City of Effingham Zoning Board of Appeals met July 23.
Here is the minutes provided by the board:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mike Mumm
Gary Welton
Mark Thies
Rob Macklin
Alan Harris
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Dave Swingler
Kurt Buehnerkemper
OTHERS PRESENT:
Tracy A. Willenborg, City Attorney
Jeremy Heuerman, City Director Department Public Works
Greg Koester, Subdivision Administrator
Michelle Wilkins, Building Official
Michael Tappendorf, Milano & Grunloh
Dawn Schabbing, Effingham Daily News
Kim Gammon, Court Reporter
1. Roll Call: The July 23, 2019, City Zoning Board of Appeals meeting was called to order at 6:00 p. m. by Chairman Mike Mumm, with a quorum being present.
Approve Minutes of Regular Meeting of June 25, 2019: On motion by Mark Thies, seconded by Alan Harris, the minutes for the June 25, 2019, meeting were approved by unanimous vote, as presented.
Mark Thies, seconded by Alan Har
3. Public Hearing:
Location: 605 N. Main Street, Effingham, Illinois
Requesting: Fence Variance to allow a 6' Vinyl Privacy Fence in Front Yard
Petitioners: Arthur H. Pike and Mary B. Pike, Owners
The Petition for Variance was filed by the owners of the Subject Property, Arthur H. Pike and Mary B. Pike. Petitioners are seeking a variance to allow the construction of a six foot tall vinyl fence, being 18 feet in length, in the front yard in a R-2, Single Family Residential District.
Arthur H. Pike, Petitioner, appeared to testify in support of the Petition. Mr. Pike advised the Board that the reason for his request, is that he would like to install the proposed fence in order to allow privacy on his back porch. Mr. Pike further advised that he is only seeking to install 18 feet of fencing in the front yard. Mr. Pike testified that shrubbery, which has been there since 1984, is currently located in the area where he proposes to install the fence. Mr. Pike further testified that he has issues with weeds and brush within the shrubbery, and while he still keeps the shrubbery trimmed, he would like to take out the shrubbery and install the 18 feet of fencing in the same location. Mr. Pike is proposing to install a six foot, vinyl type fencing.
In response to questioning by City Attorney, Tracy Willenborg, Mr. Pike confirmed that the Subject Property is a double frontage lot, and the fact that the property is considered a double frontage lot creates the hardship.
Mr. Pike advised that he is not aware of where the city right-of-way line is located on the side where he is proposing to construct the fence. Mr. Pike testified that there used to be a marker designating the location of the City right-of-way, but the pin was removed when they put the new sidewalks in a couple years ago. In response to questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Pike confirmed that the fence would be installed in the same area where the shrubbery is currently located.
In response to further questioning by City Attorney Willenborg regarding the proposed fencing, Mr. Pike confirmed that he is only seeking to install a fence for a distance of 18 feet along the front yard, and he is not looking to install a fence in any other area along the front yard of the Subject Property.
In response to questioning by Board Member Thies regarding the location of the proposed fence in relation to the currently existing hedge, Mr. Pike testified that the fence would be located the middle area of the shrubbery, closer to the house. Mr. Pike added that the fence would be approximately 4 feet from the step of the porch located in his back yard.
In response to questioning by Board Member Welton regarding Temple Avenue, Mr. Pike confirmed that when they purchased the Subject Property in 1959, Temple Avenue was considered an alley. Per Mr. Pike, back when they purchased the Subject Property, the City would oil and put sawdust on the right-of-way. Over the years,
Avenue has been expanded and become a very busy street. Mr. Pike advised that this is one of the main reasons for the fence. He advised the Board that he would like privacy when he sits on his back deck. Without the fence, he feels like people can just look right at him.
In response to further questioning by Board Member Welton, Mr. Pike confirmed that he would not have built the back deck patio area in its current location if Temple Avenue was what it now is at the time he built the back deck.
No one appeared to testify in opposition of the Petition,
At the request of the Board, Gregory Koester, City Subdivision Administrator appeared to testify. In response to questioning by Board Member Welton regarding the location of the property line and whether the City had any concerns with the proposed placement of the fence in relation to the right-of-way, Mr. Koester advised that he did some research and from what he can gather, the right-of-way on the south side of Temple Avenue is around 22 feet, with a twelve foot lane. Per Mr. Koester, the location of the shrubbery is about 12 foot from the back of the curb, so the proposed fence will either be located right on the right-of-way line or on the Petitioner's property, and will not be located within the right-of-way.
The hearing was closed and a discussion was conducted among the Board members in open session. The Board Members voiced approval of the requested variance, and found the variance to be justified due to the lot being a double frontage area, and the fact that the road was built after the house was constructed.
On motion by Gary Welton, seconded by Alan Harris, the Zoning Board of Appeals approved, by a 5 to 0 vote, the variance as requested.
Public Hearing:
Location: 608 N. Engbring Street, Effingham, Illinois
Requesting: Fence Variance to allow a 5' Vinyl Privacy Fence and Semi Privacy Fence in Front Yard
Petitioners: Julie A. Pruemer Pike and Marilyn D. Pruemer, Owners
The Petition for Variance was filed by the owners of the Subject Property, Julie A. Pruemer Pike and Marilyn D. Pruemer. Petitioners are seeking a variance to allow the construction of a five foot tall vinyl fence, and a privacy fence, in the front yards in a R-2, Single Family Residential District.
Julie A. Pruemer Pike, Petitioner, appeared to testify in support of the Petition. Ms. Pruemer Pike testified that they do not have a back yard area on the Subject Property, so they would like to install a semi-private fence on the west side of the Subject Property, coming out approximately 15 feet along area adjacent to the property owned by Steve and Lori Sager, with a five foot privacy fence on the Subject Property along Temple Avenue, a semi-private fence on the Subject Property along Engbring Street, and a smaller gate/fence for the area from Engbring Street connecting back to the house.
