Village of Lombard Legistar System

Anita Coughlan, owner of the subject property, presented the petition. She stated that

she was requesting relief to replace a four foot chain link fence and install a five (5) foot

fence that would provide the necessary screening from Maple Street. Ms. Coughlan

explained that Maple Street has a high volume of traffic and her existing fence does not

provide the proper screening from Maple Street. She noted that the porch in the back

yard is raised and the existing four (4) foot fence does not provide adequate screening.

Chairperson DeFalco opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke for or

against the petition. Chairperson DeFalco then requested the staff report.

Michael Toth, Planner I, presented the staff report. Mr. Toth stated that the subject

property is located at the northeast corner of Maple Street and Lombard Avenue. He

explained that the petitioner is requesting a variation to allow the installation of a solid

wood fence at a height of five (5) feet where only four (4) feet is permitted. Mr. Toth

added that the new fence will replace an existing four (4) foot chain link fence along the

southern property line.

Mr. Toth stated that staff notes that there is a change in grade on the subject property.

He mentioned that the elevation is highest at the western portion of the property and

gradually slopes to the south and southeast. Mr. Toth explained that the existing four (4)

foot fence height measurement was taken at grade from the southern portion of the

property at one of the low points. As the petitioner has represented that the hardship

associated with the variation is due to privacy concerns, Mr. Toth stated that staff

investigated the effects of the existing four (4) foot required fence height relative to the

rear yard elevations.

Mr. Toth stated that staff has consistently used the concept of "average grade" for

determining the height of structures, such as the proposed fence. He explained that in

circumstances where the grade changes substantially, measurements are taken from

several points. Typically, these measurements are averaged together to determine the

height for the purposes of verifying compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. He added

that in this case, different points were measured to determine the screening capabilities

of the fence in relation to the rear yard.

Mr. Toth stated that surveying equipment was used to determine that there is more than

a one (1) foot change in grade (precisely +1.25') between the patio area in the rear of

the house and the ground where the existing four (4) foot chain link fence is located. Mr.

Toth explained that the existing four (4) foot fence functions as a three (3) foot fence

when screening the patio area. In essence, allowing a five (5) foot wood privacy fence

would afford the petitioner the same level of privacy that a four (4) foot fence would

provide under a zero-grade deviation circumstance.

Mr. Toth explained that due to the change in grade, the existing four (4) foot fence

located on the subject property provides inadequate screening from Maple Street. Mr.

Toth added that fence height is measured at the location of the fence, but due to the

unique topographical characteristics of the subject property, the petitioner is unable to

utilize the full screening potential of a four (4) foot fence. He noted that there are no

clear line of site issues relative to the proposed fence.

Staff is recommending approval of the petition as requested.

Chairperson DeFalco opened the meeting for discussion among the members.

Dr. Corrado stated that he has a similar five foot fence in his rear yard. Dr. Corrado

added that a four foot fence does not provide enough screening, but a five foot fence is

perfect for screening.

Referring to the letter of opposition submitted by Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Tap stated that

there are no blocked views at the described intersection. Mr. Tap added that the fence

will be about sixty-four feet from the intersection.

Mrs. Newman asked the petitioner what type of fence she will be using.

Ms. Coughlan responded that she will be using a solid plastic fence that will require less

maintenance than wood.

Scott Rignier (neighboring resident) stated that he lives on Maple Street and it is a very

busy street. Mr. Rignier explained that a five foot fence would give noise reduction

benefits. He added that there is no reason to deny the petition.

Chairperson DeFalco stated that the subject case is an instance where the petitioner is

requesting relief for additional fence height in the corner side yard. He also explained

that the hardship associated with the case involves a deviation in grade between the

fence location and location of the rear porch. Chairperson DeFalco then stated that staff

has recommended approval of the case based on the deviation in grade. Chairperson

DeFalco then stated that there are a number of homes in Lombard that are raised up

from the grade.

Chairperson DeFalco then asked staff if Code already took grade deviations into

account. Mr. Toth responded that he was unsure what the Building Code is pertaining to

foundation leveling, but the fact of the matter in this case is that there is a discrepancy

as to where the fence is measured and where the rear porch is located in regards to

elevation.

Chairperson DeFalco asked staff if the corner side yard fencing affects pedestrians

and/or vehicles. Mr. Toth responded that it is all a matter of preference as to whether or

not fences in the corner side yard affect the neighborhood. Mr. Toth added that the

fences can create voids and hiding places for people and animals, which may create a

safety concern.

Chairperson DeFalco explained that a six foot fence would be allowed twenty feet in

from the property line. Chairperson DeFalco stated that there could be some sort of

compromise to bring the fence in ten feet from the property line.

