Village of Lombard Legistar System

O. ZBA 05-09: 444 E. Taylor Road (Waiver of First Requested and Waiver of

Public Hearing Fees)

Requests a variation from Section 155.406 (F) (4) of the Lombard Zoning Ordinance to

reduce the required rear yard setback to twenty-two feet (22'), where thirty-five feet (35')

is required to allow for the construction of an addition in the R2 Single-Family Residence

District. The petitioner is requesting a waiver of first reading as well as a waiver of

public hearing fees. (DISTRICT #6)

The petitioner, Sean Carney, 444 E. Taylor Road, stated he is requesting a variation so

that he can build an addition to his house. He stated that the variance request was

granted in 2003. He noted that he did not get a chance to start the project before his

deployment to Iraq. He stated that his request is basically a renewal of the variance

granted in 2003. He noted that he is not moving the garage, he would be connecting the

garage to the house with a new addition where a screened patio currently exists.

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

against the petition.

Michelle Kulikowski, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She stated that the

petitioner intends to replace a concrete patio and screen porch with a one-story addition.

She stated that the proposed addition will not encroach any further into the rear yard

than the existing detached garage (maintaining the rear yard setback at approximately

22 feet), and the addition will meet all other setbacks. She noted that the proposed

addition will maintain the lines of the existing home and will be attached to the house.

Ms. Kulikowski mentioned that this will make the garage an attached garage and as

such requires a 35 foot setback. She stated that the screen porch is set back 5 feet

from the interior yard property line and the new addition will be setback 7 feet from the

side property line which will bring the structure into conformance in this area. Ms.

Kulikowski noted that staff has traditionally supported variations that would allow an

addition to match an existing building line, and since the variation will not decrease the

rear setback, staff supports this request.

Ms. Kulikowski noted that staff would like to add a fourth condition of approval limiting

the variance to the existing structure so in the event the house is destroyed, the new

residence must meet all current zoning requirements.

Chairperson DeFalco opened the meeting for discussion and questions by the Board

Members.

Chairperson DeFalco asked if any of the plans had changed since the variance request

in 2003. Mr. Carney stated that the plans were the same.

Chairperson DeFalco called for additional comments or discussion, there being none the

vote was called.

It was moved by Corrado, seconded by Bedard, that this matter be

Recommended for approval to the Corporate Authorities subject to the amended

condition(s). The motion carried by the following vote:

Chairperson John DeFalco, Corrado, Newman, Polley and Bedard

Enactment No: Ordinance 5669

1. That the petitioner shall develop the site in accordance with the plans submitted as

part of the petition and dated May 17, 2005.

2. That the existing screen porch and patio be demolished entirely before construction

of the addition.

3. Any new foundations shall be installed per code and tied into the house and garage

foundations.

4. The variation shall be limited to the existing residence. Shall the existing residence

be reconstructed in its entirety due to damage or destruction by any means, the new

residence will meet the current zoning requirements and setbacks.

P. ZBA 05-10: 67 S. Chase (Waiver of First Requested)

Requests a variation to Section 155.210(A)(3)(b) of the Lombard Zoning Ordinance to

increase the maximum allowable height of a detached accessory structure from

seventeen (17) feet to seventeen point six (17.6) feet in the R2 Single-Family Residence

District. Staff is requesting a waiver of first reading. (DISTRICT #5)

Thomas Ludlow, property owner, presented the petition. He stated that he constructed

a detached garage in light of his growing family. He stated that due to a builder's error

the garage exceeded the maximum height by seven inches.

Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for public comment. Scott Wendell, the

contractor, stated that the error was an honest mistake. He stated that there was a

recent change in the measurement of garages in the Village. He stated that the

approved plans did note a maximum of seventeen (17) feet. He stated that

measurements are calculated five different ways depending on the locale. Mr. Wendell

said that the intent of the ordinance was to keep neighborhoods uniform. He stated that

he was asking for mercy since it was a mistake. He stated that they had a signed

petition from neighboring properties.

David Trucano, a neighboring property owner, stated that he lives across the street from

the property. He stated that the petitioner has done lots of work on the house. He sated

that he did not have a problem with the requested variation. No one spoke against the

petition.

Angela Clark, Planner II, presented the staff report. Ms. Clark stated the maximum

garage height allowed is seventeen feet measured from grade to the highest point on

the structure. She stated that the petitioner applied for and received a building permit to

construct a garage that was seventeen feet in height. Ms. Clark noted that the Village

Board approved a text amendment in 2004 modifying the measurement of accessory

structure height. She stated that structures were previously measured according to a

formulated height, thereby giving a structure slightly more height than the measured

height. She stated that due to a number of concerns from both residents and trustees

regarding the increasing height of structures, the text was changed to allow an overall

measurement of seventeen feet. Ms. Clark stated that staff could not support the

variation, as there was not a hardship present. Ms. Clark stated that the seventeen-foot

requirement was identified on the permit. She stated that staff has historically

recommended denial for requests that resulted from both staff and contractor errors.

Chairperson DeFalco opened the meeting for discussion among the members.

Mrs. Newman asked if staff typically indicated that the measurement of height takes

place from grade. Ms. Clark stated that the maximum height is noted on the plans if

measurements are close to the maximum, however the permit did not note

measurement from grade. She stated that the measurement of height from grade is

identified in handouts for structures.

Chairperson DeFalco read aloud the comments from the Building Department that were

included in the staff report. He stated that the Village has made builders remove

incorrect foundations in the past.

Mr. Bedard asked if the height could be corrected by crowning the roof. Mr. Wendell

replied that because of the gable roof it could not be done without going down to the

wall.

Chairperson DeFalco asked if it could be done with an A-frame. Mr. Wendell stated that

it wouldn't look right. He stated that there was a water holding situation. He stated that

the Village required the installation of a dry well.

Mr. Bedard asked if the garage was completely constructed. Mr. Ludlow stated that it

was.

Ms. Clark stated that the error was discovered during a final inspection. She noted that

previous structures were required to be removed after exceeding height requirements.

Mr. Ludlow stated that the inspector did not know the maximum height required. He

stated that the inspector asked him if the permit was approved for seventeen (17) feet or

for nineteen (19) feet. He stated that the inspector called the office and told him that it

was seventeen (17).

Mr. Wendell stated that the garage was actually only one inch above the height

requirement depending on where it was measured. He described the base and

foundation. He noted that the permit did not indicate where the measurements would be

taken.

Mr. Bedard stated that the intent of the change to the ordinance was to prohibit the

large, two story garages that were being constructed in some neighborhoods.

Dr. Corrado concurred with Mr. Bedard's comments. He stated that it was an honest

mistake and not the intention to construct a larger garage.