The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZBA Docket # - 22-2 - Taras Napora - 164 Willow Lane - ShedELK GROVE VILLAGE Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes February 10, 2022 Present: Donald Childress, Chairman Ryan Bookler Tony Damptz Jr. Jacob Glimco Donato Latrofa Steve Rawleigh Robert Serrano Gary Spragg Absent: Rich Romanski Staff: B. Kozor, Plan Reviewer/Inspection Supervisor, Community Development Zoning Variation – Docket #22-2 164 Willow Lane Chairman Childress called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and read a statement describing the hearing notification procedure as well as the legal notice. Section 3-7: D (6) prohibits sheds from being constructed in excess of twelve (12’) feet in height measuring from the highest finished grade to the highest point of the shed. The petitioner is requesting to permit a height of thirteen feet, four inches (13’-4”) measured from the highest proposed finished grade to the highest point of the shed. The petitioner, Taras Napora (Owner of Record), was sworn in and asked to state his case for requesting a zoning variation. The petitioner’s hardship is that he is pursuing a height variance for a shed built with his family membe rs. The petitioner was sick while his family members built the shed. His family members (father and uncle) have construction experience and during the construction added additional supports that caused the shed to exceed the maximum height . Chairman Childress opened the meeting to questions from the board. Member Glimco inquired if the petitioner had applied for a permit and if the petitioner had planned on building a twelve foot (12’) high shed. The petitioner stated that he had received a permit for the shed and slab and that the slab was approved by the Building Department. The shed was planned on being twelve feet (12’) tall but during the construction process the shed had increased in height by ten inches (10”). The petitioner stated that there was a complaint about the height of the shed and the Village came out to investigate. The petitioner disagreed with the measurement that was taken by the Build ing Department as the height was not taken from the finished grade. Member Damptz Jr. asked the petitioner if the shed was twelve feet , ten inches (12’10”) in height, what was proposed to be done with the existing shed that is currently on the property, and if there were any additional neighbor concerns. The petitioner stated that the shed was twelve feet , ten inches (12’10”) and that the s econd shed will be removed once the new shed is approved. The petitioner stated that there were n o other neighbor concerns that he was aware of . Chairman Childress asked the petitioner had added any topsoil to finish grading. The petitioner responded that he did not. Member Latrofa asked if this was a custom built shed or a purchased, manufactured shed. The petitioner stated that it was a custom built shed. Member Bookler asked staff about the measurement that was taken in the field that is shown in the picture exhibit. Staff member Kozor responded that the measurement was from the highest height that was observable from grade, and that measurement was thirteen feet , four inches (13’4”). Member Bookler asked the petitioner if his family members had ever buil t a shed previously, if they knew what the requirements for the shed si ze were prior to construction, and if he had discussed with the neighbors his plan to build a shed. The petitioner stated that his family members had previously built houses, sheds, and structures and that they knew what the shed height was required to be . The petitioner stated that the slab had been installed since the summer and he had discussed th at he was proposing to build a shed with his neighbors. The petitioner also had discussed with his adjacent neighbor to the south that he was going to remove branches from the neighbor’s bush that w ere growing on his side of the property to enable him build the shed. Member Spragg asked staff if the neighbor only had concerns about the height. Staff member Kozor said that it was the only concern. Chairman Childress discussed the shed height requirement was a more recent code update . Member Serrano followed up on the petitioners submitted statement that the shed was proposed to be used as a hobby area and asked what hobby is proposed. Member Serr ano commented that it appeared that this was proposed to be a work area and not a shed. The petitioner responded that he restores remote control vehicle s mall engines. The shed would be used for his lawnmower and for additional storage in addition to the work area. Member Rawleigh asked the petitioner on w hy were the additional supports were required. The petitioner responded that the e xtra support was needed to secure the second level better. Member Damptz Jr. commented that he does not understand how carpenters could have unknowingly built the shed too high. The petitioner stated that his family members knew that the shed was going to exc eed 12 feet (12’). They had driven around town and noticed that some sheds that were taller based upon previous code requirements. Member Latrofa asked the petitioner on what the cost would be to modify the shed to make it compliant. He also commented that whether the shed was ten inches (10”) or sixteen inches (16”) too high, it does not meet the Zoning Code requirement. The petitioner stated that he d id not know the cost to bring the shed height into compliance. Chairman Childress opened the meeting to questions from the public. Martha Urban, 170 Willow Lane, who lives next to the petitioner stated that she called in the concern to the Building Department on December 3, 2021 and had subsequent discussions with the Building Department which confirmed that the shed was taller than was permitted. The height of the shed stands out and does not fit into the neighborhood landscape and smaller sheds are less intrusive. She stated that it appears to look like a tiny house. The resident continued by explaining that the Zoning Ordinance s are in place to keep consistency and maintain standards and she feels that it is improper for professional carpenters to ask for a variance after the fact. Ms. Urban provided photos of her neighbor’s shed (Exhibit A). She explained that the correct thing to do would be to bring the shed into compliance without raising the grade , which would cause drainage issues. Member Spragg asked Ms. Urban if she would have any other concerns if the shed was brought to the permitted height of twelve feet (12’). Ms. Urban said she would not have an issue with it , she stated that she objected to the variance request. Mike Urban, 170 Willow Lane, stated that the shed is well over twelve feet (12’) in height and should meet the Ordinance because it is not in alignment with other neighboring sheds. The petitioner commented the height from maximum grade to the tallest point of the shed is twelve feet, ten inches (12’10”) and not thirteen feet, four inches (13’ 4”) Member Damptz Jr. asked why the petitioner did not include pictures with height measurements in his submittal . The petitioner responded that he did not have any help to provide outside height measurements . Chairman Childress asked the petitioner where the shed is located on the prope rty. The petitioner stated that the shed is located four feet (4’) from the neighbors lot and ten feet (10’) from the back lot line. Member Glimco asked the petitioner if there were plans to raise the grade in the spring. The petitioner stated that the final grade will be higher and he intends on not impacting the existing drainage patterns. Chairman Childress asked staff how the grade and shed heights are typically determined. Staff member Kozor responded that the Zoning Code states the shed height is to be taken from highest grade to the highest point of the structure. Chairman Childress called for the motion. A Motion to DO GRANT a variation to permit the installation of a shed in excess of the twelve feet (12’) in height measuring from the highes t finished grade to the highest point of the shed as is required by Section 3-7: D (6) of the Elk Grove Zoning Ordinance was made by Member Damptz Jr. and seconded by Member Spragg. Upon voting (NAYES- Damptz Jr., Glimco, Latrofa, Rawleigh, and Serrano ) (AYES – Childress, Bookler, and Spragg) (ABSENT – Romanski) The motion failed. Mr. Childress advised the petitioner to cont act the Village Clerk and be available for the subsequent Village Board Meeting on February 22, 2022. Mr. Childress called for a motion to adjourn. Th e Mo tion to adjourn was made by Member Damptz Jr. which was seconded by Member Latrofa. The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Bryan Kozor Plan Reviewer / Inspection Supervisor Community Development Department 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, De puty Fire Chief (2), Inspectional Services Supervisor, Chairman , and Members of Plan Commission