Ms. Coughlan explained that she has a pond in that area so a ten foot setback for the

fence would not work. Ms. Coughlan mentioned that she has looked into alternatives.

She added that she could plant bushes at a height greater than four feet. She explained

that she didn't want to do bushes because they require maintenance and they can grow

over the sidewalk.

Chairperson DeFalco stated that the Zoning Ordinance prohibits bushes or hedges to be

taller than four feet in the corner side yard setback.

Dr. Corrado stated that homes must be elevated on the property for drainage purposes.

He then added that the height limit is four feet for a reason.

Sue Rignier (neighboring resident) stated that she has a six foot fence and there are

many other six foot fences and bushes along Maple Street. Ms. Rignier explained that

traffic has grown on Maple Street and the noise level has also increased.

Dr. Corrado asked if granting this approval would set precedence for fence height in the

corner side yard.

Ms. Newman stated that there are no line of site obstructions and staff had

recommended approval based upon the topography.

Mr. Toth responded that there are no clear line of site issues, which is mentioned in the

staff report. He referred to Mr. Tap's original comment regarding clear line of site by

stating that the fence will be set back back sixty-five feet from the west property line. He

added that Code only requires a thirty foot clear line of site area, which the fence

location is clearly a distance from. Mr. Toth added that if you are traveling southbound

on Lombard Avenue, the actual house located on the subject property would block the

view of Maple Street before the fence would. Mr. Toth stated that had there been any

clear line of site issues, staff would have had a different recommendation as clear line of

site issues are taken very seriously because of safety concerns.

feet (6') in the R2 Single-Family Residence District. (DISTRICT #4)

Karen Herbert, owner of the subject property, presented the petition. She stated that

her desire is to install a six foot fence on the west side of her property for security and

privacy reasons. She indicated that she had sought previous zoning relief in 2001 to

allow a roofed-over entrance in what the Village has designated her corner side yard.

However, she believes it to be her front yard. Mrs. Herbert stated that due to drainage

issues on the property the grading had to be adjusted. This caused her to lose her

landscaping and walkways. PVC pipe was installed around the property to assist with

drainage. Mrs. Herbert indicated that she believes she had suffered an undue hardship

by having to correct this drainage issue without the assistance of the Village.

Mrs. Herbert stated that the property slopes somewhat toward the sidewalk which limits

that privacy that could be provided by a four (4) foot fence. She stated that she has the

support of her neighbors to construct a six (6) foot fence in its proposed location. She

stated that the fence would add value to the neighborhood. She said that she

understood the intention of the ordinance. However, it does not make sense in these

circumstances. She further stated that she believed that due to these circumstances a

variation should be granted.

Chairperson DeFalco opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke for or

against the petition. Chairperson DeFalco then requested the staff report.

Stuart Moynihan, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Mr. Moynihan stated

the subject property is located at the southeast corner of Berkshire Avenue and Garfield

Street. The petitioner is requesting a variation to allow the installation of a fence six (6)

feet in height in the required front yard where a maximum of four (4) feet is allowed. The

petitioner states that a six (6) foot fence is necessary to provide privacy during usage of

an elevated deck on the property.

The petitioner has indicated in her written response and response to the Standards for

Variations that the yard along Berkshire Avenue is functionally the front yard rather than

the yard along Garfield Street. However, the yard along Berkshire Avenue was

previously established as the corner side yard in ZBA 06-01. As the residence was

constructed ten and six tenths (10.6) feet from the corner side lot line, it is considered a

legal non-conforming structure. This ZBA case granted a variation on the subject

property to reduce the corner side yard setback from twenty (20) feet to six (6) feet to

allow for the construction of a roofed-over entry stoop. If the petitioner were to be

allowed to designate the yard abutting Berkshire Avenue as the front yard, it would

cause a non-conformity with regard to the required front yard and rear yard setbacks.

As the petitioner's action would then be the cause of the non-conformity, a variation

would be necessary for the entire home.

Even if Garfield Street was established as the corner side yard, the setback for a six (6)

foot fence would still be thirty (30) feet on the subject property as the rear yard of 151 E.

Berkshire would abut the thirty (30) foot front yard setback of 437 N. Garfield St.

While the petitioner has raised concerns about privacy and safety, a hardship has not

been established on the property. A fence could be installed set back thirty (30) feet

which would provide privacy on the deck and in the garden.

Staff finds that there are no conditions related to the property that prevent compliance

with the fence height regulations. The petitioner's property does not have physical

surroundings, shape, or topographical features that differ substantially from other corner

lots in the neighborhood as to be demonstrative of a hardship.

