Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJPZ - 07/18/1995 - 832 DEBRA/1495 MORGAN/CHELMSFORD/KENDAL/SCHOONER ✓c- JPZ COMMITTEE MEETING JULY 18, 1995 7: 15 P.M. PRESENT: Paul Rettberg, Chairman Nancy Czarnik James Petri ABSENT: None STAFF: M. Pye, Engineering & Community Development S. Trudan, Engineering & Community Development 832 DEBRA The property owner, Mr. Hiremath, was present and submitted a revised plan for review by the Committee. The revised plan showed the fence starting at the northwest corner of the house and extending west to their west property line along the north property line. The Committee discussed the concerns expressed by the Zoning Board of Appeals and felt that this plan responded to all concerns. The consensus of the Committee was that while the revised plan was not formally submitted to them, they found it favorable and recommended that the revised plan be sent to the Village Board for their review and consideration. i The Committee did express concern that this plan was not the same plan submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals for their review and questioned whether this plan would need to go back to the Zoning Board prior to Village Board consideration. The consensus of the Committee was that this revised plan could be submitted to the Village Board and that staff would confirm this with the Village Attorney. 1495 MORGAN As the property owner had secured a permit for the installation of the pool and then the pool was erroneously installed 2' within the easement, the consensus of the Committee was to recommend approval of the easement waiver. 624 CHELMSFORD The contractor removed the driveway at this location prior to applying for a permit. The property owner applied for a permit and requested permission to continue the installation of her brick paver driveway while waiting for the Village Board to review her request for a variation. A permit was issued to install the brick paver driveway with the condition that the resident secure Village Board consideration of her variation request. The property owner was warned that any work completed on her driveway prior to the Page 2 Village Board's review of her request was at her own risk and would have to be removed if the Village Board did not grant her variation. The contractor proceeded to install the brick paver driveway prior to the Village Board's review and without calling for an inspection. The brick pavers were not installed in accordance with the paving specifications. The property owner is planning to hire another contractor to reinstall the brick pavers if the Village Board grants her variation request. The consensus of the Committee was to recommend approval of the brick paver driveway variation request subject to proper reinstallation of the brick pavers. 88 KENDAL The property owner applied for a permit to widen his existing asphalt driveway with brick pavers and was informed that he would need to apply for an ordinance variation from the Village Board. The property owner submitted a letter requesting the variation and was advised that the matter would be forwarded to the Village Board for their review and consideration at the June 13, 1995 Board meeting. At the Village Board meeting, this item was tabled and sent to the Committee of the Whole for discussion. The property owner believing that the work had been approved by the Village Board, proceeded with the work following the 6/13/95 meeting without an inspection. As the property owner is not very fluent in english, staff believes that he misunderstood. As the property owner attempted to meet Village requirements by applying for the required permit and variation, the consensus of the Committee was to recommend that the property owner be permitted to widen his existing driveway with brick pavers subject to two conditions. The first condition was that the rest of the driveway be replaced with brick pavers by 10/1/96 or the brick paver driveway addition must be removed. The second condition was that the brick pavers be removed and reinstalled in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. 776 SCHOONER The Committee did not see any reason why the property owner could not meet Village code and did not see any reason to approve a variation to the codes. As no hardship was presented, the consensus of the Committee was to recommend that the Village Board deny this request. Page 3 CODE VIOLATIONS AND ZONING VARIATIONS The Committee discussed at length the various issues pertaining to code violations and zoning variations forwarded to the Committee by the Village Board at the 6/27/95 Committee of the Whole. Some of the options discussed included denying all variations requested if the work is completed prior to the request or prior to issuance of a permit. Another option was to increase the permit fees beyond the normal charges for property owners/contractors who start or complete work without required Village permits. The consensus of the Committee was that these issues will require further discussion by the Committee of the Whole. Also, the Committee suggested that the Village mount a strong PR campaign to promote the need for permits and the benefits residents obtain by securing the proper permit. Suggestions included articles for the Village newsletter, including an insert in the water bills and Channel 6 commercials/infomercials. The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 P.M. Respectfully Submitted: 'mOA14_ (IC P42' Mary J PO, P.C. , Ass't. Village Engineer MJP c: President and Board of Trustees, Village Manager, Assistant Village Manager, Administrative Assistant, Village Clerk, Village Attorney, Director, E/CD, Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Chief, Police Chief