Zoning Board of Appeals
Village of Lombard
Meeting Minutes
John DeFalco, Chairperson |
Mary Newman, Eugene Polley, |
Staff Liaison: Angela Clark |
7:30 PM
Village Hall Board Room
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
Call to Order
Roll Call of Members
Chairperson John DeFalco, Val Corrado, Mary Newman, Eugene Polley, Greg |
Young and Ed Bedard |
Present:
The following staff members were present: Angela Clark, AICP, Planner I; and Michelle |
Kulikowski, Associate Planner. |
Public Hearings
040524
ZBA 04-11: 916 E. Division Street |
Requests that the Village approve a variation from Section 155.205 (A)(1)(c)(2) of the |
Lombard Zoning Ordinance to increase the permitted fence height in a required corner |
side yard from four feet (4') to six feet (6'), for the subject property located within the R2 |
Single Family Residential Zoning District. The Zoning Board of Appeals recommended |
denial. |
The current owner of the property, Frank DiMatteo, began the presentation of the |
petition. He stated that he purchased the property from the builder on October 1, 2004. |
He stated that the property had a unique topographical condition in that the grade at the |
house was twenty-seven inches (27") higher than the grade at the parkway. He noted |
that if he placed a four-foot (4') fence along the corner side yard, then they would only |
have twenty-one inches (21") of privacy fence. He mentioned that there was only one |
house facing the fence in the corner side yard and the fence would not be detrimental or |
injurious to other properties. He stated that there isn't a tunneling effect because the |
fence is already set back two feet (2') from the sidewalk. He noted that School Avenue |
dead ends at the Prairie Path, and therefore there is limited traffic traveling past his |
corner side yard. |
Mr. DiMatteo also stated that he had two dogs and with the property being located |
across the street from an elementary school, he was concerned that children could |
reach over the fence or the dogs could jump over the fence. He noted that moving the |
six-foot (6') fence to a twenty-foot (20') setback would hinder him from using his |
backyard. He also noted that if he cut the fence to four feet (4'), he would have two |
different fence heights which would be aesthetically unappealing. He stated that a |
six-foot (6') fence was more in proportion with the house, which is thirty-one feet (31'). |
Mr. DiMatteo then went through the standards for variations. He stated that his property |
had unique topographical conditions. He noted that when he was looking for a house he |
wanted to find a property with a sloped yard, and he did not see many that had this type |
of pitch. He stated that the ordinance did create a hardship because setting a six-foot |
fence back twenty feet (20') from the property line would result in the loss of part of his |
back yard. He mentioned that there are several other houses in the area with six-foot |
(6') fences in the corner side yard. He also referenced the staff report that stated that |
there were no permits on file for the other six-foot (fences) and one fence was denied a |
variance in July, 2004. |
Mike Fisher with Inifinity Construction, who built the house on the subject property, |
spoke on behalf of the petition. He stated that he called the Village to schedule a post |
hole inspection and found out that an inspection is not required. He also noted that he |
had the Building Department fax him a copy of the fence regulations. He asked the |
building department how the regulations were enforced. He mentioned that after he |
noticed several six-foot (6') fences on corner lots, when the maximum allowable height |
is four feet (4'). He stated that the Building Department told him it was only enforced on |
a complaint basis. He also mentioned that he didn't realize that the fence was not |
included with the building permit for the house. He stated that he has done other fences |
in town and wasn't aware that a permit was required, but will make sure to get a permit |
next time. |
Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke for or |
against the petition. He then requested the staff report. |
Michelle Kulikowski, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She stated that the |
petitioner was issued a building permit for the construction of the house located on the |
subject property in September 2003, but did not indicate a fence to be included with the |
permit. She noted that the petitioner called the Building Department to see if they |
needed a fence hole inspection and was told that the Building Department does not |
require fence hole inspections. She also noted that the petitioner also asked to have a |
copy of the fence guidelines faxed to them and was aware of the regulations for fences |
located within a corner side yard. |
Ms. Kulikowski stated that the standards for variation have not been met. She noted the |
petitioners comment regarding the twenty-seven inch (27") slope from the house to the |
sidewalk, but stated that this is common for houses to be built in this way for storm |
water drainage. She also stated that the petitioner's property was comparable to other |
corner lots in the area and there was no unique hardship. She noted that the hardship |
has not been created by the ordinance, but rather a personal preference for a higher |
fence height and more specifically the installation of the fence outside of the code |
requirements. Ms. Kulikowski stated that the placement of a six-foot (6') fence adjacent |
