Village of Lombard Legistar System

Michael Mallon, owner of the subject property, presented the petition. He submitted a

handout which included a summary of points for consideration as well as photographs of

the fence. He began his presentation by clarifying the plan for the proposed fence. He

noted that an eight foot (8') by eight foot (8') clear line of sight area would be removed

from the fenced area, but ultimately, a ten and one-half foot (10.5') by eight foot (8')

clear line of sight area would be maintained. The existing fence extends one and

one-half feet (1.5') from the garage and then extends parallel to the driveway.

Mr. Mallon stated that his family has lived in the home for ten years. He noted that when

he purchased the home, the fence as it is proposed conformed to Village Code. He

mentioned that the Village Code was changed without any notification. He noted that

there isn't any statistical data to support the rationale for the twenty foot (20') by twenty

foot (20') clear line of sight area. He stated that the regulations were excessive in

absence of any statistical data.

Chairperson DeFalco opened the meeting for public comment.

Joan Polley spoke against the petition. She stated that she drives past the petitioner's

house noting that she lived on Berkshire. She stated that it frightens her because she

wouldn't be able to see if a child were running into the street.

Chairperson DeFalco then requested the staff report.

Michelle Kulikowski, Planner I, presented the staff report. She stated that the petitioner

submitted a previous petition (ZBA 06-13) for a variation for a fence located on the

subject property. She noted that originally, the petitioner was only asking for a height

variation for the fence. However, the petitioner installed the fence prior to consideration

by the Zoning Board of Appeals. She mentioned that the fence as installed did not meet

the regulations for fences with clear line of sight areas. She stated that the petitioner

then requested a second variation to allow the fence to remain as constructed with a

solid fence within a clear line of sight area. She noted that the Lombard Board of

Trustees approved the height variation for the fence and denied the variation to allow a

solid fence within a clear line of sight. She mentioned that the petitioner has now

submitted another petition requesting a variation to allow a solid fence within a clear line

of sight area, and this petition is based on new plans that propose a different location for

the fence. She stated that the proposed plans will cut-out an eight foot (8') by eight foot

(8') area from the existing fence, and as the petitioner explained, it will essentially

provide a ten and one-half foot (10.5') clear line of sight.

Ms. Kulikowski stated that the fence that the petitioner has installed in the clear line of

sight area for the driveway consists of four inch (4”) pickets with a two inch (2”) opening.

She mentioned that Section 155.205(A)(1)(e)(1) of the Lombard Zoning Ordinance

states that fences over two feet (2') in height can only be located within a clear line of

sight area if they are open construction. She noted that by definition, the fence is

considered a solid fence as it only maintains approximately 33% of the surface area as

open space. She stated that the definition of solid fence requires at least 75% of its

surface area in open space which affords a direct view through the fence.

Ms. Kulikowski mentioned that the petitioner is proposing to modify the existing fence by

relocating portions of the fence to maintain a ten and one-half foot (10.5') by eight foot

(8') clear line of sight area adjacent to the driveway. She noted that the Board of

Trustees has approved similar variation requests in the past (ZBA 05-19). However,

staff does not support the variation request to allow a solid fence within a clear line of

sight area as it can pose a safety hazard. She mentioned that the purpose of the open

construction fence requirement is to provide visibility of pedestrians and oncoming

traffic.

Ms. Kulikowski stated that the Standards for Variation have not been met. She stated

that there are no conditions related to the property that prevent compliance with the

fence height regulations or clear line of sight requirements. She noted that the

regulations for fences within clear line of sight areas apply to all properties in all zoning

districts. She mentioned that the hardship has been created by the petitioner as a result

of the preference for the fence's location. She stated that the requested relief would be

detrimental to the public welfare as visibility of pedestrians and traffic is diminished.

Chairperson DeFalco opened the meeting for discussion among the members.

Mr. Young referenced the pictures that the petitioner submitted with his application. He

asked why there was a picture of the condominium project on Main Street.

Mr. Mallon stated that the picture illustrates the inconsistencies with the clear line of

sight regulation. He noted that the garage was within the clear line of sight area and

was more of a visual obstruction than his fence. Ms. Kulikowski noted that the drive

access shown in the picture is a one-way for cars to enter.

Mr. Bedard asked why the Village established the clear line of sight area for driveways

at twenty feet (20').

Ms. Kulikowski stated that the clear line of sight regulations for driveways have been in

effect at least since 1990. She noted that she was not familiar with why the clear line of

sight area was established at twenty feet (20') as opposed to any other number. She

mentioned that whenever a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is proposed, staff

surveys the neighboring communities and how their code addresses that particular

issue.

Chairperson DeFalco referred to the petitioner's statement that he was not notified about

the change in the fence regulations. He noted that changes to the Zoning Ordinance

must go through the public hearing process. He mentioned that the meetings are

televised and open to the public. He also noted that typically a change to the Zoning

Ordinance would go for two readings on the Board agenda.

Mr. Polley asked whether the contractor told the petitioner that the fence would be legal.

The petitioner stated that the contractor did not. Mr. Polley asked whether the

contractor applied for a permit. The petitioner stated that he applied for the permit

himself.

Mr. Young stated that perhaps this issue is bigger than a zoning variance. He noted that

if it is a bad ordinance, then it should be changed rather than having numerous petitions

for the same zoning relief. He mentioned that granting of variances sets a precedent.

Mr. Bedard suggested that the Zoning Board of Appeals forward a recommendation to

the Board of Trustees to look at the clear line of sight regulations.

Chairperson DeFalco noted that the role of the Zoning Board of Appeals is not to

determine the justification for an ordinance. The Zoning Board of Appeals's role is to

consider whether there is a hardship that warrants a variation.

