Zoning Board of Appeals

1 APPROVED 2 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 3 VILLAGE OF NORTHBROOK 4 COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS 5 July 22, 2013 6 7 1. Call to Order 8 Chairman Decker called the meeting to order at 7:35 pm in the Board Room of 9 Village Hall. Members Craig, Geslicki, Lown, Pick, Robicsek, Schofield and Chairman 10 Decker were present. A quorum was present. 11 12 Village staff present included J. Maisch, Zoning Administrator and Code Enforcement 13 Official; S. Weiss, Village Attorney; T. Poupard, Director of Development and 14 Planning; and L. Sweet, recorder. 15 16 2. Review of Minutes 17 Member Craig, seconded by Member Robicsek , motioned to approve the minutes of 18 the June 24, 2013 meeting as presented. Members Geslicki and Lown are present 19 today but were not at the June 24th meeting. They do not have questions related to 20 the minutes. On voice vote, the minutes were approved. 21 22 3. General Public Comments 23 There were no comments from the audience. 24 25 4. Public Hearing and Consideration of Petitions: 26 Chairman Decker announced that the dockets would first be heard in the public 27 hearing portion of the meeting. ZBA deliberation and decision regarding the docket 28 would occur immediately following the hearing, during the regular meeting. If 29 members of the audience are not able to stay for the regular meeting they can 30 contact the Zoning Administrator for results. Petitioners will be sworn in, and 31 should address the Board. Neighbors within 250 feet were notified of each petition. 32 As required by state statute, the hearing notice for all dockets was published in the 33 July 4, 2013 Pioneer Press; Docket items 8 and 9 were also published in the July 10 34 Northbrook Tower. 35 36 DOCKET NO. 13-Z-5 – (PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED) VOTE ON RESOLUTION for a 37 petition by Amy Mangold, Mangold Architecture, LLC, N3072 Marshall Lane, Lake 38 Geneva, WI, 53147, on behalf of property owners Champak and Lisa Raju, 983 39 Shermer Road, Northbrook, IL, 60062 for a variation to reduce the required interior 40 side yard setback from 9 feet to 6’-8” on the R-4 Single Family Residential property 41 commonly known as 1300 Wendy Drive (04-10-402-040). The purpose of the 42 variation is to construct a new single family residence. 43 44 The public hearing closed on June 24th. Some members are present today that were 45 not at the June 24th meeting. Additional voluntary statements are not necessary. 46 Before us is a motion to grant a variance:  Minutes of a Regular Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting July 22, 2013 1 2 Pursuant to and in accordance with Section 11-503 of the Zoning Code, the 3 Subject Property shall be, and is hereby, granted a variation from the 4 requirements of Subparagraph 3-110 C(1)(b)(2)(i) of the Zoning Code to 5 reduce the interior side yard setback on the south side of the Subject 6 Property to the extent necessary if the Neighboring Property Owners prevail 7 in the Litigation; provided, however, that the varied interior side yard 8 setback shall not be less than 6 feet 8 inches measured from the southern lot 9 line depicted in the “Plat of Survey – Adverse Possession Scenario” prepared 10 by Schroeder & Associates, dated May 17, 2013, attached to, and by this 11 reference, made a part of the Resolution as Exhibit A. The variation granted 12 by this Section B is expressly conditioned on the Home being constructed in 13 the location depicted on the Site Plan prepared by Mangold Architecture LLC, 14 attached to and, by this reference, made a part of this Resolution as Exhibit 15 A. 16 17 Attorney Weiss noted the resolution should read “Exhibit B”, not “Exhibit A” for the 18 second exhibit. It will be fixed on the final resolution. 19 20 Member Schofield asked why point number 9 on page one of the resolution is 21 necessary. Why is this in the best interests of the Village? Attorney Weiss 22 responded it’s standard language. It could be removed, however. Chairman Decker 23 called for a motion. 