Loading...
2008-10-21 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 21, 2008 Acting Chairman Windecker called the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, October 21 , 2008 in the Council Chambers of the Village Hall, 50 Raupp Boulevard. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioner Stein Commissioner Dunn Commissioner Windecker Commissioner Lesser Commissioner Shapiro Commissioner Au Commissioners Absent: Chairman Entman Also Present: Brian Sheehan, Deputy Building Commissioner William Raysa, Village Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 16, 2008 minutes: Corn. Lesser made a motion to approve the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting held on Tuesday, September 16, 2008. Com. Stein seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE — Stein, Dunn, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Au NAY — None ABSTAIN — None Motion Passed 6 to 0. Minutes approved as submitted. BUSINESS 17 CRESTVIEW TERRACE, JEFF JOHNSON — FENCE CODE, SECTION 15.20.040, TO ALLOW THE EXISTING SIX (6) FOOT FENCE TO REMAIN AS CONSTRUCTED BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE HOUSE EXTENDING TO THE WEST PROPERTY LINE, THEN TURNING NORTH A DISTANCE OF APPROXIMATELY TWENTY-FOUR (24) FEET; AND TO ALLOW THE EXISTING SIX (6) FOOT FENCE TO REMAIN AS CONSTRUCTED BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE HOUSE AND EXTENDING TO THE EAST PROPERTY LINE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 1 of 8 — OCTOBER 21 , 2008 Mr. Jeff Johnson, 17 Crestview Terrace,was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on October 1,2008 was read. Mr. Johnson explained that when the fence was installed this summer, the contractor was instructed to keep the fence at the same height as the fences surrounding them on the east and west.The fence at 19 Crestview Terrace is three(3)inches taller than his fence.The fence at 15 Crestview Terrace is basically the same height.He provided photographs with his application, marked as Exhibit"E". The fence that was replaced was in disrepair. The fence that borders Buffalo Creek Condominiums was completely destroyed during snow removal last winter. He had to replace the fence for privacy and security reasons.They also have a German Shepard dog, which is very athletic and can jump over the fifty-six(56)inch fence that was there prior when they purchased the home.He cannot jump over the current fence.All the fences in the area are within sixty-nine(69)to seventy(70)inches in height. Acting Ch.Windecker confirmed that Arteaga Fence was the contractor that installed the fence. He asked if the Petitioner secured a permit. Mr. Johnson advised that the contractor did not obtain a permit.He spoke with the contractor today about it.Acting Ch.Windecker asked why a permit was not secured before the fence was installed.Mr.Johnson does not know why a permit was not obtained.He is still going back and forth with the contractor.He was at work the day his wife signed the contract.His wife did not read the contract and the fence contractor expressed to his wife that they would secure all the necessary paperwork.Mr.Joe Arizzi,who helped on the matter regarding the fence adjacent to Buffalo Creek Condominiums,told him not to worry and that the Village will make sure to get him a permit. When the contractor came out, he was informed by email and by fax,to have the contractor go to the Village and Joe would streamline the matter.Apparently,when he was not there,it was represented to his wife that everything was taken care of.Unfortunately,it never has been. Acting Ch. Windecker asked if anyone from Arteaga Fence was present tonight. Mr. Johnson advised there is not. Acting Ch. Windecker referred to the two (2) fence contracts that were submitted by the Petitioner and marked as Exhibit"F".At the bottom of the contract is states "THE CUSTOMER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLIANCE OF ANY AND ALL CODES, REGULATIONS,ORDINANCES OR PERMITS NECESSARY TO THEIR PURCHASE."Mr. Johnson advised that he has since seen that language. That is not what was represented to his wife and he did not sign the contract. Acting Ch. Windecker reviewed the two contracts submitted.Mr.Johnson explained that there were fences existing when they bought the property in June, 2007. The property at 15 Crestview Terrace has been vacant for nearly a year and continues to have violations.The house is almost completely dilapidated.That fence was almost completely falling down into their yard.He just finally took issue and went ahead and told his wife to go ahead and have the contractors do that fence as well.Acting Ch.Windecker confirmed that there was no permit for the front portion of the fence and no permit for the rear portion.He finds it difficult when permits are not applied for to grant the request. Alton Alfred, 43 Crestview Terrace, Buffalo Grove, Illinois was present and sworn in. Mr. Alfred explained that he is a neighbor and does not have any issues with the fence. He understands that that is hard to grant a request after the fact.He does support the request. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 2 of 8—OCTOBER 21,2008 Corn. Lesser asked if the fence along the rear property line was previously six (6) feet in height. Mr. Johnson replied that it was previously six (6) feet. There was a fence that borders 15 Crestview Terrace to the east. That fence came into a triangle. All the fencing replaced was the same height. Over the course of time, based on the post holes, the fence has sunk about four (4) or five (5) inches. The new, existing fence is the height that he believes the fence was originally. The neighbor's fence is the same as the fence that was installed. Corn. Lesser asked if the fence that is there today replaced the prior fence in the exact same location and was the exact same height as the prior fence. Mr. Johnson stated that he does not notice any difference. He has measured the fence at sixty-nine (69) inches. Joe Arizzi was there and they both measured the fence. The one (1) fence that is different from when he purchased the home is there was a double-wide gate which he replaced with a single-wide gate. They have a riding lawn mower. That fence/gate is seventy-one (71) inches/seventy and a half(70.5) inches now. That is the gate that he worried most about the dog getting over. Prior to the new fence/gate the dog could jump over and did jump over that portion of the fence/gate. The Village Police notified them that the dog was in the front yard. He does not want that to occur. He wanted to make sure that that fence/gate was higher, even thought it is the same height as the fence next door. The previous fence/gate was about seven (7) or eight (8) inches lower. Corn. Lesser stated that during testimony, the Petitioner indicated that he was concerned with the height of the previous fence because of the dog. The Petitioner is also representing that the height of the fence is the same as the previous fence. Mr. Johnson replied that the gate was previously a double-wide gate. That fence was eight (8) or nine (9) inches lower. The rest of the existing fence came up to the post, which were seventy and one half(70.5) inches. When the contractor replaced the entire fence, they made the gate the same height as the rest of the fence. Com. Stein stated that if the Petitioner had requested the variance prior to having the fence installed, the Board would have looked at what hardship the Petitioner has that would justify a six (6) foot fence. A hardship not created by the Petitioner. Owning a dog is not a hardship outside of the Petitioner's control. The Ordinance limits fences to five (5) feet and does not provide a provision for owning a dog. He asked what hardship existed previously that would require the need for a six (6) foot fence. Mr. Johnson cannot express what hardship existed except for his directions to his wife at the time that she signed the contract that he wanted the fence not to be in violation. They called Joe Arizzi since he had been kind enough to come to the house previously, and ask if there was any problem in replacing the fence at the same height as the neighbors on the west. The contractor ending up installing the fence in the same day. It was a rush job and they were gone. They paid them and now they are saying that they did not need the permit because his wife signed the contract stating that they would secure the permit. They were duped. I would have done everything that Joe Arizzi had asked from the standpoint of whatever he wanted done and if he had told him that he had to come up with some plausible hardship, there would not be any plausible hardship. He moved to Buffalo Grove because of the security. He does not want to interfere with anyone else demeaning the neighborhood from putting some fence up. He believes that the fence has improved the area. He was unaware of variance between a five (5) foot fence and a six (6) foot fence other than Mark across the street had told him that he had to go through the process to get his six (6) foot fence. He does not remember the justifications for him to get the fence. He wishes he was not taxing the Board's time and his. The situation is unfortunate. It may end up costing him even more. Corn. Stein asked if the Petitioner has been in contact with the fence company since the Village contacted him. Mr. Johnson stated ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 3 of 8—OCTOBER 21, 2008 that he contacted them today. Com. Stein asked if the contractor has offered any type of remedy, such as lowering the fence at no cost to the Petitioner. Mr. Johnson stated that the fence company has not given him any type of remedy. They said his wife signed a contract and it may reflect on the contract the fence height of six (6) feet. He is not blaming his wife at all. They have children at the house and she manages a career at the same time. She signed the contract and it should have been him that looked over the contract. He had contacted this contractor through a placement service, Service Magic, and read good reviews on them. He had already been in a lot of contact with Mr. Arizzi regarding that he would streamline the actual building permits or whatever is required because of all the problems he had with Inland Real Estate. Inland settled with them out of court to replace that part of the fence. Corn. Stein confirmed that behind the rear fence is a parking lot. Mr. Johnson stated that sixty (60) feet of fence along the rear abuts the parking lot. He does not know what the other neighbor's chose regarding the fence. The fence line runs along the whole parking lot, about six hundred (600) feet. Many of those fences have been damaged and still have not been repaired. He took issue with it. Corn. Shapiro asked if the fence adjacent to Buffalo Creek Condominiums is his fence or the Condominium's fence. Mr. Johnson stated that is a good question. Mr. Arizzi, himself and Inland's council went back and forth on that. No one has a clear understanding of whose fence that it. The only thing that could be determined is that there was a complaint made in January or February of last year to the Police that Inland Management, or their snow removal contractor, was putting snow on the fences. The report was made to the Police by a neighbor. Corn. Shapiro does not believe that the Petitioner took the correct route, but having the Buffalo Creek Condominiums