Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - 03/08/2007 - DOCKET 07-1 992 TENNESSEE LANE V ELK GROVE VILLAGE Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes REVISED March 8, 2007 Present: P. Kaplan, Chairman J. Oliveto L. Michalski J. Franke J. Walz G. Schumm J. Meister, Sr. Absent: D. Childress T. Rodgers Staff- S. Trudan, Asst. Dir., Community Development J. Herren, Plan Reviewer Zoning Variation—Docket#07-1 —992 Tennessee Lane Chairman Kaplan called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm and read the h.gal notice. The petitioner, Mr. Rundell was asked to present his case. Mr. Rundell explained that he wanted to replace an existing, legal non-conforming fence with a new fence, and they applied for a permit from the.Village to do so. He stated that they moved to the residence in 1987. At this time there was no fence installed and decided to install a fence that offered privacy and a clear definition of the surrounding lots. The fence was erected that year. Since then, the 18-year-old fence became rotten and vandalized thus needing replacement. He stated that the new fence would be built in the same location and be made of the same materials of the old fence. Mr. Rundell further stated if he were to move the fence to comply with the newer ordinance that he would lose 740 square feet of fenced in yard and 33 feet of fencing. Chairman Kaplan opens for questions to the counsel. Mr. Meister asked about the amount of traffic that takes place along the side yard and if there is a bus stop located on the corner of his property at Arkansas Drive and Tennessee Lane. Mr. Rundell replied that the traffic is substantial, and mainly kids walking through the side yard. Also, Mr. Rundell stated there is a school bus stop at the corner of his property. Mr. Meister further asked if Mr. Rundell's house had any windows on that side. Mr. Rundell replied there were no windows located on that side of the house. Mr. Schumm asked if the neighbor behind Mr. Rundell's house, Dave Wolf, liked having the fence in the present location. Mr. Rundell replied that Mr. Wolf did not have any problem with having the fence in that location. Mr. Schumm stated the yard would be an eyesore because of the traffic pattern in the side yard if the fence were to be moved back. Mr. Michalski stated he observed lots of children playing in the side yard. Mr. Walz asked for the ages of Mr. Rundell's children. Mr. Rundell replied that his children were in their twenties. Mr. Oliveto stated that Mr. Rundell's purpose of the fence providing privacy for the backyard does not make sense because along the west side of the rear yard has a cyclone type fencing which does not provide any privacy for the backyard. He further states that the location of the fence in question blocks the view of Dave Wolf when he is backing his vehicle out of the driveway. Finally, Mr. Oliveto stated the ordinance was created for a reason and Mr. Rundell should conform to it. Mr. Franke stated the property of Mr. Rundell is much larger than surrounding lots. He further stated that Mr. Rundell should at least remove 2 full sections of the fence. This would move the east fence boundary 16' in from where the fence is now. Chairman Kaplan opens for questions to the public. Mr. Chuck Masny of 994 Tennessee stated that he also lives on corner lot,but at the opposite end of the block. He explained that existing fence is not an eyesore nor will the new fence be one also. Mr. Masny further stated there are no problems with the view from Mr. Wolf's house and it actually offers more privacy for the Wolf household. Mr. Trudan explained two reasons behind the ordinance. The first one being safety for the neighbor behind the residence with the illegal fence. The fence will block the neighbor's view of the street when backing out of their driveway. Secondly, no fences shall be in any residence's front yard. Mr. Rundell agreed that he would follow any recommendation given to him by the Village Board about the fence. A motion was made by Mr. Schumm,which was seconded by Mr. Walz. Upon voting (AYES - Michalski, Walz, Schumm,Meister, Sr.,NAPES - Kaplan, Franke, Oliveto, ABSENT- Childress, Rodgers) the motion passed. Mr. Kaplan advised the petitioner to contact the Village Clerk to find out when the case would be considered by the Village Board. The meeting adjourned 7:31 P.M. Respectfully submitted, JJustinHerren Plan Reviewer, Community Development C: Chairman and Members Zoning Boards of Appeals, Mayor and Board of Trustees, Village Clerk, Village Attorney, Village Manager, Assistant Village Manager, Assistant to the Village Manager,Administrative Intern, Director of the Engineering and Community Development, Director of Public Works, Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Chief(2), Assistant Fire Chief, Chairman and Members of Plan Commission