to a neighboring front yard may be aesthetically displeasing as it decreases the |
appearance of open space within a front or corner side yard. In regards to other corner |
lots in the area with six-foot (6') fences, she stated that these fences did not have |
permits, and one had sought a variation, which was recommended for denial by the |
ZBA. |
Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for discussion by the Board Members. |
Mr. Bedard noted that in the past the Board of Trustees has overturned a |
recommendation for denial from the Zoning Board of Appeals for a six-foot (6') fences in |
the corner side yard on a property with a similar pitch. He also mentioned that he drove |
by the property and did not find that there was a tunneling affect. |
Mr. Polley asked why the petitioner didn't get a permit. He stated that the Board of |
Trustees was trying to get rid of six-foot (6') fences in the corner side yard. He also |
noted that the petitioner put up the fence without approval knowing that it was in |
violation with fence regulations. |
Mr. Young asked whether it was just the western edge of the fence that was in violation. |
Chairperson DeFalco stated that the western portion and the seventeen feet (17') from |
the western edge to the house in the front was in violation. Chairperson DeFalco asked |
if the rear fence belonged to the neighbor and whether it was existing prior to the |
construction of the petitioner's fence. Mr. Fischer stated that the rear portion of the |
fence was on the neighbor's property and they tied their fence to the existing one. He |
also stated that in doing that, their fence is thirty inches (30") off of the sidewalk. Mr. |
Young asked if the fence also followed along the eastern property line and tie into the |
house. Mr. Fischer stated that the fence does run along the eastern edge at a height of |
six feet (6'). |
Chairperson DeFalco stated that his concern was that the petitioner's property was |
located near the elementary school and there are a lot of children on the sidewalks. He |
mentioned that the fence would create a sight obstruction and could be a potential |
safety hazard. |
Mr. Fischer stated that the fence was not on the property line and the fence would only |
obstruct the view of someone coming out of the backyard of the duplex. Mr. DeFalco |
asked about height regulations relating to the neighbor's portion of the fence. Angela |
Clark, Planner I, stated that the portion of the neighbor's fence within twenty feet (20') of |
the western property line could only be a maximum of four feet (4') in height, the |
remainder could be up to six feet (6') in height. Chairperson DeFalco stated that in |
essence the fence that the petitioner tied into should only be four feet (4') in height, and |
actually both fences would require a variation. |
Chairperson DeFalco also mentioned that the requirement to obtain permits for fences |
was instated because people were putting up fences in violation of code. He noted that |
should the fence come down, code enforcement would require that a fence no taller than |
four feet (4') be erected in its place. He stated that granting a variation in this instance |
would set a precedence to allow others to put up six-foot (6') fences in corner side |
yards. In relation to the old fence, a variation would enable the petitioner and neighbor |
to rebuild the fence if it were damaged. |
Mr. Fischer noted that the sidewalk ends at his rear property line and it becomes private |
property. He also mentioned that the street dead-ends at the Prairie Path and there |
wasn't any access to the Prairie Path from the street. He also stated that the street was |
in essence used as a parking lot because all of the residents in the duplexes to the north |
park their cars on the street. Mr. Fischer also noted that South Broadway isn't even a |
public street. Ms. Clark stated that the Village was actually in the process of having the |
street rededicated back to the Village. |
It was moved by Bedard, seconded by Young, that this matter be recommended |
to the Corporate Authorities for approval. The motion failed by the following |
vote: |
Aye:
Young and Bedard
2 -
Nay:
Chairperson John DeFalco, Corrado, Newman and Polley
4 -
It was moved by Newman, seconded by Polley, to recommended to the |
Corporate Authorities for denial. The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Chairperson John DeFalco, Corrado, Newman and Polley
4 -
Nay:
Young and Bedard
2 -
040526
ZBA 04-13: 1020 Kenilworth |
Requests a variation from Section 155.406 (F) (4) of the Lombard Zoning Ordinance to |
reduce the required rear yard setback from thirty-five feet (35') to three feet (3') to allow |
for the construction of a second story addition and roofed-over porch in the R2 |
Single-Family Residential District. |
Daniel Halpin, owner of the property, presentation the petition. He stated that his |
mother and stepfather had owned the property since 1987. He noted that his stepfather |
had constructed an enclosed porch and the following year added a dining room off of the |
kitchen. He stated that after his stepfather passed away he moved into the house with |
his wife and kids, in an effort to keep the home and take care of his mother. He stated |
that an addition to the house was necessary to accommodate his family of six. Mr. |
Halpin noted that he had hired an architect to draw plans for addition, and by building |
over the existing dining room, they could provide two more bedrooms and a bathroom |
on the second floor. He also mentioned that they planned to construct an enclosed |
