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: Angela Clark |
Chairperson John DeFalco, Val Corrado, Mary Newman, Eugene Polley and Ed |
Bedard |
The following staff members were present: Angela Clark, AICP, Planner II; and Michelle |
Kulikowski, Associate Planner. |
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: |
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. |
It was moved by Bedard, seconded by Corrado, that this matter be |
recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval. The motion carried by |
the following vote: |
Enactment No: Ordinance 5670 |
On a motion made by Bedard seconded by Polley the minutes of the May 26, 2005 |
meeting were unanimously approved. |
On a motion by Polley and seconded by Newman the meeting was adjoured at 8:10 |
p.m. |
_________________________________ |
John DeFalco, Chairperson |
Zoning Board of Appeals |
_________________________________ |
Angela Clark, AICP, Secretary |
Zoning Board of Appeals |