Village of Lombard Legistar System

Chairperson DeFalco re-opened the petition. Prior to the start of the testimony period,

Dr. Corrado and Mrs. Newman confirmed that although they were not present at the last

Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, they had sufficiently familiarized themselves with the

specifics of the case so that they would be comfortable voting on the petition.

The petitioner, Daniel Mahal, passed out a revised site plan. The proposed garage was

reduced from 24 feet wide to 22 feet wide, and was pushed one foot closer to the front

of the property. The driveway width was reduced by six inches to pick up an additional

53 square feet of open space, but it could not be reduced further due to its narrow width.

The deck was originally shown at 464 square feet, but the actual size is 440 square feet.

Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for public comment. There was no one

present to speak for or against the petition.

Chairperson DeFalco then requested the staff report.

Jennifer Backensto, Planner II, stated that staff's position remains unchanged from that

explained in the staff report and the staff recommendation of denial still stands.

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

Chairperson DeFalco summarized the changes to the site plan and asked about the

driveway in front of the house. The petitioner stated that the apron is shifted three feet

from the driveway and they do not line up. Chairperson DeFalco noted that this paved

area is almost the size of the requested variation.

The petitioner stated that he has lived in this home for 11 years and has put a lot into the

house. He wants to make it workable for both now and for the future.

Chairperson DeFalco explained what is meant by a hardship and gave several

examples. The petitioner stated that the garage was pushed as far forward as is

workable.

Mr. Polley asked about the degree of the variation. Chairperson DeFalco stated that the

petitioner exceeded code by 240 square feet.

Dr. Corrado asked if the petitioner would be willing to remove the pavement in front of

the house. The petitioner stated that he would prefer to keep it as-is.

Mr. Polley asked about the use of paver blocks. Chairperson DeFalco stated that they

are similar to a deck in that a small amount of water can drain through, but they do not

create a significant amount of open space.

Mr. Polley asked if the paved area in front of the house was used for parking.

Chairperson DeFalco reiterated that the petitioner has stated that it was used more as a

basketball court.

Dr. Corrado asked how many variations have been granted for open space. Ms.

Backensto stated that she did not know the number offhand.

Chairperson DeFalco gave an example of a recent case on Central Avenue. He noted

that in the present case, the petitioner was able make small modifications to reduce the

requested amount of the variation by almost half. He stated that there were other

potential options to increase open space on the property.

Mr. Bedard stated that he sympathizes with the petitioner, but the Zoning Board of

Appeals needs to focus on the presented hardship. He stated that they can't reasonably

justify a basketball court as a hardship.

Michelle and Kevin Wesling, owners of the property, presented the petition. Mrs.

Wesling stated that they bought the property in 1997. She noted that originally the

property was a double lot, and a previous property owner sold one of the lots which

reduced the size of the property in half. She stated that she understands the reasoning

behind the open space requirement, but they just want to replace the deck that has been

there for years.

Mr. Wesling stated that the existing deck is rotting and is deteriorated. He noted that

they use the rear entrance from the deck as the primary entrance to their home. He

mentioned that the roof over the deck was needed for protection from bad weather

conditions. He also mentioned that the roof could serve as a fire escape from his child's

bedroom on the second floor. He noted that the house was originally designed with an

attached garage on the side. The previous property owner demolished the attached

garage and constructed a detached garage on the property. Mrs. Wesling noted that

the existing detached garage is twenty-two feet (22') by twenty-six feet (26'), and the

garage with the long driveway account for a large portion of their lot coverage.

Mr. Wesling stated that he did not believe their proposed deck would decrease the

degree of non-conformity. He mentioned that since they bought the property, they

removed a ten foot (10') by twelve foot (12') shed and grassed in a small area of the

driveway. He stated that they have actually decreased the degree of non-conformity

since buying the property. He noted that the roof over the deck will not change the use

of the deck. Mr. Wesling submitted an aerial photo to the Zoning Board of Appeals. He

stated the variance comes down to two issues - density and drainage. He mentioned

that drainage would not be an issue because they currently do not have any water

problems. He stated that their house is modest relative to the new homes being

constructed in Lombard. He mentioned that they are trying to improve the property and

make it look nice. He noted that the deck is not excessively large and is of a reasonable

size.