porch that extended across the front of the house and wrapped around the sides to |
make the exterior look nicer. |
Mr. Halpin provided elevations of the proposed addition. He noted that they were not |
planning on encroaching any farther into the rear yard - they were just going straight up. |
He mentioned that his lot was a double-wide lot that was one-hundred feet (100') wide. |
He stated that the house was set back roughly eighty feet (80') from the front property |
line, but the proposed front porch would bring the house closer to the front property line, |
making the house fit in better with the neighborhood. He also noted that only two feet |
(2') of the proposed porch would encroach into the required thirty-five foot (35') setback. |
Mr. Halpin made reference to the staff report that stated the ordinance did not create a |
hardship. He noted that in a sense it does create a hardship because he can't move |
the house thirty-five (35') and can't match the addition. He noted that even after the |
construction of the addition, the side yards would be quite large and would not create an |
encroachment or noise issue. He made reference to the Fire and Building Departments |
concerns about the existing overhead utility wires. He stated that the poles stood on the |
other side of the fence in the Kenilworth Court area. He mentioned that there is no |
neighbor behind him, just a cul-de-sac. |
Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for public comment. Barbara Dean, who |
resides at 47 S. Westmore, spoke in favor of the petition. She stated that her lot is |
directly across from the petitioner's home. She noted that she has lived there for 44 |
years and has always fought against anything she felt was not right. She stated that her |
neighbors have done nothing but improve the neighborhood. She stated that petitioner |
has a nice big lot and does not create a density issue. She mentioned that they are |
lovely people, and she feels that the neighborhood has improved with them. She noted |
that she approves the variation because it would improve the neighborhood and she |
would like to see them stay. |
No one spoke against the petition. Chairperson DeFalco then requested the staff report. |
Michelle Kulikowski, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She noted that the |
petitioner's house is currently setback three feet (3') from the rear property line and |
seventy-eight feet (78') feet from the front property line. She stated that the house was |
built in 1921 prior to the establishment of the Lombard Zoning Code and is considered a |
legal non-conforming structure. She also noted that zoning relief was granted in 1988 to |
allow for the construction of an addition at the southwest corner of the house. She |
stated that because the addition was located at the front of the house, the variance |
request was to decrease the rear yard setback from thirty feet (30') to seventeen and |
eighty-two hundredths feet (17.82'). She stated that the current variance request is to |
decrease the rear yard setback from thirty feet (30') to three feet (3') because the |
proposed second story addition will extend all the way to the rear wall of the house. |
Ms. Kulikowski noted that houses within the R2 Single Family Residential District are not |
typically setback that far from the front property line and referred to the aerial photo |
within the staff report. She also noted the private street, Kenilworth Court, which abuts |
the rear property line. She mentioned that in the past, staff has recommended approval |
for variances allowing second story additions on legal non-conforming structures, but in |
this circumstance staff is concerned about the degree of the non-conformity. She noted |
that the proposed second story addition will increase the intensity of the use on the |
property and thus increasing the bulk visible to the neighbors to the rear. |
Ms. Kulikowski presented comments from the Inter-Departmental Review Committee. |
She stated that both the Fire Department and the Bureau of Inspectional Services were |
concerned about the overhead utility lines running along the rear property line. She |
noted that the clearance for the existing house, as well as the proposed addition, would |
not meet the National Electrical Code. Ms. Kulikowski also referred to a memo |
submitted by the Fire Department after the staff report was sent out, which stated that |
the Fire Department had concerns about gaining access to the rear of the house in the |
event of a fire emergency. Ms. Kulikowski went through the standards for variations and |
concluded that the standards for variations had not been affirmed. |
Ms. Kulikowski stated that staff does not have any objection to the proposed roofed-over |
porch. She stated that the porch will also bring the house closer to the front property |
line, making the house more consistent with the overall characteristics of the area. She |
noted that the petitioner could build by right, a slightly modified version of the porch |
since the entire porch, with the exception of the most northern two feet along the west |
side of the house, meets the 17.82-foot setback that was granted in 1988. She also |
noted that the petitioner could also build part of the second floor addition, which would |
include the proposed bathroom and south bedroom, by a matter of right. |
Ms. Kulikowski stated that Inter-Departmental Review Committee makes a |
recommendation for denial of ZBA 04-13. She also stated in the event the Board |
