Loading...
1983-10-18 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE, ILL. TUESDAY, OCT. 18, 1983 I. CALL TO ORDER In the absence of Chairman Richard Heinrich, the meeting was called to order by Com. John Quick, Vice-Chairman at 8: 37 P.M. on Tuesday, Oct. 18 , 1983 at the Village Hall. II . ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: D. Stolman, M. Perlman, S . Mathias , and J. Quick. QUORUM. Commissioners Absent: R. Heinrich, H. Hefler and M. Kearns Building Department Liaison: Mr. Dominic J. Saviano, Jr. , Deputy Bldg . Com. Village Attorney: Mr. William Raysa Village Board Liaison: Mr. John Marienthal , Trustee III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Com. Stolman made a motion to approve the Sept. 20, 1983 minutes as presented. Com. Perlman seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Perlman Stolman Quick Nay - None Minutes of Sept. 20, 1983 were approved and will be placed on file. IV. BUSINESS A. 821 Heatherdown Way - Lenard and Leane Marcus Article 15 .36.040 - Fence Code; Construction of fence past the building set back line on a corner lot . The Public Hearing Notice was read and Mr. Lenard Marcus was sworn in. Mr. Marcus presented five photographs of his property (Nos . 1 - 5) and stated the following reasons for requesting a fence that would extend past the building set back line: 1. The house is located on a corner lot at Heatherdown Way and Kingsbridge Way. The house next door is the first on the Cul-de-sac and the side yard of house is adjacent to the rear of the subject property. 2 . The portion of the yard that could be fenced is small. 3 . The Marcus' have one small child, and are expecting another. 4 . The Marcus' have a dog . 5. People cut across the yard, and recently a motorcycle cut through the yard. Neighbor children use their yard for play. 6 . The former owners of the property had petitioned for a variation from the ZBA to erect a fence. Mr. Marcus said they didn' t under- stand that the variation had been granted, a fence was never erected. Bushes were planted along the building set back line. Mr. Marcus said they hope to put up a chain link fence. It would go from a point at the middle of the house, out to within 5 feet from the side- walk and back to the property line, across the northern property line. It would not be unattractive. The fence would give the Marcus family security and prevent their dog from being a nuisance to anyone. It would not be in his neighbor's front yard, but would run along the side property line. Mr. Marcus also indicated that the fence ordinance would permit a fence along the property line and across the rear of his property. Ch. Quick reviewed the previous variation that was granted on Oct. 17, 1978. He was present at that meeting and the variation that was granted was some- what different than the one requested by Mr. Marcus. The fence would have angled from the building line to the rear property line. This is a unique situation on a reversed corner lot. The neighbor's front yard is to the rear of the subject property. The fence requested would extend from the sidewalk and border the front yard. The Oct. 17, 1978 variation also stipu- lated that shrubs be provided to conceal the fence. There were no questions from the Commissioners. Mr. Bill Miller, 830 Kingsbridge Way was present. He said he is the most affected because the fence would be in his front yard. He has lived in B.G. for 10 years; the request is not permitted under the present laws of the Village, and other fences have not been allowed in front yards. Mr. Miller added that it would be similiar to fences seen in Chicago, and he does not want it. He did not protest the earlier petition because he was not aware of it. He recalled some talk of a fence, but apparently the owner decided against it. Mr. Marcus said he would be happy to plant bushes if the variation was granted. He added that he has seen similiar fences in the Village that extend to the sidewalk. He said they bought the house because they liked it. The builder could have built a smaller house, or could have turned it so that the rear yard would not be on the corner. In response to the petitioner's statement that he could put a fence on the building line and it would basically give the same appearance, Ch. Quick noted it would only be 3 ft. from the house and 25 feet from the sidewalk. Mrs. Bonnie Kaufman, 810 Heatherdown Way was present and said that anyone who purchases a house on a corner lot should be informed of the restrictions, and they should realize that they will always have a side yard instead of a rear yard. The existing bushes are aesthetically pleasing, a fence would not be. She noted that there is_ a similiar fence at 811 Heatherdown Way that comes to the building line. It did not need a variation, but it looks bad. This is the fence that Mr. Marcus would be linking up to; that rear yard faces the side yard of the Marcus' house. Mrs. Marcus commented that they were not planning to put up a fence that would be an eyesore. She added that they planned to put in a gate between their house and the Miller's so that their children could continue to play together. There has also been a problem with neighbor children playing soc- cer in their yard. This activity makes it unsafe for her child to play out. Ch. Quick commented that he too has a house on a reverse corner lot and if he wanted to put up a similiar fence, he is sure his neighbors would object. He offered his understanding to Mr. and Mrs. Marcus, but the fence would be along the side of the Miller's front yard and would give a bad appearance. Mr. Marcus offered to compromise by putting up a four foot fence with shrubbrey. The yard itself is sloped, so that it is difficult to play ball with his son there. The fence is needed for security purposes. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Oct. 18. 1983 - Page Two Mr. Marcus alsd said that the fence would help him maintain the property at the level he believes it should be maintained. Com. Stolman asked if the ZBA was bound because of the previous variation? Mr. Raysa answered that variations are not valid if not pulled within a certain number of days. The previous one was not implemented, and this one is a request for a fence in an entirely different location. Mr. Raysa also informed the petitioners that an affirmative vote of 4 is necessary for the variation to be granted. If the Marcus' would like to have the request tabled until next month, when there may be more commis- sioners present, it could be. Hardship does not have to be demonstrated for approval of a fence variation. A negative decision can be appealed. Ch. Quick commented that each variation reviewed by the ZBA is considered independently. Other similiar situations do not set a precedent. Com. Stolman made the following motion: I move we DENY the request of Mr. and Mrs. L. Marcus, 821 Heatherdown Way for a variation of Art. 15.36.040, relating to the Fence Code. Additionally, no demonstration was made by. the petitioner that said variation would_be_consistent with concept of promoting health, safety and welfare of the community. Com. Perlman seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Perlman Stolman Quick Nay - None Motion to DENY Passed 3 to 0, 1 abstain. Abstain - Mathias The petitioners have the right to appeal in writing within 15 days. - Findings of Fact Attached. B. 797 Highland Grove Drive - Patrick and Nancy Coussee Article 15.36.040 - Fence Code, construction of a fence past the building set back line on a corner lot. The Public Hearing Notice was read. '. Mr. and Mrs. Coussee were sworn in. Mrs. Coussee described the location of their house on the corner of High- land Grove Drive and Newtown Drive. It is in the Highland Grove Sub-division but they were able to obtain a Highland Square House. This is a smaller house and gives them more space in the yard. They want to put up a picket fence, with 50% visibility; and tie it to an existing fence. The reason the fence is needed is because they have 2 large dogs that must be walked. They also have a small baby who will need a place to play safely by next year. At the present time, other people walk their dogs on this property; and because there are no stop signs on the corner, traffic goes by very fast. If they were required to meet the ordinance their yard would be about 1/3 smaller. It would be difficult to maintain the 15 feet that would be outside a fence on the building line. This part of the yard could not be used. Ch. Quick diagramed the lot and described the location of the sidewalk in relation to the building line. He repeated the purpose of the Code is to prevent the appearance of walls in the Village. Mr. Coussee said that if they put the fence on the building line, it would not look as pleasing to the neighbors because it would intersect their fence about 1/4 of the way to the house. These neighbors suggested the fence go out farther than the bldg. line. Ch. Quick suggested that a fence up to the building line would be best. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Oct. 18, 1983 - Page Three The land across the street belongs to Standard Pacific but it is not known what direction the houses will face. It was noted that if the house faced the fence, it would not be desirable. Mr. Mathias stated that he would approve a fence out to the building line. Mr. Raysa said he is aware of cases where municipalities have been liable for accidents caused by trees in line of sight, shrubs in malls, signs and berms in line of sight. Fences of this type could possibly be the cause of an accident to cars or children on bikes. Mr. Saviano said that whenever bushes get too high in the Village, the Bldg. Dept. has requested that they be cut back. After discussing the situation at length, Mr. Marienthal, Trustee suggest- ed a compromise would be to allow a fence about 1/2 way to the sidewalk. The Commissioners discussed this & agreed that a variation of 4 to 5 feet would be acceptable. The petitioners agreed with this. Com. Perlman made the following motion: I move we grant the petition of Patrick and Nancy Coussee, 797 Highland Grove Drive, for a variation of Fence Code, Section 15.36.040 in order to construct a fence that would be located between the house and the property line. Said fence is to be located so as not to exceed 5 feet from the building line. Fence to be an open picket, about 50% vis bility, 5 ft. high. Fence to be located not less than 45 feet from the intersection. Com. Mathias seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Stolman Perlman Mathias Quick Nay - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0. Findings of Fact Attached. V. ANNOUNCEMENTS Com. Stolman made a motion to recommend to the Village Board the re-appointment of Chairman Richard Heinrich. Ch. Heinrich's term expired on Oct. 11, 1983. Com. Perlman seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Mathias Stolman Perlman Quick Nay - None Ch. Quick asked that the Zoning Board be notified if the Marcus denial is appealed to the Village Board. The Public Hearing Sign prepared for the Board was displayed. It was dis- cussed and Ch. Quick asked that the Village Board be advised that the ZBA felt the sign is too large for residential property. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Oct. 18, 1983 - Page Four VI. ADJOURNMENT Com. Stolman made a motion to adjourn. Com. Mathias seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Shirley Bates ecretary Zoning Board Appeals ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS sb Oct. 18, 1983 - Page Five