Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - 12/02/2005 - ZBA MINUTES-05-6- 1261 HEMLOCK ELK GROVE VILLAGE Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes December 2, 2005 Present: P. Kaplan, Chairman D. Childress J. Franke L. Michalski J. Meister J. Oliveto J. Walz Staff.' S. Trudan, Assistant Director of Community Development V. Zaric, Plan Reviewer, Community Development Zoning Variation — Docket #05-6— 1261 Hemlock Dr. Chairman Kaplan turned his chairmanship over to Commissioner John Walz due to his personal friendship with the petitioner. • Chairman John Walz called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM and read the legal notice. The petitioner, Robert Nielsen, was sworn in and asked to present his case. Mr. Nielsen said his wife would be having several surgeries in the near future that would leave her unable to walk the stairs. He stated that they needed a bedroom on the first floor and that the existing first floor bathroom was not large enough to accommodate a person in a wheelchair. In order to build the new bathroom, they need to encroach into the required rear yard. He explained that he went to the Building Department twice to get information about the planned work and then hired an architect and contractor. His building permit was rejected because of the encroachment into the required rear yard. The petitioner also brought letters from the neighbors supporting the proposed house addition. Mr. Franke asked if the architect checked with the Village about the required rear yard setbacks. The petitioner said that the architect asked him about the required rear yard setback and he told him that the building department front counter • staff had reviewed his plans and approved them. Mr. Franke asked if the petitioner checked any other options to accommodate the needs of his wife such as the installation of a stair chair lift. The petitioner said that he did not consider that option. Mr. Franke asked how many people live in the house. Mr. Nielsen said that only 2 people live in the house, he and his wife. Mr. Franke pointed out that the contractors should not start preparing the site for the construction before a permit is issued. Mr. Childress asked if the petitioner talked to the architect about renovating the existing first floor to accommodate the larger bathroom and the bedroom without expanding the house. Mr. Nielsen said that nothing could be done without losing the family room. Mr. Childress asked if the garage is used for storage only. The petitioner said yes. Mr. Oliveto said that the proposed addition would be very close to the neighbor on the Larchmont side. The petitioner said that he already has a deck at that location. Mr. Oliveto said that the deck and house addition couldn't be compared and added that even if the current neighbors do not object, future neighbors may not like it. • The petitioner said that the photographs which he brought in showed many houses with the rear yard being less than 20 feet. Mr. Walz said that each case is different. Mr. Michalski asked what the square footage of the first floor living space was. He also asked if there were sleeping quarters on the first floor. The petitioner said that the first floor living area is approximately 1,400 square feet, comprised of a kitchen with a dinning area, a front room and a family room, with no sleeping quarters. Mr. Michalski indicated that it was a lot of space for only those rooms. Mr. Oliveto asked how many bedrooms the original ranch house had before the second story was added. The petitioner said that the original house had 3 bedrooms, but all of them were converted into different uses when the second floor was built. Mrs. Franke asked why the contractor took money for the job before the building permit was issued. Mr. Nielsen said that he had talked to Pam and Mike, the Building Department's front counter personnel, and they told him that the proposed work met all code requirements. Mr. Trudan said that he interviewed Pam and Mike and they told him that they did not approve the proposed work. He stated that neither Pam nor Mike was shown anything more than a hand drawn sketch and an out- dated plat of survey. Neither of the employees was shown both the sketch and the survey. He explained that the front counter personnel are not authorized to perform plan reviews for house additions at the counter and that such reviews are beyond their expertise. He further explained that their job is to inform the applicants what documents are required to be submitted for the permit approval. The plan reviews are not done at the front counter. The plan review is done by the plan reviewer. Mr. Meister asked Mr. Trudan how far the proposed addition would be from the neighbors house. Mr. Trudan said that it would be approximately 18 feet from the neighbor's house. Mr. Nielsen stated that he felt that the tone of the meeting seemed to be drifting away from the key issue. He then stated that he felt the key issue was the fact that he was asking for the variation due to his wife's medical hardship. • Mr. Trudan cited the Zoning Ordinance as it pertains to zoning variations and explained that the ordinance states, in part, that a variation, if granted by the Mayor and Board of Trustees, can not merely serve as a convenience to the petitioner, and must be based on an exceptional situation, surroundings or condition of a specific piece of property such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape of a lot. He also said that he talked to the builder of the proposed work who indicated that the larger bathroom could be built without encroaching into the required rear yard. Mr. Trudan said that he and the Plan Reviewer looked at the existing first floor plan and noted that it appeared that one option could consist of enlarging the existing bathroom and its doorway resulting only in the reduction in size of one of the existing closets. The chairman, Mr. Walz, asked the Board members to make a motion. No motion was made. Mr. Walz asked the Board members if they would like to discuss this matter privately in the adjacent room. The Board Members agreed. Mr. Walz then asked the petitioner if that would be okay and the petitioner agreed. After the private meeting, Chairman Walz asked if the Board members had any additional questions. Mr. Franke said that the pictures which were provided by the petitioner showed detached structures which have setback requirements that differ from those that apply to principal structures. Mr. Franke said that the proposed addition would be very close to the neighbor's house and added that even though the current resident does not object to the proposed addition, it may not be favored by future residents. Mr. Walz asked for motion to approve the requested variation. No motion was made. Mr. Walz asked for a motion to do not grant the requested variation. Mr. Franke made a motion to do not grant, seconded by Mr. Michalski. The Board members were called to vote. Mr. Michalski - Aye Mr. Franke - Aye Mr. Oliveto Aye Mr. Meister- Nay Ce Mr. Childress - Aye Mr. Walz - Nay The motion to do not grant was passed by a vote of 4 to 2. The petitioner was directed by Mr. Walz to contact the Village Clerk to confirm which Village Board meeting they should attend for final determination. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 PM. Respectfully submitted, �/u -Ca oCan^tom Verica Zaric Plan Reviewer, Community Development C: Chairman and Members Zoning Board of Appeals, Mayor and Board of Trustees, Village Attorney, Village Clerk, Village Manager, Assistant Village Manager, Assistant to the Village Manager, Administrative Intern, Director of Engineering and Community Development, Director of Public Works, Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Chief (2), Assistant Fire Chief, Chairman and Members of Plan `' Commission