08.15.22 MEETING MINUTES - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of Council Monday, August 15, 2022 Page 6 vote found that they didn't feel there were practical difficulties or unique circumstances. That's the same thing that Council is also asked to look at with this. I appreciate your viewpoint and I know that this Village appreciates new residents, especially making such an investment in their property, but I take issue with there being a discrepancy in the Code because it only permits a 4' chain link fence versus a 6' foot privacy fence. The difference there is there is aesthetically a difference between a chain link fence and a privacy fence. The purpose largely of a chain link fence has been looked at as security because it doesn't provide any privacy. A privacy fence provides privacy. When you look at these Codes, some of them have been on the books for many many many years. They are looked at to establish a standard in the Village. Standards change, however a chain link fence is just not looked at as aesthetically pleasing as a privacy fence. We heard about some dog issues and some other things tonight. That was not in the BZA record. I think everyone's familiar with the Minutes from that meeting, but I just wanted to jump in and say it's not a discrepancy in the Code that was done intentionally and I think you can see that in many other codes in other communities although fencing codes will vary between communities for various different reasons. Some communities have much smaller lots, some have larger lots. It just varies depending upon the makeup and the composition of the community, whether it's largely residential, whether there's a lot of commercial, so forth and so on. I won't bore everyone with all of the details, just to say that unfortunately the Board of Zoning Appeals isn't charged, nor is this Council charged with making a vote based upon what they like or what they dislike. Both the Board and Council are here to look to see if there are any unusual circumstances, practical difficulties and if those can be justified then that justifies the variance. That's pretty much what was in the memo. I don't think anyone had any questions, but if you do, I can answer those before your vote. Ms. Jurcisek asked, so does the practical difficulty take into consideration the neighboring properties as well? Ms. Calta replied, that's one of the issues. You would always look to what neighbors may have an opinion on. Sure. But that doesn't establish practical difficulty if that makes sense. Mr. Murphy asked, what are the options here? I think the last time we had our meeting, there were three different options. Also in your memo it's a majority versus a supermajority. If you can go over that, especially with one Council member missing tonight also. Ms. Calta replied, so Council has the options to affirm, so agree with what the Board of Zoning Appeals did. That only requires a majority vote. If you want to modify or reverse, you will require what's called a supermajority so that's 5 votes of Council to do that. You can modify it. In this instance I am not quite sure what options there were. To modify it would mostly be to affirm or reverse. So 4 of 5. Mr. Murphy stated, thank you.