Staff finds that the conditions are not unique to the subject property. The majority of

nearby residences along Berkshire Avenue are oriented in a manner similar to the home

on the subject property in that their primary entrances face Berkshire Avenue. With

regard to these properties, the primary entrances are considered to be facing the corner

side yard.

Staff finds that the fence could be constructed per the ordinance requirements either by

lowering the fence height to four (4) feet or changing the location so that the fence is

outside the front yard.

Staff recommends that the petition be denied on the grounds that a hardship has not

been demonstrated.

Chairperson DeFalco opened the meeting for discussion among the members.

Mr. Polley asked if the fence would cause any clear line of sight issues on Berkshire.

Chairperson DeFalco responded that the fence would be out of any clear line of sight

areas.

Mr. Tap asked if the space between the home and the fence would be ten (10) feet as

the submitted plans seemed to indicate.

Mrs. Herbert responded that this was accurate and the fence would be set back twenty

one (21) feet from the sidewalk.

Chairperson DeFalco stated that the fence would have to be set back thirty (30) feet

from the property line, not the sidewalk, to be allowed at six (6) feet in height.

Mrs. Herbert asked how the determination was made that the yard along Berkshire

Avenue is the corner side yard.

Chairperson DeFalco stated that this was the only way the front and back yard setbacks

could be met. He also stated that a typical width at the front lot line is sixty (60) feet as it

is on the subject property.

Mrs. Herbert stated that if you were to ask anyone where her front yard is they would

point to what the Village considers her corner side yard.

Chairperson DeFalco stated that the front yard setback is adjacent to Garfield Street

even if a door faces Berkshire Avenue. He said that a six (6) foot fence could be

constructed even with the house and would be within the ordinances.

Mrs. Herbert stated that she had paid for a landscape plan which enhances her property

and a fence even with the home would interfere with that plan.

Chairperson DeFalco stated that the neighbor on Garfield Street to the south would see

a six (6) foot high fence for the first ten (10) feet in front of their property. It could not be

guaranteed that the current owner to the south would be there forever, and there must

be consideration of future owners.

Mrs. Girardi stated that a four (4) fence would present a safety issue as there are three

schools in the immediate area. She expressed fear that a child might be tempted to

climb the fence and enter the pool. She stated that she hopes to replace the fence with

exactly what is currently on the property.

Chairperson DeFalco opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke for or

against the petition. Chairperson DeFalco then requested the staff report.

Stuart Moynihan, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Mr. Moynihan stated

the subject property is located at the southeast corner of Main Street and 16th Street.

The petitioner is requesting a variation to allow the installation of a new solid wood fence

six (6) feet in height in the corner side yard where a maximum of four (4) feet is allowed.

The proposed fence would be constructed along the corner side lot line. The fence

would replace an existing six (6) foot fence in the same location which has fallen into

disrepair.

The residence on the subject property is set back approximately eight (8) feet from the

corner side property line and therefore does not comply with the required twenty (20)

foot corner side yard setback. However, the residence was constructed prior to the

improvement of the 16th Street right-of-way and was not functionally a corner lot at the

time the residence was constructed. The subject property was annexed in 1992. The

existing six (6) foot fence was also constructed prior to both the right-of-way

improvements and annexation. The fence was legally constructed according to the

DuPage County Zoning Ordinance at the time.

Staff can support a variation due to the unique history and current situation on the

property. Both the residence and fence were legally constructed. When the property

was annexed, the house and the fence became legal non-conforming structures. The

layout in the back yard, which has remained essentially unchanged since annexation,

effectively negates the right to a six (6) foot fence at or beyond the required twenty (20)

foot setback. Concrete that surrounds the pool as well as portions of walkways would

be left outside the fence creating an awkward situation on the property.

Staff recommends that the petition be approved subject to the two conditions in the staff

report.

Chairperson DeFalco opened the meeting for discussion among the members.

Mr. Polley asked the petitioner what type of fence they had in mind.

Mrs. Girardi stated that the fence was a solid wood fence when she moved into the

house. She indicated that she would like to keep the same type of fence. She stated

that she has even considered removal of the pool, but it was too expensive.

Chairperson DeFalco stated that the Village Code states that pool should have fences

around them not less than four (4) feet in height. He stated that the neighboring

property along 16th Street has a six (6) foot wrought iron fence. He told the petitioner

that she could have a fence of the same type without a variation.

Mrs. Girardi stated that she has pets that might get through that kind of fence and that a

wrought iron fence would be too expensive for her budget.

Chairperson DeFalco stated that expense is not a hardship. However, there may be a

hardship stemming from the new road. He also stated that he understood the desire for

a six (6) foot fence because of the safety issue with so many children nearby.

Mrs. Girardi stated that the fence might have openings between the pickets. Those

openings would be approximately one and one-half inches (1½”).

