Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - 08/30/2007 - DOCKET 07-5/872 MAPLE LN/BOYES ELK GROVE VILLAGE Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes August 30, 2007 Present: G. Schumm T. Rodgers L. Michalski J. Meister, Sr. D. Childress J. Walz J. Oliveto Absent: P.Kaplan, Chairman Staff. J. Herren, Plan Reviewer Zoning Variation—Docket#07-5—872 Maple Lane Mr. Schumm called the meeting to order at 7:OO pm and read the legal notice. The petitioner, Mr. Timothy J. Boyes was sworn in and asked to present their case. Mr. Boyes explained he wants to install a fence that is located twenty-seven feet(27') beyond a line extended from the nearest front corner of the principal building located on the adjacent single-family lot. Mr. Boyes stated the reason for the location of the fence was that he wanted to enclose as much of his yard as he could so long that is was not to pose a safety hazard to his surrounding neighbors. He also indicated they were expecting their first child. Mr. Boyes explained that he has a dog and needs a barrier to keep the dog in their yard. The petitioner stated the traffic speed on Maple Lane and Maple Court moves dangerously fast because there is no yield or stop sign either way at the intersection of the two streets. Mr. Boyes said that the new fence would give him and his family a safe place to enjoy their backyard because they would not have to worry about his future children or dog wandering into traffic. Mr. Boyes their spoke above the fence that he had taken down. He said the old fence was becoming a safety hazard and was in very poor condition. The petitioner indicated that the fence had become so deteriorated, sharp pieces of the fence were starting protrude at the top and the bottom. He did not want any of the neighborhood children to get caught on the fence. Mr. Schumm opened the meeting to questions from the board. Mr. Michalski asked Mr. Boyes why the new fence needed to be so far out into his side yard. The petitioner responded the location of the fence was where he would like to see it so thut lie could get more of his backyard within the tcnce area. Mr. Boyes then added that he was open to modify the location, but would like to keep close to the proposed location. .Mr. Michalski responded that he did not like where the petitioner located his proposed fence. Mr. Childress explained that he is a neighbor of Mr. Boyes. Mr. Childress asked about the condition of the old fence and why it was taken down. Mr. Boyes said the old fence was becoming a safety hazard and was in poor condition. The petitioner added that he had removed his dog several times from the fence because the dog would get caught in the fence. He stated that since the top of the fence was becoming sharp he also took it down for the safety of children in the neighborhood. Mr. Childress asked for the location of where the old fence tied into house. Mr. Boyes responded with the old fence tied into the corner of the house and was not located in his side yard at all. Mr. Childress commented that he would have no problem with the proposed new fence if it were located in the same position as the old fence. Mr. Walz asked the petitioner what type of fence he was proposing to install. Mr. Boyes said that he has not decided on the exact type of fence, but was looking at an all-wood six foot(6') tall privacy fence. Mr. Walz questioned Mr. Boyes about whether the tree in the side yard was going to be located inside or outside of the proposed fence. The petitioner stated the tree would be approximately three feet(3')outside of the fence. Mr. Walz explained that he was very concerned about the neighborhood children's safety. The reason for his concern, he said, was that the neighbor most affected by the fence located directly behind Mr. Boyes residence could only see oncoming pedestrian traffic once they had crossed over the sidewalk. This could cause an accident. Mr. Walz stated the fence would block their neighbor's entire view, which in turn would threaten the pedestrian traffic. Mr. Walz suggested the petitioner either move the fence at least six feet(6') in towards the middle of his yard to help out this situation, or place the rear corner of the fence at a forty-five (45) degree angle. Placing the fence corner at a forty-five (45) degree angle would help out Mr. Boyes' neighbors by allowing them to see the oncoming pedestrian traffic before they crossed over the sidewalk with their vehicle. Mr. Boycs answered that he would accept this change and also incorporate the forty-five(45) degree angle at the front corner for aesthetic reasons. Mr. Oliveto stated that he did not agree with the location of the proposed fence and would like to see it changed from sixteen feet(16') to eight feet (8') from the side of the house. Mr. Rodgers questioned Mr. Boyes about the condition of the old fence. Mr. Boyes restated the fence was old and had sharp edges on the top of the fence and for these reasons lie decided to take down the old fence. Mr. Rodgers asked the petitioner how many cars the neighbor had. Mr. Boyes replied the neighbor has only two (2) cars and one of the cars is pulled into the garage when it is on the premises and the other car is parked on the driveway. Mr. Rodgers asked Mr. Boyes if he had spoken to the neighbors behind them. Mr. Boyes said he has spoke to the neighbors and they do not have any problems with the proposed fence location. He said the neighbors like it because it offers thein more privacy. Mr. Schumm asked the petitioner to state his hardship. Mr. Boyes stated that his hardship is that he is on a corner lot. Mr. Schumm then clarifies the new location of the fence with the modifications of the forty-five(45) degree corners. Mr. Meister stated there was nothing wrong with the location of the old fence. Mr. Meister further stated that if the petitioner were to put the proposed fence in that location, it would still give Mr. Boyes plenty of fenced in room in his backyard. Mr. Meister added that the petitioner is asking for too much and does not have a reasonable hardship. Mr. Schumm entertained motion. A motion was made by Mr. Walz with the understanding that the new location of the fence with the forty-five(45) degree corners was the final location of the proposed fence, which was seconded by Mr. Rodgers. Upon voting(AYES-Schumm, Rodgers,Walz, Michalski, Oliveto, and Childress, NAYES—Meister,ABSENT—Kaplan) the motion passed to allow the fence to be constructed with the forty-five (45) degree corners at northeast and northwest corners twenty-seven feet(27') from a line extended from the nearest front corner of the principal building located on an adjacent single-family residential lot. Mr. Schumm advised the petitioner submit the revised fence location to the village and to contact the Village Clerk to find out when the case would be considered by the Village Board. The meeting adjourned 7:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ustin Herren Plan Reviewer, Community Development C: Chairman�Members Zoning Boards of Appeals, M r and Boa Trustees, Villa)KClerk, Pg2c 'llage�omey, Village ager, De ut =11age Manager, Assistant Vile Mana er, Director ofpe Engin ing and Community Development, Director of Pubj;i orks, Fire, ief, Deputy F,,x�Chief(2), Assist,n Tire Chief, Chairman and Men;kf's' of Plan Commission