HomeMy Public PortalAbout2008-08-05 ZBA MinutesVillage of Plainfield Zoning Board of Appeals Record of Minutes Amended Date: August 5, 2008 Location: Village Hall Chairman Sobkoviak called the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting to order at 7:06 pm. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Renzi, Bon uchi , and Sanders ; Ex Officio Commissioners Peck and Fremarek; and Chairman Sobk oviak Absent: Commissioners Kachel, McKay and O’Rourke i ; Park District; School District ; Fire District; Library District; and Police Department Also Present: Michael Garrigan – Village Planner 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 minutes from the July 15 , 2008 ZBA meeting were accep ted as amended. Commissioner Renzi added the following to Page 2 of 4, last paragraph, “Those thoughts detailing alternative findings of fact, with only one sign, ultimately served as factual basis in support of the approved motion.” Commissioner Peck made a change to Page 3 of 4, Paragraph 3 to read: “Commissioner Peck agreed with Commissioner Fremarek and did not want to set a precedent”. NEW BUSINESS CASE: 1410 -070208.V 24430 CHAMPION DRIVE Request: Fence Variance (Public Heari ng) To allow 14’ encroachment into corner side yard Location: 24430 Champion Drive: Crossings at Wolf Creek Applicant: Ms. Delma Chavira (Homeowner) TIME: 7:14 p.m. Planner Leach summarized the staff report. She stated this is a public hearing and th e case has been published and posted per Village Ordinance and State Statute . The applicant is seeking a variance to allow the installation of a fence that encroaches 14’ into the property’s corner side yard. The property is located at the northeast corn er of Champion Drive and Champion Court West. The variance request is to accommodate the applicant’s child who has been diagnosed with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Planner Leach summarized the fence provisions in the Zoning Ordinance. She s tated this variance would provide additional space for the applicant’s three children and four grandchildren to play.
Village of Plainfield Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 5, 2008 Page 2 of 4 Staff did receive a note from a doctor indicating that extra space could be beneficial to a child with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. The note was not written by the child’s current doctor. Planner Leach went through the 4 findings of fact and stated 3 of the 4 findings are unfavorable. Planner Leach stated Finding B (The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances an d thus strict enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties or impose exceptional hardships due to the special and unusual conditions that are not generally found on other properties in the same zoning district) was favorable, but staff would have preferred a more specific testimony from the child’s doctor. The subject property is of adequate size and is consistent with other single family home properties in the Village. There are no unique physical attributes found on the pro perty, which are not found on other properties within the same Zoning District. Additionally, if the variance was granted, the fence would extend into the rear neighbor’s front yard area. Staff recommends denial of the variance request. Chairman Sobkovi ak swore in the petitioner, Delma Chavira. Chairman Sobkoviak stated staff has a problem substantiating the medical claim, and asked the petitioner if she was invoking the Federal legislation that provides equal access for handicap. Petitioner Chavira st ated she was. Chairman Sobkoviak stated that the petitioner then needs to substantiate the medical claim. Petitioner Chavira stated she has an appointment with a new doctor because her other doctor would not write a letter. Chairman Sobkoviak stated t he ZBA needs office notes to include a diagnosis and the course of treatment. Petitioner Chavira stated the doctor charged her $75.00 for the letter . She dropped the doctor and moved on to a new doctor. She stated she could not get the paperwork from the new doctor in time for the hearing. She asked if she could have an extension to get the paperwork. Chairman Sobkoviak stated the ZBA would work with her on that. Chairman Sobkoviak further stated there are 4 challenges that must be met before the Zoni ng Board of Appeals can grant a variance. He stated this is mandated by the State of Illinois. He stated at this point, the petitioner is not really meeting any of the Findings of Fact. He stated if the petitioner is invoking the legislation that allows equal access to the handicapped; the petitioner also has to know that then the condition has to be considered a handicap. He did not believe that the condition that exists in this case is considered a handicap. This condition is treatable with medicine. Petitioner Chavira stated she d id not want to put her son under the medication because she did not want to alter her son’s character. Chairman Sobkoviak stated possibly this could be continued until the petitioner offers substantiation from a medical do ctor. He stated even with that, there is no guarantee that this variance would go forward because this condition is not normally considered a handicap. He further stated there are a large number of children in the population that are afflicted with this condition and are treated on a daily basis. If this is condition is not considered a handicap it would not be eligible to be considered under this legislation. He asked the opinion of the other Commissioners. Commissioner Fremarek stated from his exper ience this is a treatable condition and is not a handicap. It would not fall currently under that category to evoke the Federal legislation. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there was anyone in the audience that cared to ask a question or make a comment. Jas on Garcia was sworn in by Chairman Sobkoviak. He referenced the findings for a variance and asked for a copy to take home. He stated he too has a similar situation, although his children are not afflicted
