Village of Lombard Legistar System

Adriene Mahal, 429 S. Craig Place, property owner and petitioner, introduced Juan

Chapa of 430 S. Craig Place to present the petition. Mr. Chapa stated that they were

requesting a variation for a 8-foot by 8-foot by four-foot dry well with a capacity of 243

cubic feet to be placed on the low spot of the property.

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, stated that although the petitioner is installing a dry well

to fulfill the drainage and flooding mitigation requirements generated by the increase in

impervious surface area, the dry well is unrelated to the requested open space variation.

Ms. Backensto then presented the staff report. The petitioner is requesting a variation to

decrease the required open space from 50 percent of the lot area to 44.5 percent of the

lot area. The property currently meets code with 64 percent open space. The petitioner

wishes to exceed the maximum allowable lot coverage by 440 square feet to

accommodate a driveway extension and a new 720-square foot detached garage.

Ms. Backensto stated that the 50 percent open space requirement does not preclude

the petitioner from constructing a detached garage on the subject property. The

petitioner could meet code by reducing the size of the proposed garage, shifting the

garage location toward the house, and/or removing the 227 square feet of paving in front

of the house.

Furthermore, the Standards for Variations have not been affirmed. The petitioner's

property does not have unique physical limitations that limit the owner from meeting the

intent of the ordinance. The lot is not unusually small. The lot is 8,000 square feet,

which exceeds the minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet in the R2 District. The

conditions are not unique to the subject property. The design and layout of the

petitioner's property is typical of any R2 Single Family Residential lot in the Village of

Lombard. The hardship has not been caused by the ordinance and has instead been

created by the extent of the existing and proposed improvements to the property, and

granting the request could be injurious to neighboring properties because overbuilding

single-family lots contributes to a loss of the neighborhood's suburban character.

Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for discussion by the Board Members.

Mr. Young asked for a brief explanation of dry wells. William Heniff, Senior Planner,

stated that dry wells are a form of engineering mitigation. The well is formed by digging

a pit, filling it with stone, and covering it with topsoil. The gaps between the stones can

incorporate storm runoff. Dry wells are a way for single-family homeowners to address

stormwater without needing to construct a detention pond.

Mr. Chapa stated that the deck is more like a patio in that it is low to the ground.

Mr. Bedard asked why the proposed garage is so large. Mr. Chapa stated that it would

accommodate two cars and a camper. Mrs. Mahal added that the garage would hold

the camper and a workshop to free up the basement for family functions.

Mr. Polley asked if they had ever had a topographic survey done because the property

appears to be higher than the neighboring properties. The petitioner stated that they did

not have a topographic survey. Mr. Chapa stated that the dry well would collect all of

the additional runoff.

Mr. Bedard noted that the comments from Private Engineering indicated that the soil

quality is not conducive to a dry well. Ms. Backensto stated that because of the soil's

high clay content, a dry well in this location may not perform as well as it could in ideal

soil.

Chairperson DeFalco asked when the previous variation had been granted on this

property. Ms. Backensto stated that had been granted in 2001.

Mr. Young noted that a deck is not impervious. Mr. Heniff referred to the definition of

open space. The construction of a deck transforms an area that was used passively

into an active use area. Open space regulations look at the appearance of bulk. If one

only considered whether or not a structure was impervious, a property owner could

theoretically cover the entire backyard with a pervious deck.

Chairperson DeFalco asked when the deck was built. Mrs. Mahal stated that she did

not know.

Chairperson DeFalco asked if there was currently a garage on the property. Mrs. Mahal

stated that they did not have a garage.

Chairperson DeFalco noted that a two-car garage could be constructed without any

zoning relief. Mr. Young added that they would also need to remove some pavement.

Chairperson DeFalco asked why the pavement extended all the way to the front stairs

and if the existing asphalt would be replaced as part of the proposed improvements. Mr.

Chapa stated that the area was used for parking because there was no garage and that

the asphalt would be replaced.

Chairperson DeFalco stated that they could add more green space by removing

additional driveway pavement to the rear of their house. Mrs. Mahal stated that the

pavement in question is now a basketball court.

Mr. Young asked for clarification on the proposed dimensions and location of the

garage. Ms. Backensto stated that the submitted plans show a 24-foot by 30-foot

garage that would be three feet from the property lines.

Mr. Polley asked if the neighbors were for or against the proposal. Mrs. Mahal stated

that they get along with their neighbors and have had no complaints.

Chairperson DeFalco asked if notice had been given to the neighboring property

owners. Ms. Backensto stated that a notice of public hearing had been sent to all

properties within 250 feet of the Mahal's property. Mr. Chapa confirmed that he had

personally received a notice.

Mr. Bedard stated that the variation requests do not have much to do with the neighbors

as they do with the question of hardship. He added that in the past the Zoning Board of

Appeals has been careful to recognize that neighbors frequently change and one

neighbor's opinion might be different from the next.

Mr. Chapa stated that all the neighbors have two-car garages and he believes the intent

of the ordinance has been satisfied.

Mr. Bedard stated that they were not concerned with drainage but with open space. He

has debated the request but cannot support anything less than 50 percent open space.

Mr. Chapa asked if the removal of the pavement in front of the house would be enough

to bring the property into compliance with code. Ms. Backensto stated that it would not

as the proposed plans exceed the 50 percent requirement by 419 feet. Chairperson

DeFalco observed that there was only approximately 230 square feet of pavement in

front of the house so they would still need an additional 200 square feet.

Mr. Chapa stated that he would be concerned about the ability to maneuver vehicles.

Moving the garage forward by three feet would create an alley behind the garage that

would receive no sun and where no grass would even be able to grow. Mrs. Mahal

noted that one of the neighboring garages was pushed forward and the area behind it is

filled with weeds and not utilized.

Chairperson DeFalco asked why the 30-foot depth was needed. Mr. Chapa stated that

it would be to accommodate working tools and work space. Mrs. Mahal stated that they

wished to use their basement as living space.

Mr. Young noted that the garage would not be large enough to accommodate two cars

and a camper as previously stated. Mr. Chapa stated that one of the cars would be kept

in the driveway.

Chairperson DeFalco noted that the petitioner would easily get within 100 square feet of

the required open space. Mr. Young stated that removing a corner of the existing deck

would both enhance maneuverability and contribute additional open space. Mr. Chapa

stated that he would need to speak with Mr. Mahal about reducing the length of the

garage.

Mr. Young asked if the public hearing fee would be refunded if the petition were

withdrawn. Mr. Heniff stated that it would not as the public hearing had already been

conducted.

Mr. Young stated that it appears the petitioners can accomplish what they're looking for

without the need for a variation. Mr. Bedard asked if they would be willing to come back

before the Zoning Board of Appeals to request less of a variation. Mr. Chapa and Mrs.

Mahal indicated that they would.

Chairperson DeFalco noted that if the proposed variation were denied, the petitioners

could not request another similar variation for one year. Mr. Young stated that they

should table the discussion until the next meeting to allow the petitioners an opportunity

to revise their plans.