiro asked if there is sufficient lighting in that area. Mr. Papke believes that there is sufficient lighting in the parking lot. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 19, 2013 PAGE 2 of 15 Corn. Cesario stated that there is a Letter of Approval from Chevy Chase Business Park dated . . January 10, 2013. Mr. Papke explained that Mr. Gename spoke with Hamilton Partners and requested permission to install the fence. Hamilton Partners did not have any issues with the request. Corn. Windecker asked if Freemen Fence has worked in the Village previously. Mr. Papke stated that he is currently a licensed contractor in Buffalo Grove. Ms. Beverly Hansen, 33 Cottonwood, Northbrook, Illinois 60062, was present and sworn in. Ms. Hansen is representing the Buffalo Grove Prairie Guardians. The Buffalo Grove Prairie is located directly to the east of the property. She has been the steward and land manager since 1989. In the early 1990's, she had spoken with Hamilton Partners about several different issues concerning the industrial park. During one of the conversations with Bruce Bingham, he assured her that they would always have access to the prairie through the driveways and parking lots that stem off of Hastings and go east into the prairie. Her concern is that the prairie will not be accessible to them if the fence is installed. They do use all four (4) driveways to access the prairie. She is concerned because she has not seen anything depicting where the fence will be located. Mr. Sheehan provided a copy of the Plat of Survey depicting the proposed fence location to Ms. Hansen. Mr. Papke explained that the back of the property where the parking lot is going into the prairie area will be fenced in. The only time that will not be accessible is at night when the gate is closed. During the day, the gate will allow access and the remainder of the parking lot will remain open for access. Ms. Hansen had no additional concerns. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no additional questions or comments from the audience. Com. Cesario made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by Barrett Moving & Storage, 201 Hastings Drive, for variance of Fence Code, Section 15.20.060, pertaining to Nonresidential Districts, for the purpose of erecting an eight (8) foot chain link fence to be installed in a location other than the lot line. Said fence will begin on the south elevation of the building and extend south into the parking lot a distance of two hundred fifteen (215) feet; then turn east a distance of three hundred forty two (342)feet. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated January 29, 2013. The fence is to be installed pursuant to Exhibit "A". The Petitioner has demonstrated hardship and unique ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 19, 2013 PAGE 3 of 15 circumstances. The proposed fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Corn. Lesser seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Cesario, Steingold, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Au, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN —None Motion Passed 7 to 0. Findings of Facts attached. Permit may be issued in fifteen (15) days — March 7, 2013. 345 ARLINGTON HEIGHTS ROAD, VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE - FENCE CODE, SECTION 15.20.040, FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSTALLING A TEN (10) FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE TO ENCLOSE PUMPHOUSE#1 LOCATED AT 345 ARLINGTON HEIGHTS ROAD Mr. Greg Boysen, Director of Public Works and Mr. David Haisma, Superintendent of Water Operations, 51 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois 60089; and Mr. Chad Laucamp, AECOM, 303 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 600, Chicago, Illinois 60601, were present and sworn in. Mr. David Broitman, 521 Arbor Gate Lane, Buffalo Grove, Illinois 60089 and Mr. John Bever, 481 Arbor Gate Lane, Buffalo Grove, Illinois 60089, were also present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on January 28, 2013 was read. Mr. Boysen explained that 345 Arlington Heights Road is pump house and reservoir#1. This is a water receiving reservoir for Lake Michigan water. It also has a deep well on the site in addition to a pump house facility. The Village is proposing to do a number of things onsite but the one item that required a hearing is the proposed fence installation that has been recommended to the Village. The recommendation was initially made through a study that was federally mandated called a Vulnerability Assessment of all the Village's water facilities. The document is not FOI-able or disclosible but there is nothing too complicated or secret about it so the Village would be happy to talk about any of the aspects of it. Mr. Laucamp is the designer of the currently proposed improvements, including the fence. He was also one of the principal engineers working on the original Vulnerability Assessment. Mr. Laucamp explained that approximately ten (10) years ago, he performed and completed a Vulnerability Assessment. One of the recommendations that were made as part of the study was to install perimeter fencing along all the facilities. Each of the pump house locations hold emergency back up wells as well as the reservoirs and pumping stations for the Village's water supply, which are all considered critical assets. Nearly all the utilities that he has done work for have some sort of perimeter fencing along their facilities. Typically it will be a six (6) foot high fence with barbed wire or razor wire on top. Because the Fence Code does not allow barbed or razor wire, he has recommended that the Village goes to a ten (10) foot high fence in order to prevent people from accessing these locations. