Village of Lombard Legistar System

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.

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

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.

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