24 25 Member Schofield, seconded by Member Craig, moved to delete section 9, “Whereas, 26 the Zoning Board of Appeals has determined that it is in the best interest of the 27 Village to grant the Variation requested by the Applicant” and approve the motion as 28 amended. Roll was called. The motion passed unanimously. Ayes (7): Craig, 29 Decker, Geslicki, Lown, Pick, Robicsek, Schofield. 30 31 DOCKET NO. 13-Z-6 (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 24, 2013) Petition by Jason Shapiro 32 for an exception to increase the height of a fence from 3 feet to 6 feet in the required 33 corner side yard on the R-3 Single Family Residential Property commonly known as 34 1951 Alexandra Court (04-17-101-094). The purpose of the variation is to 35 construct a new wood fence. 36 37 Mr. Shapiro was sworn in. Chairman Decker explained this is a continuation. Mr. 38 Shapiro said thank you for the opportunity to return. He moved back to Northbrook 39 after growing up here. He was not aware of the side corner yard rule with respect to 40 fence height. He would like a 6-foot exception. Mr. Shapiro stated his main intent to 41 move back to the Village was to raise children. He has a toddler and a dog. He 42 would like his yard to be safe, secure and private, as it backs to Techny Road. 43 44 Mr. Shapiro redid the site plan. He considered alternative fence styles. Mr. Shapiro 45 is willing to set the fence back 10 feet from the property line. It would be16 feet 46 back from the corner of the public sidewalk. He will landscape both sides of the 2  Minutes of a Regular Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting July 22, 2013 1 fence. There is no site obstruction from the neighbor’s driveway to the east. The 2 neighbor signed a letter of support. Photos were provided, showing the existing 3 trees on the subject property. Mr. Shapiro stated there is no sight line issue with 4 Techny Road or the right-of-way. 5 6 Mr. Shapiro feels the privacy style fence is important. Chairman Decker asked if 7 notices were resubmitted. J. Maisch replied yes. Mr. Shapiro showed photos of 8 existing trees north of the sidewalk. The fence would be north of that. He will 9 landscape on both sides. Chairman Decker asked if the fence is north of the mulch in 10 the photo. Mr. Shapiro replied yes and he will upkeep the mulch area. 11 12 Member Robiscek commented he doesn’t see fence options in the handout. Also, the 13 packet materials have nothing indicating the fence setback, such as a diagram. He 14 didn’t see where or what fence type would be constructed. Also the materials don’t 15 dovetail with the current landscaping. Member Robiscek missed the last meeting, 16 but doesn’t see follow-up from the last meeting in the packet. 17 18 J. Maisch showed a picture of a solid fence and one of an open fence. When Member 19 Robiscek looks at the enclosed photo, he can’t see how fence would look on the land 20 placed 10 feet back. Mr. Shapiro responded he understands the concern. If 21 members examine the landscaping plat in the packet, the fence will not go south of 22 the end of the property. Trees may have to be relocated or landscaped around. 23 Member Schofield added he thinks the point is that the fence is not less than 10 feet 24 from the property line. 25 26 Chairman Decker asked Mr. Shapiro to talk about the fence particulars. Mr. Shapiro 27 referred to page 2 of the packet. A photo was shown of a solid wood fence. 28 29 T. Poupard stated he did not have the staff report in his packet. Did everyone else? 30 The Members responded only in the last meeting packet, not this one. Chairman 31 Decker asked if we should continue. T. Poupard replied yes. 32 33 Member Schofield asked if the fence samples were ones Mr. Shapiro would use. Mr. 34 Shapiro explained they were alternatives. 35 36 Chairman Decker asked if anyone wanted to speak on the docket. There was a 37 question taken from the audience. Mr. Gregory Klein, of 1320 Southwind in 38 Northbrook, was sworn in. Mr. Klein commented it’s curious, we have regulations, 39 but there can be exceptions for privacy. Why do you need a 6-foot fence to keep 40 your kids and dog in your yard? Mr. Klein continued that zoning regulations exist 41 for a reason. He realizes there are exceptions to the rule, but feels 6 feet is 42 excessive. 