Loading...
Minutes - 09/03/2002 - Zoning Board of AppealsVILLAGE OF OAK BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES September 3, 2002 L CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: A quorum was present. IL APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairman Members Member Village Trustee Director of Community Development Champ Davis Richard Ascher Manu Shah Ayesha Zaheer Louis Aldini George Mueller Alfred Savino Robert Kallien Member Shah moved, seconded by Member Zaheer to waive the reading of the July 11, 2002 Regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting minutes and to approve them as written. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Ill. OAK BROOK CLUB SUBDIVISION - OAK BROOK CLUB DRIVE - VARIATION - FENCE Chairman Davis swore in Nancy Harbottle, Arnstein & Lehr, attorney for the petitioner, Jeff Kennedy, President of the Condominium Association, Carolyn Link, resident of Oak Brook Club and Mark Burke, Property Supervisor for the Oak Brook Club. Nancy Harbottle reviewed the petitioners' request, which includes a variation for a perimeter fence from the 42" inch height restriction as well as the 50% open requirement. Mark Burke provided background information. Construction was started on the Oak Brook Club in 1969. Five condominium associations were phased in between 1969 and 1975 that sits on twenty -five acres of land in unincorporated DuPage County. It was annexed into the Village of Oak Brook in 1986. Between 1970 and 1972 the six -foot stockade perimeter fence was built along the western, northern and halfway down the east edge of the property. The rest of the property is bordered by wrought iron fence along 16 Street and halfway along Spring Road. There are 316 residences with approximately 520 individuals living on the property. Nancy Harbottle added that the stockade fence is approximately 2400 lineal feet and is not easily visible because of all the foliage between Spring Road and the fence. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 1 ZBA- MTG.2002 -SEP September 3, 2002 Ms. Harbottle said that the open space requirement for a fence is a good thing. The reason they are asking for a variation in this instance, is that this is a 25 -acre parcel, not a single - family home in subdivision. The requirement is really focusing on a single - family house, where you would not want to have a little barricaded house in some subdivision. The perimeter fence serves a very effective purpose as it has for many years. It keeps the gated community gated, which it is. You have to go through security to enter the Subdivision. Along east side of Spring Road is a forest preserve, so it helps to keep animals out. It is a visual protection for everyone. It is a wonderful buffer between the Oak Brook Bank and the residential use. It serves exactly what it was intended to do which is the reason for the request to the height requirement, because 42 inches would not effectively do that. They are requesting a six -foot fence, which will replace the existing six -foot fence that has been there for more than 25 years. The fence is deteriorating and they would like to keep the clean crisp look of the property. Ms. Harbottle reviewed the standards as required for a variation request as follows: 1 -a. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations governing the district in which it is located. The six -foot height stockade fence has existed for many years prior to the annexation of the property in 1986. The existing gated condominium development was annexed as a legal non - conforming use in the R -1 District. It is the only R -1 District at the northern part of the Village. Because people are there for the security, it would have a negative effect on the property if not approved. 1 -b. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. The unique circumstances are that it has existed for many years. They are not seeking a new stockade fence, they are asking to replace an existing fence. There are commercial uses surrounding this property and there is a forest preserve across the road. Portions of this fence could be replaced because it is a legal nonconforming fence. It is what it is when it came into the Village. The Oak Brook Club chose to replace it all at once so that everyone would have a nice new fence. 1 -c. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. It would not alter the essential character of the locality, because it has existed here for a long period of time. She pointed out, that although there were a significant number of letters sent to surrounding property owners so that they could appear and object if they wanted. No one has appeared. 2 -a. The particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the specific property involved would bring a particular hardship upon the owner as distinguished from mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulation were to be carried out. They are submitting that it would be a hardship on this particular owner to try to comply with the fence regulations as they now stand. A shorter open fence would not provide the same level of security and protection from both the commercial uses and for the residents. 2 -b. The condition upon which the petition for variation is based would not be applicable generally to the other property within the same zoning classification. This request is not for a single family detached residence. This is a condominium community on 25- acres. It is a unique set of circumstance particular to this property owner and not generally to other properties in Oak Brook. 2 -c. The granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. Same as the response to 1 -b and 1 -c. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes ZBA- MTG.2002 -SEP �2 September 3, 2002 2 -d. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property of substantially increase the danger of fire, or otherwise endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. There is no issue to this standard because the existing fence has not impaired the supply of light and air to adjacent property and a new fence will not increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. However, keeping the property up by adding a new fence would certainly add to the value of everyone's property because it would look better than a fence that is falling over and has deteriorated. 2 -e. That the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon the desire to make more money out of the property. They are not seeking the variation because there is to be more money made from the property. It is just a fence variation not a major variation. It is to not only provide aesthetic and visual protection, but to provide a critical element of physical protection and safety to the residents of the Oak Brook Club and to separate them from the commercial uses. 2 -f. That the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. The fence has existed on the property since the development was completed in the mid 1970's and the developers have long since transferred the property to the condominium association. Therefore, the persons presently having an interest in the property did not create the hardship. That concluded the presentation. Chairman Davis said that he reviewed the portion of the Code on Nonconforming structures and said that the petitioner has the ability now to repair a nonconforming use. He asked that the replacement goes beyond repair which is why they are seeking the variation. Mrs. Harbottle candidly said that if the variation is not granted, it would be replaced section by section, because they do have that ability. They are here tonight because the Oak Brook Club would like to replace it all at once, as opposed to a piece meal approach. Chairman Davis asked if the same material would be used. Mr. Burke said that they would replace it with cedar. The fence was replaced in 1982. Member Ascher said that they do not anticipate disturbing the vegetation, how would that be done without doing that. Mrs. Harbottle said that they would have to disturb some of the vegetation and bushes. She said that there are significant trees between the Oak Brook Club and the Bank. The trees will not be disturbed. A fence like this cannot be put up without cutting down some bushes. Member Ascher said that he was unaware that the property on Spring Road was Forest Preserve District property. Mrs. Harbottle said that she thought the vacant property was forest preserve, but if it is not they stand corrected. Director of Community Development Kallien said that if you were to go up Spring Road, the land between the road and the river is owned by the Hyatt because several years ago there were property maintenance issues and the property search revealed that the Hyatt owned a strip of land up Spring. They acquired it so that they could meet the FAR requirements for the desired square footage for their building. Mrs. Harbottle responded that whomever owns the property had been notice of this hearing. No one in the audience spoke in support or in opposition to the request. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes 3 ZBA- MTG.2002 -SEP September 3, 2002 There were no other questions from the members. Member Ascher moved, seconded by Member Shah that the petitioner has met the standards that are necessary to recommend for approval of the Variations to the fence ordinance, as follows: 1. Allow the fence height from 42 inches to six feet. 2. Allow a solid fence from the 50% space requirement. 3. The variation applies only to the existing nonconforming fence and is to not be expanded to any other areas. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 4- Nays: 0 - Absent: 2- Motion Carried. IV. OTHER BUSINESS Ascher, Shah, Zaheer and Davis Aldini and Mueller Member Ascher asked to bring up a matter of discussion. He said that he was very disappointed with the Board of Trustees findings as far as the Friary matter was concerned. Chairman Davis agreed. Chairman Davis said there are three new trustees and maybe they do not understand that a discussion of the recommendations of the underlying boards would be helpful to all involved. That does not mean they are bound by them, legally they are not, but they should at least talk about them and if they are going to reject unanimous recommendations by the two commissions, there ought to be a discussion as to why those recommendations are being rejected. Chairman Davis said that it is not good for the Village as a whole if some of the agencies or commissions are discouraged from putting in a lot of time and effort on matters. He would think that the Trustees would understand that and at least explain why they are not following unanimous recommendations. Trustee Savino said that he also believes there should be explanations. The Board members do not seem to be as open as he would like them to be. During the new Trustee selection, they voted to go to executive session to question the candidate, rather than do that in public. The people are entitled to know what the questions are and the person nominated what the answers are. The public, press and media are entitled to know that. When you run for office, it is done in public not in a private room. It appears there is a lot of thinking done like that right now. V. ADJOURNMENT Member Ascher moved, seconded by Member Shah to adjourn the meeting. VOICE VOTE: All in favor. Motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 8:18 p.m. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes C ZBA- MTG.2002 -SEP L L Director of Community-gevelopment Secretary November 5, 2002 Date Approved September 3, 2002