Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - 08/27/2009 - FENCE VARIATION/472 POTOMAC LANE RFrFIVE® Sty' 0 1 2009 ELK GROVE VILLAGE VILLAGE CLERK'S OFFICE Zoning Board of Appeals i\rleeting Minutes August 27, 2009 Present: P. Kaplan; Chairman T. Rodgers D. Childress L. Dohrer J. Meister. Sr. J. Walz S. Carlson Absent: G. Schumm, J. Oliveto Staff: S. Trudan, Deputy Director; Community Development Zoning Variation — Docket# 09-3 - Continued — 472 Potomac Lane Chairman Kaplan called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm and explained that the proceedings were a continuation of the August 6 hearing due to the absence of the petitioner at that meeting and his representatives inability to answer some pertinent questions. He then asked the petitioner, Mr. Fortman to present his case. The petitioner explained that he was seeking variations to the fence regulations to protect an in-ground swimming pool he planned on installing which would replace a previously existing aboveground pool. He further explained that he felt his lot was unique due to the fact it was a corner lot, which limited the use of his yard. He also felt that the fence he wanted to install was necessary since his property was located close to a school and skate park and added that without the variation the fence would be too close to the pool. Nlr. Fortman said hp rnntartPrl hic nPiohhnrc cinr-P the fir-zt henrina and azl-prll thPrn if they would approve of an aluminum "see-tluu" fence instead of the previously proposed privacy fence. Mr. Fortman said they agreed to this idea. He added that he preferred a six-foot high fence because.he felt that a four-foot fence would not adequately protect the property. Chairman Kaplan asked what kind of fence was provided to protect the previous pool. Mr. Fortman explained that there was a deck that was constructed around the pool. Mr. Carlson asked if the petitioner considered moving the pool. Mr. Fortman said that he would consider moving the pool if the underground utilities would be re-located at someone else's expense. Mr. Childress asked if the petitioner had discussions with the neighbors on Gibson since the last meeting. Mr. Fortman said he did and that they agreed on the aluminum fence. Mr. Meister asked the petitioner to explain what his hardship was. Mr. Fortman said the narrowness of the lot limited the use of the yard. Mr. Meister asked if the petitioner considered having a fence that was even with the rear corner of the house and asked why i 1 he felt he needed to have the fence 25 feet from the pool. Mr. Fortman stated he wanted as much room as possible. Mr. Rodgers stated that he had a problem with a six-foot fence being located right next to the sidewalk and asked the petitioner if Ile thought the open fence would eliminate any potential sight obstruction problems. Mr. Fortman said he thought they would be eliminated. Mr. Walz expressed concerns over any fence being located right next to the sidewalk adding that such a situation could cause accidents with children riding bicycles in addition to making it difficult for pedestrians to walk next to the fence. Chairman Kaplan asked Mr. Trudan to explain the fence requirements for swimming pools. ivIr. Trudan explained that fencing was required to be at least four feet in height. He added that there would be additional code requirements that would have to be addressed. Mr. Walz asked the petitioner why he felt the fence should extend so close to the Potomac street frontage instead of terminating at the rear corner of the house. Mr. Fortman said it seemed like the logical place for the fence to be constructed from all aesthetics point of view. Mr. Dohrer stated that he approved of the black aluminum fence but objected to the fence being located close to the lot line and sidewalk. He agreed that there would be no line of sight problems but recommended that the fence be located ten feet from the lot line along Gibson. At this point several suggestions were considered regarding the location of the fence. It was finally agreed that the preferred location of the fence would be ten feet from the lot line which would also be twenty-eight feet; eleven inches beyond the nearest front corner of the neighbor's home. Chairman Kaplan opened the hearing to the general public. Mrs. Faldo of 1760 Gibson said there was aline of sight problem caused by some bushes at the rear corner of the petitioner's property and added she thought a fence would make the situation worse. Mr. Kaplan explained that with the fence being setback ten feet from the sidewalk it would be hidden by the bushes. Nir. Faldo said he spoke with Mr. Fortman and agreed with the proposed six-foot high aluminum fence. Chairman Kaplan entertained a motion. A motion to grant a variation to allow construction of a six foot (6') high, black aluminum fence located twenty-eight feet, eleven inches (28'11") beyond the nearest front corner of the house located at 1760 Gibson was made by Mr. Meister, and seconded by Mr. Childress. The motion was passed by unanimous vote. Chairman Kaplan advised the petitioner to attend the September 8, 2009 Village Board meeting at which time the Mayor and Board of Trustees will act upon the recommendation of the ZBA. The meeting adjourned 8:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Steven J. Trudan Deputy Director, 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 f S