Village Hall |
255 East Wilson Ave. |
Lombard, IL 60148 |
villageoflombard.org |
John DeFalco, Chairperson |
Mary Newman, Eugene Polley, |
Greg Young, Val Corrado, |
and Ed Bedard |
Staff Liaison: William Heniff |
Chairperson John DeFalco, Val Corrado, Mary Newman, Eugene Polley, Greg |
Young and Ed Bedard |
ZBA 04-10: 7 W. Greenfield Avenue |
Requests that the Village approve a variation from Section 155.205 (A)(1)(c)(2) of the |
Lombard Zoning Ordinance to increase the permitted fence height in a required front |
and corner side yard from four feet (4') to four and a half feet (4.5'), for the subject |
property located within the R2 Single Family Residential Zoning District. |
Mr. Timothy Moore and Mrs. Cathy Moore presented the petition. Mr. Moore stated the |
fence was sold as a four-foot fence. He stated that they spent time investigating |
different fences after contacting the Village about the maximum height requirements. |
He stated that they checked with the salesperson upon selection of the fence. Mr. |
Moore stated that after the fence was installed he measured the fence and discovered |
that the fence was actually four and a half feet tall. He notified the contractor and then |
called the Village and was informed of the enforcement policy. He stated that they |
decided to proceed with the variation request. Mr. Moore stated that they do not wish to |
alter the fence since the ornamentation is what causes it to exceed code. He stated that |
their yard is unique in the sense that it does not have a backyard and fronts Main Street. |
Mr. Moore stated that the neighbors like the fence. He stated that he feels that they |
selected a fence that compliments the neighborhood well. |
Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for public comment. Mr. Karl Hillman |
and Mrs. Jean Hillman, 233 N. Main, stated that they are the neighbors to the south of |
the Moore family. Mr. Hillman stated that the fence is a beautiful fence and believes that |
it is prudent given that they have four children. Mrs. Hillman stated that the fence |
doesn't obstruct vision since it is not a privacy fence. She stated that the fence is better |
than the landscaping often found on corner lots. |
Mr. Phil Pollard, of Complete Fence, stated that he was the fence contractor. Mr. |
Pollard stated that the petitioners were diligent about researching the code requirements |
and acknowledged the error on his part. He stated that the fence was listed as a |
four-foot fence, however in small print the manufacturer's specifications noted the |
fifty-two inch height. Mr. Pollard stated that this is the first time that a situation like this |
has occurred. He stated that the fence is beautiful and he would hate to see it torn |
down. He stated that he hoped some leniency could be given. |
Angela Clark, Planner I, presented the staff report. Ms. Clark stated that the petitioners |
applied for and received a building permit to construct a four-foot, aluminum fence in the |
front and corner side yards of their property. The petitioners' fence contractor contacted |
staff after the fence was installed and asked what the regulations were regarding fence |
height on corner lots as well as the enforcement procedures for fences that exceeded |
the requirements. The contractor stated that the fence that was installed was slightly |
higher than four feet. Staff informed the contractor that four feet is the maximum |
allowable fence height in front and corner side yards and of the enforcement |
procedures. Ms. Clark stated that the contractor was also informed that in light of the |
Village's reliance on citizen complaints regarding fence height enforcement there were |
no guarantees that a violation would not be issued at some point in time for the fence. |
The property owner later contacted staff to verify the requirements and stated that they |
ordered a four-foot fence yet upon installation discovered that it was actually four and a |
half feet. Staff informed the petitioner that a variation was necessary to keep the fence |
at the current height. |
As stated in previous cases, increasing the four-foot maximum height in corner side |
yards was workshopped before the Plan Commission, which recommended that the |
current requirements remain in place. Therefore, staff maintains previous |
recommendations to not support an increase in fence height in residential front and |
corner side yards. While the petitioner's fence is an attractive fence and poses no risk |
to the visibility of pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular traffic, staff finds that supporting the |
variation would be inconsistent with previous recommendations. Ms. Clark stated that |
the code does not identify the type of fence when referring to height, therefore granting |
such a variation would not prevent the placement of other types of fences also of open |
construction, such as chain link, within front and corner side yard areas. She also noted |
that there were no physical hardships of the petitioner's lot that prevented compliance |
with the ordinance, but rather the contractor's erroneous placement of a taller fence. |
Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for discussion by the Board Members. |
Mr. Bedard noted the assembly of the fence. He asked if disassembling the screws |
could drop down the fence. Mrs. Moore stated that the ornamental part of the fence was |
not attached, therefore the fence would still exceed code. |
Chairperson DeFalco noted the sphere and posts. He stated that if the fence were |
measure vertically it would measure forty-six inches, but the posts would still measure |
fifty-two inches even if the fence were lowered. He stated that the code identifies fence |
height at the highest point including ornamentation or posts. |
Mr. Moore stated that altering the fence would not match what they had purchased. He |
