Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - 08/02/2007 - DOCKET 07-3/1715 BIESTERFIELD/WENDELL RECEIVED ELK GROVE VILLAGE AUG 4 8 Zppl Zoning Board of Appeals VILLAGt l'LERX'b UrMCE Meeting Minutes August 2, 2007 Present: P. Kaplan, Chairman J. Oliveto L. Michalski G. Schumm J. Meister, Sr. D. Childress Absent: J. Walz T. Rodgers Staff: J. Herren, Plan Reviewer Zoning Variation—Docket# 07-3 —1715 Biesterfield Road Chairman Kaplan called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm and read the legal notice. The petitioner, Mrs. Margaret J. Wendell was sworn in and asked to present her case. Mrs. Wendell explained she wants to replace the old fence that is located twelve feet (12') beyond a line extended from the nearest front corner of the principal building located on the adjacent single-family lot. Mrs. Wendell stated the reason for the replacement of the fence was the existing fence was in poor condition. She also indicated the ordinance does not allow her new fence to be located in the same place as the old fence. She stated if she were to put the fence at the location described in the ordinance, that it would not encompass her exterior doors from the kitchen and garage into the rear yard, therefore, losing security and the practical function of the doors of allowing egress into the rear yard. Chairman Kaplan stated the new fence is already constructed in the same location as old fence and opened for questions to the counsel. Mr. Schumm asked Mrs. Wendell if she had spoken to the neighbor behind her that is located on Hudson Court and is affected the most from the location of the fence. The petitioner replied that she has had conversations with the neighbor behind her. The neighbor wants the new fence back at the same location because they use her fence as a physical barrier to keep their animals in their yard. She stated the neighbors east of her house also use her fence as a barrier. Mr. Schumm asked if there were any complaints from her neighbors about the new fence. Mrs. Wendell said no one in the neighborhood has had any complaints that she knows of, and the neighbors actually complemented her on the way the new fence looks. Mr. Schumm asked the petitioner if the old fence was in need of replacement. Mrs. Wendell replied the fence was poor condition when she bought the house a couple of years ago and was getting worse, definitely in need of replacement. Mr. Schumm stated that in order to get a variance from,the ordinance the homeowner has to prove hardship. Mrs. Wendell repeated if she were to put the fence at the location permitted by the ordinance it would not enclose her exterior doors from the kitchen and garage into the rear yard therefore, losing the security and function of the doors in providing egress into the rear yard. Mr. Oliveto asked Mrs. Wendell when did she found out about the ordinance. The petitioner replied that she found out about the ordinance when she went to the building department and asked if permits were required for siding and fence. She said the building department said no permits were required for that type of work. She said once the siding was completed on her house the contractors then started on the fence removal. The fence was completely removed. An inspector stopped by and said constructing a fence does require a permit. Mrs. Wendell said she went to the building department to get a permit and after applying the building department told her the location of the proposed fence did not meet the ordinance# 2410 section 3-7:13.3. She stated she needed the fence in the specific location and was on a time constraint because she was going on vacation and did not want to leave her elderly mother in care of her dogs without a fenced in yard. She said the building department allowed her to erect the fence in the nonconforming location as long as she understood that she still had to go through the variation process and was solely responsible for the repercussions from the decision on the location of the fence. Mrs. Wendell stated she accepted the responsibility and constructed the fence. Mr. Childress stated the ordinance impinges on corner lots because of the adjacent neighbor's front building setback and where the house can be placed. Mr. Childress complemented Mrs. Wendell on the look of the fence. Chainnan Kaplan asked Mrs. Wendell why the fence was already constructed. She replied the timing was not good because she was going on vacation and needed to complete it to retain her animals. All questions were asked and Chairman Kaplan entertained motion. A motion was made by Mr. Michalski, which was seconded by Mr. Oliveto. Upon voting(AYES —Kaplan, Michalski, Oliveto,Schumm, Meister, Sr., and Childress ABSENT—Walz, Rodgers) the motion passed to allow the fence to be constructed twelve feet (12') from a line extended from the nearest front corner of the principal building located on an adjacent single-family residential lot. Mr. Kaplan advised the petitioner to contact the Village Clerk to Gild out when the case would be considered by the Village Board. The meeting adjourned 7:22 P.M. Respectfully submitted, JJ�u7stilnHerren Plan Reviewer, Community Development C: Chairman and Members Zoning Boards of Appeals, Mayor and Board of Trustees, Village Clerk, Village Attorney, Village Manager, Deputy Village Manager, Assistant Village Manager, 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