at the rear of the property is justification for a six (6) foot fence. Six (6) foot on all sides in debatable. He asked if the fence at the rear property is Buffalo Creek's or the Petitioner's fence. Mr. Johnson stated that he asked Mr. Arizzi about the ownership of the fence and it could not be determined. His wife has always been worried about some of the people that reside in that complex. There are some unfavorable people in the complex. They have a four(4) foot fence that runs along the creek. Their dog will not go over there because it is straight into the creek. People are occasionally trying to look over the fence and parking at the fence. When he is not home, his wife gets worried. From a privacy and security standpoint, the fence is good. Corn. Shapiro asked about the ownership of the four(4) foot chain link fence. Mr. Johnson could not answer at to the ownership of that fence. Corn. Shapiro asked if any part of the yard is open. Mr. Johnson stated that his yard is completely fenced in. There is an existing six (6) foot fence that separates his property and 15 Crestview Terrace. He did not replace all three hundred forty (340) feet of fence. Corn. Dunn confirmed that the four (4) foot chain link fence was an existing fence; was not replaced and meets up with the six (6) foot fence. Corn. Stein clarified that the six (6) foot that does not back up to the Buffalo Creek Condominiums was replaced at the same height. Mr. Johnson stated that the fence ranges in height from sixty-nine and one half(69.5) inches to seventy and one half(70.5) inches in the entire yard except for the chain link fence. Corn. Stein typically would not vote for a six (6) foot fence. In this case, that section along the Buffalo Creek Condominiums parking lot would be a hardship that he would have considered. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 4 of 8—OCTOBER 21, 2008 Com. Au asked if the fence that borders 15 Crestview Terrace was replaced by the Petitioner. Mr. Johnson replied that there is still a section that is falling down. The fence is still the same height as the new fence. He chose not to replace that fence. He was not there when his wife signed the contract. He should have gone ahead and replaced it. There is about twenty-five (25) feet that separates his home and the neighbor's that has not been replaced. He reviewed the submitted photographs with Corn. Au. Acting Ch. Windecker read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Edward Schar dated October 6, 2008 which states: "I have no comments on the proposal." The Village Attorney, Mr. Raysa, reviewed the Plat of Survey for clarification of the fence locations and the variation being requested. As indicated on the Plat of Survey, the subject property is Lot 10. Lot 9 appears to be 15 Crestview Terrace. There is a wood fence shown on the Plat of Survey on the property line between Lot 9 and Lot 10. Mr. Raysa asked what the height of that fence is. Mr. Johnson was not sure which property that line was adjacent to. Mr. Raysa further clarified that the property line that measures 169.71 feet is the property line between 15 Crestview Terrace and 17 Crestview Terrace. The property line that measures 72.34 feet is the property line between 17 Crestview Terrace and the Buffalo Creek Condominiums. The property line that measures 136.88 feet is the property line that separates 17 Crestview Terrace and 19 Crestview Terrace. The property line that measures 151.05 feet is the property line adjacent to the creek and Park District property. Mr. Raysa confirmed with the Petitioner that the height of the wood fence between 17 Crestview Terrace and 15 Crestview Terrace is six (6) feet. Mr. Raysa confirmed with the Petitioner that the height of the wood fence adjacent to Buffalo Creek Condominiums is six (6) feet. Mr. Raysa confirmed that the fence along the rear property line adjacent to the creek is a four (4) foot chain link fence. Mr. Raysa also confirmed that the height of the wood fence between 17 Crestview Terrace and 19 Crestview Terrace is was six (6) feet. Corn. Stein asked if the fence adjacent to Buffalo Creek Condominiums existed prior to this. Mr. Sheehan advised that the fence along the property line adjacent to Buffalo Creek Condominiums was existing fencing that was damaged during the winter and was required to be replaced. Mr. Johnson replaced that fence at his cost but was reimbursed by Buffalo Creek Condominiums. Mr. Sheehan stated that fence was allowed to be replaced as a repair. That fence is not part of the variance request. The fencing that was replaced in addition to that was a tag-on to those repairs. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no additional questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Dunn made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by Jeff Johnson, 17 Crestview Terrace, for variance of Fence Code, Section 15.20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of allowing the existing six (6) foot fence to remain as constructed beginning at the northwest corner of the house extending to the west property line, then turning north a distance of approximately twenty- four (24) feet; and to allow the existing six (6) foot fence to remain as constructed beginning at the northeast corner of the house extending to the east property line. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 5 of 8—OCTOBER 21, 2008 Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated October 6, 2008. The Petitioner has demonstrated hardship and unique circumstances. The fence would not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Com. Lesser seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Stein NAY—Dunn, Lesser, Shapiro, Au, Windecker ABSTAIN—None Motion Denied 5 to 1. Findings of Fact attached. Petitioner was advised of his right to appeal to the Village Board. 