43 44 Chairman Decker responded the ordinance provides a general rule for the 45 community. Exceptions can be requested, but the issue goes with the property itself, 46 not the family in the house. He continued we have to decide if the exception is 3  Minutes of a Regular Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting July 22, 2013 1 consistent with character of neighborhood, use of property, unique circumstances, 2 the specific lot, etc… Chairman Decker continued that a lot of factors go into ZBA 3 decisions. 4 5 Member Pick asked if there are higher fences on the south side of Techny. Mr. 6 Shapiro replied yes, they are all 6-feet high. He noted at the last meeting many 7 corner lots in there area have 6-foot fences. Member Pick responded by asking if any 8 other fencing in the area have different fencing styles. Mr. Shapiro replied his 9 neighbor spoke for him at the last meeting. The neighbors have 6-foot fences. His 10 property will have 6-feet in areas where it’s allowed, regardless. Member Schofield 11 stated it says on the second to last page, in part A “over” and it should say “not less 12 than 10’ from the property line.” Mr. Shapiro is okay with that. 13 14 Chairman Decker asked if Mr. Shapiro could address the type of fence proposed in 15 greater detail. Mr. Shapiro answered it’s a cedar fence from Fenceworks in Highland 16 Park. It has an arched top. J. Maisch added page 2 of the report provides details. 17 18 Chairman Decker asked what alternative types of fences Mr. Shapiro would 19 consider. Member Robicsek suggested board-on-board fencing, with an arch-top 20 design that is 6 feet high at the top of the arch. Chairman Decker added he could 21 approve the height with board-on-board or an arch. Member Schofield asked for 22 pictures to be projected. Member Lown commented she is not asking for board-on- 23 board with a taper. Mr. Shapiro asked if the ZBA was asking if he was willing to 24 compromise with another style of fence. Chairman Decker replied the arch is not a 25 requirement. Mr. Shapiro would like a privacy fence with a 10-foot setback, but is 26 willing to compromise on the design. Member Pick asked if there is a large cost 27 difference. Mr. Shapiro didn’t know offhand. 28 29 Chairman Decker stated if there are no other questions, they would take this 30 information under advisement. Member Craig, seconded by Member Pick, motioned 31 to close the public meeting. On voice vote the motion carried. 32 33 Chairman Decker asked if the modifications address these issues. Member Geslicki 34 asked if it is possible to add a landscaping requirement to the resolution. Member 35 Pick likes the fence that Mr. Shapiro likes, especially the fence caps and top board. 36 Most homes have old picket fences. This is a brand new home and development. 37 Member Pick thinks this fence would add to the aesthetics. Member Geslicki added 38 board-on-board fencing is useful for drivers because light comes thru. Member 39 Robiscek doesn’t think Mr. Shapiro is proposing to use the traditional fence style. 40 Another picture of a fence was shown. 41 42 Member Schofield, seconded by Member Geslicki, motioned to accept: 43 DOCKET NO. 13-Z-6 (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 24, 2013) Petition by Jason 44 Shapiro for an exception to increase the height of a fence from 3 feet to 6 feet 45 in the required corner side yard on the R-3 Single Family Residential 4  Minutes of a Regular Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting July 22, 2013 1 Property commonly known as 1951 Alexandra Court (04-17-101-094). The 2 purpose of the variation is to construct a new wood fence. 3 4 The motion is subject to the following conditions: 5  Compliance with the site plan presented, 6  Use of the alternative type of fence with the arched top previewed by ZBA 7 today, 8  The fence is not less than 10 feet from the property line, 9  Fence is open style rather than solid, with rounded or arched top. 10 11 Roll was called. The motion passed unanimously. Ayes (7): Craig, Decker, Geslicki, 12 Lown, Pick, Robicsek, Schofield. 13 14 15 DOCKET NO. 13-Z-8 – Petition by Dennis Stolyarov for a variation to reduce the 16 required south side yard from 9’ to 7.5’ on the R-4 Single Family Residential 17 property commonly known as 1237 Alleghany Lane (04-08-417-004). The 18 purpose of the variation is to install a stand-by generator. 