Wednesday, April 26, 2006
7:30 PM
Village of Lombard
Village Hall Board Room
Zoning Board of Appeals
John DeFalco, Chairperson |
Mary Newman, Eugene Polley, |
Staff Liaison: William Heniff |
Meeting Minutes
Zoning Board of Appeals
Meeting Minutes
April 26, 2006
Call to Order
Chairperson DeFalco called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Roll Call of Members
Chairperson John DeFalco, Eugene Polley, Greg Young and Ed Bedard
Present:
Val Corrado and Mary Newman
Absent:
Also present: William Heniff, AICP, Senior Planner; and Jennifer Backensto, AICP, |
Planner II. |
Public Hearings
060198
ZBA 06-07: 429 S. Craig Place (Continued from April 26, 2006) |
Requests approval of a variation to Section 155.406 (H) to reduce the amount of open |
space on the subject property to 44.5 percent where a minimum of 50 percent open |
space is required, to allow for the construction of a detached garage and driveway within |
the R2 Single Family Residential District. |
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. |
It was moved by Polley, seconded by Bedard, that this matter be continued to |
the May 24, 2006 meeting. The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Chairperson John DeFalco, Polley, Young and Bedard
4 -
Absent:
Corrado and Newman
2 -
Business Meeting
Approval of Minutes
were unanimously approved by the members present with the following corrections: |
On page 6, last paragraph, second sentence, change the word approval to denial. |
On page 7, 1st paragraph, second sentence, change the word denial to approval. |
Planner's Report
New Business
Unfinished Business
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:17 p.m. |
________________________________ |
John DeFalco, Chairperson |
________________________________ |
William Heniff, AICP, Senior Planner |