626 BUCKTHORN TERRACE, JASON BARNES — FENCE CODE, SECTION 15.20.040, TO ALLOW THE EXISTING SIX (6) FOOT FENCE TO REMAIN AS CONSTRUCTED BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE HOUSE EXTENDING SOUTH TO THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE, THEN TURNING EAST TO THE REAR PROPERTY LINE; AND TO CONSTRUCT A FENCE RANGING IN HEIGHT FROM FIVE (5) FEET EIGHT (8) INCHES TO SIX (6) FEET IN HEIGHT ALONG THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE BEGINNING AT A POINT IN LINE WITH THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE HOUSE EXTENDING EAST TO THE REAR PROPERTY LINE Mr. Jason Barnes, 626 Buckthorn Terrace, was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on October 1, 2008 was read. Mr. Barnes explained that he constructed the fence without a permit. He obtained a permit for a five (5) foot fence after the fence was installed. He did not realize that a permit was required. This is his first time owning a home. He put the fence in the same spot as the old fence. The old fence was falling down. The old fence was a four (4) foot fence. He wanted to replace it with a four(4) foot fence. They went to many different hardware stores and all the stores had were six (6) foot fences. They ended up purchasing a six (6) foot fence. That is the same height as the fence along the rear. The neighbor's fences seemed to be fairly high as well. He was not aware of needing a variation for a fence higher than five(5) feet. The Plat of Survey shows where the new fencing was installed. They got a dog so they replaced that fencing. On the north side of the house there is about a one (1) foot difference in the grade of the yard. The fence is level across the top. The property to the east is Industrial property. The Village Code requires that fence to be six (6) feet in height. There are eighteen(18)wheelers that are parked in the rear of the industrial building to his rear. The trucks are noisy and have woken him up a few times. He put the new fence in the postholes of the old fence. He believes that the six (6) foot fence all around would help block the noise and increase his property value. Acting Ch. Windecker asked if the Petitioner checked with his neighbors regarding the fence. Mr. Barnes advised that he did check with his neighbors and the neighbors are happy that he replaced the fence. Acting Ch. Windecker confirmed that there is a berm that runs along the industrial properties to the rear that has the six (6) foot fence. Mr. Barnes stated that he can see ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 6 of 8—OCTOBER 21, 2008 about four (4) feet of the top of the semi's that park in the rear. Acting Ch. Windecker asked what the permit he has now is for. Mr. Barnes stated that it is for a five (5) foot fence. He is waiting for the outcome of his hearing. He will cut the fence down if not approved. Corn. Lesser stated that he does not see a hardship or unique circumstances in this case. He could understand a six (6) foot fence along the rear, but that is not being requested since a six (6) foot fence already exists along the rear. Mr. Barnes believes that the fence would look odd without being level across the top when there is a grade difference on the north side of the property. Acting Ch. Windecker stated that the Petitioner could cut one (1) foot off both sides of the fence to make the fence even. Corn. Dunn asked if the fence was replaced in the same location. Mr. Barnes stated that the previous fence was falling down and replaced in the same location. Corn. Dunn asked about the height of the previous fence. Mr. Barnes stated that the previous fence was four(4) feet in height. Corn. Stein asked if the hardware stores had four (4) foot fences as well as six (6) foot fences. Mr. Barnes stated that the shelves of the four (4) foot fences were all empty. There were no five (5) foot fences at all. Acting Ch. Windecker read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Edward Schar dated October 6, 2008 which states: "I have no comments on the proposal." There were no additional 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 Jason Barnes, 626 Buckthorn Terrace, for variance of Fence Code, Section 15.20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of allowing the existing six (6) foot fence to remain as constructed beginning at the southeast corner of the house extending south to the south property line, then turning east to the rear property line; and to construct a fence ranging in height from five (5) feet eight (8) inches to six (6) feet in height along the north property line beginning at a point in line with the northeast corner of the house extending east to the rear property line. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated October 6, 2008. The Petitioner has demonstrated hardship and unique circumstances. The fence would not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Corn. Shapiro seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—None NAY—Stein,Dunn, Lesser, Shapiro, Au, Windecker ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 7 of 8—OCTOBER 21, 2008 ABSTAIN—None Motion Denied 6 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. Petitioner was advised of his right to appeal to the Village Board. ANNOUNCEMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Com. Lesser and seconded by Com. Stein. Voice Vote—AYE was unanimous. Acting Ch. Windecker adjourned the meeting at 8:24 P.M. Submitted by, Acatio J e Kamka Recording Secretary ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 8 of 8—OCTOBER 21, 2008