Village of Lombard Legistar System

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