Village of Lombard Legistar System

Chairperson DeFalco stated that the petition was continued from the April 27, 2005

meeting. He stated that the members asked staff to provide more information regarding

homes in the neighborhood. He stated that the members received the information within

their packets. Chairperson DeFalco asked if the petitioner wanted to present anything

further.

Amy Grandsard, property owner, asked if staff was going to read the comments outlined

in the staff report. Angela Clark, Planner II, stated that she would summarize the report.

Ms. Grandsard stated that she would like staff to speak first.

Ms. Clark stated that staff reviewed plats of survey for each property within the

subdivision. She stated that the table on page two of the addendum outlined the

setbacks for each property as well as setbacks from decking or patios. Ms. Clark stated

that the lots in the subdivision were nearly identical and each lot was left with

approximately one hundred and five (105) feet of area after accounting for the setbacks.

Ms. Clark stated that regarding the property the petitioner identified during the previous

meeting, staff found a building permit that was noted as a roofing and siding repair. She

stated that while the permit implied repairs were being made to a nonconforming

structure, the enclosed screen room was actually constructed after issuance of the

permit. She stated that the permit had been issued in error since staff believed the

permit to be for repairs rather than new construction. She noted that staff has informed

the property owner that the structure could not be reconstructed if damaged or

destroyed. She noted that there was one other property in the neighborhood that

received a variation for the rear yard setback. She stated that the property at 1500

Acorn Court was recommended for denial by staff. She stated that the ZBA

recommended approval and the Board of Trustees subsequently approved the variation.

She stated that the ZBA did not reference any findings upon recommendation of

approval. Ms. Clark stated that she had the staff report and referral letter for the petition

if there were further questions.

Ms. Grandsard asked for clarification regarding the table within the staff report. She

asked what was the difference between the setbacks to the house and the setback to a

patio or deck. Ms. Clark stated that there weren't any requirements for patios and decks

are allowed to be as close as three feet from the property line. She stated that the

column referencing patios and decks were the rear yard setbacks to those structures.

Ms. Grandsard stated that staff focuses on precedent. She stated that given the

location of other structures within the neighborhood a precedent has already been set.

She asked why staff would maintain a recommendation of denial if a precedent were

already set.

Ms. Clark responded that staff's recommendation was based on whether or not there

was a hardship on the lot. She stated that staff did not believe there was a hardship for

the 1500 Acorn request and recommended denial. She stated that it is up to the

discretion of the ZBA as to what their recommendation is as well as the discretion of the

Village Board to whether or not the variation is approved. She stated that staff's findings

were consistent with the standards regardless of the previous resulting actions of the

ZBA or Village Board.

Ms. Grandsard asked why. Chairperson DeFalco stated that he did not want the

hearing to be a discussion between staff and the petitioner. He stated that the Village

Board made a judgment regarding the previous petition and the ZBA members would

review Ms. Grandsard's petition and make a recommendation.

Ms. Grandsard stated that the existing utility lines and location of her home in reference

to other properties represented the hardship on her lot. She stated that the neighboring

properties did not have an existing patio when they constructed their screen room. She

stated that other homes in the Pinebrook Subdivision have erected structures therefore

a precedent has already been set.

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

against the petition. Chairperson DeFalco stated that staff had already commented. He

asked if staff had anything further to add. Ms. Clark stated that she did not.

Chairperson DeFalco opened the meeting for discussion among the members.

Mr. Bedard asked what was the rear yard setback when the property was constructed.

Chairperson DeFalco stated that it may have been thirty feet then.

Mr. Young stated that we have made builders remove improperly placed foundations.

He asked why wasn't the neighboring property owner being asked to remove the

enclosed screen porch. He asked if removal was not requested since it was a staff

error. Ms. Clark stated that this could be why it is not being removed.

Mr. Young asked for clarification about the 1500 Acorn property. He stated that the staff

report indicated that the ZBA did not make a recommendation. Ms. Clark stated that the

ZBA recommended approval of the petition. She stated that comment in the staff report

referred to the lack of findings to substantiate the recommendation.

Dr. Corrado stated that the code change from thirty feet to thirty five feet was made to

allow for a line of sight area within backyards. He stated that the petitioner's structure

would not infringe on the sight of other structures or properties.

Mr. Young asked when was the property platted. Chairperson DeFalco referenced the

1982 date written in the staff report. He stated that the setbacks were thirty feet then.

