Village of Lombard Legistar System

Amy Grandsard, one of the owners of the subject property, spoke on behalf of the

petition. She noted that their house is the last house on the cul-de-sac and set back six

feet (6') further from the front property line than the other houses on the street. She

made reference to the surrounding properties. Mrs. Grandsard mentioned that there is

no immediate neighbor to the south because of the creek that runs along the southern

property line. She stated that there is a retaining wall that puts the grade of the

neighboring property to the north approximately four feet (4') higher than their property.

She stated the staff report was inconsistent in its reference to the negative impact and

visual bulk that their proposed sunroom would have on the property to the east. Mrs.

Grandsard noted that the screened-enclosed porch on the property to the east was only

setback twenty-one feet (21') from the property line.

Michelle Kulikowski, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She stated that the

subject property is located on a cul-de-sac in the Pinebrook subdivision and is

approximately one hundred twenty-five feet (125') wide with an average depth of one

hundred forty feet (140'). She noted that the existing house is setback thirty-one feet

(31') from the front property line and forty feet (40') from the rear property line. She

mentioned that a brick patio, eleven feet (11') by sixteen feet (16') is located to the rear

of the house.

Ms. Kulikowski reviewed the standards for variations as they relate to the subject

property. She stated that staff found no demonstrated physical hardship, or unique

topographical conditions related to this property that would prevent compliance with the

ordinance. She noted that the shape of the subject property is typical for a lot located

on a cul-de-sac. Ms. Kulikowski made reference to the substantial slope towards the

south and noted that the southern thirty-five (35') of the property is wooded with a creek.

She stated that these conditions do not restrict the subject property from placing a

sunroom addition or screen-enclosed accessory structure on the property in a manner

that would comply with the Zoning Ordinance. She mentioned that the subject property

is a large lot and there are several other options as far as constructing a sunroom

addition or screen-enclosed accessory structure.

Ms. Kulikowski noted that the condition upon which the application for variation is based

is the distance between the house and the rear property line to the east. She stated that

there are not any unique differences between the petitioner's lot and others with the R2

Single Family District with respect to the depth of the property and the required front and

rear yard setbacks. She also noted that the semicircular front property line causing a

greater setback is inherent of properties located on a cul-de-sac.

Ms. Kulikowski noted that the 35-foot rear yard setback for R2 properties has been

consistently applied throughout the Village and the requested relief is needed due to a

personal preference for the location of the sunroom addition. Ms. Kulikowski noted

several other options as far as constructing a sunroom or enclosed gazebo.

Ms. Kulikowski discussed the immediate neighboring properties. She noted that there

isn't a neighbor immediately to the south of the subject property and therefore, the

proposed sunroom addition would have a minimal effect on the neighbor to the south.

She mentioned that a retaining wall separates the subject property from the property to

the north, which is approximately four feet higher in elevation. She stated the proposed

sunroom addition would create a negative impact on the property to the east by

increasing the visual bulk.

Mrs. Grandsard stated that the staff report did not mention that their house was the last

house on the cul-de-sac. She stated that the visual bulk created by her neighbor's

screen-enclosed porch was offensive. She noted that she didn't understand why her

neighbor could have a sunroom with a roof terrace setback only twenty-one (21') feet

from the property line and she could not have a sunroom setback twenty-nine (29'). She

stated that they had pictures of their neighbors' properties and asked if she could submit

them to the board.

Chairperson DeFalco asked if staff had a plat of survey of the Pinebrook subdivision

reflecting these setbacks. Ms. Kulikowski stated that staff had a plat of survey of the

Pinebrook subdivision, but it only depicted the lots within the subdivision and not the

building footprints. Chairperson DeFalco also noted that there is a chance that the

neighbor to the east did not receive a building permit.

Chairperson DeFalco discussed other options for constructing an addition. He noted

that there was substantial room in the side yard to the south. Mrs. Grandsard stated

that the door opening to the existing patio is the only door other than the front door.

