Village Hall |
255 East Wilson Ave. |
Lombard, IL 60148 |
villageoflombard.org |
John DeFalco, Chairperson |
Mary Newman, Eugene Polley, |
Greg Young, Val Corrado, |
and Ed Bedard |
Staff Liaison: Angela Clark |
Chairperson John DeFalco, Mary Newman, Eugene Polley, Greg Young and Ed |
Bedard |
The following staff members were present: Angela Clark, AICP, Planner II, and Jennifer |
Backensto, AICP, Planner I. |
U. ZBA 05-02: 322 E. Elm Street (Ordinance on Second Reading) |
Ordinancerequesting a variation to Section 155.205(A)(1)(c)(2) of the Lombard Zoning |
Ordinance to increase the maximum allowable fence height in a corner side yard from |
four feet (4') to six feet (6') in the R2 Single-Family Residence District. (DISTRICT #4) |
Larry Coveny presented the petition. Mr. Coveny stated that the fence in question had |
been six feet for over fifteen years. He stated that it was his intention to create an |
opening on the fence to give a clear line of sight. He stated that he has nearly collided |
with bicyclists as he exited the property. He stated that he did not obtain a permit |
because he did not know that he needed one since he was cutting the fence down. Mr. |
Coveny stated that he is not increasing the size or height of the fence. He stated that |
the neighbors approve of the change. Mr. Coveny stated that he was not informed that |
their fence was on a nonconforming fence list. |
Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke for or |
against the petition. |
Angela Clark, Planner II, presented the staff report. She stated that the petitioner's |
fence was nonconforming and was recognized as such during a fence inventory |
conducted in the year 2000. She stated that the petitioner's modification of the fence |
required a variation since two feet of the fence had been removed and replaced with |
new materials. Ms. Clark stated that staff conferred with Village Counsel on the matter |
and it was counsel's opinion that the change would necessitate a variation. Ms. Clark |
noted that the petitioner's fence was identified on a nonconforming fence list, however |
the inventory was conducted for internal purposes and homeowners were not notified. |
She stated that there was no demonstrated hardship and staff has maintained |
recommendations of denial for requests that involved the placement of lattice on a four |
foot fence, therefore staff recommended denial of the petition. |
Chairperson DeFalco opened the meeting for discussion among the members. |
Chairperson DeFalco stated that the provisions of the code would allow for modifications |
of a nonconforming structure if the modifications were less than fifty percent. He stated |
that the modifications that were made appeared to be considerably less than fifty |
percent. |
Ms. Clark stated that the petitioner was allowed to make minor changes and repairs |
under the code provisions, however the placement of the new materials required the |
variation. She stated that if any portion of the fence were removed the entire fence |
would have to comply with the current code requirements. |
Mr. Bedard asked if the petitioner could replace the fence if it were damaged. Ms. Clark |
stated that repairs could be made to the fence if the damage was less than fifty percent |
of the fence. She stated that if more than fifty percent of the fence were damaged the |
fence would be restricted to four feet. |
Mr. Young stated that the fence was going from nonconforming to somewhat |
conforming. |
Chairperson DeFalco asked if the petitioner planned to continue the modifications for the |
length of the fence. Mr. Coveny stated that he originally planned to extend the |
modification for the length of the fence, but limited it to the area after receiving the notice |
from code enforcement. |
Mr. Bedard asked if the entire fence had to meet code or just the modified portion. Ms. |
Clark stated that the entire fence must meet code once any portion of it had been |
altered. Mr. Bedard asked if he could reconstruct that portion to its previous height. Ms. |
Clark noted that because new materials were involved the fence must now meet the |
current code requirements. |
Mr. Polley stated that the fence looked as though it were new or had been painted. Ms. |
Clark stated that staff had been to the property and believed the fence was an old fence |
as the backside of the fence was entirely gray. She stated that the side facing the street |
appeared to have been power washed. |
The ZBA members discussed what instances would require the entire fence to meet |
current code and which instances would conform with the repair and modification of |
nonconforming use provisions of the code. |
