Zoning Board of Appeals

APPROVED REGULAR MEETING Minutes NORTHBROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Monday, June 27, 2016 NORTHBROOK VILLAGE HALL BOARD ROOM 1225 CEDAR LANE 7:30 PM Call to Order Chairman Decker called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. in the Board Room of Village Hall. Chairman Decker and Members Craig, Geslicki, Len, Lown, Schofield, and Wolfmark were present. A quorum was present. Village of Northbrook Staff present included Jennifer Maisch, Zoning Administrator, and Kendra Kim, Recorder. Review of minutes - May 23, 2016 Meeting Member Craig, seconded by Member Geslicki, moved to approve the minutes of the May 23, 2016 meeting, as presented. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. General Public Comments - Items Not Otherwise on the Agenda There were none. Public Hearing and Consideration of the Following Petition: ● DOCKET NO. ZBA 16-0006 (272 TRAILWOOD LANE - FENCE) – Petition by Julie and James Briskin for an exception to allow an increase in the fence height in the required corner side yard from 3’ to 6’ for a property in the R-4, Single Family Residential District. The Property is commonly known as 272 Trailwood Lane (PREI No 04-06-110-009) and is the site of a single-family home. The exception has been requested to install a new solid, almond-colored PVC fence. Chairman Decker announced that the docket would first be heard in the public hearing portion of the meeting. ZBA deliberation and decision regarding the docket would occur immediately following the public hearing, during the regular meeting. It was announced that if members of the audience are not able to stay for the regular meeting, they can contact the Zoning Administrator for the results. Petitioners will be sworn in and should address the Board. Neighbors within 250 ft. were notified of each new petition. As required by state statute, the hearing notice for Docket 16-0006 was properly published in the Northbrook Star on June 9, 2016. Julie and James Briskin, petitioners and owners of 272 Trailwood, were sworn in to present to the board and confirmed that notice of their petition had been provided to their neighbors as required. They outlined their reasons for requesting this exception. The main motivation for the 6’ fence is privacy, as windows facing the Lindenwood side yard are visible from the street. There have also been some deer wandering onto property, which this fence will prevent. There are some plants along the property line but they are dying and the owners would like to create a uniform fence and create continuity with the backyard. With two young children privacy and security is a priority and the motivation for this petition. They stated that if a wooden fence was preferred to PVC or an open fence instead of the opaque, they would be willing to make those changes. Chairman Decker inquired as to whether changes to the composition of the fence could be amended to the current application. Administrator Maisch stated that the item would need to be continued in order to present a new design to the ZBA. Chairman Decker stated that he understands the area of in question related to privacy along Lindenwood gets more vehicular or bicycle traffic than pedestrian traffic. Mr. Briskin explained that local neighbors walking dogs make up a lot of the foot traffic. He explained that Lindenwood is a primary route for the neighborhood vehicle traffic, so it is becoming quite busy. He also noted that service and utility vehicles often park in front of their home, reducing their privacy further. Chairman Decker stated concerns regarding the line of sight at the intersection and also the risk of creating a tunnel effect on the street. He cited some tall wood fences on Sanders running north to south, but that in that instance it abuts a major thoroughfare, and that is not the case with this application, which involves a side street on the inside of a subdivision. Mr. Briskin raised questions regarding the height limits of trees compared to fences. Theoretically they could plant a row of 12’ high trees, while fences are held to the 3’ limit. Chairman Decker stated that trees are assessed differently than fences and that it is not under the purview of the ZBA to determine the reasoning behind ordinances, but rather to enforce them and examine them as needed. He also explained that the Board must look at the exception based on the property, not the resident. As residents change, the property remains, therefore conditions specific to the current owner, such as having two young children, cannot influence their decision. Member Schofield inquired about utility service lines on the property and any possible interference from the fence. Mr. Briskin explained that they just had a new patio completed and no issued regarding the utility service line was raised. There are no known concerns. Member Lown asked if Mr. and Mrs. Briskin had considered using landscaping in front of the windows as an alternative method to create privacy. Mrs. Briskin responded that yes, it was considered, but that they hoped to maintain a more uniform appearance with the fence. Member Lown also suggested the option to ramp the fence down to the allowable 3-foot height on the Lindenwood side, and thus create a seamless fence while maintaining village requirements. She voiced concern that 6’ high was a potentially overbearing appearance, and that the fence would have a negative effect on the neighbor’s landscaping. Member Lown also referenced a property at Western & Walters that has a fence, but that it is setback and therefore would be less offensive. Mrs. Briskin stated that they would be willing to set their fence back further than their current proposal. Member Len inquired as to the location and style of the fence gates. Mr. Briskin pointed out the gate location on Lindenwood and that it would be the same height and style of the surrounding fence. Member Len inquired about the petitioners’ safety concerns. Mr. Briskin cited recent robberies in the Village as a motivation to have the higher fence to increase the safety of their home. Chairman Decker noted that having a 6’ fence could provide cover for a potential assailant instead of being a deterrent. Member Wolfmark asked if the petitioners were opposed to 3’ fence. Mr. Briskin stated that a 3’ fence would be better than no fence, but that they prefer the 6’ in order to feel more secure and safe. Member Geslicki inquired as to whether the petitioners investigated their options to build a fence when they first purchased the home. Mrs. Briskin stated that they did confirm that a fence was permitted but they