HomeMy Public PortalAbout2007-09-18 ZBA MinutesVillage of Plainfield Zoning Board of Appeals Record of Minutes Date: September 18, 2007 Location: Village Hall Chairman Sobkoviak called the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting to order at 7:03 pm. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Kachel, Renzi, O’Rourke, Bonuchi and Chairman Sobk oviak, Park District, and Fire District . Ex Officio Commissioners Cox and Sanders were also present. Absent: Commissioner s McKay and Murawski , Library District, and Police Department Also Present: Michael Schwarz – Plann er II Village of Plainfield, Sara Leach - Planner I Village of Plainfield, Sara Javoronok – Planner I Village of Plainfield, and Carol Millan – Secretary Village of Plainfield MINUTES: The July 17, 2007 minutes were accepted as presented. NEW BUSINESS CASE: 1359 -082307.V 13365 WELLESLEY CT. Request: Variance to reduce rear setback to (Public Hearing) allow installation of sun room Location: 13365 Wellesley Ct. Wilding Point Subdivision Applicant: Robert Barrett TIME: 7:05 p.m. Sara Le ach summarized the staff report. This is a public hearing and the case has been posted and published as required by ordinance. She stated th e applicant is requesting a variance to permit the installation of a sunroom to encroach upon the rear setback req uirement in the R -1 Zoning District. There is a rear setback of 30 feet in the R -1 Zoning District. The house is located on an a ngled lot in a cul -de -sac with Van Dyke Road to the rear. Presently there is a patio where the sunroom will be installed. Be cause of the angled lot, there is no logical way the sunroom can be constructed without encroaching into the setback. The applicant’s wife has an incurable disease that may be aggravated by sun exposure and ultraviolet rays. Sara went on to say only a co rner of the structure would encroach
Village of Plainfield Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes September 18, 2007 Page 2 of 4 into the rear setback and no other setbacks would be affected. Sara went through the findings of fact and stated 4 of the 4 findings of fact are favorable and that staff recommends approval of the variance. Chairma n Sobkoviak asked Sara Leach the amount of the actual encroachment. She stated from the furthest point out it would be 7 feet. Chairman Sobkoviak pointed out that the lot is kind of wedge -shaped. Sara agreed. Chairman Sobkoviak also made mention of the landscape buffer on the other side of the lot line. He asked how wide was the landscape buffer. Sara responded she was not sure about the buffer, but there is approximately 30 feet from the property setback to the actual road. Chairman Sobkoviak stated it would probably be safe to say the buffer is about 20 feet. Sara agreed and stated the bike path is about 8 to 10 feet wide. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in the petitioners. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if the petitioner was claiming relief under the ADA. T he petitioner stated they had not specifically asked for that. The petitioner explained that with S ystemic Lupus a person cannot be out in the sun at all. Terry Peterson, the contractor for the petitioner, did not have anything to add to Sara’s report. He did state the angle of the lot kind of restricts what you can and cannot do. Chairman Sobkoviak noted a letter of no objection from one of the petitioner’s neighbors. Chairman Sobkoviak stated a lot of people are putting these sunrooms on their houses . He stated it is a very desirable amenity. It adds to the value of the house. He stated the Commission has to look at the reason for the setbacks. First would be fire safety being in close proximity to adjacent structures, and second is the general la ndscape and streetscape. He went on to say in this case landscape and streetscape do not pertain nor does proximity to another structure. He stated it would be a very unnoticeable addition to this house. He also stated looking at the amount of encroachm ent, there is a very small percentage, really just a wedge, 7 feet down to 0 feet . Commissioner Renzi had a concern that staff was just restating the same findings for “c” and “b” findings of fact. He asked Sara what was the differentiating factor betwee n the “b” and “c” finding. He stated when talking about not yielding a reasonable use, if subjective judgments are used that could just about afford every variance that comes before the Commission. That same logic would prevail and allow anyone who asks for a variance to come in with some sort of argument on reasonable use that would then allow them to move that factor into the yes side of the equation. Chairman Sobkoviak stated o ne of the reasons there is the Zoning Board of Appeals is to throw some sub jectivity into the equation. Commissioner Renzi felt it should be 3 of the 4 findings were met. He was comfortable with a, b, & d findings. Commissioner Sanders asked the petitioner if currently there is a patio with an awning. The petitioner responded yes. Commissioner Sanders stated for the purpose of having this patio available all seasons, he felt it was appropriate to say wha t is currently a patio is now going to be a sun room. Commissioner O’Rourke asked what room was adjacent to the patio. The petitioner stated it was the family room. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if the sunroom goes forward and is constructed, at some point in the future would an additional patio be added around or adjacent to the sunroom. Commissioner O’Rourke asked if a patio can be built within the building setback. Sara Leach responded yes. Mike Schwarz clarified a patio itself is an accessory structure, as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. It would
Village of Plainfield Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes September 18, 2007 Page 3 of 4 need to meet a minimum 5 foot setback from a property line, but the prop osed sunroom would be considered part of the principle building and that would need to meet the 30 foot setback. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if the Homeowners Association has been notified. The petitioner responded they had been notified and they have no objections. Commissioner Cox asked if the sunroom would be replacing the existing patio and sunroom. Terry Peterson stated essentially it is and will not extend past that point . Commissioner O’Rourke asked if the notices had been sent out and signs post ed. The petitioner answered yes. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if anyone in the audience cared to ask a question or make a comment. There was no response. At 7:25 p.m. Commissioner Kachel made a motion that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the requ ested variance to permit an encroachment into the rear setback requirement of seven (7) feet for the installation of a sunroom for the property located at 13365 Wellesley Court (Lot 41 in Wilding Point Subdivision), subject to the following stipulation: 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer. Commissioner O’Rourke seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak asked the commissioners if they were going by staff’s findings of fact. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Ren zi, O’Rourke, Bonuchi, Kachel, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carried 5:0 Chairman Sobkoviak stated this is the 3 rd case before the Commission where medical conditions have been cited. He stated staff is asking the Commission to judge medical c onditions. In this case, he stated he was able to get some background on this p articular condition . He felt in the future there needs to be someone connected with the medical community to review cases where medical conditions are being cited. Mike Schwa rz agreed with Chairman Sobkoviak. He state d typically these variance type cases should be focused on the physical attributes of the property. He stated he felt in this case it didn’t matter either way because at a minimum 3 of the 4 findings were met. Commissioner Kachel stated the property is the main thing, but the medical conditions have to go hand in hand with it. Mike Schwarz stated his advice would be that the focus should be on the shape of the property, but in this case it is the angle of t he house itself that causes the issue. He stated there is a unique circumstance here. He felt the findings support the variance approval. A discussion ensued regarding findings of fact and granting variances.
Village of Plainfield Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes September 18, 2007 Page 4 of 4 As there was no further business for the Zo ning Board of Appeals Commission, Chairman Sobkoviak adjourned the meeting at 7:34 p.m. Mike Schwarz wanted to clarify for the record, he had previously stated a patio needs to meet a minimum 5 foot setback, and it actually can be 4 feet. ________________________ Respectfully Submitted Carol Millan Planning Secretary – Village of Plainfield