Minutes - 12/04/2012 - Zoning Board of Appeals MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 4, 2012 REGULAR
MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF
THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS
WRITTEN ON APRIL 2,2013
CALL TO ORDER
1. CALL TO ORDER:
The Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order by Chairman
Champ Davis in the Samuel E. Dean Board Room of the Butler Government
Center at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
2. ROLL CALL:
Gail Polanck called the roll with the following persons
PRESENT: Chairman Champ Davis, Members Jeffrey Bul in, Natalie
Cappetta, Baker Nimry, Alfred Savino, Steven Young and
Wayne Ziemer
IN ATTENDANCE: Mark Moy, Trustee and Robert Kallien, Jr., Director of
Community Development
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: N41NUTES
Motion by Member Young, seconded by Member Niniry to approve the
minutes of the November 5, 2012 Rescheduled Reg ular Zoning Board of
Appeals meeting as written. VOICE VOTE:Motion carried.
4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS UNFINISHED BUSINESS
There was no unfinished business to discuss.
NEW BUSINESS
5. NEW BUSINESS
A. MURPHY — 3324 ROSLYN ROAD MAP AMENDMENT TO m upwlly - 3324
ROSLYN ROAD -
REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM R-1 TO R-3 MAP AMENDMENT
R-I to R-3
Chairman Davis swore in all who testified at this hearing.
Patrick Stanley, Siebert Engineers, introduced Mary Murphy, owner of the
property. He reviewed the request for the map amendment to allow the
subdivision of a five-acre parcel with a single family home on the north side of
the property that had not been habited for a long period of time. The property is
surrounded by single family homes in the R-3 District. They investigated
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 1 of 16 December 4, 2012
l
maintaining the R-1 zoning,but the setbacks would result in nonconformity of
en subdivided. The request for a map amendment relieves the
the property wh
hardship of the side yard requirements should the property remain R-1. The
reason for the subdivision request is due to the death of the original property
owner and the need to divide the estate between the beneficiaries so that the
assets can be sold. There is no development associated with the request. There
would not be any degradation to any of the existing home values if the request
was granted since it is in line with what currently exists. The property is
suitable for the map amendment request. The property has been in its current I
state for approximately 60 years with a residential house on a five-acre parcel.
The request meets with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. He said that the
proposed subdivision plat has an annotation that should development on these
parcels be sought by future owners the entire parcel would have to go through
engineering approval for stoiniwater management.
Chairman Davis said that the standards had been addressed in testimony and in
writing on page D-D1 of the case file. He questioned whether the parcel was
part of a homeowners association,
Mr. Stanley responded that it was not, and the property was grandfathered and
deeded that it was not part of the homeowners association.
Ashok Patel, 207 Roslyn Road, resides across the street from the property and
is a member of the Midwest Chase board. He said that this property is in the
middle of the subdivision and currently is not part of the association. When the
property is subdivided in the future there will be multiple homes. The area is a
gated community and the homeowners are responsible for the roads and the
gate. There will be a large influx of construction traffic at that time.. They
requested that the new property owners become part of the subdivision.
Chairman Davis said that was not a matter before the Zoning Board, however,
his comments were included in the record.
Member Young asked if all the stoimwater issues had been resolved.
Director of Community Development Kallien responded that over the years
there have been a number of discussions with the Engineering department and
Saddle Brook Chase relative to stormwater management and the requirement
that some specific changes be made over time. The Engineering department is
aware of the subdivision request. This request as presented does not trigger the
need to do any further work, however it has been made very clear to the
applicant and is noted on the proposed plat that in the event there is any new
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 2 of 16 December 4, 2012
I
i
l
development,the stormwater ordinance would come into play..
Member Ninny questioned why the village would wait until there was
development..
Director.of Community Development Kallien responded that because right now
they are not increasing the impervious area. If anyone should come in for a
house permit then stormwater management would be required. The driveway
would not need to be removed initially because it is an existing condition.
Mr. Stanley noted that on the plat the existing driveway is noted as being a
temporary access easement.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that there were some issues
brought up at the Plan Commission meeting regarding the property and over the
years there have been some property maintenance issues of which the owners
are aware and the village has been and would continue to monitor to ensure that
it stays in compliance with the codes.There is a trailer on the property that is to
be removed because part of it is located on a property located to the west.
Member Savino questioned how many R-3 lots there could be on the property.
Director of Community Development Kallien responded that R-3 properties
must be a minimum of 25,000 square feet, along with a possible roadway and
stormwater detention on the entire parcel there could possibly be five or six
lots.