19 20 Mr. Stolyarov was sworn in. Chairman Decker asked if he had provided notice. Mr. 21 Stolyarov replied yes. He appreciates this opportunity. He lives at 1237 Alleghany 22 Lane. His yard floods whenever there is a strong rainfall. A graphic was shown of 23 the side yard. The generator would be placed near the south property line. This is 24 the only place he can put the generator. It is adjacent to a 4-foot solid brick wall, 25 next to a utility meter. He has lived in the house since 2004. The house is prone to 26 significant flooding in the lower level family room. Mr. Stolyarov showed photos 27 taken on June 28th. Water went up to a 2-foot high marker on the exterior and 28 seeped into the family room. He has tried to find other solutions and has not been 29 able to fix the flooding problem. 30 31 A photo of the grade sloping down into the walkout basement was projected. Mr. 32 Stolyarov gets water from both neighbors’ houses. He has a single sump pump now. 33 His wife could not start a regular generator. The power only goes out sometimes 34 but his house always floods. Chairman Decker asked if he has installed additional 35 sump pumps. The Petitioner replied yes. Member Schofield asked if the neighbors 36 have problems. The Petitioner responded no, they are both about 4 feet higher than 37 his property. 38 39 The south side of the property is the only possible location to place the generator. 40 The west side is where the driveway is. The north side is a problem because it’s a 41 split-level house, and there is no way through the house on the interior from the 42 family room on the south side out to the north side yard. The only space for the 43 generator wiring is thru the stairs and the crawl space. 44 5  Minutes of a Regular Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting July 22, 2013 1 Chairman Decker asked if the generator only goes on if the power is out. Mr. 2 Stolyarov responded yes. Member Geslicki asked where is the electrical panel. The 3 Petitioner explained 15-20 feet away. Member Robiscek assumes decibel levels of 4 the proposed unit are acceptable. J. Maisch answered that we have discussed that 5 and the units meet all requirements. 6 7 Member Robiscek would like the area around the generator landscaped with 8 setback shrubs or something. The Petitioner agreed, to the extent that he can with 9 the existing private sidewalk since it’s a small space. He would prefer to hide it too. 10 Chairman Decker added the shed should be repaired too. The Petitioner responded 11 his resources are limited. 12 13 There were no comments from the audience. 14 15 Member Robiscek, seconded by Member Lown, motioned to close the public hearing 16 and open the regular meeting. On voice vote, the motion passed. 17 18 Member Geslicki would like to see the required landscaping specified. Member 19 Robiscek commented that is usually left up to the Planning Department. Member 20 Craig has personally experienced flooding twice, and it’s awful. Member Robiscek 21 commented a portable generator has to be plugged in and you have to be home to 22 do that. 23 24 Member Robiscek, seconded by Member Craig, motioned to accept: 25 DOCKET NO. 13-Z-8 – Petition by Dennis Stolyarov for a variation to reduce 26 the required south side yard from 9’ to 7.5’ on the R-4 Single Family 27 Residential property commonly known as 1237 Alleghany Lane (04-08- 28 417-004). The purpose of the variation is to install a stand-by generator. 29 30 Pursuant to following the following clarifications: 31  The property owner agrees to provide landscape screening for the generator, 32 and 33  The property owner makes physical improvements to the storage shed on 34 the property. 35 36 Roll was called. The motion passed unanimously. 37 38 DOCKET NO. 13-Z-9 – Petition by Robert Olive and Rachel Goldstein for an 39 exception to increase the height of a fence from 3 feet to 6 feet in the required rear 40 corner side yard on the R-4 Single Family Residential Property commonly known as 41 1343 Southwind Drive (04-07-411-003). The purpose of the variation is to 42 construct a new PVC fence. 