Chairperson DeFalco stated that openings of that width would not be the seventy-five

percent (75%) open construction required for a fence in the clear line of sight area. He

then asked how the fence would affect the driveway on the neighboring property to the

Garett George, owner of the subject property, presented the petition. Mr. George stated

that the proposed fence is intended to enclose the backyard for privacy. The fence

would be five and one-half (5.5) feet in height and would be a continuation of the fence

on the neighboring property on Madison Street. He stated that the variation would only

be necessary for the first forty-three feet of fencing as the fence height regulations

would be followed beyond this. He added that an additional purpose of the fence would

be to block traffic noise and other sounds from busy Madison Street.

Mr. George stated that he believes a hardship is present due to the unusual

configuration of his lot. It is surrounded by streets on three sides. He stated that as a

result he effectively has three front yards and no rear yard.

Mr. George stated the fence would be the same style and height as the neighboring

fence. He said that the neighbor on Madison Street is supportive of his request.

Chairperson DeFalco opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke for or

against the petition. Chairperson DeFalco then requested the staff report.

Stuart Moynihan, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Mr. Moynihan stated

the subject property could be described as a peninsula lot being bordered by streets on

three sides: Madison Street, Charlotte Street, and Circle Terrace. As it fronts on two

parallel streets, the subject property is a through lot. The Lombard Zoning Ordinance

definition of a through lot states that both street lines shall be deemed front lot lines.

The petitioner is requesting a variation to allow the installation of a solid wood fence five

and one half feet (5.5') in height in the front yard along Madison Street where a

maximum of four (4) feet is allowed. The proposed fence would match the height of an

existing fence along the right-of-way line on the neighboring property to the east.

The peninsula arrangement of the subject property is uncommon in Lombard. This

unusual arrangement causes the subject property to have two separate thirty (30) foot

front yard setbacks and one twenty (20) foot corner side yard setback. Consequently,

there are substantial limitations on where a fence higher than four (4) feet could be

constructed. The proposed fence height would match the height of a neighboring legal

non-conforming fence on the adjacent lot.

A variation is only necessary for the western forty-three (43) feet of fencing along the

front lot line. The petitioner has proposed to install a four (4) foot chain link fence within

the clear line of sight area at the corner of Madison Street and Charlotte Street. The

fencing will then continue in a northerly direction within the corner side yard as a four (4)

foot solid wood fence.

Staff can support a variation due to the unusual layout of the subject property and

existing public rights-of-way. A hardship is present due to the characteristics of the

property which are not generally applicable to other parcels in Lombard.

The subject property is affected by the fence height regulations of both corner lots and

through lots. According to the Zoning Ordinance, the subject property has by definition

no rear yard. However, the petitioner gains vehicular access to the property from Circle

Terrace and primary access to the residence from Charlotte Street. The yard along

Madison Street is closest in functionality to a rear yard.

Staff recommends that the petition be approved subject to the three conditions in the

staff report.

Chairperson DeFalco opened the meeting for discussion among the members.

Chairperson DeFalco asked if the fence would be chain link at the clear line of sight

triangle.

Mr. George stated that it would.

Chairperson DeFalco stated that large shrubs and a tree in the area of the proposed

fence were acting much like a fence themselves. Mr. George stated that he has tried to

cut them back the best he can.

Chairperson DeFalco asked if the shrubs would stay and if the fence would be inboard

of those shrubs. He also asked if Mr. George would consider removing the shrubs and

trees.

Mr. George stated that the fence would be inboard of the trees and shrubs. He

indicated that he would like to keep the trees and shrubs as a sound barrier if possible.

Chairperson DeFalco asked if Mr. George would be willing to accept the condition that

the shrubs be kept at the same height as the fence. The trees could be left as they are.

Mr. George stated that he did not have an objection to the condition.

Chairperson DeFalco stated that he believed a hardship exists due to the nature of the

lot.

Dr. Corrado asked about the Village’s regulations regarding parking of trailers, boats,

and campers, and asked why the Village was so permissive when compared to other

communities. Chairperson DeFalco stated that the Village Board had looked at creating

stricter regulations, but there was significant opposition from the community to any

changes. Ms. Henaghan stated that staff had recently looked at creating a better

standard for what constitutes a legal hard surface, and she would let the ZBA know what

happened with those standards at the August ZBA meeting.

Dr. Corrado asked if it is legal to park a vehicle within a driveway apron. Ms. Henaghan

stated that she was not certain if that was allowable, but would get back to the ZBA with

an answer.

Mr. Polley asked if, given the rising cost of gas, the ZBA members could possibly be

reimbursed for miles driven by them as part of their site visits. Ms. Henaghan stated

that she would find out and let the ZBA know.