Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - 03/12/1998 - 98-2 ELK GROVE VILLAGE Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes March 12 , 1998 Present : P. Kaplan E. Hauser T. Thompson T. Rogers C. McClelland G. Schumm Staff : J. Zaucha, Plan Reviewer Zoning Variation - Docket 98-2 Acting Chairman Paul Kaplan called the meeting to order at 7 : 00 p.m. and summarized the legal notice for the hearing. On behalf of petitioner, Mr. Roberto Pozzo, Ms . Delma Pozzo was sworn in along with Mr. Bob Benjamin of Patio Enclosures. Ms . Pozzo was asked by Mr. Kaplan to state her case . Ms . Pozzo stated that her and her father, Mr.Pozzo, moved into the house about two years ago. Ms . Pozzo explained that there was an existing screened-in porch on the back of her house which was old and had a leaky roof . Ms . Pozzo stated that her father hired Patio Enclosures to remove and replace the existing screened-in porch with a three season room. Ms . Pozzo was asked why a building permit was not obtained. She explained that she and her father were unaware that a permit was required, because they were simply replacing an existing structure . Mr. Hauser asked Ms . Pozzo if she had submitted proper proof of ownership for the property to t;he Village . Ms . Pozzo stated that she had furnished a copy of their property taxes to the Clerk' s office . Mr. Hauser asked if the public notice sign had been installed. Ms . Pozzo stated that the sign was installed today. Mr. Kaplan explained to the Board that since the sign had only been in place for one (1) day prior to the meeting, the sign is required to remain in place for an additional ten (10) days to serve as public notice. Mr. Kaplan stated that if during the 10 day period, there are any complaints or concern from neighboring residents, the Zoning Board would schedule a second hearing for further deliberation. Page 2 Mr. Hauser asked why the installation was already complete . Mr. Benjamin explained that when his company performed the work, he was under the impression that the resident had already obtained a permit . He explained that at times, he allows the resident to obtain their own permit to reduce overhead costs . Mr. Zaucha confirmed to the Board that a building permit has not been issued for the enclosure . Mr. Zaucha was asked if the Village has record of any variances granted for the property or permits that had been issued for the nonconforming screened-in porch. Mr. Zaucha stated that that there are no records which indicate that either a variance had been granted or permits issued for the screened-in porch. Mr. Zaucha was asked to explain why the structure was built before being approved by the Zoning Board. Mr. Zaucha explained that Steve Trudan of the Department of Community Development, identified the replacement three season enclosure being built without a permit . The work was stopped and plans and a permit application were submitted. Upon review of a submitted plat of survey, it was determined that a zoning variation would be required. The contractor was notified and the necessary petition for variance was submitted by the resident . Mr. Zaucha was further questioned by the Board why the screened-in porch was there to begin with. Mr. Zaucha stated that the origins of the previously existing screened-in porch are not known because the Village has no record of the structure being built . Mr. Zaucha explained that as with many decks and sheds which are built in the Village, the original screened-in porch was probably constructed during a weekend without required permits and without the Village ever being aware of it . Mr. Zaucha also stated that regardless of the screened-in porch' s origin, it was an existing non-conforming structure and that replacing it would require a variance . Mr. Zaucha was asked if citations would be issued for work without permits . Mr. Zaucha stated that it was a department issue which would be decided by the Director, Al Boffice . Page 3 Mr. Hauser asked the contractor why the enclosure was already installed without a permit . Mr. Benjamin stated that a language barrier between himself and Mr. Pozzo lead to confusion which resulted in the enclosure being constructed without a required permit . Mr. Thompson also questioned Mr. Benjamin why the enclosure was constructed without a permit. Mr. Benjamin responded by stating that he has worked and lived in the Village for several years and has never had this happen. Mr. Thompson expressed his displeasure with Mr. Benjamin by reminding him that the very fact that his business has been operating within the Village for several years, leaves him with no excuse for working without permits . Mr. Thompson stated that he has three (3) problems with the matter: #1 . Information submitted to the Zoning Board was misleading. #2 . The resident and contractor failed to obtain required permits . #3 . The installation has been completed with a request for variance coming after the fact . Mrs . McClelland asked Ms . Pozzo if she was aware that she was in violation of Village ordinances. Ms. Pozzo responded by stating she was unaware that any violations were committed. Mr. Schumm asked Ms . Pozzo if there were any zoning ordinance violations identified during the closing purchase of her house . Mr. Schuum added that the existing nonconforming screened-in porch should have been identified on the title policy as a zoning ordinance violation. Ms . Pozzo stated that she did not remember. Mr. Kaplan asked if the public had any comments or questions. Mrs . Delores Catania, who resides at 735 Milbeck Ct . , stated she lives directly behind the Pozzo' s and has no problem with the installation. Mrs . Catania further stated that it was an improvement to what previously existed. Mrs . Catania also indicated that the previously existing screened-in porch was installed approximately 18 years ago by Sears . At 7 : 30 Mr. Kaplan asked for a motion. Mr. Thompson responded by recommending the Board meet in private before a vote take place . The Board met in chambers to discuss the issues with the meeting called back to order at 7 :45 p.m. At that time, Mr. Rogers motioned that the variance be granted subject to three (3) stipulations . Page 4 The three (3) stipulations set forth by Mr. Tom Rogers for approving the variation are as follows : 1 . The Department of Community Development is to forward a letter to Patio Enclosures; warning the contractor that working without permits will not be tolerated. The letter is also to inform Patio Enclosures that in the future, it will be the sole responsibility of their company to secure all permits for work to be performed in the Village . 2 . The Department of Community Development will forward a letter to the Pozzo residence; expressing an apology for "dropping the ball" with regards to it' s handling of the situation. 3 . The public notice sign shall remain in place for a period of ten (10) days, as courtesy to neighboring residence . Mr. Hauser seconded Mr. Roger' s motion for approval . A vote took place with a unanimous decision to grant the variation. The meeting was adjourned by acting Chairman Paul Kaplan at 8 : 50p.m. e pectfully submitted p James S . Z Plan Reiviewer