Wednesday, September 27, 2006
7:30 PM
Village of Lombard
Village Hall Board Room
Zoning Board of Appeals
John DeFalco, Chairperson |
Mary Newman, Eugene Polley, |
Staff Liaison: Jennifer Backensto |
Meeting Minutes
Zoning Board of Appeals
Meeting Minutes
September 27, 2006
Call to Order
Chairperson DeFalco called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Roll Call of Members
Chairperson John DeFalco, Val Corrado, Mary Newman, Eugene Polley, Greg |
Young and Ed Bedard |
Present:
Also in attendance: Jennifer Backensto, AICP, Planner II; Michelle Kulikowski, AICP, |
Planner I; and Michael Toth, Associate Planner. |
Public Hearings
060541
ZBA 06-20: 614 E. Berkshire Avenue |
Requests approval of the following actions on the subject property located within |
the R2 Single-Family Residence District: |
1. A variation to Section 155.205(A)(1)(c)(2) of the Lombard Zoning Ordinance |
to allow a six-foot high fence in a required corner side yard where a maximum |
height of four feet is permitted. |
2. A variation to Section 155.205(A)(1)(c)(2) of the Lombard Zoning Ordinance |
to allow a six-foot high fence in a required rear yard abutting the front yard of an |
adjacent lot where a maximum height of four feet is permitted |
3. A variation from Section 155.205(A)(1)(e) to allow a solid fence within a clear line of |
sight area. (DISTRICT #4) |
Joseph G. Laspisa, attorney for the petitioner, presented the petition. Mr. Laspisa |
described the property and noted that it was a double lot that previously had a six-foot |
wood privacy fence. The fence had deteriorated over time until a portion on Berkshire |
collapsed. The property owner replaced that portion and then removed and replaced |
the rest of the fence. |
The petitioner then addressed the Standards for Variations. The location of the shed |
and AC unit prevent compliance with the 20-foot setback and the property owner |
experienced thefts during the time that the fence was missing. The property is unique in |
that it is a reverse corner lot. The owner wished to replace the fence for both security |
and the visual aspect, and no permit was necessary to replace the first 25 percent of the |
fence. There is no clear line of sight issue because the fence is 20 feet from the street |
pavement and there have been no known vehicle accidents at that location. There are |
three other corner properties in the area with six-foot high solid fences. Mr. Laspisa |
concluded by stating that his client had no intention to skirt the law and requests that his |
petition be approved. |
Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for public comment. There was no one |
present to speak for or against the petition. |
Chairperson DeFalco then requested the staff report. |
Jennifer Backensto, Planner II, presented the staff report. The subject property |
previously had a legal nonconforming six-foot high solid fence within the corner side |
yard and within the clear line of sight areas along both sides of the driveway. The fence |
also abutted the front yard of the adjacent property and had several sections that were |
in disrepair. The petitioner removed the entirety of the nonconforming fence and |
replaced it with a similar six-foot high solid fence. The Zoning Ordinance contains |
provisions that allow nonconforming fences to remain with the intention that, once a |
nonconforming fence reaches the end of its useful life, any replacement fence will meet |
current code requirements. In time, this allows for full compliance with the Zoning |
Ordinance. As such, the petitioner's replacement of the fence removed any legal |
nonconforming rights and requires that the new fence meet the four-foot height |
restriction and clear line of sight requirements. |
The petitioner raised several issues within the Response to the Standards for Variations |
with regard to privacy and crime. However, a variation may only be granted if there is a |
demonstrated hardship that distinguishes the subject property from all other properties |
in the area. Staff cannot support the variation for the following reasons. Six-foot high |
fences are not permitted within front yards or corner side yards due to the visual |
obstruction they create. Similarly, there are additional restrictions placed upon fences |
that abut a neighbor's front yard to prevent a such a fence from blocking the view from |
the front yard of the neighboring property. |
Ms. Backensto stated that three similar fences were mentioned within the petitioner's |
Response to Standards, but none of these fences were ever granted zoning relief. Staff |
conducted a review of all fence variations granted since 1996 and found only one case |
within one-half mile of the subject property. Therefore, if any of the identified |
nonconforming fences were to be replaced, the replacement fencing would be required |
to meet all code regulations. |
Staff does not support the variation request to allow a solid fence within a clear line of |
sight area as it poses a safety hazard. The purpose of the open construction fence |
requirement is to provide visibility of pedestrians and oncoming traffic. |
In order to be granted a variation the petitioner must show that they have affirmed each |
of the “Standards for Variation.” The standards have not been affirmed. Staff finds that |
there are no conditions related to the property that prevent compliance with the fence |
height regulations or clear line of sight requirements. The conditions are not unique to |
the subject property. The subject property is a reverse corner lot as its rear yard abuts |
