Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - 12/04/2008 - 08-11/FENCE VARIATION/217 WELLINGTON ELK GROVE VILLAGE �c Cc' V ED Zoning Board of Appeals JAN 19 2009 Meeting Minutes December 4, 2008 VILLAGE CLERKS OFFICE Present: P. Kaplan, Chairman L. Dohrer J. Walz S. Carlson J. Meister, Sr. T. Rodgers Absent: G. Schumm D. Childress J. Oliveto Staff- J. Herren, Plan Reviewer Zoning Variation —Docket# 08-11 —217 Wellington Avenue Chairman Kaplan called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm and read the legal notice. The petitioner, Mr. Tim Burns, was sworn in and asked to present his case. Mr. Burns distributed pictures of his property and surrounding residences. Mr. Burns went into a very detailed explanation of his residence and the neighborhood. The petitioner spoke about the characteristics of his lot. He explained it as a peninsula.shaped lot because he has frontages on both Wellington Avenue and Somerset Lane,-and how the lot does not allow for a big rear yard. Mr. Burns commented on the enhancements he has completed on the property, and stated if the fence was approved to-be extended out towards the Somerset frontage, then it would increase the value of his residence and surrounding neighborhood. The petitioner said the proposed fence would match the existing fence, a five-foot (5') tall chain link type. He said this type of fence is open and would not obstruct any views for vehicular or pedestrian traffic around his residence. Mr. Burns finished by stating the proposed fence location would be in exact line with the neighbor's wooden front deck located behind his residence. Mr. Burns explained he wants to install a fence that would-be located approximately seventeen feet (17') beyond a line extended from the nearest front corner of the principal building located on the adjacent single-family lot. Chairman Kaplan asked the petitioner about how long has he lived at the residence. replied that he Mr. Burns p t bought the house in 2005 and has occupied it for about three (3) years. Chairman Kaplan asked Mr. Burns if any of the surrounding neighbors object to the proposed location of the new fence. i w Ii i i i Mr. Burns answered by stating the majority of his neighbors were agreeable to the location and were surprised a zoning variation was required to install a fence in that location. Chairman Kaplan opened the meeting to questions from the board. Mr. Walz mentioned to Mr. Burns that aesthetics is not considered a viable hardship for a zoning variation. Mr. Burns replied his hardship was not that the fence would improve the aesthetics of his residence rather that it was the awkward shaped, peninsula lot that made the rear yard less enjoyable because of its present small size. Mr. Walz explained to Mr. Burns that there are certain characteristics of double frontage . lots. He said the first is being a larger side yard, which is a benefit over the side yard of a regular lot. Mr. Walz said a double frontage lot also has drawbacks because structures and/or fences are not often allowed to be placed in the side yards because the space should be open. Mr. Walz finished by stating that he does not like the proposed location. Mr. Meister explained the proposed fence type was capable of having slats-installed very easily if needed, thus blocking the views of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Mr. Burns replied the proposed fence location with slats installed would still allow for ample clear space and not interfere with any traffic views. Mr. Meister commented that allowing the fence to be located in this manner would only lengthen the narrowness of the petitioner's rear yard. Mr. Dohrer said he personally has a problem with extending the fence beyond the building setback lines. He explained that building setback lines were established to keep the neighborhood uniform and create open space. Mr. Dohrer stated Mr. Burns' lot is very similar to other corner.lots throughout the village. Mr. Dohrer finished by. suggesting the fence's proposed location be moved back behind the building setback line along Somerset Lane. Mr. Rodgers held up a picture of Mr. Burns' rock garden located in the side yard, and asked Mr. Burns where the fence would approximately be located according to the picture. Mr. Burns replied the southeastern fence post would come out to the third bush. Mr. Carlson asked what purpose the fence would serve him and his family. Mr. Burns answered the fence would provide for a larger rear yard for his children to play in. Mr. Rodgers explained he lives a half block away from Mr. Burns, and knows that the intersection of.Somerset and Wellington is very busy, especially when children are in school. He expressed concerns for the children's safety at the intersection. Chairman Kaplan stated the line of site for the neighbor behind Mr. Burn's residence would be significantly blocked when they are backing out of their driveway. Mr. Burns said he senses the board is concerned about how the fence will impact the surrounding neighborhood. He explained that the board's concerns are viable and can be understood. Mr. Burns complemented the board on how they work exceptionally well with the residents of Elk Grove Village by conducting these hearings that protect both the petitioners and the community. The petitioner said if the variance was not granted that he would take the money set aside for the fence and use it for his campaign in running for a Village Trustee position. Mr. Burns finished by stating once he is elected, he would do everything possible in his will to serve the community as.well as the Village Board has done in the past, and he knows how important the relationships are.between Elk Grove Village's governing body and its residents. Mr. Meister asked the petitioner when this fence be constructed if the variance were to pass. Mr. Burns replied the fence would be constructed as soon as possible regardless of the restrictions the weather imposes. Mr. Carlson questioned Mr. Burns how he came up with the seventeen-foot (17') variance. Mr. Burns answered the dimension came from the location of the third bush, and the angle of the neighboring property located behind his residence. Chairman Kaplan opened the meeting to the public for comments. No comments were made from the public. Chairman Kaplan explained to the petitioner if the board were to vote on the-variance.as it is presented with no changes to the location, then the chances of it passing were not good. He asked Mr. Burns if he would be willing to compromise and come up with a new location. Chairman Kaplan said the new location could be similar to what the board had suggested earlier in the meeting. Mr. Burns said he believed that his variance request of seventeen feet (17') was not acceptable to the board and that he would be willing to compromise. The petitioner asked the board if the Village could offer help in modifying the location of the proposed fence by showing where it would be because he feels he is lacking the ability to figure. out the location of the building setback lines along Somerset Lane. . Chairman Kaplan called on the Department of Engineering and Community Development to see if they would be able to assist Mr. Burns in locating the compromised fence location: The Department agreed that services would be provided for Mr. Burns to help him with the new location and variance request. Chairman Kaplan continued the hearing to later date so the new fence location could be discussed and voted upon. i i C i I i