Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/24/2000 ZBA minutes 28-2000 MINUTES OF I~ REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CORRECTED MINUTES CASE NO. ZBA-28-2000 Hearing Date: Augnst 24, 2000 PETITIONER: Rita Fernandes PUBLICATION DATE: August 9, 2000 JOURNAL/TOPICS REQUEST: Variation to construct a 6-foot fence in an R-A District MEMBERS PRESENT: Men'ill Cotten Hal Ettinger Leo Flores Elizabeth Luxem Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist Arlene Juracek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Blue, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Carl & Mildred Anderson Ray Costan Darla R. Coyl¢ ' Rita Femandes Frank Zavask Chairperson Arlene Juracek c_a~e/~_the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. After a motion by Richard Rogers, seconded by Blizabeth Luxem, minutes ot~4he July 27, 2000 meeting were approved, new member, Hal Ettingur, abstained from voting. At 7:35, Ms. Jumcak opened Case ZBA-28-2000, a request for a Variation to eoustmct a 6' fence in an R-A District. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, stated that public notice had been given and introduced the staff memorandum for the item, a Variation to construct a 6 foot fence in an R-A District and said the case would be Zoning Board final. Ms. Connolly said that the subject property is an existing residence on an interior lot in a single-family residential neighborhood that has an existing four-foot fence around the perimeter of the property. She said that the applicant proposes to remove the existing fence and install a six-foot wooden, perimeter fence. Ms. Connolly explained that the Zoning Code permits a five-foot fence but the petitioner is requesting a six-foot fence because the petitioner has a npeoial needs child who requires a taller, sturdier fence to ensure that the child stays in the yard. Ms. Connolly said the child's neurologist submitted a letter of support for the proposed Variation request and agrees with the petitioner's assessment that a taller fence is needed to ensure the child's safety when he is playing in the yard. Ms. Connolly said Staff reviewed the request with the petitioner and suggested possible alternatives to installing a six- foot fence, but the petitioner said that the alternatives would not be as effective as a six-foot fence. Ms. Connolly stated that staff reviewed the petitioner's plat of survey and site plan, and visited the site. She described the subject parcel as being similar to other lots in the Village and not unique in its surroundings, shape, or topography. She said the rationale for the proposed variation is related to the petitioner's child's quality of life. Ms. Connolly said that the proposed fence would not have a significant effect on public welfare or neighborhood character, but the Zoning Board of Appeais ZBA-28-2000 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 applicant's request for a taller fence and location is based on her child's needs, and no real hardship related to the site exists as outlined by the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Connolly reported that, based on the lack of a finding of hardship as defined by the Zoning Ordinance, Staff recommends denial of a Variation to install a six-foot wooden perimeter lance at 1104 W. Central Road, Case No. ZBA-28-2000. She said that the petitioner's request does not meet the standards for a Variation as defined by'the Village's Zoning Ordinance. However, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) indicates that reasonable accommodations are made for individuals when ADA regulations apply. The child's doctor told staff that the ADA regulations apply to the child's situation and Ms. Connolly said that if the ZBA grants the variation, Staff recommends that the variation be conditioned to the petitioner only. She requested that provisions be made that require the six-foot fence be reduced to five-feet or removed when the petitioner moves from the property. She concluded her report by stating that the Zoning Ordinance grants the ZBA the authority to make this requirement and that this case is final at the ZBA level. Board members questioned how removal of the fence could be enforced in the future. Ms. Connolly and Mr. Blue said it could be enforced by recording a covenant on the deed and tracked through the Geographic Information System (GIS) or the property transfer stamp process. Raymond Carston, 23324 Robert Johnson St., St. Clair Shores, Michigan was sworn in as the petitioner's representative. He stated that he has a mentally challenged child and attested to the difficulty of keeping the petitioner's child from climbing. He stated the child is extremely hyperactive, mentally challenged and incapable of realizing the danger of busy streets and raikoad tracks. He said the child is fond of trains and would try to get to them when he heard them. He stated that the petitioner was also requesting that the finished side of the fence be mined in to prevent the child from scaling the 6' fence. Chairperson Jurncek infonued Mr. Carston that facing the posts and mils towards the neighbors was contrary to our standards. Mr. Carston said this child was autistic and very agile; Ms. Juracek asked how long the petitioner had occupied the home and was told that the petitioner bought the home July 20. Board members questioned the wisdom of purchasing a home located on 9 busy street near a very busy railroad crossing, knowing that there is a problem keeping the child in his own ba?~yard. Mr. Carston speculated that the cost of the house was in the petitioner's price range and was probably ail Ihat~he could afford. In addition, Mr. Carston stated that the child is in a group home and is only in his mother's home ~evan, non-consecutive days per month. Ms. Luxem asked ifa 5' fence, with the smooth side facing the petitioner's property, would be sufficient to restrain the child. Mr. Carston said that a 6' fence would work perfectly and it would be more effective than a 5' fence in preventing an unfortunate accident. Ms. Luxem asked if they had apprised the neighbors of the request and Mr. Carston said they had, and the neighbors.had no objections. Board members asked about the child's age and height. Mr. Carston said he would be twelve the next day and was approximately 4-1/2' tall. Mr. Carl Anderson, 4 N. Lancaster in Mount Prospect, was sworn in: He explained that his property backs up to the rear of the subject property and that he objected to the 6' height and to the rough side of the fence facing his property. Darla Coyle, 1358 Grosse Point Road in Michigan and grandmother of the child, was sworn in and said that they had driven along Central Road and saw several fences higher than 5' with the rough side facing the road. Mike Blue said that the Zoning Code permits fences along arterial roads to have the finished side toward the residential use. He clarified that the petitioner's request is to have the unfinished side facing another residence. At 8:05, Chairperson Juracek closed the Public Hearing and asked for discussion from the Board. Board members discussed many remedies to arrive at a workable solution to the request. Mr. Hal Ettinger suggested allowing the 6' oning Board of Appeals ZBA-28-2000 Arlene Juraeek, Chairperson Page 3 fence with the top rail to be located at 5', with the stipulation that the top 1' of the fence be removed at the time of sale of the subject property. Ms. Luxem said that in order to be fair to the neighbors, approval should be granted only if rails and posts are covered on the neighbors' side. Ms. Juraeek reopened the Public Hearing to examine the fence sample provided by.the petitioner and closed the Public Hearing again at 8:20. Richard Rogers made a motion to grant the requested variations with the condition that the side of the fence facing the abutting properties is constructed in a shadow-box style and that the fence be constructed in a manner that allows the height of the fence to be reduced to five-feet when the petitioner no longer resides at the subject property, subject to the petitioner obtaining a permit from the Community Development Deparanent. Elizabeth Luxem seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Ettinger, Flores, Luxem, Rogers, Youngquist, and Suraeek NAYS: None Motion was approved 7-0. At 9:25 p.m., Elizabeth Luxem made motion to adjourn, seconded by Keith Youngquist. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. ~arbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary ,~, r----'~u~y ~:oniolly,'Senior Planner~