Village of Sleepy Hollow
Zoning Board
Meeting and Public Hearing Minutes
October 19, 2011
Part I
A meeting of the Village Zoning Board was convened at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at Sleepy Hollow Village Hall. Present were Chairman Jim Kruger, and members Richard Corbett, Don Plass, Scott Prusko, John Skibinski, and Denise Sommerlot. Also present were Village President Stephan Pickett, Trustee Jeff Seiler, and Village Attorney Mark Schuster.
The Chair introduced the first Agenda Item, a public hearing on the application of the owner of property at 201 Jamestowne Lane for a special use to allow an amateur radio antenna on the property. The Chair announced that notice of the public hearing had been published in the Daily Herald newspaper on September 30, 2011. William Dettmer, ICCI, confirmed that a sign had been posted on the property not less than fifteen days prior to this date.
The public hearing commenced at 7:34 p.m. and was concluded at 8:45 p.m. The Board thereafter deliberated on the matter, and on motion by J. Skibinski, seconded by D. Plass, the Board recommended approval of Plan B set out in the application, with a condition that the antenna not be below ten (10’) feet in height at all times. Vote on the motion was 5 aye, 0 nay. Testimony at the public hearing was taken by a Certified Shorthand Reporter from Sonntag Reporting Service.
Respectfully submitted
Mark Schuster
Village Attorney
*****************
Part II
The Chair then introduced the second Agenda Item, a public hearing on the Petition of the Village for a text amendment, to remove the prohibition against architectural pillars or other such structures supporting a mailbox in the Village. The Chairman made a short introduction and read the Petition for Zoning Text Amendment which was to amend the provisions of Title 8: Zoning Regulations: Section 8-5-1, et seq., Business Districts, to amend the regulations so as to add to Section 8-3A-3 a new section allowing architectural pillars at the street or right-of-way, sometimes housing, or supporting a mailbox and/or newspaper tube, built of brick, stone, concrete, or other rigid materials forming an unyielding structure, which structures are currently prohibited in Section 8-3A-5(M). On motion made by Mr. Corbett, seconded by Mr. Prusko, and unanimously passed, the public hearing commenced at 8:55 p.m. Chairman Kruger confirmed that notice of the public hearing had been published in the Daily Herald newspaper on September 30, 2011.
Attorney Schuster made opening comments about the reason for this hearing which was to revisit the issue of brick mailbox structures and noted that some have been constructed in the Village. The
Village of Sleepy Hollow
Zoning Board
Meeting and Public Hearing Minutes
October 19, 2011
Village Board requested a review by the Zoning Board to consider whether to continue the prohibition of these types of mailbox structures.
Chairman Kruger noted that Board members were previously given copies of three written statements regarding this matter received from resident Walt Heffron, former Zoning chairman for 24 years. Chairman Kruger stated he had given board members a copy of the Village ordinance regarding this matter, and also ordinances from South Barrington and Pingree Grove concerning their handling of these types of mailboxes in their villages.
Resident Walt Heffron distributed and read a statement objecting to brick mailboxes for safety reasons and noted that postal regulations consider certain types of mailbox supports potentially dangerous.
In response to Mr. Heffron’s statement that the Chairman has a brick mailbox, Chairman Kruger said that he did construct a stone mailbox this summer, but was unaware they were illegal.
Resident Art Neil, another former Zoning Chairman and member, noted the “unyielding structure” of a brick mailbox and reviewed scenarios if brick mailboxes are allowed: damage to snowplows which would cost money to repair and loss of use of the plow, and damage to mailboxes, which would be more costly and time consuming for village personnel for a brick mailbox versus a wooden post. He felt allowing brick mailboxes would be a bad idea.
Resident James Wolford noted that some homeowners may wish to fortify their mailboxes because of teens causing damage to mailboxes and wondered if that is why residents wish to have brick mailboxes. Chair Kruger responded that he felt it was for aesthetics in this village.
