Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - 10/06/1992 - 92-14/92-13/92-12 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Meeting Minutes October 6, 1992 PRESENT: R. Brandt, Chairman R. Keegan R. Phillips B. Carey T. Staddler A. Inzerello ABSENT: P. Serafin STAFF: S. Trudan, Plan Reviewer Chairman Brandt called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 901 Wellington Avenue, Elk Grove Village with the above people in attendance. FAIRMONT SUBDIVISION ZONING VARIATION - Docket No. 92-14- First Item: Mr. Rick Burton and Mr. Anthony Tantillo were present representing the Fairmont Group. Together they explained that they were petitioning for variations for the location of fences on lots 10, 11, and 18, and also variations for the dimensions of the required interior side yards on lots 10 and 11. It was pointed out that both variations were being sought pursuant to direction by the Village. ZBA member Carey asked for detailed explanation of the side yard variation. Mr. Burton explained that it was related to the redesign of the cul-de-sac. Dan Sharp of 900 Grissom asked who would be responsible for the maintenance of the grass area outside the fences and Mr. Tantillo said the individual homeowners would have to maintain the parkway. Mike Freedman, a resident of Glen Trail asked who would have to maintain the fences and whether or not gates could be installed in the fences. Mr. Tantillo said gates could not be installed and the individual homeowners would maintain the fences. Another resident asked if a chain-link fence could be installed instead of a privacy fence should the solid fence be damaged or destroyed. Chairman Brandt and Mr. Trudan explained that the solid fence located on lots 10 and 11 would be required screening for the subdivision and that a chain-link fence could be installed on lot 18 as long as it met the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Kneeland objected to the approval of the fence believing that maintenance of the fence would be difficult and unmonitored. A motion was made by ZBA member Inzerello to grant the variations and seconded by ZBA member Phillips. The motion was passed by unanimous vote. 660 BRANTWOOD ZONING VARIATION - Docket No. 92-13 - Second Item: The petitioners, Mr. and Mrs. Chapek explained that they were seeking a variation to permit construction of a deck that cover and existing concrete patio and extend into the the required rear yard. Mr. Chapek said he was trying to upgrade the property and that the concrete patio was deteriorating. He wanted to construct a wood deck instead of new concrete because decks are more common now than they were 29 years ago when the home was built. He further stated that the irregular shape of the lot was the main reason the variation was necessary. ZBA members Carey and Phillips asked for clarification of exact location of deck and whether or not it would replace or cover the concrete patio. ZBA member Keegan asked if there would be any vertical construction on the deck and Mr. Chapek said there would be nothing other than a handrail . A motion was made to grant the variation by Mr. Phillips and seconded by Mr. Staddler. The motion was passed by unanimous vote. 1059 SUSAN COURT ZONING VARIATION - Docket No. 92-12 - Third Item: The Petitioners, Mr. and Mrs. Viktora explained that they were seeking a variation to permit a pool that was constructed without a permit that encroached into the required 8 foot side yard setback. Mr. Viktora said he was under the impression that the installers of the pool obtained the required permit and that the building inspector caught them while inspecting a shed on the adjacent property. Mr. Trudan said the inspector told him that a citizen complaint initiated the inspection. Chairman Brandt inquired about, the price of the pool . ZBA member Mr. Carey asked if the 4.5 foot fence was adequate protection for the pool . ZBA member Mr. Staddler asked why they chose this particular location for the pool . Mr. and Mrs. Vitkora explained that this was the only option because of the grade of the land, the location of the underground power lines and the existence of a 20 foot easement. ZBA member Mr. Staddler expressed concern that the location of the pool being only two feet from the adjacent property might be a nuisance to that property owner. Mr. Viktora explained that the pool is well behind the neighboring home. A motion was made to grant the variation by Mr. Keegan and Seconded by Mr. Carey. The motion was passed by unanimous vote. There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Steven Trudan Plan Reviewer ST/el C: Chairman and Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, Village Manager, Assistant Village Manager, Administrative Assistant, Administrative Intern, Village Clerk, Director Engineering and Community Development, Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Chief, Village Attorney