did not realize the height restrictions at that time. Chairman Decker asked that the Plat of Survey provided by Dr. Mat Malladi of 4322 Oak Knoll Court with sightline concerns specified be put on the projector. Member Geslicki confirmed that the Plat of Survey provided illustrated the sightline concerns clearly regarding southbound travel on Trailwood. Member Geslicki added his concern that there is not a single fence in the front yards on neighboring properties so this fence will change the perception of the neighborhood and the habits of drivers in the neighborhood would have to adjust accordingly. Mrs. Briskin stated that they are permitted a 3-foot high fence and higher landscaping, which would change the neighborhood landscape and is not in violation of Village Code. A letter of opposition to the petition from Dr. Mat Malladi was distributed to the petitioners. Seiok Oh, resident at 4306 Lindenwood, immediately west of 272 Trailwood, was sworn in to testify. Dr. Oh stated that she wants the board to uphold the 3’ maximum height for corner side and front yard fences. She also stated that the trees planted by the former owners obstruct the view from her driveway and would like the trees to be trimmed. Chairman Decker responded that the Board does not have authority over tree trimming requests. Mrs. Oh submitted a letter from her lawyer outlining their opposition to the fence exception. Rob Hillerich, resident at 4305 Lindenwood and neighbor directly south across the street from 272 Trailwood, was sworn in to testify. Mr. Hillerich stated that he’s lived at his current address for the past 37 years and that the community has always been very uniform. He noted that, not only are there no 6’ fences in the neighborhood, but there aren’t even any 3’ fences. He stated his opposition to the petition on the basis of how it would stand out and diminish the neighborhood’s appearance and also the potential sight line obstruction at the intersection. He suggested landscaping as a better way to create privacy, and noted that he cannot see Mr. and Mrs. Briskin’s new patio from his home. Kenneth Kurtz, resident at 4265 Lindenwood and neighbor to the southeast of 272 Trailwood, was sworn in to testify. Mr. Kurtz voiced his opposition to the 6’ fence exception not only for aesthetic reasons, but also because of his concern that a tunnel effect would be created on the street. He also suggested bushes or trees as an alternative to the fence. Melissa Kaplan, resident at 208 Trailwood in the Cul-de-sac a few houses down from 272 Trailwood, was sworn in to testify. She agreed with the reasons of opposition from her fellow neighbors, and also stated concerns regarding safety for her children who bike along the sidewalk and might not see around the corner or who may fall into the fence causing injury. Skip Rosenmutter, resident at 191 Trailwood, was sworn in to testify. He stated his opposition to the fence exception due to safety and traffic concerns. He estimated at least 600 cars in neighborhood. He suggested using blinds as an alternative to create privacy. David, Andrea, and Adam Berkowitz, residents at 200 Trailwood were sworn in to testify. Adam, the 11-year old son of David and Andrea, stated that he never feels unsafe in his neighborhood, but is worried that if the fence goes up he will fall into it when riding his scooter or bike on the sidewalk. David Berkowitz explained that his children ride their bikes and scooters around neighborhood and that the fence could be dangerous as it would obstruct views. Andrea Berkowitz added that she fears the safety for pedestrians due to southbound traffic and the traffic coming from the back of the development to Sanders. Mr. and Mrs. Briskin responded to the concerns of their neighbors. They thanked everyone for coming out and sharing their opinions. They addressed the trees Dr. Oh mentioned and stated that they were present when they purchased the property and that the trees provide desired privacy, and that they were not aware of this concern until this meeting. They directed everyone to a 6-foot fence located on a nearby cul-de-sac which abuts their neighbor’s property. They acknowledged that this fence is setback from the sidewalk, but that it is a similar fence to their proposal. They also stated their belief that the safety concerns addressed by neighbors were not as dire as presented and that they were disheartened to hear of the extent of the local opposition. Chairman Decker stated that the fence at the house on the cul-de-sac is not equivalent to the concerns at 272 Trailwood in as far as the location and traffic patterns are concerned. Chairman Decker inquired about violations referenced by Administrator Maisch. Mr. Briskin stated that there was some post-patio work cleanup which has been completed. Pamela Schwartz, resident at 186 Trailwood, was sworn in to testify. She explained that she understands the presence of debris from contractor work, but that there is additional debris at 272 Trailwood that does not relate to this project. She stated that the community takes tremendous pride in the presentation of the neighborhood, and that when debris is left out is attracts more wildlife and causes problems. Chairman Decker reminded all those in attendance that they can always speak to Village Code enforcement regarding violation concerns. Member Craig moved to close the public meeting, Member Wolfmark seconded, and on a voice vote the motion passed unanimously. Chairman Decker stated that, irrespective of the quality of fence, he has concerns about the tunnel effect. He acknowledged that the safety concerns are hard to definitively determine. Member Len stated that he appreciated the petitioners’ point of view, but believes there are different ways to accomplish their desired outcome of safety and privacy. Member Craig and Schofield both stated their opposition to the petition for safety reasons and noted that no such petition had ever been granted by the ZBA before. Member Craig Moved to deny the Petition by Julie and James Briskin for an exception to allow an increase in the fence height in the required corner side yard from 3’ to 6’ for a property in the R-4, Single Family Residential District. The Property is commonly known as 272 Trailwood Lane (PREI No 04-06-110-009) and is the site of a single-family home. Member Lown Seconded. On a roll call vote, the petition was unanimously denied. Old Business There was no old business New Business The next meeting will take place on July 25, 2016. Adjourn Member Len moved to adjourn meeting at 8:57 p.m. Member Lown seconded, and on voice vote the motion passed unanimously.