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 19, 2013 PAGE 4 of 15 Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated January 29, 2013, addressing all three (3) locations,which states: "I am writing in follow-up to your 1/24/13 memo, RE: "Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing — February 19, 2013" concerning the three applications submitted for variance of Fence Code, Section 15.20.040, related to proposed fence installations at 345 Arlington Heights Road, 511-525 Arlington Heights Road and 120 Horatio Boulevard. Based on our review, there are no intersection or driveway visibility issues or any other Engineering concerns related to these proposed fence installations." Com. Lesser asked what the purpose of the proposed perimeter fencing is. Mr. Laucamp stated that the purpose is to delay anyone from accessing the site and to prevent unauthorized access of the reservoir hatches that are located on the sites as well as the pump house buildings themselves. Com. Lesser asked if there are any other security measures being taken or proposed to be in place. Mr. Laucamp responded that no other measures are proposed as part of this project.There have previously been security measures that have been put in place.The proposed fencing is to compliment those.The fencing is a very common improvement for water utilities to use to protect the facilities. Com. Lesser stated that there are no security personnel at the sites. All the Village is really doing is putting up a ten (10)foot fence that would delay someone three (3) or four (4) minutes from gaining access to the property. Mr. Broitman interjected that the US Department of Energy estimates that a fence will stop someone for about four(4)seconds. Com. Lesser stated that he would like to have a discussion about what other security measures are in place for the facilities.However,what is before the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) is the issue of the fence. He is not sure what the proposed fence would accomplish.He asked if there is any fencing at the sites now.Mr.Laucamp stated that currently there is no fencing now. Anyone could walk onto the sites and access the pump houses and hatches. Com. Lesser stated that he is presuming that the hatches are locked. Mr. Laucamp confirmed that the hatches are locked. Com. Lesser understands on a very small level that the fence might deter someone such as a nuisance. He does not see what security the fence would be providing. Com.Shapiro stated that the fence seems to be proposed much closer to the buildings at the other locations than at the 345 Arlington Heights Road location. He understands that it might be due to the shape of the property, but the fence seems to go way past the building at this one. He asked if there is a reason why. Mr. Laucamp stated that they are trying to secure the perimeter of the property. In some cases,the fencing could be shortened but the intent is to secure the perimeter of the property. Com. Shapiro stated that the other site plans show the proposed fencing closer to the building itself and not so far away from the building. Mr. Laucamp stated that pump house#1 site is a smaller site than the other two(2)sites.They tried to minimize the amount of fencing at the larger facilities.Com.Shapiro asked if there is fencing installed at the facility on Buffalo Grove Road,just south of Aptakisic. Mr. Laucamp stated that fencing is installed at pump house #7. Com. Shapiro asked why these locations were not addressed at the same time based on the same study. Mr. Laucamp stated that there were ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 19,2013 PAGE 5 of 15 other improvements that were being done at pump house #7 so it was done as part of that project. That was probably seven (7) or eight (8) years ago. Com. Shapiro stated that Mr. Laucamp testified that there are other security measures at the facilities such as cameras that are monitored. Mr. Laucamp responded that is correct. Mr. Boysen added that generally there is video monitoring and in some cases motion detectors in the buildings. There are locks on the hatches and the doors to the buildings. Com. Shapiro asked if the buildings are alarmed so that the police would be notified or is to just video capturing. Mr. Boysen stated that there are auto- dialers on the alarms. Mr. Haisma stated that there are no alarms on the cameras. Being a small site that is a little less than one (1) acre and larger sites being multi acres, it is hard to get a camera to view all that and have a motion detectors that may be triggered by a leaf blowing around. The building alarms have an immediate dial out to a 24 hour operator that is in contact with the Police Department. Com. Shapiro stated that these are not completely unsecured locations. They are being monitored, there are cameras. The fencing would be just a visual deterrent. Mr. Haisma stated that with the system in place they can add more cameras. Right now you cannot set a camera down the side of a field and get a motion detector on it. If there is a fence line you can get a camera to detect a solid object. Mr. Boysen added that one of the things that the Village is required to go through the exercise of is government-funded training for terrorist attacks. The Village has experienced other