The village of Tinley Park Zoning Board of Appeals met Feb. 9 to discuss fence text amendments.
Here are the meeting's minutes, as provided by the board:
"The seven-member Zoning Board of Appeals reviews and makes recommendations to the Village Board on applications for variations when circumstances may require variations from the codes within the Village's zoning ordinances."
MINUTES OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
VILLAGE OF TINLEY PARK, COOK AND WILL COUNTIES, ILLINOIS
FEBRUARY 9, 2017
The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held in the Council Chambers of Village Hall on February 9, 2017 at 7:30 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
Present and responding to roll call were the following:
Zoning Board Chairman: Chris Verstrate
Zoning Board Members: Michael Fitzgerald
Bob Paszczyk Dave Samuelson Steve Sepessy Jennifer Vargas
Zoning Board Member(s) Absent: Paul Lechner
Village Officials and Staff: Paula Wallrich, Interim Community Development Director
Stephanie Kisler, Planner I Barbara Bennett, Commission Secretary
CALL TO ORDER A Motion was made by ZONING BOARD MEMBER FITZGERALD, seconded by ZONING BOARD MEMBER PASZCZYK to open the regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals at 7:30 p.m. THE MOTION WAS APPROVED by voice call. CHAIRMAN VERSTRATE declared the Motion approved.
TO: VILLAGE OF TINLEY PARK PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES
FROM: VILLAGE OF TINLEY PARK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SUBJECT: MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 9, 2017 MEETING
ITEM #1: WORKSHOP: TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE VILLAGE OF TINLEY PARK ZONING ORDINANCE (SECTION II AND SECTION III) RELATED TO FENCE REGULATIONS
Discuss Text Amendments to the Village’s Fence Regulations including but not limited to the following topics:
• Location
• Height
• Style
• Materials
• Definitions related to fences, lot types, and yards
Present were the following:
Zoning Board Chairman: Chris Verstrate
Zoning Board Members: Michael Fitzgerald
Bob Paszczyk Dave Samuelson Steve Sepessy Jennifer Vargas
Village Officials and Staff: Paula Wallrich, Interim Community Development Director
Stephanie Kisler, Planner I Barbara Bennett, Commission Secretary
STEPHANIE KISLER, Planner I, opened the Workshop asking for discussion of potential Text Amendments to the Village’s Fence Regulations (Section III) and related Definitions (Section II) in order to improve regulations for fences, especially for nonconforming lots, corner lots and replacement of non-conforming fences. MS. KISLER noted that Staff wanted to get direction from the ZBA and take this opportunity to have both the ZBA and the Plan Commission collaborating together for recommendations that can be presented to the Village Board. Safety and aesthetics are big issues with both the ZBA and the Plan Commission. She noted that the topics for discussion at this workshop are location, height, style, materials and definitions related to fences, lot types, and yards. MS. KISLER also noted additionally that Staff would like to discuss whether or not it is possible to utilize Administrative Approvals in some cases rather than a full ZBA and/or Board approval in order to shorten the process for some of the more minor requests.
Fence Location MS. KISLER showed a diagram of a traditional front yard on a corner lot. Staff’s concern is when fenced areas meet is it appropriate for one side to have a fence and the other not. She noted that ideally in planning you should strive to have a clean and consistent setback line, which is why there are setbacks in the code. If there is a 25’ setback for a house, then the thought is that everything else (pools, fences, sheds, decks) is also setback 25’ and it applies on both sides of corner lots. She said that sometimes when the secondary front yards don’t align with the traditional front yard, you can have a fence that would jut out in front of someone else’s front yard and be inconsistent.
CHAIRMAN VERSTRATE asked how you determine which dimension is the front yard versus the secondary side. MS. KISLER stated the code right now calls it the addressed side and the other side or the non-addressed side. She noted that this system isn’t always reliable because sometimes the address is off one street and the front door is off of the other street. She added that the primary front yard would be the shorter of the two because lots should typically be deeper than they are wide.
PAULA WALLRICH, Interim Community Development Director, stated Tinley Park is unique. She noted in most communities both frontages on a corner lot are treated the same regarding building setbacks. Tinley Park does that. She said when it comes to fences, most communities will treat both the front yards the same as well. Tinley Park does not; instead, the code treats them the same except we have granted variances on the required setback. She noted that the Village has allowed exceptions, which has led to inconsistency in fence locations.
MS. KISLER stated we are trying to figure out, going forward, if the Village should keep allowing exceptions for fencing in front yards. She noted that there is an inconsistency with allowing a fence in a secondary front yard that is adjacent to a neighboring primary front yard. She showed several examples of streets with adjacent front yards and fences that are in front of the neighboring fences on the primary and secondary yards. She noted that sometimes you would be looking out your front window and seeing your neighbor’s fence. She also noted that sometimes a fence can present a line of sight issue when adjacent to driveways or sidewalks. She questioned if fences should be allowed in both front yards on corner lots and in any front yard of any lot since there is a lot of inconsistency now. She noted that some communities allow shorter, open-style fences in front yards.
CHAIRMAN VERSTRATE stated he does not feel fences should go in both front yards, but secondary front yards would be okay.
MS. WALLRICH noted the context in the scheme of the street. She stated that properties along 80th Avenue have solid fencing and on the corner lots the fence goes right up to the sidewalk. She said in that context, every property has that type of taller privacy fence due to the proximity of the major street. She noted that driving down that street every fence is different, some are wood, and some are open-style. The aesthetic of that street is poor. She mentioned again that one must always look at the context.
