Loading...
2007-04-17 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes A ppifilEE REGULAR MEETING As Stbed BUFFALO GROVE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 5/1 /00'1 APRIL 17, 2007 Acting Chairman Sandler called the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 in the Council Chambers of the Village Hall, 50 Raupp Boulevard. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioner Stein Commissioner Dunn Commissioner Windecker Vice Chairman Sandler Commissioner Lesser Commissioner Shapiro Commissioners Absent: Chairman Entman Also Present: Edward Schar, Building Commissioner William Raysa, Village Attorney DeAnn Glover, Village Trustee APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 20, 2007 minutes: Corn. Lesser made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted of the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting held on Tuesday, March 20, 2007. Corn. Dunn seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE — Stein, Dunn, Windecker, Sandler, Lesser, Shapiro NAY — None ABSTAIN - None OLD BUSINESS 2760 ACACIA COURT SOUTH, BARON HARMON — FENCE CODE, SECTION 15.20.040, TO CONSTRUCT AN 8' BRICK OR STONE FENCE ALONG THE REAR PROPERTY LINE Mr. Baron Harmon, 2760 Acacia Court South, and Mr. Lawrence Freedman, Attorney, 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1211 , Chicago, Illinois 60602, were present and advised they were still under oath. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 1 of 7 — APRIL 17, 2007 Mr. Freedman submitted to the Commissioners a reference sheet from The Fence Store, marked as Exhibit "M", indicating the fence shown as E. Board on Batten as the fence that is now being proposed. This is a wood fence. Acting Ch. Sandler stated that he does not have an issue with an eight foot (8') fence along Route 22. Com. Dunn confirmed that the fence will only be along the rear property line. Mr. Freedman advised that the Petitioner amended his request at the March 20, 2007 meeting to remove the request for the fence along the west property line. Petitioner is also amending his request to construct a wood fence and not a brick or stone fence. There was some discussion concerning the berm that is located at the rear of the property. The fence will be located at the current grade of the rear yard. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Com. Stein made the following motion: I move we grant the amended request made by Baron Harmon, 2760 Acacia Court South, for variance of Fence Code, Section 15.20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of constructing an eight foot (8')wood board on batten fence along the rear property line. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated March 5, 2007. Petitioner has demonstrated hardship and unique circumstances. The proposed fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Corn. Lesser seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE— Stein, Dunn, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Sandler NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 6 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. Permit may be issued in fifteen(15) days—May 3, 2007. 2770 ACACIA COURT SOUTH, BARON HARMON — ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 17.32.030, TO ALLOW THE EXISTING ACCESSORY GARAGE/STORAGE STRUCTURE TO REMAIN THAT EXCEEDS THE PERMITTED HEIGHT OF 15' BY APPROXIMATELY 8'4" A letter submitted to Mr. Edward Schar by Mr. Baron Harmon and dated April 12, 2007 states in part: "This letter will confirm that I am withdrawing my request for variance regarding the height of the structure placed on 2770 Acacia Court South in Buffalo Grove, Illinois, and I am hereby ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 2 of 7—APRIL 17, 2007 submitting a draft Application for Permit to alter the existing structure to comply with the 15 foot height limitation." NEW BUSINESS 318 WINDSOR DRIVE, ROBERT AND GLORIA LORENZ— FENCE CODE, SECTION 15.20.040, TO ALLOW THE 6' WOOD PRIVACY FENCE INSTALLED ALONG THE REAR PROPERTY LINE TO REMAIN Mr. Robert Lorenz, 318 Windsor Drive, was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on March 22, 2007 was read. Mr. Lorenz explained that the property located behind his is approximately four to five feet (4'- 5') higher than his. This was done for drainage purposes. They started to put the fence up, then stopped and roped off where the fence height would be and found that the fence would only be four and a half feet (4-1/2') high. The fence is not at the top of the hill or at the bottom. It is located about two-thirds up the hill. Act. Ch. Sandler read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Edward Schar dated April 2, 2007 which states: "I have no comments on the subject proposal." Act. Ch. Sandler asked the Petitioner when they became aware of the issue. Mr. Lorenz stated that they bought a six foot (6') fence, because you cannot buy a five foot (5') fence, and they were going to cut it down to five feet (5'). They were aware of the five foot (5') height restriction. The property is slanted. If you look at the property and the fence, it would not look right at five feet (5'). Act. Ch. Sandler stated that he did look at the property and noticed the difference in the grade. Normally he would not support a request for a six foot (6') fence, but in this case,there is a difference. Com. Windecker advised that when he went out to the property, the public hearing sign was down and lying on the side of house and asked Mr. Raysa if that could delay the public hearing. Mr. Raysa advised that the public hearing could continue. Com. Windecker stated that the property to the south has a five foot (5') fence and the property to the north has a four foot (4') cyclone fence. Mr. Lorenz replied that