odd things. There is a history of odd things at reservoir #7. If the ZBA recalls at that time of the previous variance that was granted, they experienced an odd occurance. Someone had taken a tubular thing of some type and punctured through the top of one of the hatches. He believes that was just some stupid thing, but fortunately that reservoir was out of service at that time and the water was not affected in any way. It showed the Village that things are susceptible to tampering. Nothing has happened since the fence was installed and he suspects that would not have happened had that fence been installed at the time. Com. Shapiro stated that pump house #7 is adjacent to a park so there is probably a lot of activity around it. Mr. Bever stated that his property backs to pump house #2. There was an accident there about twenty (20) years ago when a young girl fell into an open hatch. As a resident and a father he is concerned about safety and security of those people that might be using the park. However, he is concerned about enjoyment of his property and what a ten (10) foot high fence would look like. It is also about who the Village trying to deter. Is it a nuisance? He does not believe there needs to be a ten (10) foot fence. Is it someone who is malicious? If it is someone who is malicious, would a ten (10) foot fence really be effective in deterring someone who has a malicious intent. Corn. Cesario stated that if there is no physical barrier, they would be able to understand the concern that someone can just walk onto the property and have access. He is trying to focus on the height of the fence proposal, six (6) feet versus eight (8) feet versus ten (10) versus twelve (12), etc. He understands that higher is inherently safer because it is harder to climb over. But what is the magic number behind ten (10). Ten (10) feet is a very high fence. Mr. Laucamp stated that typically you will see a lot of six (6) foot high fences at these types of facilities. But those six (6) foot high fences would normally have some sort of barbed wire or razor wire on ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 19, 2013 PAGE 6 of 15 top to deter people from accessing the site and climbing over the fence. Corn. Cesario stated that the proposed fences are chain link. Someone who could climb a six (6) foot high chain link fence could climb a ten (10) foot high chain link fence in just a little bit more time. Mr. Laucamp stated that you could make arguments either way. There is no doubt that a ten (10) foot high fence is going to be more difficult to climb than a six (6) foot high fence. Corn. Cesario stated that he is trying to balance the aesthetics of the taller fence affecting everyone every day versus the event of someone trying to access the property. What is that incremental benefit from those four (4) feet? Having a fence will help and a taller fence will help more and a more dense fence will help more, etc. What he is struggling with is trying to get whatever data the Village has that indicates that ten (10) feet is the right height, razor wire or not. Mr. Laucamp stated that he does not believe that there is a magical height. However, all the points being made about a six (6) foot high fence and the inability to apply a top band of barbed wire or razor wire, it was their judgment that it would be best to raise the height of the fence to deter people from wanting to climb the fence and get onto the site. Corn. Cesario asked why the fence was not proposed at twelve (12) or fifteen (15) feet in height. Mr. Laucamp stated that there comes a point when the economics come into play. You could make a thirty (30) foot high fence or you could make a brick wall with a fence on top. He believes that at some point you need to use your best judgment to do the best you can to keep people out. There is a safety component to it as well. At pump house #6 there is school nearby. They are trying to keep children from playing on top of the reservoir. There is a retaining wall on site. They are trying to keep the children from falling over the retaining wall. That is a safety issue and a concern. There will always be some sophisticated adversary that can get access whether you put a large wall or armed guards or whatever it might be. Based on their engineering judgment this was best course to take based on the restriction that they had. Mr. Broitman stated that the whole idea that the fence will add any safety is preposterous. He does not understand where the Village is coming up with the idea that this expense is worth the benefit when residents are not asking for this. The fence will terribly change the characteristic of the neighborhood. It will create a huge visual impact that will hurt property values. It will hurt the residents. It will hurt the Village. It offers zero benefit. The Village can get everything they want in a six (6) foot fence without having to get a variance. The petition has to be denied based on the evidence that has been presented.There is no justification for the fence. Com. Windecker asked what the urgency is if the project has been dragging on for ten (10) years, Now coming forth with three (3) proposals in residential districts. The Village is taking a request to install a ten (10) foot chain link fence to enclose the pump house. When you look at the site plan the fence would not really enclose the pump house, it only connects to it on the ends.The window and door are not enclosed behind the fence. The fence extends to the rear of the property with no regard for the