MS. KISLER showed an example of three lots. She noted that in the past the ZBA and Village Board have granted variances for four foot (4’) tall open-style fences in secondary front yards. She added that this not always ideal aesthetically because it doesn’t adhere to the clean line established by the required setbacks. She added that a vision needs to be established and the ZBA is the front line to defend the vision.
ZONING BOARD MEMBER VARGAS asked how many front yard fences are in the Village. She stated because we have so many inconsistencies, if we went ahead and said we are only allowing something new, they would be grandfathered in and there would still be inconsistencies from before. MS. WALLRICH stated that if the homeowner’s had received permits and/or a variance that would be true. She said there has been a pretty significant lack of enforcement in the past. She added that everyone would be allowed to keep their fence now, but if they wanted to replace a fence that didn’t meet a new code, then they would have to go by the new code.
CHAIRMAN VERSTRATE stated we must be consistent. We can avoid issues if we are consistent and say they should have a 25’ setback. He stated that we should stop giving people inconsistent variances. MS. WALLRICH said we can rely on the three standards for variances. She stated that the ZBA can be compassionate, but you have to make sure that the variance request meets the three standards. She said that an attorney can come in and give more information. She said that the ZBA’s job is to apply the code and apply the standards. She added that the ZBA is the recommending body and the Village Board makes the final decision.
The three standards are:
• Reasonable return (if you don’t grant the variance, you will devaluate the property)
• The variation will not alter the essential character of the locality
• The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances
Statutorily, the variance request must meet all of the standards, not just one.
MS. KISLER asked if the property is adjacent to a busy street, is it appropriate to have a fence all the way up to the property line?
CHAIRMAN VERSTRATE asked to see the properties where previous fence variances were granted.
MS. KISLER showed examples of previous properties that were granted fence variances and discussed each scenario. Following the discussion, CHAIRMAN VERSTRATE stated we should not change the code and that fences should not be allowed in any front yards. ZONING BOARD MEMBER FITZGERALD agreed. ZONING BOARD MEMBER PASZCZYK noted it should depend on the street. ZONING BOARD MEMBER SEPESSY stated it should depend on the number of lanes and the speed limit on the street. ZONING BOARD MEMBER VARGAS stated if they are replacing a fence they need to adhere to the code. ZONING BOARD MEMBER SAMUELSON noted he would have less sympathy for a deck that needs to be moved to meet current codes than removing a mature tree. He stated that we need to write the code for the entirety of the Village. He also stated that we should have no problem being strict and we need to be consistent.
MS. KISLER noted in summary we want keep things the same for fence location regarding the required setbacks and, as necessary, look at unique circumstances through the ZBA. All present ZONING BOARD MEMBERS agreed that this is correct.
CHAIRMAN VERSTRATE stated this ZBA needs better discussions and more deliberations. He added that they need to do a better job of discussing the standards to make sure they are met.
MS. WALLRICH stated we need to protect the values of the adjacent property. She noted that the ZBA can choose to table a discussion and they are not obligated to vote on a recommendation that night.
MS. WALLRICH and MS. KISLER stated in some cases there should be more Administrative Variations that could be granted without going before the ZBA. This would make the time shorter for a decision to the homeowner.
Fence Height MS KISLER asked if 4’ to 6’ foot heights are okay. She noted that most communities measure the fence height as the top of the rail (vertical slat). She said that a fence post is generally allowed to be up to six inches higher than the rails. All present ZONING BOARD MEMBERS agreed that this is acceptable.
MS. KISLER stated she will put together a definition for fence height for clarification.
Fence Style MS. KISLER showed examples of open-style fences and privacy fences. She noted she will put together a definition of what percentage of openness constitutes open-style versus privacy. All present ZONING BOARD MEMBERS agreed the space should be at least 50% or more as wide as the slat.
Fence Materials MS. KISLER showed examples of different materials for fences and asked what should be allowed. She noted currently what is not allowed is fencing with barbed wire. She added that the Plan Commission is not a fan of wood because it is not as durable as PVC. All present ZONING BOARD MEMBERS agreed that as long as people are conforming to code for location and height, material should be a personal choice.
Administrative Variations MS. KISLER noted the ZBA should determine what can be an Administrative Variation. She will draft criteria for review. She noted the ZBA may be comfortable with 6’ privacy fences depending on the street speed limit and location.
CHAIRMAN VERSTRATE asked for a Motion to close the Workshop. A Motion was made by BOARD MEMBER FITZGERALD, seconded by BOARD MEMBER SEPESSY to close the Item 1: Workshop on Text Amendments to the Village of Tinley Park Zoning Ordinance (Section II and Section III) related to Fence Regulations held on February 9, 2017. THE MOTION WAS APPROVED by voice call. CHAIRMAN VERSTRATE declared the Motion approval.
GOOD OF THE ORDER MS. KISLER noted there will be a meeting on February 23, 2017. There are two Petitioners. There will also be a meeting on March 9, 2017.
RECEIVE COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC CHAIRMAN VERSTRATE asked if anyone had a Public Comment. No one in the audience wished to comment.
ADJOURNMENT CHAIRMAN VERSTRATE asked for a Motion to adjourn the meeting. A Motion was made by BOARD MEMBER FITZGERALD, seconded by BOARD MEMBER PASZCZYK to close the regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of February 9, 2017 at 9:06 p.m. THE MOTION WAS APPROVED by voice call. CHAIRMAN VERSTRATE declared the Motion approved.
Alerts Sign-up