Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Docket # 22-9 - Robert Pinzur, J & L. Martinez,Continuance- 345 Maple Lane -FenceELK GROVE VILLAGE Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes August 18, 2022 Present: Ryan Bookler Donald Childress, Chairman Tony Damptz Jr. Jacob Glimco Rich Romanski Robert Serrano Gary Spragg Absent: Donato Latrofa Steve Rawleigh Staff: B. Kozor, Deputy Director, Community Development K. Hinkle, Plan Reviewer, Community Development Zoning Variation — Docket #22-9 345 Maple Lane (Continuance) The petitioner was not in attendance at the hearing on July 14, 2022. This is the continued hearing. 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 (3) prohibits fences from being constructed within the required front yard and beyond a line extended from the nearest front corner of the principal building located on an adjacent single-family residential lot. The petitioner is requesting to install a six foot (6') high fence which will extend approximately nine feet six inches (9'-6") beyond the nearest front corner of the principal structure on the adjacent single-family residential lot to the east at 349 Maple Lane. The fence will replace an existing six foot (6') high wood fence in the same location. The petitioner, Robert Pinzur (Attorney representing the homeowner), was sworn in and asked to present his case. Robert Pinzur started by apologizing for missing the previous hearing. He stated that the current fence was installed twenty (20) years ago by the previous owners. The petitioner had purchased the house with the fence in the current location. The fence, if moved back to the approvable location, would interfere with an existing gas service line. The petitioner is looking to use the fence to keep their dogs secured in their yard. The petitioner is willing to provide an accommodation by moving the fence back a little from the current location. Chairman Childress opened the meeting to questions from the board. Member Spragg inquired how far the petitioner is willing to move the fence from its current location. Mr. Pinzur responded that the fence installer wants to stay a minimum of three feet (3') away from the gas line, so it would be sufficient to move the fence possibly a couple feet back. The petitioner is proposing to install a six foot (6') white vinyl fence. Member Damptz Jr. was concerned why the neighbors from the previous hearing did not want the fence to be installed in the new location and was wondering why the gas line affects where the fence goes. Mr. Pinzur responded that the fence installer does not want to install the fence within three feet (3') of the gas line. Chairman Childress discussed that there are not any sight line issues that are impacted with this variance request. He stated that the variance hearing should not be used by neighbors to address maintenance issues or be used for punitive reasons. Chairman Childress asked if there were any comments from the public. Mike Reimann, 349 Maple Lane, has surveyed the Village and has not seen any fences out as far as this one. He stated that the fence has been leaning for years and is concerned with the sight lines from his house, especially that the new fence is proposed to be a foot higher. Members discussed that variances for fence locations are routinely granted. The members also asked how tall the existing fence was. Mr. Pinzur responded that the existing fence is five feet (5') tall and that the petitioner is looking to replace the fence with a six foot (6') fence. He discussed with the petitioner about a compromise to have a five foot (5') high fence. Kevin Niven, 916 Victoria Lane, discussed that the previous hearing approval this evening (ZBA 22-10) was for a four foot (4') chain link fence and this hearing is for a fence that is either going to be a five foot (5') or six foot (6') fence. The members discussed that a fence up to six feet (6') in height can be approved in this location. Mr. Niven spoke about the location of the gas line, asked if the petitioner is allowed two sheds on the property, and stated he would prefer if the petitioner only be allowed to have a five foot (5') high fence. The members discussed that property maintenance items are not addressed during the variance hearing but can be discussed with the Community Development Department for follow up. Member Damptz Jr. asked the petitioner multiple questions relating to the location of the fence and gate in respect to the gas line and how that would affect the overall installation. Ivette Martinez, the petitioner, discussed where the gate would be installed and reiterated that the fence installer does not want to install the fence within three feet (3') of the gas line. Member Romanski asked staff if the petitioner is able to repair the fence in its existing location. Mr. Kozor responded that the petitioner is able to maintain the condition of the existing fence and make repairs per the Property Maintenance Code. Community Development staff had no comments. Chairman Childress called for the motion. A Motion to DO GRANT a variance to Zoning Section 3-7: D (3) to install a six foot (6') high fence which will extend approximately nine feet six inches (9'-6") beyond the nearest front corner of the principal structure on the adjacent single-family residential lot to the east at 349 Maple Lane. The motion was made by Member Bookler which was seconded by Member Romanski. Upon voting (AYES — Bookler, Childress, Glimco, Romanski, Serrano, Spragg) (NAYES — Damptz Jr.) (ABSENT — Latrofa, Rawleigh) The motion carried. Mr. Childress called for a motion to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Bryan Kozor Deputy Director, 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, Deputy Fire Chief (2), Inspectional Services Supervisor, Chairman, and Members of Plan Commission