43 44 Petitioner Mr. Robert Olive was sworn in. Chairman Decker noted additional 45 documents were distributed. Mr. Olive showed an Excel chart of properties with 6  Minutes of a Regular Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting July 22, 2013 1 fence heights over 3’ in his neighborhood. He feels houses that back up to major 2 streets should be allowed to have screening. He showed a self-generated location 3 map of properties in Northbrook that have the same restrictions applied, but that 4 have 6-foot high fences on the properties. Mr. Olive then showed an eastern view of 5 his property. He commented that 6-foot high fences run all the way west to Sanders 6 Road. He continued that he needs a variation only because his rear yard abuts a 7 front yard to the east. 8 9 Mr. Olive intends to use a PVC fence that does not offer a board on board style. Mr. 10 Olive likes PVC products because they last for years. Chairman Decker asked if PVC 11 is less or more expensive than wood? Mr. Olive responded it’s significantly more. 12 Member Schofield followed up by asking if the petitioner saves money long-term. 13 14 Member Robiscek explained the ZBA is not a precedent-voting body. Nor is it a 15 court of law. Research is great, but each variation is looked at separately. He has 16 been here for 28 years. Mr. Olive’s street is not a very busy street compared to some 17 others. Member Robiscek continued the proposed fence runs all the way to the 18 property line and is solid. Personally he doesn’t like PVC, but has to let that go. 19 What is the hardship? Walters is not major street. 20 21 Chairman Decker is concerned with a solid fence also. Member Robiscek reiterated 22 why to the lot line, and where is the hardship? Member Geslicki asked why the 23 original short fence was taken down. Member Geslicki added that the previous 24 fence was farther from the property line. The Petitioner did not understand that 25 they had a restriction that they could not go up to the lot line. The preexisting three- 26 foot pillars would not have worked for where they wanted to add the 6-foot fence. 27 The Petitioner agrees that Walters is not as busy as, say, Dundee Road, but it can be 28 busy with school traffic. He has young children. They are open to pushing the fence 29 back from the lot line. However Mr. Olive would really like PVC because he finds it 30 attractive. Member Pick asked if he is willing to landscape the outside of the fence? 31 The Petitioner replied yes. However, he feels landscaping that encroaches on the 32 sidewalk is objectionable. He would be happy to do something low. 33 34 Chairman Decker can sense some people have a problem with the PVC fence. 35 Member Lown asked if the ZBA has approved PVC fences. Member Schofield replied 36 yes. The Petitioner chose an almond color. Member Geslicki added PVC is plastic. 37 He thinks there is something nice about wood aging gracefully. The Petitioner 38 commented he has a friend who was frustrated with his cedar fence posts rotting. 39 Member Geslicki replied there are various reasons for fences to fail, including 40 improper installation. 41 42 Member Pick asked if the Petitioner has a photo of the fence style? The Petitioner 43 has a brochure that he shared with the ZBA. Member Robiscek asked Mr. Olive if he, 44 just like the prior Petitioner, had a suggestion for minimum setback? You have 30 45 feet between the south side of the house and the property line. The Petitioner 7  Minutes of a Regular Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting July 22, 2013 1 responded 4 feet would give enough space to landscape. He doesn’t want to reduce 2 the yard too much. 3 4 Chairman Decker suggested Mr. Olive consider changing from PVC to board-on- 5 board cedar wood to be more successful with his desired height. Chairman Decker 6 asked staff, would Mr. Olive have to wait another 2 years for a re-vote on a wood 7 fence if he lost. J. Maisch responded, to reapply, yes. Mr. Olive stated he’ll go with a 8 three foot PVC fence if he loses the vote. He feels strongly about the product he likes. 