Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - 01/17/2008 - ZBA DOCKET #08-1/812 SCHOONER LANE ELK GROVE VILLAGE Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes January 17, 2008 Present: P. Kaplan, Chairman T. Rodgers L. Dohrer G. Schumm J. Meister, Sr. D. Childress Absent: J. Walz J. Oliveto L. Michalski Staff: J. Herren, Plan Reviewer Zoning Variation —Docket # 08-1 —812 Schooner Lane (Meeting continued from January 3, 2008) Mr. Kaplan called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm and briefly went over what was discussed at the prior meeting on January 3, 2008. A new plat of survey was distributed and reviewed by the board and petitioner. Mr. Kaplan asked the petitioner if he would like to include more details since the last meeting or if he had any questions. The petitioner, Mr. Zubair Igbal, stated he is still requesting for a fifteen-foot (15') variance as previously noted in the earlier meeting. He added the fence type was to be a six-foot(6') wooden privacy fence. Mr. Kaplan opened the meeting to questions from the board. Mr. Dohrer commented on the detailed layout of the fence and the trees in relation to overall layout of the property. He then went onto describe the different types of fences available to the petitioner. Mr. Schumm stated that the sightlines from the neighbor's driveway are still considerably blocked. Mr. Igbal replied that the two evergreen trees located outside the fence would block the sightlines more than the fence would. Mr. Meister stated that with the current fifteen-foot (15') variance there is only thirteen feet(13') of clear space between the fence and the sidewalk. Mr. Meister said that he lives in the same neighborhood as the petitioner and is very familiar with the area. He added that Cutter Lane is highly traveled during the day, and since it is a main artery road through the neighborhood that drivers tend to speed down Cutter Lane. Mr. Meister stated that he is very concerned for the children's safety in the neighborhood. Mr. Rodgers asked the petitioner the ages of his children. Mr. Igbal replied that his daughter is seven (7) and son is twelve (12) years of age. Mr. Rodgers clarified that the petitioner is proposing a six-foot(6') wooden privacy fence. Mr. Childress complemented the petitioner on the revised plat of survey. Mr. Childress asked the petitioner if the neighbors to the south of Mr. lgbal had any problems with the location of the fence. The petitioner replied by stating the only neighbor that has shown any concerns besides Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Flanagan are the neighbors located behind the petitioners, and they are OK with the proposed fence locations. Mr. Kaplan commented on the type of fence by stating that a six-foot (6') privacy fence blocks views and will also restrict sightlines for the neighbors. Mr. Schumm asked Mr. Igbal how many square feet his rear yard is. It was found that Mr. Igbal has approximately six thousand, four hundred square feet (6,400ft) for a rear yard. Mr. Dolu-er stated that he would like to see the fence located just on the inside of the third tree. This would move the fence in towards the middle of the rear yard, and greatly increase the area at which the neighbors can use to look down the street in both directions. Mr. Dohrer used the plat of survey to scale out what the new dimensions would be for the variance. He found that moving the fence eight feet (8') in from the original fifteen-foot request would allow for clearance of all trees and still maintain a substantial rear yard. Mr. Igbal agreed that the new fence location was acceptable to him as long as he did not have to cut any trees down to put up the fence. Mr. Kaplan entertained a motion. A motion to grant a modified variation of seven feet (7') beyond a line extended from the nearest front corner of the principal building located on the adjacent single-family lot was made by Mr. Schumm, and seconded by Mr. Childress. Upon voting (AYES —Rodgers, Childress,Dohrer, Kaplan, Schumm, and Meister) the motion to grant passed unanimously. Mr. Kaplan advised the petitioner, Mr. Igbal, to be present at the next Village Board meeting for the final decision of his zoning variation. The meeting adjourned 7:25 P.M. Respectfully d, u�.e�,e,,Z: Plan Reviewer, Community Development C: Chairman and Members Zp4mg Boards of Appeals, Mayor and'Bcard of Trustees, Village�l'erk, Village eorney, Village Nla6ger, DeprVillage Manager, Assistant VillrMa ager, Director of the Engirng and Community Development, Director of P> is Works, Fire (Xef, Deputy Fire Chief(2), Assistant Fire Cr, Chairman and Member Plan Commission