Members Savino suggested that it would be a good idea for the property to be
part of the homeowners association.
Director of Community Development Kallien responded that the comment
could be made known to the board, but to require that the deed be modified
may ultimately be up to the sellers of the property because the Village Board
may not be able to mandate that action. Some areas of the village have
homeowner associations and others do not, which was the choice of the
developer.
Howard Leafstone, 305 Polo Lane, questioned if the property would ever be
rezoned for multiple family or commercial.
Director of Community Development Kallien responded that when a property is
rezoned the first thing considered is the impact on adjacent property and that
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
;Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 3 of 16 December 4, 2012
I
i
there is a certain level of consistency of the request. In this case, the applicant
sought the same zoning that everyone else had so there was some logic to it. If
they sought R-5 zoning that may be viewed as inconsistent and the Village
Board takes a negative view on spot zoning, where a zone is created that is
different from the surrounding neighbors.
Chairman Davis noted that the first factor considered is the character of the
neighborhood and the property is surrounded by R-3, which is the character of
the neighborhood and based on that it would probably be very difficult to turn it
into multi-use zoning.
Motion by Member Savino, seconded by Member Young that the applicant had
met the standards required to recommend approval of the map amendment to
rezone the property from R-'1 to R-3 as requested.
Member Savino requested that the Zoning Board of Appeals suggest to the
Village Board that they look at how these parcels could become part of the
homeowners association.
ROLL CALL VOTE
Ayes: 6—Members Bulin, Cappetta, ,Young, Savino, Ziemer and Chairman
Davis
Nays: 1 —Member Nimty
Absent:0—Motion carried.
i
5.. B. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — TEXT AMENDMENT FENCE VILLAGE of OAK `
BROOK-TEXT
REGULATIONS AMENDMENT
FENCE BEGS
Chairman Davis swore in all who testified at this hearing.
F
Director of Community Development Kallien reviewed the history of the
request. Last year there were two variations requested for 48-inch high fences
that were approved subject to certain conditions. The current regulations allow
a maximum of 42-inches in height and 50 percent open, however, if there is a
pool then the fence height is required to be a minimum of 48-inches in height.
When those cases went to the Village Board they questioned why we allowed
only a maximum height of 42-inches.
The Zoning Regulations were reviewed and the 42-inch high standard dated
back to 1966 and appeared to be an arbitrary number. At fence stores the
standard heights are 36-inch and 48-inches, so by requiring the 42-inch height
standard,property owners must order a custom fence height. There have been
issues where there is a pool in the backyard and a fence is desired around the
i
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 4 of 16 December 4, 2012
property, then both heights are required, which has resulted in some odd
looking situations over the years.
The fence regulations are very vague in that a fence can be 42-inches high and
must be a minimum of 50 percent open. Most of the current regulations relate
to chain link fence requirements in order to make them less attractive and to
encourage higher quality fences such as wrought iron,etc. The suggestion is to
amend the requirement to allow for 48-inch high fences in order to make them
more uniform with the market and at the same time we have an opportunity to
clean up the provisions so that they read properly and are easily interpreted.
The Village Board referred the matter to the Plan Commission and after review
their recommendation is on page 18 of the case file. The Village Board
accepted the recommendation and it is now before the Zoning Board.of Appeals
for public hearing. All homeowner associations were notified and the Village
requested their input and comments. One call was received from Harry Peters
where the issues were initially raised and he did not object to the proposed text.
Their subdivision has restrictive covenants in place that provide firm
parameters for fencing,as do several of the other subdivisions.
The proposed text (below) tries to clarify and bring Oak Brook into a more
common place with other communities. Many communities allow taller fences
up to 6 feet. The Village is seeking a more reasonable increase that would
allow an additional 6-inch fence height.
PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS:
The following amendments relative to fence regulations have been
recommended by the Plan Commission. Letter A creates a definition for fence.
Everything under letter B. 1-9, is brand new text. Letter C is currently in the
code regarding chain link fences. Letter D applies to fences and barriers along
major roadways, but would require the approval of the homeowners
association, Village board and the entity that controls the roadway. Nothing
drastic would be added.
13-348:Fences:
A For purposes of this section, a "fence" is defined as a structure used to
I
delineate a boundary, or as a barrier, or as a means of confinement or for
confinement.
