HomeMy WebLinkAboutZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - 05/23/2019 - 50 Kenilworth VariationPresent:
Absent:
Ryan Bookler
Louis Bacigalupo
Don Childress
Michael Colgan
Roberto Serrano
Larry Dohrer
Wissam Jameel
Christine Kelley
Rich Romarski
ELK GROVE VILLAGE
Zoning Board of Appeals
Meeting Minutes
May 23, 2019
Staff: B. Kozor, Plan Reviewer/Inspection Supervisor, Community Development
Zoning Variation — Docket #19-2 50 Kenilworth Ave
Chairman Childress called the meeting to order at 7:03 pm and read a statement describing the
hearing notification procedure as well as the legal notice.
The petitioners, Deb Norfolk (Owner of Record), and Patty Orchell were sworn in and asked to
present their case.
The petitioner explained the hardship was that the proposed fence location, if installed per
Ordinance, would greatly decrease the size of the available rear yard capable of being fenced in,
making the back yard less useable. The house to the East, based on its placement on the lot, is
much further back than its opposite front corner, also further decreasing the potential fenced in
area on the petitioner's lot. The proposed fence is requested be installed to contain the
petitioner's two dogs. An electronic "Invisible" fence was not deemed practical, as it would not
prevent animals outside of the yard from entering. A new shed was recently installed in the yard
which further decreases the usable area of a fenced in back yard.
Mr. Childress opened the meeting to questions from the board.
Mr. Bookler felt he would be more comfortable granting a variance if the distance would be
further from the sidewalk. Instead of one foot (l') from the sidewalk, he would be in favor of
granting a variance of eleven feet (I F) from the sidewalk.
Mr. Bacigalupo was against allowing a new fence in a location that was not allowed by the
Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Serrano had no objection to allowing the fence, but would prefer it to be further from the
sidewalk.
Mr. Childress asked Community Development the purpose of the fence restrictions within the
Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Kozor responded by explaining that the fence restrictions were to maintain the front yard
setbacks in a subdivision and not create sight line obstructions from the street and adjacent
driveways.
The petitioner, Ms. Norfolk, indicated she would be willing to move the fence approximately
four feet (4') further than the originally proposed one foot (1').
Mr. Childress discussed the idea of allowing the fence to be located four feet (4') from the
property line.
A motion to DO GRANT a revised variation request for the petitioner to install a four foot (4')
high, aluminum open fence which will extend approximately thirty-one feet (3 V) beyond the
nearest front corner of the principal structure on the adjacent single-family residential lot was
made by Mr. Colgan and seconded by Mr. Serrano.
Upon voting (AYES — Childress, Colgan, and Serrano.) (NAYES- Bacigalupo, Bookler.)
The motion carried.
Mr. Childress advised the petitioner to contact the Village Clerk and attend the subsequent
Village Board Meeting. The meeting adjourned at 7:23 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Bryan Kozor
Plan Reviewer/Inspection 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