Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - 12/02/2005 - ZBA MINUTES - 05-5 - 262 WILDWOOD ELK GROVE VILLAGE Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes December 2, 2005 Present: P. Kaplan, Chairman D. Childress J. Franke J. Meister L. Michalski J. Oliveto J. Walz Staff: S. Trudan, Assistant Director of Community Development V. Zaric, Plan Reviewer, Community Development Zoning Variation — Docket #05-5 — 262 Wildwood Rd. Chairman Kaplan called the meeting to order at T00 P.M. and read the legal notice. The petitioner, Scott Limper, was sworn in and asked to present the case. Mr. Limper said that he has been a resident of Elk Grove for more than 15 years. He explained that the existing fence is getting old and he wanted to replace it. Since the time that fence was originally installed, he built a pool and a shed. Moving the fence to a location conforming to today's regulations would require the relocation of the pool and shed. Mr. Michalski asked how high is the existing fence. The petitioner said it is 5 feet high. He added that the new fence material would match the house front porch. Mr. Oliveto explained to the petitioner that the Zoning Ordinance regulates the fence locations for the corner lots by requiring minimum setbacks from sidewalks to prevent the obstruction of vision for motorists and pedestrians using the sidewalks and noted that the fence was in full view of the neighbors across the street Mr. Childress asked if the petitioner talked to the neighbors about the fence replacement. The petitioner said that he talked to the neighbor on Germaine side about replacing the fence and offered to pay for the removal of their fence beyond his property line on Southwest corner in order for them to continue with the same type fence along that side of their property. The existing fence on that side is 1 % feet into his property. He will keep the new fence at the same location to accommodate the neighbor's landscaping. Mr. Childress asked the petitioner to identify the hardship. The petitioner said that his hardship is relocation of the existing structures behind the fence. He explained that If the fence were moved back, it would be very close to the pool deck thereby making it tempting for children to try to jump over the fence. Mr. Meister asked if the shed was on a concrete slab or on the ground. The petitioner said that the shad is on the ground, not on a concrete slab. Mr. Meister asked if the existing fence was built according to then Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Limper said yes. Mr. Franke asked if the petitioner was aware of any accidents occurring as a result of the existing fence obstructing vision. The petitioner said that he is not aware of any accidents. Mr. Franke also said that he sees the hardship of loosing the back yard space if the fence is moved back. The neighbor at 545 Germaine Lane said that she lives across the street from the petitioner. She said that the fence does not create any obstructions and that the property is well kept. A motion was made by Mr. Franke to grant the variation as requested. The motion was seconded by Mr. Michalski and passed by unanimous vote. The petitioner was directed by Mr. Kaplan to contact the Village Clerk to confirm which Village Board meeting they should attend for final approval. The meeting was adjourned at 7:20 P.M. Respectfully submitted, 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