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, Val Corrado, Mary Newman, Eugene Polley, Greg |
Young and Ed Bedard |
M. ZBA 04-09: 345 S. Stewart Avenue (Waiver of First Requested) |
Requests a variation from Section 155.406 (H) of the Lombard Zoning Ordinance to |
decrease the required open space from 50% of the lot area to 47.4% of the lot area, |
allowing the petitioner a total variation of 210 square feet of impervious area. The |
petitioner is requesting a waiver of first reading. (DISTRICT #5) |
Mr. Leonard J. Flood, property owner, presented the petition. Mr. Flood stated that he |
and his family have been residents of the Village for twenty-seven years and resided at |
the subject property for the last twenty years. He stated that the house is ninety-five |
years old and is the second oldest home on the block. Mr. Flood stated that he wanted |
to replace a two and a half car garage with a new garage and noted the dimensions. He |
stated that the existing garage is eighty to eighty-five years old. They intended to build |
the new garage in the same location as the existing however there's an existing utility |
easement in the rear of the property so the new garage would be located slightly closer |
into the yard creating an increase in ninety-six square feet of open space. He stated |
that the actual increase in coverage for the garage would be seventeen square feet. He |
stated that they would also provide a new driveway slope and drainage. Mr. Flood |
stated that the net increase with the driveway and garage would be one hundred and |
eight square feet combined. He referred to the staff report mentioning that when he |
purchased the property it was over the fifty- percent lot coverage and noted the |
subsequent improvements including an addition and replacement of a front porch. He |
stated that he was not notified that the lot exceeded the fifty- percent lot coverage when |
those building permits were issued. He stated that all of the garages in the |
neighborhood were in the rear of the lots and the new garage would be an improvement |
functionally and aesthetically. |
Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke for or |
against the petition. He then requested the staff report. |
Angela Clark, Planner I, presented the staff report. She stated that the lot exceeded |
fifty- percent lot coverage when the petitioner purchased the property. She mentioned |
that the zoning regulations regarding lot coverage were instituted in 1990 and previous |
building permits that the petitioner obtained were issued in error. Ms. Clark stated that |
there were no comments from the Inter-departmental Review Committee. She stated |
that the fifty percent open space requirement identified open space as a portion of a lot |
or property maintained as lawn, garden, field, woods, wetland, or other natural |
landscape area and is free of buildings, structures, and impervious surfaces. She stated |
that the petitioner is moving the new garage forward and modifying the driveway for a |
total of 109 square feet of new coverage. She stated that the additional square footage |
noted within the request was meant to address the existing nonconformity. Ms. Clark |
referred to the table in the staff report noting that there have been three requests |
approved since the year 2000 to exceed open space. She noted that two of the |
approvals were for replacement structures and one was for a new addition to a lot that |
already exceeded the open space requirement. Ms. Clark stated that given staff's close |
working relationship with the petitioner the report was submitted without a |
recommendation to avoid the appearance of any impropriety. |
Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for discussion by the Board Members. |
Mr. Polley asked if the petitioner owned the vacant property to the south of the subject |
property. Mr. Flood stated that the neighbors on the corner owned the property. |
Mr. Bedard asked if Mr. Flood had an elevation of the garage. Mr. Flood stated that he |
did not submit one for the petition, but the garage would be a standard two and a half |
car garage with a sixteen-foot door with a side door for access. He stated that the |
garage would have a gable roof style to match the existing style of the house. Mr. Flood |
said that it was not a garage with a second floor with rafters. |
Doctor Corrado asked why the petitioner was planning on a larger garage. Mr. Flood |
stated that the additional space would be for storage. |
Mrs. Newman asked if it was possible to move the garage in an additional two feet. Ms. |
Clark stated that new code requirements would require garages to be located ten feet |
from the rear and five feet from the side property lines. Mr. Flood stated that the existing |
garage was built within a utility easement. Mrs. Newman stated that she was referring |
to the north side of the garage. Mr. Flood stated that they considered moving to the side |
property line, but there was a tree that would have to be removed to accommodate that. |
Mr. Bedard asked if the garage could be moved forward. Mr. Flood stated that he |
believed that would change the character of the neighborhood as well as provide him |
with less usable space in the backyard. |