the front yard of the adjacent property at 522 N. Vista. The Zoning Ordinance has |
specific fence regulations that apply to all reverse corner lots and clear line of sight |
areas within the Village. The ordinance has not caused the hardship as the fence could |
have been constructed per the ordinance requirements. The hardship has been created |
by the petitioner as a result of the preference for the fence's height and location. The |
requested relief would be detrimental to the public welfare as visibility of pedestrians and |
traffic is diminished. |
Staff recommends that the petition be denied in its entirety. However, the existing |
single-family residence has a corner side yard setback of only 15 feet. If the Zoning |
Board of Appeals finds that it would be appropriate to continue the building line |
established by the residence, a variation could be granted with the condition that the |
fence be shifted 15 feet off the property line. If such a variation is considered for |
approval, the petitioner should be required to obtain a fence permit. |
Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for discussion by the Board Members. |
Mr. Young asked if the fence had been professionally constructed. The petitioner stated |
that was installed by Suburban Fence in North Riverside. |
Mr. Bedard asked if the property owner had been aware that the replacement of the |
remaining 75 percent of the fence required a permit. The petitioner stated that he was |
aware of that requirement. |
Chairperson DeFalco stated that solid four-foot high fences are allowed within corner |
side yards, but not within a clear line of sight area. He noted that the property has two |
garages and asked if cars were kept in the garage facing Vista. The petitioner |
confirmed that they were. |
Chairperson DeFalco noted that there is a school one block southeast of the subject |
property. He asked if it were possible that a six-foot high solid fence could impair the |
view of the sidewalk from a vehicle backing out of the property. The petitioner stated |
that it was possible but was not a genuine safety issue as no accidents had occurred |
where a car could not see someone on the sidewalk. |
Mr. Bedard stated that the lack of known accidents at that particular location did not |
preclude the existence of a possible safety hazard. |
Chairperson DeFalco mentioned a case at School and Division where the ZBA members |
had recommended denial and the board concurred, demonstrating a history of concern |
with the safety of pedestrians. |
Mrs. Newman asked which direction the gates opened. The petitioner stated that they |
open into the property. |
Mr. Polley asked about the purpose of the fence. The petitioner stated that the fence |
was there when the owner purchased the property and that no neighbors have come in |
to express concerns over the fence. Chairperson DeFalco noted that future neighbors |
may not have the same opinions. |
Dr. Corrado noted that they should have come in for a permit as soon as they replaced |
more than 25 percent of the fence. |
Mr. Bedard stated that he was not inclined to be in favor of the petition at present, but |
they could look at alternatives if the homeowner were present. |
Chairperson DeFalco stated that a six-foot high open, ornamental fence would provide |
security if not privacy and there are other options to preserve a clear line of sight. He |
asked where the shed was indicated on the plat of survey. The petitioner said the shed |
is to the east of the deck, but even if the shed were accommodated the AC unit would |
still need to be moved. He added that a six-foot high ornamental fence would not stop |
intruders. |
Mrs. Newman asked if they had filed police reports during the time that the fence was |
down. The petitioner stated that the homeowners had been able to temporarily fix the |
fence. |
Chairperson DeFalco stated that, if the petition was denied, the fence would need to be |
removed and no new request could be made for one year. He stated that if the |
petitioner were willing to discuss ways to minimize the impact of the fence, the ZBA |
could consider those at the next meeting. He had great concern about the clear line of |
sight issues as well as the proximity of the fence to the sidewalk. |
Mr. Young stated that the fence could be dropped down to four feet. |
Mr. Bedard added that the fence could be angled. |
Mr. Young stated that he had no problem with the six-foot fence provided it was out of |
the sight triangle. |
Ms. Backensto asked to confirm that the petitioner would ask his client about having a |
six-foot fence outside of the clear line of sight areas. The petitioner stated that he would |
discuss that with his client and requested that the ZBA table the petition to the next |
meeting. |
It was moved by Young, seconded by Bedard, that this matter be tabled to the |
October 25, 2006 meeting. The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Chairperson John DeFalco, Corrado, Newman, Polley, Young and Bedard
6 -
060542
ZBA 06-21: 820 E. St. Charles Road |
Requests approval of a variation from Section 155.415 (D) of the Zoning Ordinance to |
reduce the required minimum lot area from 40,000 square feet to 20,727.26 square feet |
in the B4 Corridor Commercial District. (DISTRICT #4) |
Robert Mueller presented the petition. He described the location of the subject property |
as well as the surrounding zoning and land uses. There was previously a dilapidated |
residence on the property that has been removed. He became aware of the need for a |
lot area variation after submitting plans for a building permit. In this case there is no way |
to meet the lot area requirement because there is no available land. |
Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for public comment. There was no one |
present to speak for or against the petition. |
Chairperson DeFalco then requested the staff report. |
Jennifer Backensto, Planner II, presented the staff report. The subject property is |
currently a legal Lot of Record; however, it does not meet the minimum lot area |
requirements for the B4 District. The petitioner is requesting a lot area variation to allow |
for the redevelopment of the property as an office building. Aside from the lot area |
requirement, no other zoning relief is being requested. |
When this property was developed as a single-family residence in 1927, there were no |
minimum lot area requirements. In 1986, the Village approved a rezoning of the western |
side of the block from B4 to R2, leaving two remainder B4 parcels that did not meet the |
minimum lot area requirements for that district. |
Staff finds that the physical surroundings of the subject property create a hardship. Due |
to the configuration and zoning of the adjacent lots, there is no way this property could |
be redeveloped without some sort of zoning relief. There are three scenarios under |
which redevelopment could occur, all of which would require approval through the public |
hearing process: the proposed lot area variation, rezoning of at least three of the |
single-family residential properties to the north and consolidation with those properties, |
or a variation to the subdivision regulations regarding lot configuration. Staff feels that a |
lot area variation would be the most appropriate type of zoning relief in this case as it |
would avoid both the encroachment of commercial development into the neighboring |
residential area as well as setting a precedent to allow unusual, “L” shaped lots. |
Although the B4 zoning within the East St. Charles Road corridor reflects the Village's |
general desire to see redevelopment of entire block faces within this corridor, the |
previous approval of R2 zoning at 806 E. St. Charles Road prevents such a |
consolidated development. The granting of the requested lot area variation would not |
alter the character of the neighborhood or negatively impact the surrounding properties |
as the subject property has maintained the same boundaries since its development in |
1927. Furthermore, the granting of this variation would not grant a precedent for other |
properties within the corridor as the nearby R2 zoning and irregular lot configurations |
present a unique situation that is not found elsewhere in the corridor. |
Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for discussion by the Board Members. |
Mr. Young asked if there were any other issues associated with the redevelopment. Ms. |
Backensto stated that the permit had already been reviewed and the lot area variation |
was the only relief necessary. All transitional yards and other B4 District requirements |
will be met. |
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: |
Aye:
Chairperson John DeFalco, Corrado, Newman, Polley, Young and Bedard
6 -
060543
ZBA 06-22: 601 E. Sunset Avenue |
Requests a variation to Section 155.415(F)(2) to reduce the corner side yard setback |
from twenty feet (20') to ten feet (10') to allow for the construction of an attached garage |
on an existing legal non-conforming structure in the R2 Single Family Residential |
District. (DISTRICT #4) |
Wayne Holler, owner of the property, presented the petition. He stated that the existing |
two-car garage attached to his home was in disrepair. He noted that the north wall has |
sunken 12”. He mentioned that he has had soil tests done and the concrete restoration |
costs would exceed the cost to rebuild the garage. He stated that he wants to start over |
again from scratch and build a new garage of the same size and in the same location. |
Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for public comment. |
Michelle Kulikowski, Planner I, presented the staff report. She stated that the subject |
property is located at the southeast corner of Sunset Avenue and Edgewood Avenue. |
She noted that the existing residence has an attached garage that maintains a 10' |
corner side yard setback, and the petitioner wishes to demolish the existing garage and |
construct a new garage in the same approximate location. She mentioned that because |
the garage is legal non-conforming, a variation is needed in order to rebuild. |
Ms. Kulikowski stated that the petitioner has indicated that the garage is in disrepair and |
must be replaced. She referenced the photos submitted by the petitioner which were |
included in the appendix of the report demonstrating the poor condition of the garage. |
She also noted the comments from the Bureau of Inspectional Services in the staff |
report. Ms. Kulikowski stated that past building permit for the subject property revealed |
that the existing residence was built in 1972 without an attached garage, and in 1973, |
the previous property owner received a building permit to construct an attached garage. |
She noted that when the residence was originally built, it was positioned at a slight angle |
relative to the corner side property line along Sunset Avenue with the northwest corner |
setback 17.22' from the corner side property line and the northeast corner setback |
19.06'. She stated that the garage was constructed on the west side of the residence at |
a 10' setback from the corner side property line. She noted that the existing residence |
also includes a porch that maintains the same building line as the garage. She |
mentioned that the residence including the attached garage and front porch complied |
with the corner side yard setback at the time they were constructed as the corner side |
yard setback for single family residences wasn't changed to 20' until 1978. |
Ms. Kulikowski stated that staff supports the requested variation as relocating the |
attached garage in compliance with setback requirements does not seem to be a viable |
option. She noted that while there does appear to be sufficient space to build a new |
attached garage on the east side of the residence, 10' further back from the corner side |
property line in compliance with corner side yard setback, there would be some building |
code issues. She mentioned that the garage would obstruct some of the existing |
windows creating issues with the building code requirements for light and ventilation as |
well as the door to the solarium addition creating issues with building code requirements |
for means of egress. She stated that the garage cannot be relocated to the east side of |
the residence because the residence would not meet the 35' rear yard setback. |
Ms. Kulikowski stated that as far as the option of building a detached garage on the |
subject property, only a one-car detached garage could be built. She noted that with the |
required setbacks and 10' utility easement, there would only 17' for a garage on the east |
side of the residence. She noted that to the south of the residence there is only 15' for a |
detached garage when considering the minimum required setbacks and building |
separation. She mentioned the Zoning Ordinance prohibits accessory structures in front |
of the front wall of the residence, therefore a detached garage could not be located to |
the west of the residence. |
Ms. Kulikowski noted that there are several ZBA cases that provide precedence for the |
requested variation on the subject property. She referenced a recent case, ZBA 06-14, |
which granted a variation to allow an attached garage to be rebuilt at the same location |
maintaining the same 2.5' side yard setback as the existing non-conforming garage. |
She also mentioned that there have been other corner side yard variations granted in |
the Lombard Vista Subdivision such as ZBA 06-01 and ZBA 98-10. She stated that the |
proposed garage would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood as a |
majority of the corner lots in the Lombard Vista do not meet the 20' corner side yard |
setback. She noted that the proposed garage would not negatively impact adjacent |
properties as there has already been a garage at that location for over 30 years. |
Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for discussion by the Board Members. |
Chairperson DeFalco asked whether staff had checked whether the property was in |
compliance with the 50% minimum open space requirement. He noted that there was a |
pool on the property. He asked if the pool counted against open space. |
Jennifer Backensto, Planner II, noted that a pool would count against open space. |
Chairperson DeFalco asked whether condition three needed to specify damage or |
destruction of more than 50% of the value of the residence. |
Ms. Kulikowski stated that Section Three of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to |
non-conforming structures specifies that destruction of more than 50% is the point at |
which the building must come into compliance. |
It was moved by Young, seconded by Polley, that this matter be recommend to |
the Corporate Authorities for approval with conditions. The motion carried by the |
following vote: |
Aye:
Chairperson John DeFalco, Corrado, Newman, Polley, Young and Bedard
6 -
1. The approval of the corner side yard setback variation shall only be for the proposed |
attached garage reconstruction only, as shown on the site plans submitted as part of |
this petition. |
2. The petitioner shall apply for and receive a building permit for the demolition and |
reconstruction of the new attached garage. The garage shall meet all Village Code |
provisions. |
3. The variation shall be limited to the existing residence. Should the existing residence |
be damaged or destroyed by any means, any new structures shall meet all setback |
provisions. |
060544
ZBA 06-23: 145 E. Morningside Avenue |
Requests a variation from Section 155.212 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a central air |
conditioning unit as a permitted obstruction within an interior side yard in the R2 Single |
Family Residence District. (DISTRICT #5) |
John Suarino, owner of the property, presented the petition. He stated that he has put |
substantial effort in remodeling the home and making sure everything was done the right |
way. He noted that he hired an architect and consulted with the Village prior to moving |
forward with the project. He mentioned that the air conditioner was not an issue until the |
final inspection and it wasn't caught in the initial HVAC inspections. He stated that had |
they known beforehand, they would have located the air conditioner elsewhere. He |
noted that his contractor just naturally put the new air conditioner next to the existing |
one, thinking that it would be no problem. He stated that at this point, after the project is |
complete, there is no where else to place the air conditioner. |
Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for public comment. |
Michelle Kulikowski, Planner I, presented the staff report. She stated that the property |
owner applied for a building permit to construct a new front porch, two-story addition in |
the rear, deck, driveway and an attached garage. She noted that the building permit did |
cover HVAC work as a new furnace was indicated on the construction drawings, but the |
new air conditioning was not included She mentioned that the Bureau of Inspectional |
Service noticed during the final inspection that a new air conditioning unit was placed |
next to the house and notified the Community Development Department. She stated |
that the property owner was notified that the Community Development Department |
would not sign off on a final Certificate of Completion unless the air conditioning |
condenser was relocated or a variation was granted. |
Ms. Kulikowski stated that the Zoning Ordinance lists air conditioning condensers as |
permitted encroachments within rear yards, but does not list them as permitted |
encroachments within interior side, corner side or front yards. She noted that the intent |
was that air conditioning condensers within front and corner side yards would worsen |
the appearance of the streetscape and condensers within interior side yards could |
become a noise nuisance if it is placed too close to the windows of an adjacent |
Ms. Kulikowski stated that the air conditioning condensers are located in the eastern |
side yard. She noted that the residence on the adjacent property to the east is legal |
non-conforming as it only maintains a 3' setback from the side property line that it |
shares with the subject property. She mentioned that there is only a 9' separation |
between the two residences whereas the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would |
require at least a 12' separation between two residences. She noted that the residence |
on adjacent property does not have any windows on that side. |
Ms. Kulikowski stated that there are no reasonable alternatives for relocating the air |
conditioning condensers in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. She noted that the |
condensers cannot be relocated to the rear of the residence because of an existing deck |
and a window well. She mentioned that placing the condensers behind the garage |
would not be recommended because the efficiency would be greatly reduced due to the |
distance the line would have to extend to reach the furnace in the basement. She stated |
that there is not enough room to place the condensers on the other side of the house |
next to the driveway. She noted that the residence is setback far enough for the |
condensers to be placed in front and not be within the 30' front yard. However, the |
condensers would be visible from the street, creating an eye sore and the placement |
would not be consistent with the intent of the Code pertaining to permitted obstructions. |
Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for discussion by the Board Members. |
Chairperson DeFalco suggested that the petitioner ask for a waiver of first reading so |
that he wouldn't have any further delay in receiving the certificate of completion. |
Mr. Suarino stated that he had already submitted a written request for a waiver of the |
first reading. |
Ms. Kulikowski noted that staff can have the certificate of completion ready to be issued |
Friday morning following the Board meeting. |
Mr. Young asked whether the variation would cover the existing air conditioner. |
Ms. Kulikowski stated that the variation would apply to both air conditioners. |
Mr. Young asked whether the old air conditioner could be replaced. |
Mr. Kulikowski noted that the condition of approval is tied to the existing residence. The |
air conditioners would have to come into compliance when the residence is damaged or |
destroyed, not necessarily when the air conditioning condensers themselves are |
damaged. |
It was moved by Bedard, seconded by Polley, that this matter be recommend to |
the Corporate Authorities for approval with conditions. The motion carried by the |
following vote: |
Aye:
Chairperson John DeFalco, Corrado, Newman, Polley, Young and Bedard
6 -
1. The variation shall be limited to the existing residence. Should the existing residence |
be damaged or destroyed by any means, any new air conditioning equipment shall meet |
the six foot (6') interior side yard provisions. |
Business Meeting
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the August 23, 2006 meeting were approved by unanimous consent of |
the members present with the following corrections: |
At the top of Page 2 insert the following: |
Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for public comment. There was no |
one present to speak for or against the petition. |
On Page 3, last paragraph, 2nd sentence, strike the words "could send" and replace |
with "had sent". |
The revised minutes of the July 26, 2006 meeting were approved by unanimous consent |
of the members present. |
Planner's Report
Jennifer Backensto introduced Michael Toth, new Associate Planner. She gave his |
school and work background and indicated that he would be working with the ZBA |
members. |
Ms. Backensto also referred to staff's residential demolition permit memo. |
New Business
Unfinished Business
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:02 p.m. |
____________________________________ |
John De Falco, Chairperson |
____________________________________ |
Jennifer Backensto, AICP, Planner II |