HomeMy WebLinkAboutZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - 12/04/2008 - 08-12/FENCE VARIATION/781 PENRITH i
ELK GROVE VILLAGE
Zoning Board of Appeals
Meeting Minutes
December 4, 2008
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#08-12—781 Penrith Avenue
Chairman Kaplan called the meeting to order at 8:00 pm and read the legal notice. The
petitioner, Mr. Herbert Boes was sworn in and asked to present his case.
Mr. Boes explained he had a fence constructed in April of 2008 at his residence. The
petitioner stated the new fence was constructed in the exact same location as the fence
that existed there for twenty-three(23) years. Mr. Boes said the former fence was in need
of replacement. He further explained the reasonfor the location of the new fence was to
have his shed within the fenced off area. Mr. Boes asked for the variance to be approved
for his new fence constructed approximately four feet (4') beyond a line extended from
the nearest front corner of the principal building located on the adjacent single-family lot.
Chairman Kaplan clarified some background information about the sequence of events
that took.place and why the fence was already constructed in a location that was not
permitted by the zoning ordinance. Chairman Kaplan opened the meeting to questions
from the board.
Mr. Meister asked the petitioner if the fence could be tied into the side of the existing
shed and be in compliance with the zoning ordinance.
The petitioner replied if he were move the fence back to tie into the side of the shed then
residents would be able to see more of the shed and his intention was to keep the look of
the property like it was before with the existing fence. Mr. Boes also commented placing
the fence in the location suggested by Mr. Meister could not be done because there was
not enough area at the sides of the shed to install the fence.
Mr. Walz stated that he has no issues or comments with the location of the fence.
Mr. Rodgers asked for some more clarification on the time line of how inspections were
completed on this specific project.
Mr. Herren responded to Mr. Rodgers question. He told Mr. Rodgers the fence permit is
issued, and then the fence contractor will remove the old fence if needed and dig
postholes for the new fence. He further explained that contractor would then have the
postholes inspected. Mr. Herren said the village inspector would come out to the
residence, and inspect the location and depth of the postholes. He finished by stating if
the postholes meet the criteria and are in the right locations, then the inspection is
approved and no other inspection is done for a fence permit.
Mr. Rodgers asked how the nonconforming part of the fence was installed if the inspector
checked the location of the fence postholes.
Mr. Herren presented the approved permit to the Zoning Board of Appeals. He
commented the fence section that is not in conformance was not included in the permit.
Mr. Herren stated the only way that particular fence section was installed was after the.
inspection was completed.
Mr. Boes commented he had no idea that this was the case. He further stated the fence
contractor obtained the permit and told him there will be no problems installing the fence.
The petitioner explained the fence contractor did finish the nonconforming section of
fence about a week later after the permitted fence was installed.
Mr. Carlson had no questions or comments.
Mr. Dohrer clarified the nonconforming fence section was put in after the fence was
inspected and approved. Mr. Dohrer had no further questions or comments.
Mr. Kaplan read the next-door neighbor's letter that was submitted to the village for
record of this hearing.
Mr. Kaplan entertained a motion. A motion to grant a variance for the constructed fence
located four feet (4') beyond a line extended from the nearest front corner of the
principal building located on the adjacent single-family lot was made by Mr. Walz, and
seconded by Mr. Meister. Upon voting(AYES—Kaplan, Dohrer, Walz, Carlson,
Meister, and Rodgers) the motion to grant the variance passed unanimously. Mr.
Kaplan advised the petitioner, Mr. Boes, to be present at the next Village Board meeting
for the final decision of his zoning variation. The meeting adjourned 8:27 P.M.
Respectfully sub fitted,
Justin He
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