Chairperson DeFalco asked about the status of the current review on the ten-foot rear |
yard setback for garages. Ms. Clark stated that the requirements were awaiting the |
Board of Trustee's approval. |
Chairperson DeFalco asked if the requirement were passed would the petitioner have to |
move the garage an additional four feet forward. Mr. Flood stated that it was his |
understanding that the garage could be approved without moving it forward if the permit |
were submitted prior to the passage of the requirement. Ms. Clark stated that anyone |
that had applied for a permit prior to adoption of the new requirement would be subject |
to the current setback requirements. |
Chairperson DeFalco stated that very soon the ten-foot requirement would be the |
mandate of the neighborhood and other replacement garages would be subject to the |
new requirements, thereby changing the look of the neighborhood. Mr. Flood stated that |
the properties that currently exist on Stewart and Lombard have had new garages built |
six feet off of the property line. |
Chairperson DeFalco asked if the property to the south were to rebuild a garage after |
the new requirements they would be subject to the ten-foot rear yard setback |
requirement. Mr. Flood stated that was true. Chairperson DeFalco asked if a two-car |
garage wouldn't be adequate due to storage issues. He noted that another petition |
appeared before the Zoning Board and stated that the increased space was identified as |
necessary for storage. He noted that the ZBA had suggested using a pulley system for |
overhead storage rather than creating a second floor. He asked if the petitioner had |
considered such a system. Mr. Flood stated that they had not. Chairperson DeFalco |
stated that the ZBA did recommend approval for a replacement pool that was of the |
exact same dimensions and for an existing garage with a slight increase in area. He |
stated that this request was for a replacement garage with an increase in size of over |
twenty percent. Mr. Flood mentioned the amendments that are before the Board of |
Trustees noting that they are for maximum size of garages and that his proposed garage |
is smaller than the maximum allowed within the new requirements. |
Mr. Young stated that moving the garage forward was only going to be an increase of |
seventeen square feet of impervious surface and the rest is due to the driveway being |
larger. He stated that they should not get hung up on an issue that is seventeen square |
feet. Mr. Bedard stated that the existing garage would be considered a semi dilapidated |
structure and the new structure would be an increase of seventeen square feet. Mr. |
Flood stated that the driveway would be increased to straighten it out. |
Chairperson DeFalco questioned the comment in the petitioner's response to the |
Standards for Variation regarding drainage in the basement. He asked what the |
petitioner was planning to do for additional drainage relief. Mr. Flood stated that in the |
northeast corner of the house they currently get seepage due to water accumulating in |
the cracks. He stated that when the driveway is redone that should alleviate the water |
leakage. Chairperson DeFalco stated that he was concerned about water run off on |
other properties and asked if there was anything that staff could do to address that. Ms. |
Clark stated that Private Engineering Services reviewed all garage permits and if there |
were additional drainage provisions needed they would address them during the |
permitting process. |
It was moved by Bedard, seconded by Young, that this matter be recommended |
to the Corporate Authorities for approval. The motion carried by the following |
vote: |
Enactment No: Ordinance 5528 |
*C. ZBA 04-08: 324 S. Ahrens Avenue |
Requests a variation from Section 155.205 (A)(1)(c)(2) of the Lombard Zoning |
Ordinance to increase the permitted fence height in a required corner side yard from |
four feet (4') to six feet (6'). The Zoning Board of Appeals recommended denial. |
(DISTRICT #5) |
Mr. Topi Viitala, property owner of 324 S. Ahrens, presented the petition. Mr. Viitala |
stated that he was applying for a variation to place a six-foot privacy fence around his |
backyard that is on a corner lot. He stated that he would like to place the fence for |
safety and protection as well as to reduce the nuisance barking of his dog due to |
increased traffic patterns consistent with that corner. Mr. Viitala stated the corner is |
slightly unique since it is across from the Westmore Grade School and there would not |
be a tunneling effect, as it does not have a cross street like other corner lots. He stated |
that all of the houses on the opposite side of his backyard face their yard. He stated |
that they are also interested in placing a pool in the yard and feel that a six-foot fence |
offers added protection. Mr. Viitala also noted that there were known sex offenders |
located in the neighborhood and that was a concern as well. |
Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke for or |
against the petition. He then requested the staff report. |
Angela Clark, Planner I, presented the staff report. Ms. Clark stated that the petitioner |
applied for a building permit to construct a privacy fence on the rear and side lot lines of |
