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, Mary Newman, Eugene Polley, Greg Young and Ed |
Bedard |
ZBA 05-12: 824 E. Wilson Court ( |
Requests a variation from Section 153.406(F)(4) to reduce the rear yard setback to |
twenty-one feet (21') where thirty-five feet (35') is required in order to construct an |
addition the R2 Single Family Residential District. |
Chairperson DeFalco announced that the petitioner was requesting that this item be |
withdrawn and that the Committee accepted the withdrawal. |
ZBA 05-14: 828 S. Fairfield |
Requests a variation to Section 155.406 (F)(3) of the Lombard Zoning Ordinance to |
reduce the minimum required interior side yard setback from six (6) feet to |
approximately two and a half (2.5) feet in the R2 Single-Family Residence District. |
Michael Niforatos presented the petition. Mr. Niforatos noted the required six (6) foot |
setback. He stated that the home was constructed in 1955 and has a two and a half |
(2.5) foot setback on either side. He stated that the house is twenty-four (24) feet and |
six (6) inches in length and seventeen (17) feet in height. He stated that he would like to |
extend the wall seven (7) feet and raise the peak of the roof. Mr. Niforatos stated that |
he understands the setback requirements and recognizes that they are intended to |
provide certain openness to the neighborhood. He stated that the house to the south |
has an eleven (11) foot setback. He stated that if his request were approved, the |
separation from the neighboring property would still be larger than required by Village |
code. |
Mr. Niforatos noted the standards for variation that were referenced in the staff report. |
He stated that there is room to the rear of the residence, however it would double the |
cost of construction. He stated that he did not feel it would be to the detriment of other |
properties as an encroachment already existed. He stated that the structure in question |
is already in place. He stated that there would not be a greater risk of fire hazard. He |
stated that the adjacent property's driveway is next to his home. He stated that there is |
thirty-five (35) feet between the adjacent house and his residence. |
Mr. Niforatos stated that the addition is intended to accommodate an expected family. |
He stated that his wife has lived in Lombard all of her life |
and they would like to raise their family here. He stated that without the variation the |
house would appear unbalanced if they were to shift the addition in to meet the setback |
requirements. He stated that he would like to raises the roof line across that side of the |
house if the variation were denied. |
Chairperson DeFalco opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke for or |
against the petition. |
Chairperson DeFalco requested the staff report. Angela Clark, Planner II, presented the |
staff report. Ms. Clark stated that the petitioner's residence was currently |
nonconforming as it was two and a half (2.5) feet from both property lines. She stated |
that since the addition would further increase the degree of the nonconformity a variation |
would be required. She stated that staff has traditionally supported variations that |
maintained the existing building line, however staff had several concerns as it related to |
the petitioner's property. She stated that a number of similar variations supported by |
staff were on existing lots where the lots were substandard in width and the residences |
were not located as close as the petitioner's to neighboring structures. She stated that |
staff found that there was sufficient room to build to the rear of the residence or code |
could be met by modifying the addition so that the new portion would meet the setback |
requirements. Ms. Clark stated that there were no physical hardships associated with |
the property and the new addition could further increase the risk for potential fire and |
safety hazards. Ms. Clark stated that staff was not supportive of the petition. |
Chairperson DeFalco opened the meeting for discussion among the members. |
Mr. Young stated that there was a previous petition that appeared before the Zoning |
Board in which staff supported the enclosure of a carport that was located within the |
required interior side yard. He referenced a home on Green Valley Drive. Mr. Young |
asked if there was a requirement for structures to be a minimum of twelve (12) feet from |
neighboring structures. He noted the distance of the petitioner's residence from the |
neighboring house where the proposed addition would take place. He asked if the |
neighboring property owner would be permitted to construct an addition closer than |
twelve feet from the petitioner's property. |
Ms. Clark stated that structures on lots must be located a minimum of twelve (12) feet |
from the principal structure on neighboring lots. Ms. Clark stated that the neighboring |
property could add an addition to their home as close as six feet to the property line, |
placing eight feet between the two residences. She stated that the nonconformity on the |
petitioner's lot would not prevent the neighboring owner from constructing to code. |
Mr. Young asked if it would be to the petitioner's detriment to construct an addition that |
close. Chairperson DeFalco stated that it would be to the neighboring property owner's |
detriment to be located that close. Chairperson DeFalco stated that the petitioner's |
block has experienced tear down activity. He stated that there are newly constructed |
homes on the block. He referenced a house under construction across the street from |
the petitioner's property. He stated that most new homes are maximizing the lot and |
being constructed right up to the setback requirements. |
Mr. Niforatos stated that if the neighbor's home were reconstructed to the present |
setbacks there would be eight and a half (8.5) feet between the two residences. |
Mr. Bedard noted the existing nonconformities on the petitioner's lot. He stated that the |
degree of the nonconformity would not be substantially greater if the addition were |
constructed. He also noted the distance from the neighboring house. |
Mrs. Newman asked if there were any other reasons other than monetary reasons for |
not wanting to construct to the rear of the residence. Mr. Niforatos stated that the |
second story of the house would need reconstructing if the addition were done to the |
rear. He noted the locations of the bedrooms and the bathroom. |
Mr. Young stated that previous requests for interior side yard variations have passed. |
He stated that the nonconformity would not be greater than the existing nonconformity. |
It was moved by Bedard, seconded by Young, that this matter be Recommended |
to the Corporate Authorities for approval subject to one condition. The motion |
carried by the following vote: |
1. That the variation shall be limited to the existing residence. Shall the existing |
residence be reconstructed due to damage or destruction by any means, the residence |
will meet the current zoning requirements and setbacks. |
On a motion by Young and seconded by Polley the minutes of the July 27, 2005 meeting |
were unanimously approved with one condition. On page 4, last paragraph, first |
sentence, omit the word "they". |
Chairperson DeFalco noted that the Community Forum would be meeting sometime in |
October and it has been requested that two people from the Zoning Board of Appeals be |
present. He requested that staff keep the Committee posted of the exact dates when |
they are determined. |
On a motion by Newman seconded by Polley the meeting was adjourned at 8:04 p.m. |
_________________________________ |
John DeFalco, Chairperson |
Zoning Board of Appeals |
_________________________________ |
Angela Clark, AICP, Secretary |
Zoning Board of Appeals |