residents that are located behind the site. There is nothing in the public hearing notice about surrounding the reservoir. There are no dimensions on the site plan. The submittal is very poorly done and is brought before the ZBA to approve just because of the fact that the Village applied for it. If this was submitted by a resident, the ZBA would not even consider looking at it. He is concerned that this proposal was done in haste. He ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 19, 2013 PAGE 7 of 15 does not understand the logic of why this ten (10)foot fence would surround the property if the intent is to enclose the pump house. It appears as if the fence would enclose the reservoir as well, but the variance request does not state that. If the reservoir will be enclosed, is it necessary to take all the property and enclose it with a fence? If the Village is concerned about safety, why is a fire hydrant inside the fence line at the 120 Horatio Boulevard location? What if a house catches on fire, the fence would create a problem. He is not sure if the thought has gone into the request prior to the submission. Mr. Boysen stated that he does not believe that any fire hydrants would be enclosed by the fence. Once the need was identified it has been on his mind and they have moved ahead and done a number of improvements. The video monitoring was something that was done after. Often times they look to do things in conjunction with other ongoing improvements. The things that did not get accomplished with ongoing improvements were always pending. They were held for potential funding and packaged primarily due to ARRA funding opportunities. This was also done in combination with the Village's comprehensive water study that was done three (3) years ago, which study has been done every several years. This was the first comprehensive water study evaluation by an independent consulting firm. Part of that study included their observations for maintenance and physical improvements, but also picked up Vulnerability Assessment recommendations that were still pending. At the time, there was a proposal that suggested that there might be federal funding assistance. That did not happen. They did not move quickly after that because there is always a potential for funding assistance, which now has become clear will not ever be available to Buffalo Grove for water system improvements of this type. Com. Au stated that Mr. Laucamp testified that the industry standard for protecting these types of facilities has been six (6) foot fences with barbed wire. Are there any studies that show that is the industry standard and if that cannot be done what the next recommended option would be? She believes that information would be very helpful in this case because if every municipality had a standard and alternate standards, it would be very helpful to the ZBA to understand. The ZBA Commissioners are not experts in that area and if the Village is saying they cannot put a six (6) foot fence with barbed wire on it, then the next best thing is a ten (10) foot fence. The ZBA would like to see that as a recommended standard by an authority. She believes that would be helpful to give the ZBA a starting point to understand. Mr. Laucamp stated that he mentioned the six (6) foot high fences because that is what you commonly see. He has clients throughout the Midwest and United States and that is what is commonly seen at similar types of facilities. Security systems are complex. There are many various ways that they can work together. The primary purpose is to detect and respond to any type of intrusion or attack on any type of facility. The Village has cameras with motion detection capabilities that are already in place. Fences work hand in hand with them in trying to delay someone from gaining access to the sites. Most commonly you see cameras, motion detection and fences used in conjunction with each other. There are more sophisticated types of arrangements that can be done. There are fence detection systems that have wires along the bottom of the fences. If someone were to climb the fence, the system would detect it which would trigger an alarm. That is a more expensive type of system and is not as common because of the price. There are further measures that can be taken. The bottom line is that these are critical components to the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 19, 2013 PAGE 8 of 15 Village as well as other entities throughout the country. Security came to the forefront especially after 9/11 as well as other instances that have occurred since.As a part of that there has been a straightforward approach in looking at all facilities and characterizing them and come up with their level of risk.Then you come up with improvements that can minimize your risk or equalize the risks across all your facilities. At the same time, you are trying to avoid spending too much money.You cannot make the facilities a palace that is protected against any type of incident. However, you want to use your money smartly in ways that will protect the facilities with proven techniques. Com. Au stated that she believes that her question was misunderstood. Her question was not whether or not there should be fencing. Obviously there was a recommendation for fences and there is no argument on the ZBA whether or not there should be a fence.Everyone agrees that there should be a fence.You do not need a variance to put up a six(6)foot fence.The question is whether or not a six(6)foot fence is good enough.To prove that a