the subject property. Staff informed the petitioner that the Division Street property line is |
considered the corner side yard; therefore they would be restricted to a maximum height |
of four feet. The petitioner obtained a permit with the appropriate fence heights |
referenced by code for the varying sections of the fence. The petitioner informed staff |
that they would pursue a variation for the fence in corner side yard, which if approved, |
would be modified at a later date. During the preparation of the report staff went to |
photograph the property and discovered that the fence had been installed at a height |
greater than four feet in the corner side yard. |
Ms. Clark noted that the fence height regulations for corner lots had been previously |
workshopped before the Plan Commission and the Commission found that the present |
requirements should remain in place. She stated that staff therefore maintained |
previous recommendations not to support increased fence height in corner side yards. |
The four-foot height restriction is intended to provide adequate visibility for pedestrian, |
bicycle, and vehicular traffic. Staff believes that the allowance of taller fences within |
these areas creates a tunneling effect as one travels down the street. She also noted |
that was not a physical hardship to prevent compliance with the code, but rather a |
personal preference for a taller fence. |
Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for discussion by the Board Members. |
Mr. Young asked the petitioner if he hired a contractor or constructed the fence himself. |
The petitioner stated that he and his father in-law constructed the fence and he paid him |
for his time. |
Mr. Young stated that he was disturbed by the implication that the petitioner was aware |
of the four-foot maximum height requirement yet placed a six-foot fence. Mr. Viitala |
stated that he was a new homeowner and was not aware of the permit process. He |
stated that he had discussed the fence with friends and neighbors and believed that he |
didn't need a permit. He said that he purchased the fence and set up delivery. Mr. |
Viitala stated that upon discussing the fence with more people he discovered that a |
permit might be required. He stated that he went to the Village to apply for a permit and |
was informed that the maximum height was four feet and a variance would be required |
for an additional height. He stated that after reading the enforcement policies and |
considering the public hearing schedule he decided to erect the fence since he already |
had the supplies and materials. He stated that he believed placing the fence would |
allow the neighbors to see what the fence would look like and they could decided |
whether they were for or against it. If the variation were denied he would modify the |
fence height. |
Mrs. Newman asked if he applied for a variation before he constructed the fence. Mr. |
Viitala stated that he applied for the variation prior to constructing the fence. |
Chairperson DeFalco asked the petitioner when the fence was purchased. Mr. Viitala |
stated that he purchased the fence on May 19th. Chairperson DeFalco asked if that |
was prior to obtaining the permit. Mr. Viitala replied that it was prior to his application for |
a permit. He stated that he applied for a personal loan to finance the fence. |
Chairperson DeFalco asked when the variation application was submitted. Mr. Viitala |
stated that the application was submitted on June 24th. Mr. Viitala stated that they |
applied for a permit for the side and backyard which was approved twenty feet from the |
property line. They proceeded to construct to that side and went ahead and applied for |
the variation. Chairperson DeFalco asked for clarification that they applied for the |
variation on June 24th and then started the erection of fence. Mr. Viitala stated that was |
correct. |
Chairperson DeFalco mentioned prior requests pertaining to dogs and fences. He |
mentioned latticework that increased the fence by another foot which was a violation. |
He noted that the ZBA recommendation was to have the lattice removed so there were |
situations where a dog in the yard was not cause for a variation. He also stated that |
during those previous cases dog runs and electric fences were suggested to remedy |
address issues with dogs. |
Mr. Young stated that there was a previous case on Hammerschmidt approximately one |
block south where the petitioner had a pool. Chairperson DeFalco stated that the |
request was for replacement of an existing fence and the ZBA recommended approval. |
Mr. Young asked if that request was because of the pool or because of kids walking by. |
Chairperson DeFalco said that the request was made right after the requirement for |
fence permits was instituted. Mr. Young stated that the petitioner's request would be |
similar to that case. The petitioner stated that he intended to place a pool in the yard at |
a later date. Chairperson DeFalco mentioned that the petitioner's house was located on |
Ahrens and faced the west side of Westmore School but the traffic flows from Ahrens |
going north. He stated that the petitioner also has bus and car traffic going past your |
house. |
Mr. Polley asked if there was a line of site issue with the location of the petitioner's |
fence. Chairperson DeFalco said that there was not. He stated that the neighbor to the |
west had a four-foot wooden fence. |
Mr. Young asked the petitioner if he had indicated that there was a sex offender in the |
neighborhood. Mr. Viitala replied that there were two sex offenders that they were |
aware of and noted the vicinity of where they reside. Chairperson DeFalco stated that |
the area Mr. Viitala mentioned is located in Villa Park. |
Chairperson DeFalco asked what the requirements were for fences around a pool. Ms. |
Clark stated that pools at least four feet in height must have a lockable, removable |
ladder and fences less than four feet must be enclosed by a fence between four and six |
feet. Chairperson DeFalco asked if six feet would be the maximum and four feet the |
minimum. Ms. Clark replied yes. |
Mr. Polley stated that the white plastic fences are much more noticeable. |
Mr. Bedard stated that the four-foot ordinance is intended to provide visibility for |
pedestrian, vehicular, and bicycle traffic. He stated that the purpose of this ordinance |
does not apply to this property because it does not have an impact on driveways or |
corners. |
Mr. Young asked if there was a fence surrounding the entire yard now. Mr. Viitala stated |
that a fence completely surrounds the backyard now. Mr. Young asked if the front yard |
was unenclosed now. Mr. Viitala stated that there was not a fence in the front yard. |
Chairperson DeFalco stated that the fence is a cream colored plastic fence. Mr. Viitala |
stated that they decided on a vinyl crรจme colored fence as opposed to a wooden |
painted fence for minimal wear and tear. |
Chairperson DeFalco asked if the slats of the fence were six feet high because the |
posts appeared to extend up five to six inches. Mr. Viitala stated that the boards were |
sixty-eight inches and the actual posts were six feet. |
Chairperson DeFalco stated that he was concerned that even though the product was |
purchased that the fence was erected knowing it would have to come before the Zoning |
Board and giving the board the present situation "will you allow it now that I have it" |
despite knowing the requirements from the beginning. He stated that he was also |
concerned about theorizing about a pool that might be cause for a hardship. The Plan |
Commission workshop established that the four-foot requirement is preferred and the |
duty of the Zoning Board is to determine if there is a hardship to allow for a variation |
from the requirement. Ms. Clark stated that staff had previously supported fences that |
were six feet but would not be in the front yard area of a neighboring lot. |
Chairperson DeFalco stated that the neighbor's house to the west faces Division. He |
stated that the neighboring property now sees a six-foot fence where he has a four-foot |
fence. Mr. Viitala stated that this was correct. Chairperson DeFalco stated that by |
building a six-foot fence to the sidewalk, the neighbor to the west looks at a six-foot |
fence whereas anyone else with a corner side yard would have a four-foot fence. He |
stated that this does impact the neighbor and the neighbor's name was not on the |
signed petitioner in favor of the fence. Mr. Viitala stated that he was not aware of the |
petition and had he known about it he would have requested the neighbor's signature. |
Mr. Viitala stated that another factor in their placement of the fence was that a brand |
new residence on a Division Street corner lot also constructed a six foot privacy fence. |
The neighbor to the west has never had any bad remarks and said it looks great. Ms. |
Clark stated that staff did survey the block and there were two fences that were not in |
compliance. She stated that one fence appeared to be old and with no proof as to when |
it was erected the fence would be considered legal nonconforming. She stated there |
was also a six-foot fence in the corner side yard of a newly constructed home and that |
address was passed on to code enforcement. |
Doctor Corrado asked when the fence permit requirement was instituted. Ms. Clark |
replied that they were instituted sometime in 2002. |
The Board Members then discussed previous fence height variation requests and the |
resulting outcomes. |
It was moved by Young, seconded by Newman, that this matter be |
recommended to the Corporate Authorities for denial. The motion carried by the |
following vote: |
The minutes of the June 23, 2004 meeting were approved by unanimous consent of the |
members present with the following correction: |
Greg Young indicated that even though he was not present at the meeting, he was |
aware that the petitioner for ZBA 04-07, Robert Gianatsio, is the president of the |
business and not the owner of the business as indicated in the minutes. |
Angela Clark introduced the new Associate Planner for the Village of Lombard, Michelle |
Kulikowski. Ms. Clark mentioned her school background, previous work experience, |
and her duties with the Village. |
On a motion by Polley and seconded by Bedard, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 |
p.m. |
________________________________ |
John DeFalco, Chairperson |
Zoning Board of Appeals |
________________________________ |
Angela Clark, AICP, Secretary |
Zoning Board of Appeals |