Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/22/2001 ZBA minutes 05-2001 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF TIlE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CASE NO. ZBA-05-2001 Hearing Date: March 22, 2001 PETITIONER: Kevin & Julie Anderson PUBLICATION DATE: March 7, 2001 Daily Herald REQUEST: Variation for a side yard setback for a shed MEMBERS PRESENT: Hal Ettinger Leo Floros Elizabeth Luxem Keith Youngquist Arlene Juracek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: Merrill Cotton Richard Rogers STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Mr. & Mrs. Kevin Anderson Mr. & Mrs. Gene Seaberg Tom Grigis Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Minutes of the January 25, 2001 meeting were approved with one abstention by Elizabeth Luxem. Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. ZBA-05-01, a request for a Variation for a side yard setback for a shed. Judy Counolly, Senior Planner, stated that public notice had been given and introduced the staff memorandum for the item, a request for a Variation for a side yard setback for a shed. As background to the case, Ms. Connolly explained that the subject property is an existing home located on an interior lot on a single-family residential street. She said the property owners received a building permit to construct a i0'x12' shed three-feet from the interior lot line. When the Village conducted the final inspection, it was learned that the shed is located 1 1/2 feet from the lot line instead of the required 3-feet. Ms. Connolly explained that the petitioners thought that the existing garage met Village setback requirements and located the shed in line with the garage. The petitioners are applying for a variation because the shed is complete and, as stated in their application, the shed would have to be disassembled in order to relocate it to the location required by code. Ms. Connolly pointed out that there is no fence adjacent to the shed and the petitioners state that they can maintain the area between the shed and the neighbor's property with their lawn mower. Ms. Connolly said staff reviewed the petitioners' plat of survey and site plan and visited the site, and found that the subject parcel is out of any flood zone and is rectangular in shape. The parcel is developed with a single family home and a detached garage. The applicants constructed a 10'x12' shed 1.5-feet from an interior lot line and the Zoning Ordinance requires a three-foot setback. Ms. Connolly said that, in order to approve a variation, the request has to meet the standards for a variation as listed in the Zoning Ordinance. These standards relate to an irregular shape of the property or a topographical attribute unique to the lot. The standards also require that the variation not impact the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. Ms. Counolly stated that the reasons for the proposed Variation are for the convenience of the petitioner. The subject property is similar to many other lots in the Village. She said the shed is not permanently attached to the ground and Zoning Board of Appeals ZBA-05-2001 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 could be taken apart, relocated, and meet the required 3' setback. However, the shed would not be likely to have a negative effect on the character of the neighborhood or the public welfare, and the petitioners states that they have the ability to maintain the 1.5-foot area between their property line and their neighbor's property. Ms. Connolly said that, while the proposed variation may not have a detrimental effect on neighborhood character, the submittal does not support a fmding of hardship, as required by the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, staff recommends that the ZBA recommend denial of the proposed Variation to permit a shed to encroach 1.5-feet into the required three- foot side yard setback for the residence at 617 N. Fairview, Case No. ZBA-05-01. She said the Village Board's decision is final for this case. Ms. Juracek asked Ms. Connolly if a plat and drawing for this shed had been submitted when a permit was requested. Ms. Connolly said yes and that the property has been re-surveyed since the shed permit was issued. She said that the permit for the shed showed a 3' setback from the property line. Kevin and Julie Anderson, 617 N. Fairview, were sworn in. Mrs. Anderson testified that when she applied for a shed permit, using a then current plat of survey, that she drew the shed in pencil on the plat flush with the the garage. She said that stafftold her that her submittal was acceptable. She said that when the property was re-surveyed the shed was 1.5' from the property line. Mrs. Anderson explained that the shed is not on a concrete slab, but on foundation blocks, a sample of which they brought to the meeting. The foundation blocks contain a crosshair design in which the 2'x4' joints fit. She said that there are twelve of these blocks under the shed and pointed out that if they had used a concrete slab that the property line discrepancy would have been noted in the "pre-pour" inspection