Mr. Skibinski asked if the snowplows are community owed or outsourced; Attorney Schuster responded that they are owned by the village. Mr. Skibinski also asked how often mailboxes are hit by snowplows and if we have records; Mr. Schuster said there have been occurrences and the Village probably has records. Mr. Skibinski wondered if cars have also struck mailboxes. Chairman Kruger feels some mailboxes may be damaged by snow being catapulted into them, not actually by plows striking them. He asked if the post office is concerned with mail trucks hitting the mailboxes. Mr. Schuster responded that they need the mailboxes close to the right-of-way, which is part of village property. He reviewed the postal regulations but was only able to locate that the post office suggests break away structures that yield to a vehicle, such as a 4×4.
Mrs. Sommerlot said she slid on ice in her neighborhood and hit a wooden mailbox which broke on impact but caused damage to her car, which she felt would have been worse had it been a brick mailbox.
Mr. Prusko noted there are many items in the right-of-way — trees, light poles — which do not “breakaway” and are not safety hazards, and feels the issue of allowing brick mailboxes should be explored.
Mr. Heffron said he consulted with the Dundee postmaster who said he is adamantly opposed to brick mailboxes. He also said the postal service can regulate the mailbox supports when they apply to the safety of mail carriers, and noted this would apply to any drivers, creating a hazard on the street. Mr. Heffron does not understand why there is any opposition to making the mailbox support as safe as possible, as recommended by the postal service.
Mr. Neil responded to the comments about allowing brick mailboxes for aesthetic reasons. He compared that argument to allowing fences or out buildings because they may look nice and feels that safety should be the main focus. Mr. Neil also commented that the Village has enough obstacles along the right-of-way without adding more. He encouraged the board members to vote the way they feel is right for them.
Village Trustee Seiler said this issue was sent to the Zoning Board for their recommendation after receiving anonymous letters on the brick mailboxes. He noted that if a mailbox does not conform to postal standards, the postman will not deliver the mail, and to his knowledge, those residents with brick mailboxes are receiving their mail.
Chairman Kruger asked William Dettmer, of ICCI, about definitions of “rigid” or “unyielding”. Mr. Dettmer answered that he has dealt with brick mailboxes in his business, and noted that the post office is a federal prescription. He will follow the direction of the village in how to enforce these mailboxes. He felt if the village regulates these mailboxes, they are responsible; the federal government should regulate these. There are several new brick mailboxes in the village right-of-way and it will be a challenge to get them removed. When he sees this come up elsewhere, they look at the federal law and use that as a standard in the community. The mailman could also ask the flowers to be removed from around the mailbox and he has seen that done. He encouraged the board to look at this carefully. He said there are clear rules on the mailboxes, height, etc. He wondered what would happen if these mailboxes are allowed and someone gets hurt.
Mr. Skibinski said he feels if we allow them as it is written now, we take responsibility. If we can change that so that they are not illegal, that would change things. He feels a plow driver will be more careful by a brick mailbox than a 4×4 post. He questioned why Mr. Dettmer has not enforced these mailboxes previously; Mr. Dettmer responded that he was told to hold off until the matter was decided but is willing to enforce this if necessary. Mr. Skibinski again inquired how many mailboxes are hit by plows or if any brick ones have been hit. He noted if more brick mailboxes are constructed, they may be more likely to be hit.
Mr. Dettmer felt it may be residents hitting the mailboxes; Mr. Skibinski said he had no information on how many residents had actually hit mailboxes. President Pickett said his mailbox has been hit twice.
Mr. Skibinski asked if the federal government states that mailboxes cannot be made of brick; he understands there are height requirements but didn’t know about brick.
Mr. Heffron felt nobody deliberately hits a mailbox; it is by accident, even by a snowplow driver, whether by road or visibility conditions. He noted that a neighbor lost his concentration and knocked down two mailboxes. This could happen to anyone and someone could be seriously hurt. We must insist on structures that yield when you hit them, as the postal service recommends.
There were no further comments, and on motion by Mr. Plass, seconded by Mr. Prusko, and unanimously passed, the public hearing was closed.