chooses to recommend approval of the relief associated with ZBA 04-13, staff has an |
outlined conditions as part of an alternate recommendation. |
Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for discussion by the Board Members. |
Mr. Young asked for clarification of the National Electric Code requirements related to |
overhead utility lines. Ms. Kulikowski stated that if a structure is within three feet (3') of |
the utility lines, there needs to be at least an eight-foot (8') vertical clearance. Mr. Young |
stated that it did not look like the house met the required distances. The petitioner |
stated that there is a power pole sitting at the northeast corner of the property and he |
knows that the pole existed prior to his stepfather's construction in 1988. Mr. Young |
asked if the back of the house was always set back three feet (3') and two stories high. |
Ms. Dean stated that the second story has existed as long as she has lived in her |
house, and she has lived there for over forty years. |
Mr. Young asked the petitioner what he would do if he had to modify the addition to meet |
the National Electric Code. The petitioner said if he couldn't bring the addition straight |
up, there would not be enough room for his family and they would have to move. He |
stated that he could not move the house. Mr. Young noted that if the variation is |
approved, the proposed construction would still be subject to the building codes and |
National Electric Code, but those codes do not have any relevance to the variation |
request. |
Chairperson DeFalco stated that the petitioner's house sits on a very large lot. He noted |
that the front of the house is actually about forty feet (40') from the rear lot line, meaning |
that almost the entire house is within the required thirty-five foot (35') rear setback. Mr. |
DeFalco suggested the petitioner keep the house to live in and build a new home in |
front. The old house could be knocked down after completion. The petitioner stated |
that his mother wanted to finish her life out in her house. Ms. Kulikowski noted that two |
principal structures are not allowed on a single lot. The house would have to be |
demolished before the construction of a new home could begin. The petitioner stated |
that his intent was to invest a considerable amount of money into the house, and it |
would not make sense to knock it down. |
Chairperson DeFalco stated that in many situations, the granted variation had been |
worded so that the variation would only apply to the current improvements on the |
property, and that if more than fifty percent (50%) of the house were destroyed, the |
house would then have to conform to the Village Code. |
Mr. Young made a motion to approve the variation subject to the conditions mentioned |
in the alternate recommendation in the staff report and subject to the condition that the |
variation only apply to current improvements on the property. |
Chairperson DeFalco asked whether the variation that was granted in 1988 would still |
be valid. Ms. Clark stated that since there were no conditions to that variance, it would |
always remain with the property. |
Mr. Young stated that he does not want to see another house in the future built three |
feet (3') from the rear lot line. There is no encroachment to the neighboring lot but the |
house abuts a cul-de-sac. The petitioner stated that if they were to sell the property in |
the future, that most likely a buyer would look at subdividing the lot since it is one |
hundred feet (100') wide and over seventeen thousand (17,000) square feet. |
Chairperson DeFalco asked if the property were to be subdivided, if it would vacate the |
variance. Looking more closely the lot could not be subdivided at 100 feet. Ms. Clark |
stated that they would have to come back for a variation if the lot were subdivided. |
It was moved by Young, seconded by Bedard, that this matter be Recommended |
for approval to the Corporate Authorities subject to the amended condition(s). |
The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Chairperson John DeFalco, Corrado, Newman, Polley, Young and Bedard
6 -
1. The addition to the single-family residence shall be developed in accordance with the |
site plans prepared by Summit Custom Design and submitted as part of this petition; |
and |
2. The proposed development shall meet all codes of the Village of Lombard. |
3. That the variation shall be limited to the existing single family residence and |
proposed improvements. Shall the principal structure be razed in the future, any new |
development on the property shall meet all setback requirements. |
040525
ZBA 04-12: 332 N. Broadview |
Requests a variation from Section 155.212 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a central |
air conditioning unit as a permitted obstruction within an interior side yard in the R2 |
Single Family Residence District. |
Mr. Peter Djordjic presented the petition. Mr. Djordjic stated that he had two air |
conditioning units installed on the north side of his property. He stated the units were |
installed per the manufacturer recommendation of placement on the more shady part of |
the house. He stated that they did not know that the units encroached into the interior |
side yard until a building inspector noted it during final inspections of the home. Mr. |
Djordjic stated that the units do not bother the neighbors in their present location. He |
stated that he submitted a signed letter from the neighbors stating that. |
Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke for or |
against the petition. He then requested the staff report. |