B. The following regulations shall apply to all fences:
1. A fence, including gates,which has over its entirety,a minimum of fifty
percent(50%) of the surface area in open space as viewed from an angle
of ninety degrees(90°) from the fence line.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 5'of 16 December 4, 2012
i
I
i
2, Fences shall be limited to a maximum height of 48 inches in height and
shall be constructed of wood, stone, brick, wrought iron, aluminum or
synthetic materials that are molded and give the appearance of wood,
stone, brick or wrought iron. It shall be finished on all sides, unless
board on board or similar style fencing is used,then the finished side of
the fence must face to the outside.
3. Solid fences shall be limited to a maximum height of 24 inches in height
and be constructed of wood, stone,brick or other masonry material.
4. The height for a fence surrounding any swimming pool or water feature
shall be a minimum of 48 inches up to a maximum of 72 inches and
shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Village's Building
Code.
5. Fences shall be constructed at natural grade with the exception of those
located on engineered lots, the Village Engineer shall determine the
base elevation.
6. All fences shall be located completely within the property, which the
fence is serving,
7. All fences shall comply with all applicable Village Code requirements.
All fences shall be constructed and maintained to preserve their
structural integrity and appearance.
8. Fence type structures located in the buildable area and not located in
any required yard, such as solid privacy screens and open patio
enclosures, shall not be considered fences.. These structures may
surround, e.g. hot tubs, swimming pools,patios, decks, sitting areas, or
other similar type uses and can be built to a maximum height of six (6)
feet. These structures are not intended to allow solid screening to
privatize the buildable area, are not allowed in the front yard and are
subject to the review and approval of the Community Development
Department to ensure that the intent of this section is met.
9. Electrified fences are not permitted in the Village,with the exception of
those approved by the Community Development Department for horse
stables and other animal enclosures.
C. Chain link or wire fencing, where permitted as set forth below, shall be at
least 9-gauge wire and not thinner,shall be constructed with a top member
or brace with a knuckle design, shall be a wire material (finished side)
facing the neighboring property, shall be painted or coated in a dark color
(e.g., black, brown or dark green), shall not include slats and shall be
landscaped with year round plantings bushes/vegetation or trees on both
sides of the fence, except for dog runs/kennels, which shall be so
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 6 of 16 December 4, 20112
i
landscaped on the outside of the fence; all required vegetation will be
reasonably maintained or replaced as needed.
1. Ina buildable area—not permitted with the exception for dog runs.
2. In any front or side yard—not permitted.
3. In any rear yard—permitted to a maximum height of six(6)feet for that r
portion of the lot that abuts the Village's boundary with another
municipality.
4. Surrounding subdivisions—not permitted.
5. Swimming pools—not permitted.
i
6. Sports courts/fields — permitted around sports courts for tennis,
basketball and hockey and fields for baseball.
7. Construction sites—permitted as a temporary use. Height is established
with the approval of a building permit,
8. Road right-of-way (ROW) — permitted along state and federal
roadways.
9. Dog runs/kennels permitted in buildable area only. Non-chain link
z
fence material is required if located in any required yard. j
In the event that a yard is enclosed with a chain link fence as of August 12,
2003, and in the event that 1 side of the fence enclosure is on a neighbor's
1
property and the neighbor removes the chain link fence, the owner may {
continue to enclose his/her yard with a chain link fence by constructing a
new fence on the owner's property to replace the fence removed by the
neighbor.
D. Fences and barriers along major arterials: If a formal barrier or sound wall
system is not in place,a solid fenee/wall structure may be erected subject to
the following conditions
1. Be located on Roosevelt Road, Illinois Route 83/Kingery Highway or
Interstate Highways I-88 and 1-294; and
2. The fence/wall structure is a single unified system that is approved by
all affected property owners, the subdivision Homeowner Association
(if applicable)and the Village of Oak Brook,
Member Niniry noted that in a previous case the Village did not support the
homeowner association in a previous case and that the subdivision covenants do
not seem to mean anything to the Village.
i
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 7 of 16 December 4, 2012
I
r
f
Director of Community Development Kallien responded that in the building
permit process, applications for new homes, additions, fences, etc.,the Village
requires that the applicant communicate with the homeowner associations. r
There are times when the associations do not agree with the request, but in the
end if the request meets the regulations,then the permit has to be issued.
Member Ninny noted that there were only 2 cases that appeared to be the basis
to change the fence requirements to 48-inches: He noted that Trinity Lakes
does not allow fences, except around pools. He noted that the Forest Preserve
has a chain link fence.
Director of Community Development Kallien noted that there are occasions
when chain link fences are allowed.
Member Young noted that given all the other cases, he asked if the proposed
text amendment would be more restrictive or more accommodating to what the
Village is trying to do.
