Village Hall |
255 East Wilson Ave. |
Lombard, IL 60148 |
villageoflombard.org |
John DeFalco, Chairperson |
Mary Newman, Eugene Polley, |
Greg Young, Val Corrado, |
and Ed Bedard |
Staff Liaison: Jennifer Backensto |
Chairperson John DeFalco, Mary Newman, Eugene Polley, Greg Young and Ed |
Bedard |
Also present: Jennifer Backensto, AICP, Planner II; and Michelle Kulikowski, AICP, |
Planner I. |
ZBA 07-01: 501 N. Garfield Street |
Requests a variation to Section 155.205 (A)(1)(e)(2) to allow a solid fence within a clear |
line of sight area. (DISTRICT #4) |
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. |
It was moved by Polley, seconded by Bedard, that this matter be recommended |
to the Corporate Authorities for denial. The motion carried by the following vote: |
ZBA 07-02: 206 E. Hickory Street |
Requests a variation to Section 155.415(F)(2) to reduce the corner side yard setback |
from twenty feet (20') to fifteen feet (15') to allow for the construction of a single-family |
residence in the R2 Single Family Residential District. (DISTRICT #5) |
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 |
thirty-four feet (34') deep to be outrageous. |
Chairperson DeFalco stated that in the past the Zoning Board of Appeals has supported |
variations in cases where there would be a decrease in the degree of non-conformity. |
It was moved by Young, seconded by Bedard, that this matter be Recommended |
to the Corporate Authorities for approval subject to one condition. The motion |
carried by the following vote: |
1. That the variation shall be limited to the existing residence. Should the existing |
residence be damaged or destroyed by any means, to the extent of more than fifty |
percent (50%) of the fair market value of the residence, then any new structures shall |
meet the full provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. |
On a motion by Bedard and seconded by Polley the minutes of the December 13, 2006 |
meeting were unanimously approved by the members present. |
The meeting adjourned at 8:34 p.m. |
_______________________________ |
John DeFalco, Chairperson |
Zoning Board of Appeals |
_______________________________ |
Jennifer Backensto, AICP, Planner II |
Zoning Board of Appeals |