Dr. Corrado stated that variations were granted in previous years for similar requests.

He stated that if the structure did not infringe on someone's view it should be approved.

He stated that she was asking for the same thing.

Mr. Polley stated that structures were located near the homes because of the slopes of

the rear yards. He asked if the petitioner had submitted floor plans. Chairperson

DeFalco stated that the plans were submitted with the original request.

Ms. Grandsard stated that the 16' by 11' patio was existing and they were hoping to

enclose the structure.

Mr. Bedard agreed with Ms. Grandsard that a precedent had already been set and

believed the petition should be approved.

Mr. Young stated that the ZBA recommends approval based on specific situations. He

stated that recommending approval on a precedent is a stretch.

Mr. Bedard stated that the petitioner is asking for the same thing.

Dr. Corrado stated that there are no sight issues.

Mrs. Newman stated that the ZBA must justify or deny the petition on its own merits.

Ms. Grandsard stated that they have an existing patio. She stated that her sight is

inhibited by the structure on the neighboring property. She stated that she took

exception to the information provided by staff as there were other structures in rear

yards.

Chairperson DeFalco stated that the petitioner should keep in mind that staff noted at

the previous meeting that they cannot enter private property. He stated that the

petitioner would not want to live in a Village where staff was allowed to enter private

property. He stated that Mrs. Newman was correct in her statement that the petition

must be judged on its own merit. He agreed that there was an allowance for 1500 Acorn

Court. He stated that four members voted for the petition while the ZBA is a seven

member board.

an addition was previously made to the home. He stated that the previous addition

would be removed and the new addition would be approximately eight feet (8') deeper.

He stated that it would be a two-story addition. Mr. Pruyn distributed photographs of the

property. He stated that the encroachment would actually be reduced as an existing bay

window was being removed from the property.

Christie Schaeffer, property owner, stated that the addition is intended to improve the

appearance of the neighborhood. She stated that the surrounding neighbors were in

favor of it.

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

against the petition. Chairperson DeFalco requested the staff report.

Angela Clark, Planner II, presented the staff report. Ms. Clark stated that the existing

residence was legal nonconforming as it was located approximately twelve and a half

feet (12.5') from the property line. She stated that an addition was previously made to

the residence, however a variation was not granted. Ms. Clark stated that staff has

traditionally supported requests that maintain an existing building line. She stated that

staff was supportive of the request, however she wanted to add an additional condition

limiting the request to the existing residence. She stated that if the property were

reconstructed in its entirety the new residence must meet the current zoning

requirements.

Chairperson DeFalco opened the meeting for discussion among the members.

Mr. Young noted the width of the lot. He asked if the footprint of the residence would fit

on the lot if it were reconstructed as depicted with the current setback requirements.

Ms. Newman noted that a variation would be required if it did not.

Ms. Clark stated that the residence could fit on the lot with the current setbacks.

against the petition. Chairperson DeFalco requested the staff report.

Angela Clark, Planner II, presented the staff report. Ms. Clark stated that the existing

residence had interior side yard setbacks of approximately eight and a half feet (8.5') on

both sides. She stated that homes with detached garages are required to have a side

yard with a minimum of six feet and at least one side yard with a minimum of nine feet.

She stated that the nine foot (9') requirement is essentially to accommodate the

driveway. Ms. Clark stated that the petitioner's property was short of the nine foot (9')

requirement by approximately five inches. She stated that staff finds that a a vehicle

could navigate the driveway at eight and a half feet (8.5').

Ms. Clark noted that the existing driveway was gravel and the new driveway would be

required to be paved. She stated that staff supported the request as the impact to

neighboring properties would be minimal. She stated that two car garages have

become typical of modern single family homes.

Chairperson DeFalco opened the meeting for discussion among the members.

Mr. Young stated that he did not have a problem with the request however he asked

what was the hardship. He asked if there was a hardship.

Ms. Clark stated that there did not appear to be one. She stated that if the property had

a two car garage both side yards would be held to the six foot minimum required side

yard setback. She stated that the garage could not be constructed otherwise.

Mr. Young stated that they would be limited to the one car garage.

Chairperson DeFalco asked if the adjacent property owner had a fence near the

proposed driveway location. Mrs. Ivancevic stated that the neighbor's fencing was

located behind the house. She stated that it was a grassy area near the front end of the

driveway.