Director of Community Development Kallien responded that Oak Brook is in a
period of evolution. The ordinance allowed only 42-inch high fences and all
houses were allowed a maximum height of 30 feet. Over the last several years
many people have been concerned with property values and trying to
reinvigorate Oak Brook. Committees have been:created to accomplish that and
the text was amended to allow houses to be taller, ranging from 35 to 50 feet
high(depending upon the zoning district). A zoning district has been created to
allow townhouses and duplexes, when at one time they were not allowed. In
his opinion, the changes being sought with the fence regulations is not
detracting from the overall look of the fence because a high quality fence will
still be required to be 50 percent open, so that it meets the Paul Butler idea of
creating openness. It is bringing the fence regulations more in line. The house
heights got taller and in keeping things in scale, what would be the damage or
harm in allowing the extra six inches in fence height,and how would that harm
other property.
Chairman Davis said that he did not think it would have people building more
fences
Director of Community Development Kallien agreed that a fence is a personal
choice. In his 13 years, with the village when people call about fences more
often than not,the fence drawing submitted for permit is too high. A 48-inch
high fence is cut or modified to make it a 42-inch high fence. However, a
neighbor with a pond or a pool must have a 48-inch to 60-inch high fence. The
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 8 of 16 December 4, '2012
Village is trying to be responsive to the neighbors that express a desire for a 48-
inch high fence. Although there have been only been three formal cases in the
last couple of years seeking a fence variation(including the Zubi appeal), there
have been many requests for fences that have to be modified when the
application comes in. Many people seeking a fence permit request a 48-inch
high fence and this action is being responsive to that.
Member Young questioned that based on this request does it lessen the Villages
exposure to complaints and litigation as has been seen in other examples.
In the Grane and Pridmore case when it was recognized that there was an issue,
the village sought compliance to the code. The ability to comply was to either
reduce the height of the fence or seelc relief through the variation public beating
process.
Member Young questioned if there was something that could be added or
removed that would lessen the Village's exposure to that kind of litigation,
Director of Community Development Kallien responded that he was not aware
that there would be an increase in litigation by adding six inches of fence. Oak
Brook is now 50+ years old and there are many fences which are in varying
states of disrepair and conditions that a standard could provide incentive toward
the removal of these fences for replacement. Right now the tendency seems to
be maintaining what they have, because many of them may not have complied
by predating the ordinance approved 40 years ago. Under the proposed
standard there may be some additional reinvestment. Not everyone wants a
fence and some subdivisions do not allow fences.
Director of Community Development Kallien addressed the factors for a text
amendment as follows:
(a) The character of the neighborhood.
RESPONSE:
The requested text amendment will benefit most residential parcels in Oak
Brook.
(b) The extent to which property values are diminished by the particular
zoning restrictions;
RESPONSE:
The property values will remain the same.
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
ZO-Milliz Board of Appeals Minutes Page 9 of 16 December 4, 2012
1
i
(c) The extent to which the removal of the existing limitations would
depreciate the value of other property in the area;
RESPONSE:
The primary purpose of the text amendment is to increase the maximum
height of fences from 42-inches to 48-inches, an increase of 6 inches,along
with some housekeeping to help clarify the fence regulations and provide I
for some type of solid fence/barriers along major arterials. I
The text amendment was initiated in the latter part of 2011 after two
variations were approved by the Village Board to allow 48-inch high
fences the matter was referred to the Plan Commission for review. An
analysis of 18 similar communities found that the standard fence height in
surrounding communities was a minimum of 48 inches and fence
contractors noted that 42-inch high fences are not a standard size and cost
more. In many cases a 48-inch high wrought iron fence must be cut down
from 48 to 42 inches in order to meet the current regulations. The
exception is those property owners restricted by their Homeowner
Association covenants regarding fencing.
(d) The suitability of the property for the zoned purposes.
RESPONSE:=
N/A
(e) The existing uses and zoning of nearby property.
RESPONSE:
N/A
(f) The length of time under the existing zoning that the property has remained
unimproved,considered in the context of land development;
RESPONSE:
The fence regulations, with the exception of chain link fencing have not
been updated since 1966, 46 years ago.