9 10 Mr. Gregory Klein, of 3020 Southwind, has a question regarding the length of the 11 fence. Does it run across the length of the lot line along Walters? J. Maisch showed 12 the site plan. The front yard will have a three-foot picket fence. Mr. Klein’s only 13 concern is a six-foot fence on the side yard. He would not object to a cedar fence, as 14 it’s more in keeping with the character of the area. Mr. Klein feels a 5-foot high 15 fence would be more reasonable. As long as the high fence is not in the front yard, he 16 will leave it to the ZBA. 17 18 Member Pick asked, because there is 30 feet between the south side and where it 19 turns toward the house, would the applicants be amenable to putting in a gate. The 20 Petitioner said he planned to have 2 gates. Also he would be okay with a 5-foot 21 fence in the corner side yard? Member Robisek asked if Mr. Olive would please 22 indicate where he would start the 5-foot high fence. The Petitioner showed the spot 23 on the plan. Chairman Decker said the ZBA members will take that under 24 advisement. 25 26 Member Robiscek, seconded by Member Pick, moved to close the public meeting. On 27 voice vote, the motion passed. 28 29 Member Robiscek commented that the Petitioner wants the plastic fence and is 30 willing to go with a 4-foot setback north of the lot line, is willing to install a 31 landscape screen, will have gates, and is willing to have a 5-foot high fence in the 32 corner side yard and a 3-foot high picket fence in the front. Chairman Decker has 33 strong reservations about a plastic fence on such a visible street. He appreciates the 34 fence concerns, but PVC is more expensive, so it’s not a cost issue. Member Pick likes 35 the proposal, and views PVC as a new wave of fencing. It will remain decorative 36 over time. He sees lots of fences in Northbrook that are in disrepair. This fence will 37 add to aesthetics. Landscaping will look pretty against the fence. A new fence is 38 needed, and looks a lot better than the old posts sticking up. Wood is old-school, 39 and PVC is becoming more prevalent. Member Lown agrees with Member Robiscek. 40 Also she agrees with Member Pick about PVC being a new wave of fence material. 41 Member Lown agrees dilapidated fences are an issue in Northbrook. She would like 42 to see landscaping put into the record, and the setback too. 43 44 Member Lown, seconded by Member Pick, motioned to approve: 45 DOCKET NO. 13-Z-9 – Petition by Robert Olive and Rachel Goldstein for an 46 exception to increase the height of a fence from 3 feet to 6 feet in the 8  Minutes of a Regular Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting July 22, 2013 1 required rear corner side yard on the R-4 Single Family Residential Property 2 commonly known as 1343 Southwind Drive (04-07-411-003). The purpose 3 of the variation is to construct a new PVC fence. 4 5 The variation is subject to the following conditions. The fence will be: 6  Almond colored, 7  Six feet along the north and portion of west sides, 8  Four feet north of the Walters Avenue property line, 9  Five feet high in the required corner side yard, 10  Landscape screening along the south and east on the public side, 11  Removal of debris from the back patio is required. 12 13 Roll was called. Ayes (6) Craig, Geslicki, Lown, Pick, Robicsek, Schofield; Nays (1) 14 Decker. The motion passed. 15 16 5. Old Business 17 There was no old business. 18 19 6. New Business 20 Member Craig brought up the issue of fence options in Northbrook. Members 21 discussed the disadvantages of PVC fences. Also, the ZBA used to always vote down 22 6-foot fences on corners. Recently they have started to make exceptions. Member 23 Schofield added there are no PVC fences with openings. Member Pick commented 24 there are PVC picket fences, but he has not seen board-on-board style. Also, he is 25 not seeing a hardship being met. We never would have considered approving these 26 years ago. If it were a regular lot, it would not have been a ZBA issue. He doesn’t 27 like the fences. Member Craig likes open fences. Member Geslicki said if you give a 28 little bit, that’s what happens. 29 30 7. Adjourn 31 There being no further business, Member Craig, seconded by Member Pick, moved 32 to adjourn the meeting. On voice vote, the motion carried. Chairman Decker 33 adjourned the meeting at 9:10 pm. 34 35 Respectfully submitted, 36 37 /s/ Lindsay Sweet 38 Recorder 9