Village of Plainfield Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 5, 2008 Page 3 of 4 with that scenario. He stated they live in Aub urn Lakes on a corner lot. He stated they have about 20’ on the corner that they would like their children to play in. He stated there are a lot of his neighbors with the same situation. He questioned that this is not a Plainfield issue, but a State iss ue. Chairman Sobkoviak stated the four challenges that have to be met to obtain a variance are mandated by the State. Jason Garci a stated some of the surrounding communities are allowing fences on corner lots. Chairman Sobkoviak stated these are challen ges that need to be met for any variance. Petitioner Chavira asked what the difference was between having shrubbery as a fence that can go out all the way to the sidewalk. She felt that looks messier than putting up a fence. Chairman Sobkoviak stated others have asked the same question and the only thing he could offer is that should an accident occur on the street, you still maintain the civil liability. Chairman Sobkoviak stated the petitioner could put in all the shrubbery she wants to. Petitioner Chavira asked if she could extend this hearing. Chairman Sobkoviak asked the Commissioners if they would look at the variance more favorably with the doctor’s notes. Commissioners Sanders stated also with it being on the corner of a cul -de -sac , the ZB A need s to determine what is intended by the ordinances as to what should be the aesthetics of the area. He further stated he did not know what the expense would be to the petitioner to substantiate the favorable finding. He felt the other 3 findings wer e pretty clear. Chairman Sobkoviak stated 3 of the 4 findings are not being met. If the Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder does not fall into the handicap category, it cannot e voke the Federal legislation. Planner Leach wanted to add that at the t ime the applicant applied for the variance , staff did receive a copy of what looks like doctor’s notes concerning the Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and the fact the parents refused to medicate. When staff questioned the applicant about these no tes, Petitioner Chavira indicated that the doctor was not comfortable using this as a justification for a fence variance. The original doctor did not feel the variance was necessary. Chairman Sobkoviak wanted to make sure this was made part of the record that the doctor was not comfortable in using the condition as a justification for legal relief. Commissioner Fremarek felt that an extension of time granted is just putting off the inevitable. Commissioner Bonuchi agreed. She stated the findings of fac t are not there , and also questioned staff’s favorable finding. She stated once the Zoning Ordinance is changed, it is a change that is in place for everyone . She stated as far as a fence ver s us shrubbery is concerned, shrubbery is not considered a perma nent structure, where a fence is considered a more permanent structure. Chairman Sobkoviak stated in the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance and in the work with various developers the concept of key lots has been instituted. Key lots are very often on corners . The developers are required to add special landscaping and special design characteristics to cause the lots to look more inviting and aesthetically pleasing. There really is an emphasis on corner lots. That really is the reason why corner lot fences a re limited. Some variances have been granted on properties that were on more heavily traveled roads.
Village of Plainfield Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 5, 2008 Page 4 of 4 Commissioner Peck stated it is important to understand that whether or not the commissioners agree personally with the ordinance, this criterion has to be met. He stated it was his opinion that the findings of fact do not justify this variance. He recommended one other avenue to anyone that is looking for a corner lot fence would be to write the elected officials a letter explaining their case. The elected officials are the ones who have the power to change the actual ordinance to allow that type of fencing. Petitioner Chavira referenced some townhomes and wondered what the difference was in fencing there in relation to single family . Chairman Sob koviak asked which particular townhomes. Petitioner Chavira referenced Lakewood Falls. Chairman Sobkoviak stated that was another Village. Commissioner Renzi supported the comments of the Chairman and the other Commissioners. Chairman Sobkoviak state d it would appear the Commissioners agree with the 3 unfavorable findings of fact, and there is a disagreement with the 4 th favorable finding of fact, finding (b). The Zoning Board of Appeals challenges the favorable (b) Finding of Fact in this instance s ince the Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder does not qualify as a handicap and is not subject to Federal legislation allowing equal access to the handicap. At 7:35 p.m. Commissioner Renzi made a motion that the Zoning Board of Appeals adopt staff’s findings of fact, as modified by the Zoning Board of Appeals (dispute staff’s favorable finding on finding “b”) and recommend denial of the proposed fence variance for 24430 West Champion Drive. Commissioner Bonuchi seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkovia k called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Renzi, Sanders, Bonuchi, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carried 4:0 Since there was no further business before the Zoning Board of Appeals, Chairman Sobkoviak adjourned the meeting at 7:3 7 p.m. ________________________ Respectfully Submitted Carol Millan Planning Secretary – Village of Plainfield