Village of Lombard Legistar System

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.

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 crème 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.