Chairperson DeFalco suggested creating a hallway or pathway from the rear door to the

area south of the patio, which is inset three feet (3') further than the exterior wall with the

door. J. Brenner of Patio Enclosures stated that the room would be too small and it

would limit the functionality. Chairperson DeFalco asked about cutting a new door along

the southern exterior wall. Mrs. Grandsard stated that they were not looking to do major

construction. Mr. Grandsard stated that there wouldn't be access because of the

existing windows. Mr. DeFalco asked what rooms were along the southern exterior wall.

Mrs. Grandsard stated the kitchen and dining room.

Dr. Corrado asked when the house was built. Mr. and Mrs. Grandsard stated that the

house was built in 1986 and they have lived there since 2003.

Mr. Young asked whether there was a building permit for the enclosed-porch on the

property to the east. Staff stated they did not come across a building permit for the

enclosed-porch. Mr. Grandsard stated that the neighbor to the east said that he did

obtain a permit.

Mr. Young asked what the recourse was for constructing with out a building permit.

Angela Clark, Planner II, stated that these situations are followed up on a complaint

basis. She noted that unless construction is underway at the time the Village does a site

inspection, it is difficult to ascertain when the construction was completed and whether

or not it is grandfathered.

Mr. Bedard stated that there are twelve similar lots in the Pinebrook subdivision located

on cul-de-sacs. Mr. and Mrs. Grandsard stated that there were other houses on the

cul-de-sacs that had screened enclosures that did not meet current setback

requirements.

Chairperson DeFalco noted that the Zoning Board of Appeals did have the option to

continue the petition to allow staff to review other properties on the cul-de-sacs with the

Pinebrook subdivision.

Topi Viitala, property owner, presented the petition. Mr. Viitala stated that he previously

appeared before the Zoning Board requesting a variation for a six-foot fence in a corner

side yard. He stated that the final decision on the fence had been delayed after three

Village Board meetings, but was ultimately denied. Mr. Viitala stated that he was now

requesting to move the fence fifteen feet away from the property line. He stated that if

he were to move the fence the required twenty feet the back door of the residence

would be on the opposite side of the fence.

Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for public comment.

Brian LaVan, 805 E. Division, stated that he was the property owner immediately west of

the petitioner. He stated that he was fine with the fence's present location. He stated

that if the petitioner were required to move the fence in he would have to construct

additional fencing on his own lot.

Chairperson DeFalco asked if the previous fence was constructed to code. He asked if

the fence were in the same location and the materials used. Mr. LaVan stated that the

fence was on the property line, but it was chainlink.

Angela Clark, Planner II, presented the staff report. She stated that the petitioner had

appeared before the Zoning Board before and the petition was subsequently denied by

the Village Board. She stated that staff had discussed the possibility of moving the

fence further into the yard. She stated that the petitioner's home is located fifteen feet

from the property line and was considered legal nonconforming. Ms. Clark stated that

staff has typically encouraged property owners to move fences outside of the required

corner lot area if they wanted to erect six foot fences. She stated that if the petitioner

were to move the fence in twenty feet the rear door of the residence would be outside of

the fence. She stated that there would not be any line of sight issues as the neighboring

driveway was more than thirty feet from the property line. Ms. Clark stated that staff

recommended approval of the petition.

Chairperson DeFalco opened the meeting for discussion among the members.

Mr. Young stated that he felt badly that Mr. LaVan enjoyed years of fencing and would

have to make modifications because the petitioner constructed an illegal fence. Mr.

Young stated that regardless of whether or not the fence was constructed to code Mr.

LaVan would still have to place additional fencing if the petitioner had decided to simply

remove the fence.

Chairperson DeFalco asked where the fence was in location to Mr. LaVan's fence. Mr.

LaVan stated that the fences abutted one another.

Ms. Clark stated that the petitioner's fence would still be within the front yard of the

neighbor's property. She also noted the conditions of approval limiting the relief to the

existing residence. She stated that perhaps the condition should be limited to the fence.

Mr. Bedard noted that if the condition were limited to the fence it would hinder

subsequent replacement and repairs of the fence. Ms. Clark agreed. Chairperson

DeFalco stated that the condition should be left as written in the staff report.