HomeMy WebLinkAboutZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - 09/16/2010 - DOCKET 10-6/597 GATESHEAD/FENCE VARIATION ELK GROVE VILLAGE
Zoning Board of Appeals
Meeting Minutes
September 16, 2010
Present: P.Kaplan, Chairman
L. Dohrer
G. Schumm
S. Carlson
D. Childress
J. Walz
D. Zinnel
Absent: J. Oliveto
J. Meister, Sr.
Staff: J. Polony, Plan Reviewer, Community Development
Zoning Variation —Docket# 10-6 597 Gateshead North
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, Francis E. Scofield,
was sworn in and asked to present his case.
Mr. Scofield indicated the fence he had replaced existed for at least twenty five (25) years and
needed to be repaired. He inquired as to why no letter or notification had been submitted to him
indicating the fence was not in compliance with the zoning code.
Mr. Kaplan told the petitioner that the existing fence was a legal nonconforming fence because
the zoning ordinance has changed in the past twenty five (25) years. He also mentioned once the
petitioner rendered the fence the current zoning ordinance would take precedence and would
require a permit. Mr. Kaplan additionally asked the petitioner to clarify the height of the
removed fence.
Mr. Scofield stated the new fence and old fence were approximately both mounted at forty two
inches (42").
Mr. Kaplan opened the meeting to questions from the board.
Mr. Zinnel asked the petitioner if the height mentioned was to the top of the post or top of the
rail. He additionally asked the petitioner the purpose of the fence.
Mr. Scofield indicated the forty two inches (42") was to the top of the rail. He also stated the use
of the fence was to enhance his corner lot and provide stability to his planted rose bushes for
growth.
Mr. Childress asked the Village plan reviewer if the fence would create any type of sightline
restrictions per the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Polony stated the fence is a split rail fence and would not impede visibility to pedestrians
and motorists.
Mr. Schumm asked the petitioner if any neighbors had objected to the fence and to show his
hardship for this variance.
Mr. Scofield stated no neighbors had mentioned any concern for the installation of the fence and
his hardship was he simply replaced an existing twenty five (25) year old fence at the same
height and location.
A motion to grant a variation for the installation of a forty two inch (42") inch high split rail
fence within the front yard of the property was made by Mr. Dohrer and seconded by Mr.
Schumm, Upon voting (AYES —Kaplan, Walz, Childress, Zinnel and Carlson) the motion to
grant the variance passed unanimously. Mr. Kaplan advised the petitioner, Mr.Scofield, to
contact the Village Clerk and attend the subsequent Village Board Meeting. The meeting
adjourned at 7.10 p.m.
Respectful ly-ssubmitted
ared Polony
'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), Inspectional Services Supervisor,
Chairman and Members of Plan Commission