HomeMy WebLinkAboutZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - 06/20/2013 - ZBA 13-4-1794 HAMPSHIRE DR. ELK GROVE VILLAGE
Zoning Board of Appeals
Meeting Minutes
June 20, 2013
Present: D. Childress
L. Dohrer
R. Bookler
D. Zinnel
J. Meister, Sr.
R. De Frenza
S. Carlson
Absent: M.Colgan
P. Rettberg
Staff: J. Polony, Plan Review Supervisor, Community Development
Zoning Variation—Docket# 13-4 1794 Hampshire Drive
Chairman Childress 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,Matthew Santeford, was swom in and asked to present his case.
Mr. Santeford stated he is requesting a variation to enlarge his backyard so his children have a
larger area to safely play. Currently, the yard is limited in size due to location of the existing
fence and the location/size of the existing deck. Mr. Santeford stated they would change the
existing chain link fence to a four(4) foot high picket fence along a portion of the north property
line and entirely along the west property line. The remaining portion of the north property line
and the entire east property line would be provided with a six (6) foot privacy fence.
Mr. Childress opened the meeting to questions fi-om the board.
Ms. De Frenza asked the petitioner why two (2) styles of fence are proposed.
Mr. Santeford stated the picket fence will be used along the north and west property lines to
provide the neighbors with better visibility when backing out of their driveway. Mr. Santeford
mentioned that he would prefer to install a six (6) foot privacy fence around the entire yard;
however the four(4) foot picket fence was a compromise to better assist with the neighbors'
visibility.
Ms. De Frenza asked the petitioner if he had heard any concerns from the neighbors pertaining to
the proposed fence locations and styles.
Mr. Santeford mentioned that he had spoken to his two(2) adjacent neighbors and they were in
favor of the variation request.
Mr. Meister noted, that based upon the proposed location of the fence,he would be concerned
with future homeowners planting shrubbery along the fence line which would hinder the sight
line of the neighbors when backing out of the driveway.
Mr. Carlson asked the petitioner to state his hardship for the variation request.
Mr. Santeford mentioned that he would like to enlarge the backyard area to allow more room for
his children to play. Additionally,he stated the current fence is rusting and must be replaced
because it presents a safety hazard to his children and the children in the neighborhood.
Mr. Carlson asked the petitioner to state his hardship for the variation request for the three (3)
foot fence extension along the east of the property.
Mr. Santeford stated that he would relocate the fence along the east so it would not extend past
the nearest front corner of the adjacent neighbors' principal structure.
Mr. Bookler, along with numerous other Board Members, felt the proposed fence would hinder
vehicular sight lines and jeopardize children's safety along the busy roadway.
Mr. Santeford asked the board if they would permit any extension of the fence further than its
current location. He mentioned that he was willing to reduce the fence to extend ten(10) feet
from the property line opposed to the four(4) feet he previously requested.
The board recommended installing a six(6) foot privacy fence in the current location of the
existing fence.
Mr. Santeford agreed to the board's recommendation.
A motion to grant a variation for the construction of a six (6) foot high,privacy fence which
would extend approximately twelve(12)feet beyond a line extended from the nearest front
corner of the principal building located on an adjacent single-family residential lot was made by
Mr. Meister, contingent upon the proposed fence along Vermont Drive being replaced in the
exact location of the current fence, and seconded by Mr. Dohrer. Upon voting(AYES—
Childress, Bookler,De Frenza, Zinnel and Carlson.)The motion to grant the variance
passed unanimously. Mr. Childress advised the petitioner, Mr. Santeford, to contact the Village
Clerk and attend the subsequent Village Board Meeting. The meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jared Polo
Plan Review Supervisor, 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 to
the 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