variance should be granted she needs to know why the ten(10)foot fence is what is necessary in lieu of the six(6)foot fence.She does not believe that the Petitioner has proven why they need the ten(10)foot high fence.She needs to know why the Village needs a ten(10) foot fence and not the six(6)foot fence,and not a six(6)foot fence with barbed wire,a normal six (6) foot fence. In order to get an affirmative vote from the ZBA, the Petitioner needs to prove the hardship for a ten(10)foot fence and not a six(6)foot fence. Mr. Boysen stated that, in general for this type of security, it is recommended to retain individuals that have a degree of training,experience and judgment.That is one of the reasons why the Village chose to use a national consulting firm that specializes in water and security. That is why they contracted AECOM to do the work. The judgment is based on training, experience and background.He does not know if anything exists that states that with a nine(9) foot or eight(8)foot fence you can predict any incidents will occur. Mr. Laucamp added that it will be hard to provide the requested information to have a ten (10) foot high fence. In this case, it is his recommendation based on what he has seen elsewhere and he is trying to make an equivalent fence for what he has seen in other locations that are very similar. Com. Shapiro asked if this will secure all the pump house locations in the Village or will there still be some that will not be secured via fence.Mr.Boysen stated that the Village has a total of four(4).Today they are proposing the fencing for the three(3)locations that are not currently secured in this manner.Com.Shapiro asked if,in the ten(10)years since the initial study,have there been any incidents that have occurred at any of the pump house locations. Mr. Boysen stated that some things of a questionable nature have occurred. After the study was done, there was an incident where someone had taken what appeared to be a pipe post and punctured a hatch a reservoir#7.Com.Shapiro asked Mr.Boysen if there has been only one(1) incident.Mr.Broitman interjected that the incident was more like a contractor,or someone like that punching a hole.Com.Shapiro stated that he is just trying to gauge the level of risk at the facilities. Mr. Boysen added that at pump house#2 there was a tragic event where an eight(8) to ten(10)foot iron rod was used the snap the locks on a hatch.Com.Shapiro stated that there have been really two(2)incidents of significance.Mr.Boysen stated that there have been other suspicious things.There has been some corrosion that has appeared on some of the hatches at ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 19,2013 PAGE 9of15 pump house #2 that cannot be explained by either the manufacturer of the hatches or other competitors. They do not know if some chemical was applied to them to create the corrosion. Corn. Shapiro stated that the only thing that really concerns him about the proposed fencing is that the fence does not even secure the doors at the front of the pump house building. Whoever is going to create mischief, if they want to get into that pump house, there is no deterrent except for the door. There is no fencing in front of the entryway. Mr. Boysen stated that they do feel reasonably comfortable about the building enclosure itself, although nothing is guaranteed to be undefeatable. It is more things related to hatches, air vents and overflows that the Village is mostly concerned about that he feels the Village does not have the level of security that they would like to have at this time. Corn. Lesser remains unconvinced. He does not think that there is any difference between a six (6) foot fence and a ten (10) foot fence in terms of securing these facilities. Prior testimony indicated that you could point a camera and motion detectors at a fence line. That certainly can be done with a six (6) foot fence. He does not understand what the distinction is between a six (6) foot fence and a ten (10) foot fence. You can install a six (6) foot fence without requiring a variance. For a variation, certain criteria must be met, a certain hardship, unique circumstances, will not later the essential character of the neighborhood, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. He does not believe the Petitioner meets any of the criteria for a ten (10) foot fence versus a six (6) foot fence. He is unconvinced and believes that objective can be accomplished with a six (6) foot fence and motion detectors. If the Village is truly concerned with the security of the pump houses,there are a whole lot of other steps that should be taken. Com. Windecker asked why there are no dimensions or lengths shown on the site plans for the proposed fences. Mr. Boysen apologized for that. He thought that with a drawing set to scale they had what was necessary for the application. If there is a dimensional requirement that he omitted, he apologizes. Corn. Windecker stated that if the ZBA was going to entertain a motion to approve the requests without any dimensions, he could not vote on it in good conscience. Mr. Laucamp stated that he believes there were dimensions that were taken off the reservoir itself that show exactly where the fence is to be located. Ch. Entman stated that it depends on which location is being talked about. He sees some dimensions, but typically a proposed fence shown on a survey will include the dimensions. Mr. Laucamp stated that the lengths were tabulated and there is a lump sump of the lengths in the bid, but they did not denote them on each of the site plans. Corn. Windecker added that there should be a cost savings if the fence at the rear of the property at 345 Arlington Heights Road is brought in and not run all the way to the property line. Mr. Boysen stated that in some cases they fence the perimeter partly for the purpose of easy maintenance to the site. But by having additional fences, it would add to the time and maintenance costs. Ch. Entman stated that he agrees that he does not have enough information to vote of the proposals. It may very well be that the fencing is needed. He would suggest that it probably is in some locations. The height of the fence is still a question as to whether or not six (6) feet would be adequate. It appears that the focus is on the reservoir and/or well, which houses the water ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 19, 2013 PAGE 10 of 15 supply, more so than the pump houses, which may already be somewhat secure. At 345 Arlington Heights Road, the reservoir field as designated on the site plan, the fence will go way beyond that. Wherever there might be an opportunity to put a fence other than where it is indicated, he would want to explore that. As in the 345 Arlington Heights Road location, the reservoir field is square in shape and not triangular like the proposed fence location. Possibly the fence could be run along the back end of the reservoir field and not necessarily the property line. It also appears that the obvious security issue is someone gaining access to the actual water supply. If that is the case, then it would appear that the focus may very well be the access to the water supply; the hatches, vents, etc., whether it be in the form of more secure hatches and vents, if that is possible or a combination of that and fencing and maybe focusing some fencing around the actual openings to the water supply and not the field itself. Maybe the hatches and vents can be fenced in such a way that they would be secure without having to put a gargantuan fence structure around the entire perimeter of the property at ten (10) feet. No one is denying that there is not a need for enhanced security in the year 2013 and/or just enhanced protection from nuisances. Fortunately it appears that the pump houses have not been the subject of too much vandalism and nuisance matters, but there is always a risk of someone contaminating the water supply. The ZBA has to weigh that against having these ten (10) foot monstrosities, especially some of which are boarding residential neighborhoods and some of which are proposed to be right up along side sidewalks. If it was a no brainer that throughout the United States you must have these ten (10) foot fences and it is the standard, then he might say that is the thing to do. He is not at that point yet. He needs more information, because as proposed, he is not in a position to approve the fencing as requested. He would like to see some alternatives. He would like to see different options on restricting the secured areas to the smallest area possible in the least offensive fashion and see if something cannot be agreed upon. Restrict the massiveness of the projects to the bare minimums so that the Village can say that we have protected the residents and/or the Village as much as possible taking into consideration the security issue. He will not say that he wants a two (2) or three (3) foot fence and he does not believe that it will never really be an issue because then when someone contaminates the water he will not feel good about it. On the other hand, he just wants to see what makes sense. He does not have enough information to make a decision. If asked to vote tonight, he would have to vote "no"to all three (3) requests. Mr. Boysen asked Mr. Sheehan if the fencing were proposed at six (6) feet in height, could the fences be installed without a variance. Mr. Sheehan stated that this type of six (6) foot fence was allowed in a residential district,the exact location would have to be reviewed. Ch. Entman stated that a six (6) foot fence could be located as the Ordinance would allow. The proposed height is the issue. If the Village deems that a six (6) foot fence to be erected where the Ordinance allows is sufficient, then the ZBA has nothing to say. If the fence would be any taller,then the ZBA would need to review. Mr. Laucamp added that the Village is also replacing a lot of the hatches. They are providing a high-security lock. Ch. Entman stated that he saw that on the plan and does respect that. He ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 19, 2013 PAGE 11 of 15 understands that part of the issue is to secure the access. His question is if the Village is J securing the areas of access to the water supply maybe that is sufficient combined with certain fencing in the area. Mr. Laucamp stated that, in his opinion, a six (6) foot high fence is better than no fencing. The Village can think about if a fence higher than six (6) foot is needed. Mr. Boysen stated to Mr. Laucamp that he believes that the Village would be better off with a six (6) foot fence as located on the plans as opposed to something that would be three (3) feet away from the air vents. He does not believe that he can make a better case for the need for ten (10) foot high fencing. He understands everything the ZBA is saying. He asked that the ZBA vote on the requests as proposed. Ch. Entman explained the options available to Mr. Boysen. Mr. Boysen stated that he would like to proceed with a vote as proposed. Corn. Windecker asked Mr. Sheehan if the Village can install a six (6) foot fence as proposed, as close to the sidewalk as shown. Mr. Sheehan stated the fence is shown located one (1) foot off the sidewalk, which may allowable. He would need to review each proposal individually, and determine what code allowed. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no additional questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Lesser made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by the Village of Buffalo Grove, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois 60089, for variance of Fence Code, Section 15.20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of installing a ten (10) foot chain link fence to enclose Pump house#1 located at 345 Arlington Heights Road. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated January 29, 2013. The Petitioner has demonstrated hardship and unique circumstances. The proposed fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Corn. Cesario seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—None NAY—Cesario, Steingold, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Au, Entman ABSTAIN —None Motion Denied 7 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. Petitioner advised of their right to appeal this decision to the Village Board. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 19, 2013 PAGE 12 of 15 511-525 ARLINGTON HEIGHTS ROAD, VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE - FENCE CODE, SECTION 15.20.040, FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSTALLING A TEN (10) FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE TO ENCLOSE PUMPHOUSE#2 LOCATED AT 511-525 ARLINGTON HEIGHTS ROAD Mr. Greg Boysen, Director of Public Works and Mr. David Haisma, Superintendent of Water Operations, 51 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois 60089; and Mr. Chad Laucamp, AECOM, 303 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 600, Chicago, Illinois 60601, were present and sworn in. Mr. David Broitman, 521 Arbor Gate Lane, Buffalo Grove, Illinois 60089 and Mr. John Bever, 481 Arbor Gate Lane, Buffalo Grove, Illinois 60089, were also present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on January 28, 2013 was read. There were no questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Com. Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by the Village of Buffalo Grove, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois 60089, for variance of Fence Code, Section 15.20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of installing a ten (10) foot chain link fence to enclose Pump house#2 located at 511-525 Arlington Heights Road. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated January 29, 2013. The Petitioner has demonstrated hardship and unique circumstances. The proposed fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Com. Au seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—None NAY—Cesario, Steingold, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Au, Entman ABSTAIN —None Motion Denied 7 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. Petitioner advised of their right to appeal this decision to the Village Board. 120 HORATIO BOULEVARD, VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE - FENCE CODE, SECTION 15.20.040, FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSTALLING A TEN (10) FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE TO ENCLOSE PUMPHOUSE#6 LOCATED AT 120 HORATIO BOULEVARD Mr. Greg Boysen, Director of Public Works and Mr. David Haisma, Superintendent of Water Operations, 51 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois 60089; and Mr. Chad Laucamp, AECOM, 303 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 600, Chicago, Illinois 60601, were present and sworn in. Mr. David Broitman, 521 Arbor Gate Lane, Buffalo Grove, Illinois 60089 and Mr. John Bever, 481 Arbor ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 19, 2013 PAGE 13 of 15 Gate Lane, Buffalo Grove, Illinois 60089, were also present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on January 28, 2013 was read. There were no questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Lesser made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by the Village of Buffalo Grove, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois 60089, for variance of Fence Code, Section 15.20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of installing a ten (10) foot chain link fence to enclose Pump house #6 located at 120 Horatio Boulevard. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated January 29, 2013. The Petitioner has demonstrated hardship and unique circumstances. The proposed fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE — None NAY — Cesario, Steingold, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Au, Entman ABSTAIN — None Motion Denied 7 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. Petitioner advised of their right to appeal this decision to the Village Board. ANNOUCEMENTS Mr. Sheehan reminded the ZBA about the Volunteer Appreciation Luncheon on Sunday, February 24, 2013. Ch. Entman will be recognized for 25 years of service. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Com. Au and seconded by Corn. Cesario. Voice Vote — AYE was unanimous. Ch. Entman adjourned the meeting at 8:53 P.M. Submitted by, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 19, 2013 PAGE 14 of 15 Julie Kamka Recording Secretary ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 19,2013 PAGE 15 of 15