Village of Lombard Legistar System

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.

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.