In response to questioning by City Attorney, Tracy Willenborg, regarding the letter from Lori and Steve Sager, which was attached to the Petition. Ms. Pruemer Pike testified that Steve and Lori Sager live in the house behind the Subject Property, and their driveway is adjacent to the area the Petitioner is proposing to install a portion of the fence. Ms. Pruemer Pike testified that the proposed location of the fence will not impact the ability of Mr. and Mrs. Sager being able to see when backing out of their property. A copy of the letter from Lori and Steve Sager was made a part of the record.
Ms. Pruemer Pike testified that due to her mother's smaller stature, they designed the location of the fencing, so that it does not impact her mother's ability to back out or drive on to Engbring. Ms. Pruemer Pike does not believe that the proposed location of the fence will negatively impact visibility for traveling public. Ms. Pruemer Pike further testified that when there is a ball game on the adjacent ball fields, big SUV's park on the right-of-way along Engbring Street, and she believes these parked vehicles have a more negative impact on visibility than what the proposed fencing would create.
Ms. Pruemer Pike testified that her mother is 86 and owns a small dog. Ms. Pruemer Pike advised that her mother is to the point that she cannot walk her dog and reasonably requires a fenced in area on the property to allow her to put her dog out without tying the dog out on a line. Ms. Pruemer Pike further stated that the fenced in area will also allow her mother to have some privacy and safety due to traffic and activities associated with the adjacent sports fields. Ms. Pruemer Pike further advised that when her parents built the home on the Subject Property, the ball fields were not located in the area, nor was Temple that busy of a street. Ms. Pruemer Pike also testified that Temple Avenue actually did not go through the area at the time the home was constructed, and that it originally ended at First Street.
Ms. Pruemer Pike testified that the proposed fence will be aesthetically pleasing so that it does not impact the value of the property in any way.
In response to questioning by City Attorney, Tracy Willenborg, Ms. Pruemer Pike confirmed that the Subject Property is a double frontage lot, and the fact that the property is considered a double frontage lot creates the hardship, as well as the hardship created due to the expansion of Temple Avenue.
In response to questioning by Board Member Thies regarding the proposed fence running east and west, Ms. Pruemer Pike testified that they are proposing a five foot privacy fence. Ms. Pruemer Pike testified that while most people can see over the fence, her mother, due to her height, will not be able to see over that area of the fence. In response to questioning by Board Member Thies regarding the proposed fence running north and south on the east side of the house, Ms. Pruemer Pike testified that the fence will be a semi-private fence, comparable to those pictured on the attachments to the Petition.
In response to questioning by City Attorney, Tracy Willenborg, regarding the height of the proposed fence, Ms. Pruemer Pike stated that the fence is proposed to be a five foot fence, except in that area of the fence connected to the house and running to the fence adjacent to Engbring might be a little lower.
In response to questioning by Board Member Welton regarding discussions with the neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Sager and the proposed fence, Ms. Pruemer Pike testified that the Sagers are aware of the location of the proposed fence and did not have concerns with the location.
No one appeared to testify in opposition of the Petition.
At the request of the Board, Gregory Koester, City Subdivision Administrator appeared to testify. In response to questioning by Board Member Welton regarding visibility concerns for traffic going northbound off of Engbring, Mr. Koester testified that fence would be 18 feet from the edge of the road so if a person pulled up to the stop sign, located on the edge of the road, there shouldn't be any issues seeing to the west. In response to questioning by Board Member Welton regarding the location of the stop sign on Engbring, Mr. Koester confirmed that the stop sign is located on the north side of the sidewalk, and that the location of the stop sign on the north, versus the south side, of the sidewalk is not standard location for a stop sign. Mr. Koester further testified that if the stop sign was located on the south side of the sidewalk, there would not be proper site-distance. Mr. Koester, testified, however, that given the location of the sidewalk, the manner the sidewalk was constructed on the Subject Property and the park district property, and the diagonal crosswalk, even if the stop sign was located on the north side of the sidewalk, a vehicle might stop at the stop sign, the vehicle would still have to pull up in order to have the proper visibility to pull out. In response to further questioning by Board Member Welton, Mr. Koester confirmed that, from the City's perspective, the site distance is acceptable for Engbring Street if the fence were located in area proposed.
Board Member Thies expressed concern that Engbring and Temple are very busy streets, particularly when children are around.
Board Member Harris suggested that the proposed fence is far enough back, and that there are other fences in the area that are comparable to what is being requested. Board Member Thies responded that the traffic in this area is greater than that in other streets off of Temple Avenue.
The hearing was closed and a discussion was conducted among the Board members in open session. Board Member Harris did not believe that there would be a visibility issue because the fence would be 18 feet from the street. Board Member Welton stated that the area is quite busy, being one of the main ways to go into the park, and that when all the cars are parked there for the games, the issues are even worse. City Attorney Willenborg clarified that the variance requested was to allow a privacy and semi privacy fence at 15 feet from the house along Temple Avenue and at 22 feet from the house along Engbring Street which is a variance from the requirements contained in Article 5-3 (J) and 22-2(C) of the zoning regulations. The consensus is that the visibility would not be negatively impacted.
On motion by Alan Harris, seconded by Mike Mumm, the Zoning Board of Appeals approved, by a 4 to 1 vote, the variance as requested.
5. Public Comment: None
5. Adjourn: On motion by Gary Welton, seconded by Rob Macklin, the meeting was adjourned.
https://go.boarddocs.com/il/voeil/Board.nsf/files/BF9SH572B528/$file/7.23.19%20Minutes.pdf
Alerts Sign-up