the neighbor has a greater incline. They are requesting the fence because kids cut through their yard on their way to and from school. There used to be shrubs there, but those were taken down. Com. Windecker commented that with a six foot (6') fence, the kids would have to scale eight feet (8') and he asked if the Petitioner considered the safety of the children. He also noted that the school is located several blocks from the Petitioner's residence. Com. Stein asked what height fence was requested on the permit. Mr. Lorenz stated they received a permit for a five foot (5') fence. When they went to purchase the fencing, they found that they could only purchase a four foot (4') or six foot (6') fence. Corn. Stein asked if they contacted the Village before installing the fence. Mr. Lorenz advised that they spoke with the Village previously and that they would cut the fence down if they had to. Com. Stein stated that ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 3 of 7—APRIL 17, 2007 the Board has seen too many of these types of requests recently and asked about the hardship. Mr. Lorenz advised that the only way to get a five foot (5') fence would be to purchase a custom fence. Mr. Steve Edwards, 330 Windsor Drive, was present and sworn in. Mr. Edwards lives to the south of the Petitioner. He submitted photographs the Zoning Board of Appeals that were acceptable and marked as Exhibit "M". The photographs depict the view of the fence from his yard. The fence matches with the existing fences and looks very nice. He was present the day the fence was being installed. To cut the fence would make it look bad. He has resided at his residence since 1968. At that time, they were the only two (2) houses. Everyone knows everyone in the neighborhood. Com. Shapiro asked why the Petitioner believes that the school children would try to break into their house. Mr. Lorenz replied that they have previously found footprints on the rear deck and have found that the blinds on the door had been shifted, indicating that someone was trying to get in through the door. They have also found the water hose in the rear had been turned on and left running. Other homes in the neighborhood have been broken into. Com. Dunn asked what the Petitioner's hardship is. Mr. Lorenz replied that it is the incline in the rear yard and that the residents to the rear can see into their home. Mrs. Jane Edwards, 330 Windsor Drive, was present and sworn in. Mrs. Edwards explained that the property to rear of the Petitioner's used to have evergreens that were three feet (3') above the fence. The evergreens were removed and now they can see into the Petitioner's yard and house. Ms. Carol Felton, 305 Windsor Drive, was present and sworn in. Ms. Felton explained that they are trying to keep the neighborhood green and feels that they are being alienated for trying to better their properties. They also feel that the Village is working against them. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no additional questions or comments from the audience. Com. Lesser made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by Robert and Gloria Lorenz, 318 Windsor Drive, for variance of Fence Code, Section 15.20.040,pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of allowing the six foot(6')wood privacy fence installed along the rear property line to remain. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated April 2, 2007. 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. Shapiro seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Lesser, Shapiro, Sandler ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 4 of 7—APRIL 17, 2007 NAY— Stein, Dunn, Windecker ABSTAIN—None Motion Denied 3 to 3. Findings of Fact attached. Petitioner was advised of their right to appeal this decision to the Village Board. 936 GREENRIDGE ROAD, DANNY BARBARIGOS — FENCE CODE, SECTION 15.20.040, TO ALLOW THE 6' WOOD FENCE TO REMAIN AS CONSTRUCTED THAT ENCLOSES THE REAR YARD Mr. Danny Barbarigos, 936 Greenridge Road, was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on March 22, 2007 was read. Mr. Barbarigos explained that he wanted to purchase a dog and was referred to the Health Department. He was sent information from the Health Department via email concerning the Village's Dog Ordinance. He then proceeded to get two (2) quotes from contractor's to get the fence installed. He thought that the contractor was responsible for obtaining any permits. He wanted the fence due to a slope in the yard and he also wanted to keep the children in the neighborhood safe. Acting Ch. Sandler asked Mr. Barbarigos if he applied for a permit for a fence on October 10, 2006. At first, Mr. Barbarigos stated that he did not apply for a permit. Acting Ch. Sandler stated that he had a copy of a permit application signed by Mr. Barbarigos dated October 10, 2006 along with a letter from the Village dated October 10, 2006 stating that a six foot (6') fence is in violation of the Zoning Ordinance and that the maximum allowable height is five feet (5'). Mr. Barbarigos replied that he never received the letter and that he was approached by someone at his house after the fence was installed. Acting Ch. Sandler confirmed that the Village took legal action against Mr. Barbarigos for the violation and asked if he appeared at the last court date. Mr. Barbarigos stated that he was present at the last court date; he arrived ten (10) minutes late and was told he had to go through the motions of applying for a variation and would return to court. Acting Ch. Sandler asked if he was present at this month's court date. Mr. Barbarigos replied that he did not. Acting Ch. Sandler stated that he is aware that Mr. Barbarigos was fined for not appearing at this month's court date and asked if he was aware of