stated that he understands that code is code, however he believes that the code is |
meant to protect. He stated that there were no visibility issues with the fence and hoped |
there was some leeway that could be given for the fence. |
Mr. Polley asked if the code considers this type of fence. He stated that the codes |
should be written more carefully. Ms. Clark stated that the code does not reference the |
type of fence when referring to height. |
Mrs. Newman stated that in previous cases the concern has been visibility. She stated |
that there is not any visibility issue here. |
Chairperson DeFalco reiterated that there was not an issue of visibility. He stated that |
the fence is attractive, however the ordinance does not take into consideration the |
openness of fences or ornamentation. He stated that the fence height regulations have |
been workshopped before the Plan Commission in the past and the decision was to |
leave the code as it is currently written. |
Mrs. Newman asked was the workshop in response to board on board fences or open |
construction fences. Ms. Clark stated that she believed the issue was board on board |
fences. |
Chairperson DeFalco stated that two months ago a fence appeared before the Zoning |
Board for a wrought iron fence in an industrial area. The request stated that the fence |
was 75% open. He stated that the ordinance is meant to provide visibility and safety. |
He stated that the ZBA couldn't dispute the ordinance and that their responsibility is to |
determine hardship. |
Mr. Young stated that the contractor has taken responsibility for the error. He asked if |
there were any bonds that the contractor had to place with the Village. Ms. Clark stated |
that bonds are not required for fences. |
Mr. Pollard stated that there would be costs involved to modify the fence. |
Mr. Young asked if the height was discovered after the fence was erected. Mr. Pollard |
stated that he wasn't aware until the petitioner notified him. |
Mr. Young asked if the fence could be constructed at three feet. Mr. Pollard stated that |
it could. |
Mrs. Moore stated that a neighbor has a three-foot fence that the children love to climb. |
They felt that the four-foot fence was more appropriate. |
Mr. Pollard stated that most communities are concerned with visibility and openness and |
that aesthetics typically aren't considered. He asked if there was room for review of this. |
Chairperson DeFalco stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals has the ability to table the |
petition and research this further, but it is not under the purview of the Zoning Board to |
research it. |
Mr. Moore asked if that were a possibility. Ms. Clark stated that the action would have |
to come from the Board of Trustees. |
Mr. Young stated that the hardship is on the contractor. |
Chairperson DeFalco stated that the hardship is on the homeowner. He stated that the |
owners tried to comply and notified both the Village and the contractor. |
Dr. Corrado asked if a stipulation could be placed that any future repair or replacement |
of the fence be restricted to four feet if the variation were to be approved. |
Chairperson DeFalco stated that if a portion of the fence were damaged the repair would |
be regulated to four feet while the rest of the fence was still four and a half feet. |
Mr. Young stated that the variation should be addressed as a definitive yes or no. He |
asked if the board had made such stipulations in the past. Mr. Corrado stated that they |
had. Mr. Young asked if they were adhered to by the Board of Trustees. Mr. Corrado |
stated that they had. |
Mr. Bedard noted the previous meeting's fence petition. He stated that he noted items |
such as visibility should be addressed by the code considering it wasn't an issue with |
these fences due to location or open construction. |
Chairperson DeFalco stated that this case brings the perfect opportunity for review of |
the fence code regulations. |
Dr. Corrado asked if a review of the requirements could be included in the |
recommendation. Chairperson DeFalco discussed whether or not the recommendation |
could be worded in such a way that this could be accommodated. |
Mrs. Newman asked if the ordinance itself was creating the hardship. Chairperson |
DeFalco stated that it is not the ordinance that creates the hardship because the fence |
could be constructed at a lower height. Mr. Moore stated that if the fence were denied |
they would get a fence at the appropriate height. He stated that they know that they can |
have a fence, yet they are asking that the openness be considered. |
Chairperson DeFalco stated that since no bonds or inspections are required for fences |
we place the homeowner in a position where they have to work out any discrepancies |
with the contractor. |
Mr. Young stated that given the ordinance it is difficult to approve a variation. He asked |
how the board could convey to the Board of Trustees that the ordinance should be |
reviewed. |
Chairperson DeFalco stated that if no direction were given from the Zoning Board the |
item would not be on the consent agenda and would therefore be open for discussion. |
He asked that the discussion regarding review of the requirements be reflected in the |
minutes. |
It was moved by Corrado, seconded by Bedard, that this matter be |
recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval. The motion carried by |
the following vote: |
On a motion by Polley and seconded by Newman the minutes of the July 28, 2004 |
meeting were unanimously approved by the members present. |
On a motion by Corrado and seconded by Bedard the meeting was adjourned at 8:27 |
p.m. |
_____________________________ |
John DeFalco, Chairperson |
Zoning Board of Appeals |
_____________________________ |
William Heniff, AICP, Secretary |
Zoning Board of Appeals |