Village of Lombard Legistar System

The petitioner, Ricardo Alvarado, presented the petition. Mr. Alvarado began by stating

that he is requesting the variance because he wishes to maintain the existing building

line, otherwise his addition would have to be substantially altered. He added that he

would like to keep the property aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Alvarado then stated that his

neighbors all agreed that the addition would look best as planned.

Chairperson DeFalco asked if anyone was present to speak for or against the petition.

There was nobody present to speak for or against the petition.

Chairperson DeFalco then requested the staff report. Michael Toth, Planner I, read the

staff report. Mr. Toth stated that the property contains a two-story single family

residence built (at the closest point) approximately 5.5 feet from the southern property

line. The petitioner plans to construct a two-story addition from the rear of the residence

expanding west and a one-story bedroom addition on the northwest portion of the

residence on an existing concrete block patio. The rear addition would maintain the

current building line of the existing residence. However, the residence does not run

parallel to the southern property line. As such, the degree of encroachment would be

increased into the interior side yard. As the residence already consists of an insufficient

side yard setback and the house sits on an angle, the proposed addition would increase

the level of non-conformity, thus requiring a variation. In an effort to bring the entire

property into full Code compliance, staff recommends that the non-conforming side yard

setback of the existing structure also be memorialized. Therefore, not only would the

proposed addition be granted zoning rights in relation to the side yard setback, but the

existing residence would also be afforded those same applicable rights.

Mr. Toth explained that the minimum interior side yard setback in the R2 - Single Family

Residence District is six feet (6'). The existing residence currently maintains a 5.5 foot

setback and does not run parallel with the southern property line. As the setback is less

than six (6) feet, it is considered non-conforming. The addition will maintain the building

line of the existing residence; as such, the addition would further encroach into the

required interior side yard setback. As the current residence is located 5.5 feet from the

property line and the proposed addition will be 5.1 feet from the property line at the

closest point, the increased degree of encroachment is roughly 4.5 inches. However

slight the encroachment, the addition would still remain clear of the existing five foot (5')

utility easement.

Mr. Toth mentioned that there are several ZBA cases that provide precedence for the

requested variation where the addition holds the building line of the existing residence,

but is located within the required side yard setback.

Mr. Toth stated that staff finds that this petition meets the Standards for Variations. A

majority of the neighboring properties appear to be built directly on or in close proximity

to the six (6) foot side yard setback lines. As such, the proposed addition would neither

be out of character in the neighborhood nor detrimental to the welfare of the public or

those neighboring properties.

Mr. Toth stated that staff is recommending approval of the side yard setback variation

subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report.

Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for discussion by the Board Members.

Mr. Young had asked if the 50% provision was necessary to include as a condition of

approval (condition #2) because in the event that the house were to be destroyed they

would utilize the same foundation.

Chairperson DeFalco replied by stating that the condition of approval would ensure that

if the house were to be destroyed beyond 50% the house would need to come into

conformance with Code. He also added that it would prevent the house or addition from

being expanded deeper into the lot in the event that the house was to be destroyed.

Chairperson DeFalco asked staff if the five (5) foot utility easement is measured from

the property line. Michael Toth responded that the five (5) foot utility easement is

measured from the property line.

Jerry Alm, owner of the subject property, presented the petition. Mr. Alm stated he was

at the meeting to request a variation for his fence which runs along Elizabeth Street. He

then submitted photographs of the fence to the Zoning Board of Appeals members and

submitted them to the record. He stated that the original fence was constructed before

he purchased the home in April 1998. Mr. Alm stated that he had constructed a new six

foot fence as a replacement without knowledge that a permit was necessary.