that. Mr. Barbarigos stated that he was not aware of this. Acting Ch. Sandler stated that in regards to the six foot (6') fence, he went out and looked at the fence. He does not see a reason in this case to allow more than five feet (5') in height. If the variation was applied for prior to installing the fence, he would not have supported the requested. There is no great variance between the elevation of the Petitioner's yard and the yards located around it. He is concerned about high fences creating a fortress or barricade look in the Village. He understands about the type of dogs the Petitioner has but it is the responsibility as a dog owner to take care of the dogs and control them. Mr. Barbarigos asked where it is stated in the Ordinance that was sent to him that the maximum height is five feet (5'). Acting Ch. Sandler replied that the information sent to Mr. Barbarigos states a minimum of five feet (5'), but does not state the process to request a higher fence. It is ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 5 of 7—APRIL 17, 2007 still a situation where the Village Ordinance requires a variation for a fence more than five feet (5') in height. Com. Dunn advised that a permit is required for fence no matter what size. The permit was only applied for after the fence was installed. The initiative was taken to get information from the Village concerning the dog and the same could have been done concerning the fence. Mr. Barbarigos replied that he hired two (2) companies and the permit fee is not a big deal for him. He is spending$5,000.00 for a fence to beautify his neighbor's yards as well. No one from either company told him that he needed to go to the Village of get the information concerning the regulations. Com. Dunn asked why it took six (6) months to make the application for a variation. Mr. Barbarigos replied that he was working five (5) months straight from 11:00A.M. to 11:00P.M. Corn. Stein asked if Mr. Barbarigos is a business owner. He replied that he is. Corn. Stein if he needed to obtain permits for things like electric and gas at the restaurant. He replied that he does. Com. Stein asked if a copy of the contract is available showing that the contractor would be responsible for obtaining the permit. Mr. Barbarigos does not know if it is shown on the receipt. If he does not have a rule book, he would hire a professional. He is not a construction person, he is a restaurant owner. At the restaurant it is easy, there is a checklist. So when he first approached the Village, he saw the minimum height and got two (2) quotes and went from there. Com. Stein advised that there are not two (2) sets of Fence Codes, one for dog owners and one for non-dog owners. He does not believe that even a six foot (6') fence would keep the dog in. He does not support the request. Corn. Windecker agrees with the other Commissioners concerning the fact that the Petitioner did not contact the Village to get the information concerning the Fence Code. The fence encloses that electrical boxes in the rear and the utility companies have the right to come in and take the fence down. Mr. Barbarigos stated that he has two (2) unlocked gates to allow the utilities access to the boxes. Corn. Windecker added that with a classified dog, the fence should remain locked. He does not support the request and believes that the Petitioner has created a bigger hardship by fencing in the utility boxes so that the dog can stand on them and get over the fence quicker. Ms. Karen Should, 730 Old Post Road, Buffalo Grove, Illinois 60089, was present and sworn in. Ms. Should wanted to comment about her request for a fence variance that occurred approximately one (1) year ago. She lives on a corner lot. They drove around the neighborhood and saw a lot of fences on corner lots that came out to the sidewalk. They assumed that they could do that. They may not have bought the house if they knew they would not be able to. They asked for a fence variation out to the sidewalk and were told no. Another part was to have the rear fence at six feet (6') and were also told no. They were not happy about it. Everyone told them that they were stupid and they should have just gone ahead and put the fence up and not asked for a permit and then come back and say that they did not know and then the Village would probably let you keep it. She has nothing against this Petitioner. She is glad to see that she was not made a fool of. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no additional questions or comments from the audience. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 6 of 7—APRIL 17,2007 Corn. Dunn made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by Danny Barbarigos, 936 Greenridge Road, for variance of Fence Code, Section 15.20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of allowing the existing six foot (6')wood fence to remain as constructed that encloses the rear yard. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated April 2, 2007. 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—Stein, Dunn, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Sandler ABSTAIN—None Motion Denied 6 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. Petitioner was advised of their right to appeal this decision to the Village Board. ANNOUNCEMENTS Com. Stein stated that the Hamilton Partners leasing sign located at Lake Cook Road and Milwaukee Avenue has been refaced as indicated by Mr. Jim Lang, Hamilton Partners, at the October 17, 2006 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Corn. Stein and seconded by Corn. Windecker. Voice Vote—AYE was unanimous. Acting Ch. Sandler adjourned the meeting at 8:45 P.M. Submitted by, ilk J : Kamka R-'ording Secretary ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 7 of 7—APRIL 17, 2007