Angela Clark, Planner I, presented the staff report. Ms. Clark stated that the air |
conditioner condenser unit is located on the north side of the property. She stated that |
the residence on the property is located thirty-two feet from the front property lines while |
the neighboring homes are more than one hundred feet from the property lines. The |
petitioner has stated that it would be inefficient and cost prohibitive to move the unit to |
the rear of the property. Ms. Clark referenced the pictures in the staff report. She |
stated that staff could support the variation for a number of reasons. She stated that the |
intent of the ordinance is to reduce any noise burden that neighboring property owners |
may experience with the placement of condenser units near their windows. She stated |
that the relocation of the units would place the units closer to the neighboring home |
considering the setbacks of the two homes. Ms. Clark stated that staff recommended |
approval of the petition and noted the two conditions contained within the staff report. |
Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for discussion by the Board Members. |
Dr. Corrado stated that he believed that staff had done a nice job with appropriate |
recommendations and the petition should be approved. |
Mr. Bedard mentioned the Fire Department comments. Ms. Clark stated that staff had |
noted the comments. Mr. Bedard stated that he did not believe that the comments |
would apply in this case. |
Mrs. Newman stated that the petitioner only has two units and if another house were |
built on the neighboring property he would have to move them anyway. |
It was moved by Corrado, seconded by Polley, that this matter be recommended |
to the Corporate Authorities for approval subject to conditions. The motion |
carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Chairperson John DeFalco, Corrado, Newman, Polley, Young and Bedard
6 -
1. That the air conditioning unit shall not be located closer than three feet for the |
interior side property line. |
2. In the event that the adjacent property at 332 North Broadview is redeveloped with a |
new single family residence, the petitioner shall relocate the air-conditioning unit to |
another location outside of any the required front or interior side yards. |
Business Meeting
Approval of Minutes
On a motion made by Corrado and seconded by Polley, the minutes of the August 25, |
2004 meeting were approved with the following corrections: |
Page 2, paragraph 5, 2nd sentence, change the word "horizontally" to vertically. |
Page 3, paragraph 9, 1st sentence, change "Board of Trustees" to Zoning Board of |
Appeals, and add the words "to research it" at the end of the sentence. |
The motion passed unanimously by the members present. |
Planner's Report
Angela Clark mentioned that the dates for the November and December meetings |
needed to be rescheduled due to the holidays. Staff suggested November 17 and |
December 15. The committee members approved those changes. Ms.Clark also |
mentioned that as of today, staff had not received any new petitions and there was a |
possibility that the November meeting could be cancelled. |
New Business
Dr. Corrado mentioned that he and two other committee members had attended the |
seminar sponsored by DuPage Mayors and Managers on Saturday in Oak Brook which |
covered topics such as how to conduct meetings as well as how to approach petitioners. |
He indicated that the seminar was very worthwhile and informative and complimented |
Mr. Hulseberg on his presentation about the Village. Dr. Corrado also indicated that in |
addition to Mr. Hulseberg there were three attorneys who spoke about the basics of |
what committees should do when listening to people. He shared those with the |
committee members: |
1 Should have a strong chairperson. |
2. Should hear all sides of a story and when making a recommendation explain why so |
the petitioners feel they have been heard. For example - the petitioner presented a |
good case, or the neighbors are for it. If it a good case, do not feel staff has the last |
word. |
3. Listen intently and make them feel comfortable. |
Mrs. Newman stated they also suggested that the committee members ask enough |
questions to be sure everything comes out and all topics are covered and she referened |
the Klarian court case. |
Also, one of the lawyers said that if a trustee happens to attend a meeting, he should not |
speak on behalf of his constituents or make any comments regarding the petition, since |
he will end up hearing it at a later date. Mrs. Newman stated that this advice makes |
sense as the trustee could be trying to influence their decision when he will be part of |
making the final decision. |
Dr. Corrado liked the quote Mr. Hulseberg used "Every great oak tree was once a nut |
that stood its ground". |
Mr. Polley suggested giving copies of the presentation. He mentioned the communities |
that attended and how good the presentation was. There was a good mix of people |
including zoning boards, planning commissions, village trustees and presidents. |
Dr. Corrado stated that Mr. Polley had asked if they were subject to litigation and the |
attorney stated they were. Mrs. Newman indicated that you have a lot of immunity when |
conducting the meeting. |
Unfinished Business
Adjournment
On a motion by Newman and seconded by Young the meeting was adjourned at 8:58 |
p.m. |
_____________________________ |
John DeFalco, Chairperson |
_____________________________ |
William Heniff, AICP, Secretary |