Mr. Alm stated that Elizabeth Street is busy with through traffic and sidewalk traffic. He

indicated that he is seeking the variation for the safety of his children, grandchildren, and

pets. He stated that he is worried that an individual could climb a four foot fence and be

bitten by his dog or worse drown in the pool. He stated the six foot fence is not a danger

to the neighborhood. He also indicated the property abutting the rear of his property has

a six foot fence in the corner side yard. He stated that he has moved the fence out of

the clear line of sight area and agrees that this was a safety issue. However, he stated

that the new fence has the benefits of safety and curbside appeal.

Chairperson DeFalco opened the meeting for public comment.

Ray Kern, 303 W. Potomac Avenue, stated that he lives about one hundred feet

northwest of Mr. Alm's residence. He stated that there has been a fence in the corner

side yard on the subject property since about the 1960's. However, the owner previous

to Mr. Alm installed a six foot fence because of the children walking to and from

Parkview School. He stated that in this opinion the new fence on the subject property is

an enhancement to the neighborhood. Also, he indicated that a shorter fence would be

an eyesore due to the six foot fence on the property to the rear of the subject property.

Chairperson DeFalco then requested the staff report.

Stuart Moynihan, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Mr. Moynihan stated

that the subject property is located at the northeast corner of Elizabeth Street and

Berkshire Avenue. The petitioner is requesting a variation to allow a fence six feet (6') in

height in the corner side yard where a maximum height of four feet (4') is permitted. The

petitioner constructed the proposed fence in July of 2008 as a replacement for a

previous non-conforming six foot (6') fence in the same area. The fence is located along

a sidewalk easement on the western side of the property. As the existing

non-conforming fence has been replaced, the new fence would be required to meet the

current zoning ordinance provisions, unless a variation is granted by the Village.

The Zoning Ordinance allows non-conforming fences to remain in existence provided

that once a non-conforming fence reaches the end of its useful life any replacement

fence will meet current code requirements. In time, this allows for full compliance with

the Zoning Ordinance.

The newly constructed fence currently stands within the twenty-foot (20') by twenty-foot

(20') clear line of sight triangle at the driveway on the subject property. The petitioner

has agreed to move the fence out of the clear line of sight area.

Six foot high fences are not permitted within corner side yards due to the visual

obstruction they create. A variation may only be granted if there is a demonstrated

hardship that distinguishes the subject property from all other properties in the area.

Within their request, the petitioners have raised a few issues related to privacy, safety,

and traffic concerns. While staff recognizes that these concerns are reasonable, staff

does not believe these concerns are demonstrative of a hardship.

In order to be granted a variation the petitioner must show that they have affirmed each

of the "Standards for Variation." The following standards have not been affirmed.

Staff finds that there are no conditions related to the property that prevent compliance

with the fence height regulations. The petitioner's property does not have physical

surroundings, shape, or topographical features that differ substantially from other corner

lots in the neighborhood as to be demonstrative of a hardship.

Staff finds that the conditions are not unique to the subject property. Many other

properties with a similar layout and design have been able to meet the established

regulations.

Staff finds that the fence could be constructed per the ordinance requirements either by

lowering the fence height to four feet (4') or changing the location so that the fence is

outside the corner side yard. The hardship has been created by the petitioner as a

result of the petitioner's preference for the fence's height and location.

Staff recommends that the petition be denied on the grounds that a hardship has not

been demonstrated.

Chairperson DeFalco opened the meeting for discussion among the members.

Mr. Tap asked the petitioner if he had obtained a permit previous to construction of the

Mr. Young mentioned the fence height in the corner side yard issue. He stated that the

issue has been discussed now for years and asked what was to happen next.

Chairperson DeFalco stated that the Board of Trustees has looked into the matter on

several occasions. He also added that there have been numerous workshops done and

memos drafted. Chairperson DeFalco stated that the Board dynamics have changed

over the years and that the Board members seem to be split on the issue. He stated that

those dynamics include the opinions of Board members that have been more recently

elected versus the opinions of more tenured Board members. He mentioned that when

speaking with the Village President on the issue, his stance was that if the Board were

to vote on the topic, he would vote in favor of the Ordinance.