**********************
Members of the Zoning Board further inquired and commented as follows:
Mr. Skibinski noted there are many people out on the roads, walking, jogging, and drivers must be alert. If we don’t want to open up the mailbox issue because of “what ifs”, which could be said about any issue, he’d be more concerned about hitting a person at night than a mailbox.
Mr. Plass felt there were good points made about snowplows and damage to municipal vehicles. He looked at safety also; first, someone driving and striking an unyielding object, and second, when you back out of your driveway if you have this obstacle in your right-of-way, your view is obstructed. He believes the village has an ordinance prohibiting trees and shrubs in the right-of-way for the same
safety reason. Having one or two of these structures by the right-of-way could be dangerous. In his job, he knows public works employees do hit mailboxes.
Mr. Corbett asked if the Village is responsible to replace a mailbox if they hit or knock it down. Attorney Schuster responded that the village takes responsibility and has some type of policy to do something to replace a mailbox. He noted that the federal postal regulations require that a mailbox be in the village right-of-way, and as a courtesy, communities usually have some type of policy when mailboxes are knocked down by village plows, whether making a repair or giving a replacement. Mr. Corbett said it becomes the difference between a wooden post and a very nice expensive pillar. A wooden post might be replaced by $50, but would be nothing for a pillar structure.
Mr. Corbett also met with the postmaster in West Dundee who gave him the regulations from the manual which state that they do not regulate mailbox supports in any way except for purposes of carrier safety and delivery efficiency. It also states that heavy metal posts and concrete posts are examples of potentially dangerous supports. The postmaster said they will not tell a homeowner or community that they can or cannot have these structures, but do have the option, if they consider it dangerous to the carrier, of refusing to deliver the mail. They do not say this is a rule in any way. The regulations further state that the ideal support is one that bends or falls away when struck by a vehicle. Mr. Corbett further stated that this village ordinance has been in effect for a long time and no one tonight has given any good reason for changing it. If we use aesthetics as a reason to change this, we are doing a poor job of zoning. It can be a contributing factor, but not the main reason. He feels there are too many things in the right-of-way now. He strongly recommended the board vote no to allowing these.
Mrs. Sommerlot also agreed that we should not allow these structures. She had advised a neighbor of the restrictions when they started building a brick mailbox and they then stopped construction and removed it. She also said her mailbox has been hit with baseball bats and would like a solid structure but feels this is a safety issue.
Chairman Kruger noted that he will abstain from voting on this issue but wished to comment. He felt there is a big difference on the definition of what is unyielding. In his situation, landscape bricks stacked together are different than a masonry structure with concrete footings. He also said that in the town he works in there is an entire subdivision that was constructed with all brick mailbox structures, that has sidewalks and speed limits of 25 mph. Sleepy Hollow has no sidewalks and he feels some of our roads should be less than 25 mph. Mr. Kruger also noted the ordinance in South Barrington on masonry mailbox structures requires mandatory $1M liability insurance by the homeowner, and pays a maximum of $50 to homeowners for mailbox damage caused by the village. He agreed there are issues on both sides of this argument. He noted that brick structures are very prevalent in many communities. He again said he didn’t look at the ordinance when he constructed his mailbox because one had been recently constructed just blocks away, with extensive other work that required permitting, and he assumed it had been inspected.
Mr. Skibinski commented on the aesthetics and noted much of what is discussed by zoning is how the village is perceived and to keep the country setting. He would rather worry about hitting something appealing to his eye than some of the mailboxes in the village that are ready to fall down and look like they don’t belong here, of which they are plenty. He noted that other villages have taken the burden off themselves for these issues and doesn’t want the village to incur costs, but doesn’t feel the danger of hitting a mailbox is that prevalent. He would like to try to open this up and see if there is something that can be done.
******************
Mr. Corbett moved, with a second by Mrs. Sommerlot, to recommend that the village make no change to the existing ordinance, Section 8-3A-5(M). Aye: Corbett, Sommerlot, Plass. Nay: Prusko, Skibinski. Abstain: Kruger. Motion passed.
There was neither old business nor any announcements.
On motion duly made by Mr. Prusko and seconded by Mr. Skibinski, the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Norine D. Olson
Village Clerk