Chairperson DeFalco stated that the modified portion of the fence was conforming when |
the petitioner cut it. He stated that the modified portion went from conforming to |
nonconforming once the lattice was attached to it. |
The ZBA members discussed illegal versus nonconforming fences. Ms. Clark stated |
that the previous fence variations mentioned were illegal fences, as the code |
requirements were in place and those petitioners knowingly constructed fences outside |
of the requirements. |
Mr. Young stated that the petitioner's fence was quite different from requests that have |
previously appeared before the board. He stated that the petitioner's fence was an |
existing fence that was nonconforming and the modifications have brought it more in line |
with the current code requirements. |
Mr. Bedard agreed and stated that the modified fence was more conforming than its |
previous state. |
Mr. Young asked if the variation were to be granted whether the owner could replace the |
entire fence with a new fence of six feet in height. Ms. Clark stated that the variation |
would be granted in perpetuity. |
Chairperson DeFalco reiterated that previous petitions had been for newly erected |
fences rather than nonconforming fences that had been modified. He asked about the |
status of previous petitions that were denied. He asked what time frame the petitioners |
had been given to make the necessary changes. Ms. Clark stated the petitioners were |
given sixty days to modify their fences. |
Chairperson DeFalco asked if the ZBA could include a timeframe for compliance such |
as ten years. Ms. Clark stated that she would have to consult Village Counsel regarding |
that. |
Mrs. Newman noted that previous petitions had been approved for existing structures |
with provisions that any new structures meet code. |
Mr. Polley asked if the petitioner were required to perform the modifications to the entire |
fence. |
Mr. Young stated that he believed the option should be left to the petitioner. |
It was moved by Young, seconded by Bedard, that this matter be recommended |
to the Corporate Authorities for approval subject to conditions. The motion |
carried by the following vote: |
Enactment No: Ordinance 5625 |
1. That the petitioner shall apply for and receive a building permit for any proposed |
fencing or alterations to the fence on the subject property. |
2. That the variation shall be limited to the existing fence and proposed improvements. |
Shall the fence be damaged or removed in the future, any new fencing on the property |
shall meet all current height requirements. |
L. ZBA 05-04: 226 S. Edson Street (Request to Withdraw) |
Requests a variation to Section 155.406 (F) (4) of the Lombard Zoning Ordinance to |
reduce the required rear yard setback to twenty-two feet and three inches (22.25'), |
where thirty-five feet (35') is required to allow for the construction of an addition to a |
single-family residence in the R2 Single-Family Residence District. The Zoning Board of |
Appeals recommended denial. The petitioner is requesting withdrawal of the request. |
(DISTRICT #1) |
The architect for the property owner, Ron LaPage, presented the petition. He stated |
that the existing house does not suit the owner's needs, but they do not wish to move. |
An interior remodel is not possible due to the age and size of the house. They instead |
chose to expand the house in a way that does not meet the rear setback requirement. |
Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for public comment. |
Jeff Chromzack, 412 W. Ash Street, stated that he is the person who will be most |
affected by the variation because he lives next door. He believes that this would be an |
improvement to the neighborhood and has no problem with that. |
Chairperson DeFalco then requested the staff report. |
Jennifer Backensto, Planner I, presented the staff report. She stated that the existing |
home was constructed on the subject property in 1965. At that time, the rear yard |
setback requirement was 30 feet. When the setback requirements were changed in |
1990, the rear 3.75 feet of the home became legal nonconforming. The petitioner now |
wishes to construct an addition to the home. While staff could conceptually support a |
variation request that holds the existing building line, in this case the petitioner is |
extending the addition nine feet beyond the legal nonconforming portion of the home. |
Staff finds that the petitioner has not met the Standards for Variations as there is no |
physical hardship, nor are there any unique conditions related to this property that would |
prevent compliance with the ordinance. The petitioner's lot is comparable in size to |