(g) The relative gain to the public as compared to the hardship imposed on the
individual property owner;
RESPONSE:
The proposed amendment will be a gain to the public in that it will allow
them the ability to install standard size 48-inch high fencing, instead of
paying a premium to customize a 42-inch high fencing that is currently
required in the Zoning Regulations
(h) The extent to which the proposal promotes the health, safety, morals or
general welfare of the public
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 10 of 16 December 4, 2012
i
i
RESPONSE:
Eliminating the burden and costs promotes the general welfare of the
public,
John Baar, President of York Woods Homeowner Association said that York
Woods really does not have restrictions because they do not have an
Architectural Review committee so they rely on the Village's ordinances for the
standards in York Woods. For a long time he believed that people did not think
fences were allowed. A couple of fences did go up and then be received calls
from the neighbors and advised them that since they did not have the authority,
because they do not have a formal homeowners association to prevent fences,
they rely on the Village to enforce the fence ordinances. Anything that would
encourage more fences they would not be in favor of. He agreed that the
intention of Oak Brook was to be open and park like. When someone puts up a
fence it impinges on that park like nature. He appreciated the hard work that l
had gone into examining other communities,but York Moods depends upon the
village.
Chairman Davis noted that the ordinance already allows fencing and by going
from 42-inches to 48-inches would not encourage more fences. Whether. or not
to have fences is not before the Zoning Board of Appeals. `
Member Nimry thought that to a certain extent it might,but he thought that the
majority of the associations do not allow fences and he did not think that Oak
Brook would want to be like the other 18 communities, otherwise the
uniqueness is lost. He thought that a recommendation should be made to the
board to recommend the elimination of fences.
Chairman Davis asked whether the fences in Oak Brook were more aesthetic or
decorative as opposed to being for security purposes.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that they are extremely
decorative and many of the houses that face major arterials actually tie in their
driveway gates and monuments with their fencing. Some of the residents
spend an inordinate amount of money on their fences. For some people it is an
external representation of their home.
Member Nimry said that some associations allow fencing,along the perimeter
of their property but not on the interior Lots..
Chairman Davis questioned if that was allowed for security purposes.
Member Nimry responded for that and for animals and trash that collect along
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 11 of 16 December 4, 2012
i
35th Street. The fences must look the same, be the same size and have
vegetation on both sides;
Member Ziemer questioned how the 50 percent-open fencing would apply to a
board on board style fence.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that a board on board would
be very difficult to meet that standard, so that style could be eliminated; We
want to make sure if a wood fence is used, the finished side must always face
out.
Member Young noted that it appeared that a certain amount of customization
has to be done to meet the 42-inch height requirement, which might be
considered a premium that might discourage people from using fences.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that very few wood fences
are built. The Zoning Board is an advisory board to the Village Board and a
decision needs to be made regarding the appropriate needs of the community as
a whole. Many people are working on different fronts to create a revitalization
of the residential community. There are many subdivisions where the homes
are very dated and we are trying to create new investment and reinvestment. It
was his opinion that the changes proposed to the text helps to clarify the fence
provisions and they continue the trend of providing for more stately homes. It
was not the intention to provide an environment for modern and more stately
homes and providing greater variety for the community. It was not the
intention to create a standard that would provide for a proliferation of fences.
The Village was trying to create a standard that would be fairer; fencing is a
matter of preference.
Member Ninny did not have a problem with increasing the height standard to
48-inches, but he thought that Oak Brook would look like other communities
and he thought that there would not be any difficulty for people to put up a
standard size fence,versus the cost of cutting down a 48-inch fence to a custom
42-inches, unless data can be shown that it would not negatively impact the
prices of homes. He felt that changes were being made based on two cases.
Member Ziemer suggested that a preamble statement regarding the vision of
Oak Brook being a unique community meant to be open and encourage the use
of landscaping and other materials rather than fences, and then include that in
the fence restrictions..
Director of Community Development Kallien said that by requiring a 50
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 12 of l& December 4, 2012
percent open standard is a standard that does not exist in any other town, except
for possibly Barrington, All of the surrounding communities including
Downers Grove, Naperville and Hinsdale have standards that are not that
restrictive. By allowing the 6 extra inches, Oak Brook would still maintain the
openness of Oak Brook and the amendment will not change that.
Member Savino said that since the Village has received a number of requests
seeking a higher fence height that must be reduced; he questioned how many
homeowners at that point in time have decided not to put in a 42-inch high
fence.
Director of Community Development Kallien could not recall how many'
fences, although the majority that want a fence manipulate the size to whatever '
they need to do in order to get one.
