The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - 09/10/2020 - 610 Hudson Ct, Fence Variation, Docket 20-7Present: Absent: Ryan Bookler Don Childress Donato Latrofa Roberto Serrano Gary Spragg Michael Colgan Christine Kelley Wissam Jameel Rich Romarski ELK GROVE VILLAGE Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes September 10,2020 Staff: B. Kozor, Plan Reviewer/Inspection Supervisor, Community Development Zoning Variation — Docket #20-7 — 610 Hudson Court Chairman Childress called the meeting to order at 7:20 pm and read a statement describing the hearing notification procedure as well as the legal notice. The petitioners, Marc and Lisa Hanlon, (Owners of Record), were sworn in and asked to state their case for requesting the zoning variation. The petitioners explained their hardship was that they live on a Biesterfield Road, which is traditionally busy, and they are requesting to replace the existing split rail fence with a four (4') foot open type white vinyl fence. There is a large landscaping bed and mature landscaping that would need to be removed if the fence were to be installed in the permitted location. The petitioners had landscaping work done recently on the entire yard that eliminated a lot of the overgrown landscaping in the landscape bed where the existing split rail fence is located. The petitioner contended that this landscape work made the area less overgrown and assisted in reducing the sight obstruction that previously existed. The petitioners submitted three (3) letters to the ZBA chairman to read into the public record. In addition, staff had presented two (2) additional letters that were received prior to the meeting to read into the public record. Four (4) of these letters were in support of the zoning variance and one was in opposition. Chairman Childress opened the meeting to questions from the board. Member Spragg asked about the location of the proposed fence and if the split rail fence in the front yard was going to be replaced. The petitioners responded that they had no intent on doing any work on the non -conforming split rail fence in the front yard, and they were only going to replace the rear split rail fence in the back of the yard with a slightly longer four (4') foot open type fence. Member Spragg asked about the landscaping, addressed in the opposition letter, that was being done in the midst of the variance process. The petitioners responded that they had the landscaping work already scheduled and had a separate fence permit application approved to replace the remainder of the fence that did not need a variance. The petitioner acknowledged that if the fence variance location was not approved, additional landscaping work would need to be accomplished at their expense in addition to the work that was already completed. The petitioners acknowledged that they did delay beginning the process of pursuing the fence variation which caused the overlap in the landscaping work that was in process and completed prior to the proposed variance hearing. Member Spragg asked what the length of the fence was proposed to be. Charman Childress responded that the fence is proposed to be approximately forty-four (44') feet from the corner of the rear yard as shown on the plat of survey. The petitioners responded that the existing fence is shorter than the proposed fence. Member Latrofa mentioned that the street view pictures submitted showed more landscaping obstruction and asked if the landscaping is currently as big as shown in the submitted documentation. The petitioners responded that the overgrowth was cut back significantly and is currently much smaller than the original pictures submitted. Member Latrofa asked if the petitioner considered installing a three (3') foot fence. The petitioners stated that they did not look at installing a smaller fence as that would not provide sufficient protection for their small child in their backyard. Member Latrofa asked if different fencing types were researched for this location in addition to the one submitted in the variance application. The petitioners stated that they had chosen a fence type that was similar to the fence that was existing in the neighbors' yard in Hudson Court to maintain uniformity. Member Serrano mentioned that in regards to the timeline and objections that the neighbor in opposition provided, this discussion made it clear that this landscape and variance process was well thought out by the petitioner. Member Bookler discussed that he believed that there are no sight line issues with the fence and that the petitioners made significant improvements to the landscape obstructions that were previously existing in this area. Chairman Childress mentioned that the curve of the street was beneficial for the sight line and this was improved with the reduction of the landscaping. Chairman Childress asked if there were any comments from the audience. Cheryl Falbo, 722 Biesterfield Road, had concerns with the process of the variance. Her concern was that the sign that was posted was not on Biesterfield Road, but was located in front of the house on the cul-de-sac as mentioned in her letter. She additionally clarified that the fence was misrepresented as a four (4') foot fence, additional landscape grading was added, and that the proposed fence was actually three (3') feet longer than the existing fence. She stated that the notification was not clear that the proposed fence was going to be longer than the existing fence. Susan Fieber, 567 Jersey Lane felt the fence will provide safety for the yard that is desired by the petitioner and that there would be no aesthetic issue with the proposed fence design. In addition, she stated that the proximity of the petitioner's house to the nearby school would be a good reason to install this fence to provide additional security and privacy. She had no objections to the variance request. Jason Fieber, 567 Jersey Lane, stated that the lot previously looked overgrown in the thirteen (13) years that they have lived there. He stated that the petitioners have improved the landscape area and the proposed fence would not affect sight lines. He additionally stated that many people in the neighborhood have this type of fence so it would fit in with the neighborhood and he is in support of the variance request. Ryan Uysaler, 1715 Biesterfield Road, stated he is in agreement that there would be no problem with the variance request to provide privacy and protection for the petitioner's child and the variance request should be approved. Chairman Childress asked if staff had any comments. Staff member Kozor responded that engineering staff was sent out on Tuesday September 8th, 2020 to observe the new landscaping that had been installed right after the substantial rain event. Engineering staff verified that the new landscaping did not negatively affect the drainage adjacent to the proposed fence area or the sidewalk. The petitioners clarified that the entire yard had landscape work done in addition to the area surrounding the proposed fence variance. They also clarified that the proposed fence would extend several feet past the newly installed landscape edging pavers. Member Spragg asked Cheryl Falbo what the concern would be with having the proposed fence be longer than the existing fence. Cheryl Falbo responded that the other fences on the street are not located that close to the sidewalk. Chairman Childress called for the motion. A Motion to DO GRANT a variation to permit the installation of a four (4') foot high open type fence which will extend to the street side property line along Biesterfield Road. The fence will replace an existing four (4') foot high split rail fence in the same location. This Motion was made by Member Spragg which was seconded by Member Latrofa. Upon voting (AYES — Bookler, Childress, Latrofa, Serrano, Spragg) (NAYES- None.) (ABSENT — Colgan, Kelley, Jameel, Romarski.) The motion carried. Mr. Childress advised the petitioners to contact the Village Clerk and be available for the subsequent Village Board Meeting. The meeting adjourned at 8:19 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Bryan Kozor Plan Reviewer/Inspection Supervisor, Community Development C: Chairman and Members Zoning Boards of Appeals, Mayor and Board of Trustees, Village Clerk, Village Attorney, Village Manager, Deputy Village Manager, Assistant Village Manager, Director of Community Development, Director of Public Works, Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Chief (2), Inspectional Services Supervisor, Chairman, and Members of Plan Commission +"' > .. � J - �� t .�4 f 1 �� f'" 1a7 f��.. •'�);rii t�r"� �4 s ` - y'� 1 .. �'+ ,t �! � • �1 t. `. � ... o� � c 4, l " s • t fit ►i�t r � � �,��. S. ��' � � .� cai � i - a f " T c .Nrs�iF.. �- -ems �,.-sus»tirwr< � � •� +�. � , � + :,, �rv'a. ,�; r �9$•s' � 4�iiE�/'..'•.•rF✓ " � t-R+r-v"ry � �. s.ye, .-, . �..• :. �_ "7� _ f9 w +, �• I j ems^ y 1. .7 k—e- low • t r i 'Nbk . J i •� _ � is � • � � �, - r -