Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - 05/15/2008 - ZBA DOCKET 08-5/1958 BALTIMORE DRIVE I l ELK GROVE VILLAGE Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes May 15, 2008 I Present: P. Kaplan, Chairman J. Oliveto L. Dohrer L. Michalski D. Childress T. Rodgers G. Schumm Absent: J. Meister, Sr. J. Walz Staff: J. Herren, Plan Reviewer Zoning Variation — Docket 9 08-5— 1958 Baltimore Drive Mr. Kaplan called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm and read the legal notice. The petitioner, Mr. James G. Theofanis was sworn in and asked to present his case. Mr. Theofanis explained he wants to construct a fence that is located twenty-eight feet, six inches (28' 6") beyond a line extended from the nearest front corner of the principal building located on the adjacent single-family lot. He stated that he has been a resident of Elk Grove Village for thirteen (13) years. The petitioner said he has tried to sell his house before and it did not sell. Mr. Theofanis explained the new fence would help outline his rear yard and show prospective buyers the size of the.rear yard. The petitioner said the fence would help keep his neighbors from encroaching onto.his yard with landscaping materials and mowing, making his yard look smaller. Mr. Theofanis stated there were other surrounding neighbors with the same type of fence. Mr. Kaplan explain each lot is completely separate from each other when it comes to zoning variations, and the variances on neighboring properties would not be considered when making the decision. Mr. Kaplan read a letter from a concerned neighbor,Nancy Anderson at 640 Delaware Lane, expressing concerns about the proposed fence. Mr. Kaplan opened the meeting to questions from the board. i Mr. Michalski stated he visited the residence and would like to see the fence moved back towards the middle of the rear yard in between the two trees located on the east section of the rear yard. He explained that this would put the fence approximately eight feet (8') off of the sidewalk, and provide better sightlines for the neighbor when backing out of their driveway. I The petitioner replied that he would entertain the new location since it would still give him a sufficient rear yard and a physical barrier from his two neighbor's who encroach onto his yard. i , I Mr. Schumm asked the petitioner if any surrounding neighbors have problems with the new fence. The petitioner replied the neighbors had no problems that he knew of about the location or the type of fence. Mr. Schumm asked why Mr. Theofanis had never installed a fence during the time he lived at the residence. The petitioner answered at the time his children were older, and his pet was very tame therefore did not see a need for a fence. Mr. Schumm questioned why the petitioner thought the fence would enhance his property and add value to his home. Mr. Theofanis replied he really had no solid evidence that the fence would add to the value of the property, but in past conversations with realtors he learned that other corner homes in the neighborhood sold because they had fenced in rear yards. He believed that a fence would help his house sell. Mr. Schuman said the board would not consider that reason of the fence enhancing or adding value to the property in their decision on the granting the variance. ! Mr. Oliveto stated he spoke to the neighbor, Jordan, located behind Mr. Theofanis' residence. Mr. Oliveto explained that Jordan was not in total agreement with the fence and its location, but he would not voice his opinion against the fence. The petitioner replied Jordan is one of the reasons why he wants to put up the fence j because Jordan is the one responsible for encroaching onto his property with his landscaping and mowing. i Mr. Oliveto explained he asked Jordan about the sightlines when backing out of his driveway, and how they would change once the fence is installed. Mr. Oliveto said j Jordan really did not have a good understanding of where the fence was to be placed until, the petitioner staked out the proposed location of the fence. I The petitioner replied that the majority of the fence would be open, not solid all of the way through, and it will be only four feet (4') tall. Mr. Theofanis stated with the type of fence he wants to install that there should be no sightline problems for anyone in the area. Mr. Dohrer stated he liked the fence height at four feet (4') instead of six feet (6'). Mr. Dohrer reiterated that he would like to also see the fence moved back.towards the center of the rear yard to help with the sightlines. Mr. Dohrer said moving the fence back would be a good compromise because it still gives the petitioner everything he was looking for from the fence and it would be more acceptable to the board. Mr. Childress stated the vehicular traffic does not really slow down to make the turn from Baltimore Drive to Delaware Lane, and moving the fence back off of the sidewalk along Delaware would eliminate any sightline problems there might be. i i i Mr. Kaplan explained to Mr. Theofanis if he were to entertain a motion'on granting a variance of twenty-eight feet (28' 6") that it probably would not pass since the majority of the board was in agreement of moving the fence back off of the sidewalk. Mr. Kaplan asked if the petitioner would be agreeable to a different location of the fence, one that i would be acceptable to the board. The petitioner agreed and the meeting went into recess to discuss a revision on the fence location. The board and Mr. Theofams agreed upon a new location of the fence. The revised location was twenty-two feet (22') beyond a line extended from the nearest front corner of the principal building located on the adjacent single-family lot. A plat of survey was revised and made official record of the meeting. Mr. Kaplan entertained a motion. A motion to dismiss the original variance of twenty- eight feet, six inches (28' 6") beyond a line extended from the nearest front corner of the principal building located on the adjacent single-family lot, and to grant the construction of a new fence located twenty-two feet (22') 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. Dohrer. Upon voting (AYES — Michalski, Oliveto, Rodgers, Childress, Dohrer, Kaplan, and Schumm) the motion to grant the modified variance passed unanimously. Mr. Kaplan advised the petitioner, Mr. Theofanis, to be present at the next Village Board meeting for the final decision of his zoning variation. The meeting adjourned 7:37 P.M. Respectfully submitted, /Justin Herren Plan Reviewer, Community Development I i I