Member Savino said that if a fence were desired for whatever purpose, security,
etc.,whether it is 42 or 48 inches, people would put the fence up because they
have a reason that they want a fence. If a homeowner association does not
allow fences, the only conflict would be if the Village stamps its approval and
then the homeowner thinks they can install a 48-inch high fence.
i
Director of Community Development Kallien said that when they apply for a
permit, it is made very clear that a letter of approval is required from the
homeowner association. The association's notification to the Village varies
from elaborate letters to a simple email.: If there is a conflict between the
homeowner and the association, at some point the Village cannot condition its
approval on the receipt of an approval letter from the association. In the end,
the request either meets or does not meet the Village Code, which has been the
practice for decades on the advice of the Village attorneys,including the current
att orney.
Member Nimry said that over the last 6 years there has never been a problem
with communication between the homeowner association and the Village.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that there is a certain level of
subjectivity in determining the 50 percent open requirement. Using a square
section of a fence as an example, there must be at least 50 percent of the total,
area of that section to remain open without any fence material. Monument
structures that hold up fence material is not counted as part of the fence.
l
He felt that by going from 42 to 48 inches would not damage Oak Brook. The
types of activities that were seen along with what people have applied for and
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 13 of 16 December 4, 2012
i
the types of projects that people desire,48 inches seems to be the most desired
fence height..
i
Chairman Davis noted that the Plan Commission voted 5 to 0 in support of the
text amendment.
i
1
Director of Community Development Kallien said that the delay from the Plan
Commission to the Zoning Board of Appeals was due to the cemetery case.
C
Member Young said that if it is not included, he would like to see what
"openness" means to the definitions. He also recommended that the definition
of what an engineered lot is.
Member Bulin questioned the 24-inch solid fence.
Director of Community Development Kallien explained that number is half of
the fence height,should that be 48-inches:
Member Bulin questioned the height restriction of chain link fences for tennis
and sports courts, citing that a tennis court behind his house has a 12-14-foot
high fence., w
"C.6. Sports courts/fields — permitted around sports courts for tennis,
basketball and hockey and fields for baseball."
Director of Community Development Kallien responded that in the current
code there is not a standard.
Member Bulin noted that there are different heights of fences around basketball
and tennis courts, etc., and questioned if there should be a height limitation for
them.
r
Chairman Davis said that if there is not a limit on the height, how could it be
called a fence since the fence height has an established maximum height.
E
Director of Community Development Kallien responded that those types of
fences are really protective enclosures to confine the activity to a certain area.
Sports courts/fields should possibly not included in the chain link regulations
or be added as item E. Another option would be to include it in the accessory
structures section of the code, which has a 15 foot height maximum. He
suggested continuing the matter to research sport court standards. l
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 14 of 16 December 4 2012
F
i
A poll was taken with respect to the members feelings on the 48-inch proposed
fence height, Four out of seven agreed with the proposal, with Member Young j
requesting clarification of his concerns. C
A redlined copy of the fence regulations would be provided at the next meeting
showing the revisions.
Director of Community Development Kallien said that he would bring up the
no fence issue at the next residential enhancement committee meeting.
Motion by Member Young, seconded by Member Bulin to continue the public
hearing to the regular Zoning Board of Appeals on February 5, 2013 meeting. E
VOICE VOTE: Motion carried
t
6. OTHER BUSINESS oTHERBUSINESS
f
A. CONFIRMATION OF 2013 MEETING SCHEDULE CONrIR KI`IaN of
2013 MEETING
SCHEDULE
Gail Polanek reviewed the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting date schedule for
2013. She advised that the notice for all commissions and boards for the
Village must review and confirm its meeting schedule yearly for the Village
Clerk's office, which publishes the schedule annually at the beginning of each
year.
She asked for confirmation by the Zoning Board of Appeals that it would retain
its regular meeting date on the first Tuesday of each month, and to begin the
meeting at 7:00 p.m. After a brief discussion, there was a consensus to
maintain the current schedule for 2013.
i
Motion by Chairman Davis, seconded by Member Young to confirm the Zoning
Board of Appeals 2013 meeting date schedule to retain and meet on the first
Tuesday of each month and to begin the meeting at 7.00 p.m. VOICE VOTE:
Motion carried.
B. Miscellaneous Updates UPDAT S NEOUS
Director of Community Development Kallien updated the members on the
status of the proposed cemetery regulations by the Village Board.
i
There was no other business to discuss
t
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK j
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 15 of 16 December 4, 2012
7. ADJOURNMENT: ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Member Young, seconded by Member Nimry to adjown the meeting
at 8:22 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried
ATTEST:
/s/Robert L. Kallien, Jr.
Robert Kallien,Director of Community Development
Secretary
i
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 16 of 16 December 4, 2012