of the slab. However, they used the blocks because water is retained in that area and they thought the blocks would provide a more level and sturdy platform for the shed. Mr. Anderson said he had received a quote from a contractor for $500 to move the shed using a front-end loader. He said that they would need to dig out the foundation blocks and move them to the new location of the shed. Ms. Juracek asked Mrs. Anderson what was the dimension of the shed with respect to the garage, 3' or 1.5'? Mrs. Anderson said she had questioned staff about what the measurement meant when she was applying for the shed permit and was told the overhang might be included in the setback shown on the plat of survey. Mrs. Anderson said that the setback shown on the plat does not include the overhang and feels they were misled in that instance. Hal Ettinger asked Mr. & Mrs. Anderson if the garage was existing when they bought the property. Mr. Anderson said yes, they bought the property with the garage that way ten years ago. Mr. Ettinger asked the petitioners if they were told when they were applying for a permit that the shed had to be setback 3-feet from the lot line. Mrs. Anderson said yes, she understood that the shed had to be located three-fect from the lot line. There was discussion about using the fence along the north lot line as a point of reference to measure the 3-foot distance. It was noted that there is a 9-foot gap between that fence and another fence along the east (rear) property line that extends west along 9-feet of the petitioners' north lot line. Ms. Juracek said it would be helpful to see the original plat and asked that the original permit application be included in the packet to go to the Village Board with the ZBA's recommendation. After further discussion among the petitioners, it was determined that the fences were in place at the time of construction of the shed. Mr. Ettinger asked if they had purchased the shed or constructed it. Mrs. Anderson said that they had purchased it, but some construction was necessary because it was a "kit". Ms. Juracek asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the Zoning Board. Mr. & Mrs. Gene Seaberg, 619 N. Fairview were sworn in and gave testimony that they felt the shed looked good and did not detract from the neighborhood. They stated that they had no problem with the location and said they would have built the shed the same way. They said their garage is also close to the property line and that it has been that way for 27 years. oning Board of Appeals ZBA-05-2001 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 3 Tom Grigis, 701 N. Fairview, was sworn in and said that he has no objections to leaving the shed in its current location. He said that, while it is physically possible to move the shed, it is not economically wise and would not be level when moved. Julie Anderson presented a list of 36 neighbors who signed their names to a petition stating that they had no objections to leaving the shed where it is. At 7:55, Chairperson Juracek closed the public hearing and asked for discussion from the Zoning Board members. Elizabeth Luxem said that it was natural for the homeowner to assume their existing garage conformed to Village codes and to align the shed with the garage. She said that she didn't feel they had located the shed 1.5-feet from the lot line to get around code requirements. She said that she would not vote to recommend approval if a contractor familiar with Village codes had erected the shed, but that she would vote in favor of the request in this instance. Keith Youngquist said he felt the same way and that this had been an honest mistake. He said that he would vote in favor of the petitioner's request because the shed was located the same distance from the lot line as the garage and that the shed was not visible from the street. Ms. Juracek said she also usually votes to follow Village codes, but in this case she could understand the owners wanting to align the shed with the garage for aesthetic reasons. Therefore, she would vote to recommend approval because the location did not have a negative impact on the neighborhood character and had the same setback as the existing detached garage. Elizabeth Luxem moved to recommend to the Village Board approval for a Variation for a side yard setback for a shed at 617 N. Fairview, Case No. ZBA-05~01. Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Ettinger, Floros, Luxem, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 5-0. Chairperson Juracek introduced the next item under New Business, election of a Vice Chair to the Zoning Board of Appeals, to ensure continuity in running Zoning Board meetings in the event of her absence. Keith Youngquist nominated Richard Rogers as Vice Chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals; Leo Floros seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cottan, Ettinger, Floros, Youngquist, Rogers, and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 5-0. At 8:00 p.m., Leo Floros made motion to adjourn, seconded by Hal Ettinger. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary