Village of Lombard Legistar System

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.

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.

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

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

residence.

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.