HomeMy WebLinkAboutZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - 10/19/2006 - 06-3/553 GROSVENER CT RIeC .IVIED
OCT 2 0 20
%tw-t�w S Qfmli ELK GROVE VILLAGE
Zoning Board of Appeals
Meeting Minutes
October 19, 2006
Present: P. Kaplan, Chairman
J. Franke
T. Rodgers
J. Oliveto
J. Meister
G. Shumm
J. Walz
Staff- S.Trudan, Asst. Dir., Community Development
Zoning Variation — Docket#06-3— 553 Grosvener Court
Chairman Kaplan called the meeting to order at 7.00 P.M. and read the
legal notice. The petitioner, Jenifer Hallam, was sworn in and asked to
present the case.
Ms. Hallam explained that it was her intention to install the proposed fence
at the same location of the existing chain link fence. She stated that the
new six foot fence would be required to provide adequate protection for her
new above ground swimming pool. She also explained that the fence
would align nicely with the lines and location of the house. She added that
a fence constructed in accordance with the current zoning regulations
would look awkward and cut into the side of the house.
Mr. Oliveto asked if the section of proposed fencing that extends 20 feet
beyond the neighbor's front comer could be set back a little less than 20
feet. Ms. Hallam stated that it would cut into the side of the house and
render an existing spicket unusable. She added that she had spoken to
the neighbor on that side and he had no problem with her intended plan.
Mr. Meister asked if the neighbor would have a problem with looking at a
six foot privacy fence beyond the front of his house and inquired as to why
the existing fence needed to be replaced. Ms. Hallam said the existing
' fencing did not meet the code requirements to protect the pool and added
that part of the existing chain link fence was owned by the neighbor.
Mr. Walz asked about the design of the proposed fence. Ms. Hallam said
it was a board on board that would be stained and sealed.
Mr Shumm asked if she had gotten any feedback from the other neighbors.
Ms. Hallam said she spoke to all of the neighbors from adjacent properties
and received no negative feedback.
The members of the Board discussed the nature of the hardship being
demonstrated, citing security, the unique orientation of the neighboring
properties, aesthetics and the practicality of the location of the proposed
fence in consideration of other structures located on the property.
A motion was made by Mr. Shumm to grant the variation as presented.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Walz 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 7:35 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
,4teve J. Trudan
Assistant Director, Community Development
C: airman and M mbers Zoning Bo rd of Appeals, Ma r and Board
of Trustees, Vill a Attorney, Vi ge Clerk, Villag Manager,
Ass tant Village anager, Assist t to the Village anager,
Ad J istrative Inte Director of gineering and C munity
Devel ment, Director Public Works, re Chief, Deputy Fi Chief
(2), As 'stant Fire C 'ef, Chairman d Members of ,Plan
Commissl