HomeMy WebLinkAboutZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - 08/26/2010 - VARIATION/230 GREENBRIAR/DOCKET 10-5 ELK GROVE VILLAGE
Zoning Board of Appeals
Meeting Minutes
August 26, 2010
Present: P.Kaplan, Chairman
J. Oliveto
L. Dohrer
G. Schumm
J. Meister, Sr.
S. Carlson
D. Childress
J. Walz
D. Zinnel
Staff: J. Polony, Plan Reviewer, Community Development
Zoning Variation — Docket# 10-5 230 Greenbriar Street
Chairman Kaplan called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm and read a statement describing the
hearing notification procedure as well as the legal notice. The petitioner, Rebecca Barron, was
sworn in and asked to present her case.
Mrs. Barron indicated the reason for the enlargement of the fenced in backyard was to gain more
usable space for her two (2) children to play and be protected from vehicular traffic. She also
mentioned her existing backyard only extends approximately fifteen feet (15') from the rear of
house based on the location of her rear property line which does not allow for an abundance of
room.
Mr. Kaplan opened the meeting to questions from the board.
Mr. Childress asked the petitioner if she had discussed the location of the proposed fence with
any of her neighbors. Mrs. Barron indicated the only neighbor who would be affected by the
fence would be the neighbor living to the north and no one is currently living at the property.
Mr. Childress then stated he had a concern with the extension of the fence impeding visibility to
the neighbor's sightlines when leaving the driveway.
Mr. Carlson asked the petitioner if the fence had to be a six foot (6') privacy fence. Mrs. Barron
indicated she would like to keep it six feet (6') in the rear of the house for privacy but she was
open to suggestions from the board for a different design which would better suit the area
affected by the adjacent neighbor's driveway.
Mr. Oliveto indicated he also had a strong concern for the neighbor's impeded visibility when
backing out of the driveway. He mentioned it would be hard for the neighbors to see pedestrians
on the walkway and oncoming cars from the street based on the extension of the fence.
Mr.Walz made reference to the shrubbery overgrowth noted in the pictures submitted by the
petitioner and noted most had been removed. He additionally asked the petitioner how long she
has lived at the residence. Mrs. Barron stated she had removed the overgrown trees to make the
property more aesthetically pleasing and she has lived in the home since 2006. Mr. Walz then
stated that based upon the proposed extension of the fence, not much additional room would be
provided for her children to run and play.
Mr. Meister asked the Community Development staff member to clarify approximately how far
the fence will extend from the nearest front corner of the adjacent property. Mr. Polony indicated
the new fence would extend twenty feet (20'); however the existing fence is already
approximately eleven feet (11') past the front nearest point of the adjacent property. In total, the
new fence would extend approximately thirty one feet (3 P) beyond the nearest front corner of
the adjacent property.
Mr. Schumm asked the petitioner to state her hardship for the fence variation. She stated the
shallowness of her existing lot does not allow•an adequate amount of room for her children to
play. Mr. Schumm mentioned he had a concern with sightline visibility based on the proximity
of the proposed fence to the adjacent neighbor's driveway.
Mr. Dohrer agreed with the previous board members regarding the sightline visibility concerns.
He mentioned, on a site visit, he drove into the adjacent neighbor's driveway and stated visibility
to the street and sidewalk will be greatly affected when exiting the drive based on the location of
the proposed fence. He mentioned a chainlink fence or a step-down fence in the far northeast
corner may be a solution to the visibility impairments created by the installation of the fence.
Mr. Zinnel reiterated concerns about visibility to the neighbor when exiting their driveway. He
then asked the petitioner if she had any future plans on installing playground equipment or a
swing set in the yard. Mrs. Barron indicated that the installation of the equipment was an option
but had no concrete plans to install any equipment at this time. Mr. Zinnel suggested a wrought
iron fence design to the petitioner to allow the neighbor to maintain their sightlines of the
adjacent walks and streets when exiting their driveway.
Mr. Kaplan stated the board members were unanimously concerned with the six foot (6') fence
impeding visibility to the neighbor and suggested the petitioner redesign the location of her fence
or look for a different style fence allowing for more visibility to her neighbor.
The board members suggested different locations within the Village for the petitioner to view an
array of fence styles and also suggested a different fence configuration. Mrs. Barron agreed to
further research her fence style and design.options to comply with the suggestions of the board.
Mr. Kaplan called for a continuance of the hearing based upon the redesign of the fence on
Thursday September 16, 2010 at 7:30 pm.The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m.
Respectfull submitted,
red Polony
Plan Reviewer, Community Development
C: Chaiii►-n na and Members ning Boards o�_As, Ma or and Board Of-frustees,
Village Clerk, Village Attorney, Vi anager, Deputy Village Manager, Assistant
Village Manager, Director e Engineering and Community Development, Director of
Public Works,F�re ef, Deputy Fire Chief(2), Inspectional Services Supervisor,
Chairman embers of Plan Commission