Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - 06/08/2006 - 06-1/734 CUTTER LN Fc ✓G Fj ELK GROVE V Zoning Board oftLLAGE Appeals Meeting Minutes iF�j<c June 8, 2006 Present: P. Kaplan, Chairman D. Childress J. Franke T. Rodgers J. Oliveto , L. Michalski J. Meister G. Schumm Staff. V. Zarin, Plan Reviewer, Community Development Zoning Variation— Docket#06-1 — 734 Cutter Ln, Chairman Kaplan called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. and read the legal notice. The petitioner, Curtis Smith, was sworn in and asked to present the case. i Mr. Smith said that if the fence were located as regulated by thet zoning requirements, it would go to the dining room window. Half of the window would be on one side of the fence and the other half on the other side. One of the pictures provided, was taken standing in front of the neighbor's garage looking toward the petitioner's house. The picture shows the site line where the fence would go. It shows that the fence would divide their dining room window. The petitioner would like to build a, fence approximately 3 feet 7 inches away from the house in order to go around the mature tree. I Mr. Kaplan asked the petitioner about his original request to build a fence that would extend 26 feet beyond the front comer of the neighbor's principal structure. I Mr. Smith said that they modified the request after talking to the Building Department officials who suggested that the request should reflect only what was needed to alleviate the hardship. Mr. Franke asked the petitioner if he is planning to change the fence type from the proposed 4 feet high chain link fence. He also explained, that the variation, if granted, is for the particular fence type, not for any fence type. I The petitioner said that he does not intend to change the fence ,material nor the height. They just bought a dog and they need a fence. Mr. Franke asked if the petitioner contacted the neighbors about the requested variation. The petitioner said that he tried to contact the neighbor but he could not reach him. He knocked on the door and left a letter but has not received any responses from the neighbor behind. Mr. Rodgers inquired about the utility box behind the petitioner's house. The petitioner said that it is a Comcast box. He contacted Comcast and they did not have any objections about the proposed fence. The fence would go around the box to allow an access to the box from the street. Mr. Schumm asked if the petitioner contacted the neighbors across the street and on the side of his house. The petitioner said that he talked to these neighbors and they did not have any objections. Mr. Oliveto asked if the petitioner contacted the utility companies about possible underground utilities. The petitioner said that he did not contact the utility companies yet. His understanding is that it is a part of the fence permitting process. He also mentioned that he is aware of that and that he will contact JULIE',before digging for the posts. Mr. Meister inquired about the downspout at the house comer and how far out does it extend. He mentioned that the fence might need to 'extend further out from the house than the proposed 3 feet 7 inches, in order to avoid the downspout. Mr. Meister asked if the petitioner would consider changing his request for the fence location of 3 feet 7 inches out from the house corner to 4 feet. The petitioner said that he did not measure how far the downspout extends from the house. The downspout is shown on some' of the provided pictures but it is not possible to tell if the downspout extends beyond the tree due to the angle the pictures were taken from. A motion was made by Mr. Franke to grant the variation as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Schumm and passed by unanimous vote. The petitioner was directed by Mr. Kaplan to contact the Village Clerk to confirm which Village Board meeting they should attend for final approval. The meeting was adjourned at 7.15 P.M. Mrs. Zaric asked Mr. Chairman to clarify the meaning of wording "as presented" since different distances were mentioned, between the fence and the petitioner's house. Mr. Franke clarified that the variation was granted as presented in the docket, meaning 7 feet from the neighbors house front comer. Respectfully submitted, U2t^LCt .caac Vance Zaric Plan Reviewer, Community Development C. Chairman and Members Zoning Board of Appeals, Mayor and Board of Trustees, Village Attomey, Village Clerk, Village Manager, Assistant Village Manager, Assistant to the Village Manager, Administrative Intem, Director of Engineering and Community Development, Director of Public Works, Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Chief (2), Assistant Fire Chief, Chairman and Members of Plan Commission