Mr. Young stated that angling a fence along the twenty foot (20') by twenty foot (20')

clear line of sight triangle would eliminate approximately two hundred (200) square feet

from the fenced yard. He noted that the petitioner's proposal would eliminate

eighty-eight (88) square feet from the fenced yard.

Mr. Mallon noted that his proposal provides an eleven foot (11') clear line of sight along

the sidewalk, which is a reasonable compromise.

Mr. Young asked staff to summarize the past ZBA case for the fence at 734 S. Elizabeth

Street.

Mrs. Kulikowski noted that the petitioner for ZBA 05-19 received a fence permit, but the

permit didn't specify that in order to meet the open fence requirement, the fence must be

at least 75% open. She noted that the fence installed in the clear line of sight was

approximately 50% open. She mentioned that the Zoning Board of Appeals

recommended denial and the Board approved a variation to angle the fence to provide a

seven and one-half foot (7.5') by seven and one-half foot (7.5') clear line of sight area.

Thomas Schager, owner of the subject property, presented the petition. He stated that

he has lived in the house since 1997. He noted that because his family has grown, they

are looking for a larger home. He mentioned that they first considered doing an

addition, but they discovered that there are poor soil conditions on the property. He

stated that they bought another lot in Lombard to build a new home, but they were

unable to sell the house after disclosing the poor soil conditions. He mentioned that

they decided to demolish the existing residence and construct a new residence on the

property. He noted that they modified their floor plans to accommodate the corner lot.

Mr. Schager referenced a model of the proposed residence. He noted that the portion of

the house encroaching into the setback was only one story. He mentioned that the

existing home was built in 1924, and the property is unique because it was originally an

interior lot that became a corner lot. He stated that the existing house is only about

eight feet (8') from the corner side property line and the proposed residence would

improve the non-conformity. He also noted that the soil gets progressively worse as you

go north on the property. He mentioned that the backyard serves as drainage for other

properties.

Julianne Schager stated that there is a storm sewer inlet located at the north end of their

property.

Chairperson DeFalco opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke for or

against the petition.

Chairperson DeFalco then requested the staff report.

Michelle Kulikowski, Planner I, presented the staff report. She stated that the subject

property is located at the northeast corner of Martha Street and Hickory Street and is

approximately fifty-five feet (55') and one hundred eighty-three feet (183'). She noted

that the existing residence is setback approximately eight feet (8') from the corner side

property line. She mentioned that the petitioners desire a larger home, and they were

planning to construct an addition to the rear of the existing residence. She referenced

the soils investigation report that found poor soil conditions under the existing residence

and the area of the proposed addition. She noted that the report recommended

demolishing the existing residence and constructing a new residence on a caisson

foundation. She stated that the petitioners are proposing to construct a new residence

with a wrap-around front porch that would be setback fifteen feet (15') from the corner

side property line.

Ms. Kulikowski noted that the subject property is a substandard lot in that it is only

fifty-five feet (55') wide where the minimum required lot width in the R2 Single Family

Residence district is sixty feet (60'). She explained that the subject property was

originally platted as an interior lot known as Lot 3 of Hickory Road Homesites, but

Bretsnyders Resubdivision, recorded in 1971, dedicated the rear portion of Lot 3 and a

majority of Lot 4 as public right-of-way, and subsequently, Lot 3 became a corner lot.

Ms. Kulikowski stated that the existing residence is considered legal non-conforming

relative to the corner side yard setback. She noted that staff has generally been

supportive of corner side yard variances to construct additions maintaining the existing

non-conforming building line. She mentioned that because the poor soil conditions

make it difficult to construct an addition to the existing residence, the petitioners are

proposing to construct a new residence on a caisson foundation system.

Ms. Kulikowski noted that staff has previously supported corner side yard variations for

new construction (ZBA 05-03 and ZBA 06-06), but in those cases, the lots were fifty feet

(50') wide with lot areas of 7,800 square feet and 7,500 square feet. She mentioned that

the petitioner's property is 182' deep and 10,000 square feet in area and can

accommodate a larger house in terms of floor area because the length of the house can

accommodate for the narrow width. She stated that the hardship in this circumstance is

a personal preference for the proposed design.

Chairperson DeFalco opened the meeting for discussion among the members.

Mr. Young noted that the parkway appears to be eight feet (8') to ten feet (10') wide. He

asked staff if they knew how wide the parkway was. Ms .Kulikowski stated that she

didn't know the exact dimension, but the parkway appeared to be closer to fifteen feet

(15') wide.

Mr. Young recalled a past case where a setback variation was granted because the

adjacent parkway was wide, making it appear that the house was setback further. He

also noted that there isn't a sidewalk in the parkway adjacent to the subject property.

Chairperson DeFalco asked whether a sidewalk would be required with the construction

of the new residence. Ms. Kulikowski stated that the Subdivision and Development

Ordinance would require a sidewalk. Mr. Bedard asked how close to the property line

does the sidewalk have to be. Ms. Kulikowski noted that it would depend on the width of

the parkway, but she didn't recall what the engineering standards were for sidewalks.

Mr. Bedard stated that because of the poor soil conditions and the fact that the corner

side yard setback would be increased from eight feet (8') to fifteen feet (15'), he can

support the requested variation.

Chairperson DeFalco mentioned that because the soil conditions are worse on the

northern end of the property, the petitioners don't actually have the entire property to

use.

Mr. Young noted that the house could be built anywhere on the lot, it is just a matter of

at what cost. He also stated that he didn't find a house that is twenty-nine feet (29') to