other lots in the R2 Single-Family Residential District and the size and shape of this |
property is not uncommon within the Village. In this case, the petitioner is creating the |
hardship by choosing to build an addition beyond the setback requirements. |
Ms. Backensto noted that in 1993, the Board of Trustees denied a rear-yard setback |
variation to allow an addition to the neighboring property at 412 W. Ash Street. As the |
hardship in this case is being created by the petitioner and is not related to the property |
itself, this petition does not meet the Standards for Variations. Although staff could |
support a variation to maintain the existing building setback line of 31.25 feet, there is no |
precedent for allowing the proposed 12.75-foot encroachment into the rear yard. |
Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for discussion by the Board Members. |
Chairperson DeFalco asked if Mr. Chromzack was the same neighbor who had his |
request for a rear yard setback variation denied. Mr. Chromzack answered that his |
request had been denied. He and his wife could not expand the house they way wanted |
to but they learned to live with it. |
Mr. Polley asked if the existing house meets the setback. Ms. Backensto stated that |
although the house met the 30-foot setback at the time it was built, it does not meet the |
current 35-foot setback. |
Chairperson DeFalco asked if the proposed improvements would provide sufficient open |
space. Ms. Backensto replied that it appeared to meet code. |
Mr. Bedard asked if there would also be a deck in the rear yard. The petitioner stated |
that he did not believe there were any plans for a deck. |
Mr. Young noted that if this house were a teardown, they would be unlikely to grant a |
variation of this type for new construction. The petitioner stated that he had suggested a |
teardown, but the property owner didn't want to do that. |
Chairperson DeFalco asked if the property owner would be able to remain in the house |
during the construction of the addition. The petitioner stated that they would probably |
have to move out for at least 90 days. |
Chairperson DeFalco noted that they have allowed additions to hold existing building |
lines and asked if they had considered holding their addition to the current 31.25-foot |
setback. The petitioner stated that they had discussed that option, but they need to |
expand beyond the current setback. |
Mr. Young asked if they had considered a detached garage. The petitioner stated that |
they had thought about that, but they preferred to have their open space in the |
southwest corner of the lot. |
Chairperson DeFalco asked how much smaller the addition would be if it were kept to |
the 31.25-foot setback. The petitioner stated that it would be approximately 400 square |
feet less. |
Chairperson DeFalco asked how many square feet were proposed with this petition. |
Ms. Backensto stated that the first-floor footprint was approximately 2,250 square feet, |
but she did not know the proposed area of the second floor. The petitioner stated that |
the second floor would be comparable to the first. |
Chairperson DeFalco confirmed that maintaining the existing setback would give them a |
home of 3,600 square feet and asked if that were too restrictive. The petitioner stated |
that it was. |
Chairperson DeFalco summarized that they are requesting to build a home over 3,600 |
square feet, so they feel they need a rear yard setback variation. |
Mr. Polley asked if the current site plan meets the 50-percent open space requirement. |
Ms. Backensto stated that she had not done that calculation for the existing |
improvements. |
Chairperson DeFalco noted that if this were new construction, the odds of a |
recommendation for approval would be slim. This is an existing home, but it will be |
severely modified. The existing house is legal nonconforming by 3.75 feet and the |
Board has previously allowed additions to continue building lines, but the petitioner |
wants to go an additional 9 feet further into the yard. |
It was moved by Bedard, seconded by Newman, that this matter be |
recommended to the Corporate Authorities for denial. The motion carried by the |
following vote: |
On a motion made by Polley and seconded by Young, the minutes of the March 2, 2005 |
special meeting were unanimously approved by the members present with the following |
correction: |
Page 3, correct the spelling of the word "adjourned". |
On a motion by Newman and seconded by Bedard the meeting was adjourned at 8:43 |
p.m. |
________________________________ |
John DeFalco, Chairperson |
Zoning Board of Appeals |
________________________________ |
Angela Clark, AICP, Secretary |
Zoning Board of Appeals |