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

against the petition. He then requested the staff report.

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

property currently maintains 47.1% open space and is considered legal non-conforming

with respect to open space. She mentioned that the petitioners are proposing to remove

an existing deck and replace it with a deck of approximately the same size and

dimensions but also with a roof structure. She noted that once the existing deck is

removed, any legal non-conforming rights associated with the deck are lost. She also

noted that the removal of the deck would bring the property in compliance with the 50%

minimum open space requirement. She stated that the petitioners request a variation to

re-establish the legal non-conformity relative to open space, so that the deck can be

replaced.

Ms. Kulikowski provided some background information regarding the property. She

stated that the original residence located at 512 S. Craig Place was built on Lot 44 with

a small portion of the garage on Lot 45. In 1992, a previous property owner received a

building permit to demolish the attached garage and construct a new detached garage

on Lot 44. She noted that Lot 45 no longer had any structures (or portion thereof), and

the property owner was able to sell Lot 45 as a buildable lot. She mentioned that in

1993, a single family residence was constructed on Lot 45, which is now known as 508

S. Craig Place. She noted that when the building permit was issued for the detached

garage in 1992, the zoning lot for the subject property consisted of all of Lot 44 and the

Lot 45. The total area of the property (known as 512 S. Craig Place) and was used to

calculate the open space requirement. She stated that at the time, the property far

exceeded the minimum open space requirement. However, the sale of Lot 45 reduced

the area of the property known as 512 S. Craig Place from 16,0000 square feet to 8,000

square feet, and the property no longer met the 50% minimum open space requirement.

Ms. Kulikowski noted that the previous property owner was able to sell Lot 45 for

development as a matter of right because it was a platted lot of record. She mentioned

that the Village does not have any authority over the private sale of land and cannot

deny a property from being developed on the basis of a nonconformity on an adjacent

lot. She stated that at the time, the Village did not have any regulations to prevent this

situation from occurring. She noted that the current Zoning Ordinance regulates that

certain construction activity can only occur on a single lot of record. Homes built on two

lots would be required to consolidate the lots in order to build an addition or large

accessory structure.

Ms. Kulikowski stated that staff typically has recommended approval for open space

variations when there is an existing legal nonconforming situation and the improvements

will not increase the degree of nonconformity. She mentioned that the proposed deck

includes a roof structure, and that the roof structure would increase the degree of

nonconformity. She mentioned that even though the calculated percent of open space

would essentially remain the same, staff finds that the roof element increases the visual

impact of the structure. She stated that the intent of the 50% minimum open space

requirement is to limit bulk and density as well as the volume of stormwater runoff. The

roof structure would be completely impervious, whereas the deck would allow some

stormwater to reach the ground through the spaces between the wood planks.

Ms. Kulikowski reviewed the standards for variations as they apply to the proposed

improvements. She noted that staff did not find any hardship for the roof over the deck.

Staff did mention as an alternate consideration, that the Zoning Board of Appeals could

chose to approve the open space variation so that the deck could be replaced without a

roof structure.

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

Mr. Polley asked whether the roof would also serve as a second story balcony. Mrs.

Wesling stated that it will be a gable roof and will only serve as a covering for the deck.

Mrs. Newman asked whether they considered covering just a portion with a roof rather

than the entire deck. Mrs. Wesling noted that the roof will not cover the stairs. She also

stated that reducing the area of the deck covered by the roof would make it would look

awkward because they were trying to tie in with the roof pitch of the house.

Chairperson DeFalco asked whether about using a retractable awning or pergola and

whether that would be allowed. Jennifer Backensto, Planner II, stated that a retractable

awning would be allowed if it was not permanent. Mrs. Wesling stated that the problem

with using an awning is that they are meant to provide shade from the sun, not

protection from the weather.

Chairperson DeFalco referred to the aerial photo that was submitted by Mr. Wesling.

He stated that it is easy to distinguish which property belongs to the petitioners because

of the large pavement area in the aerial.

Mr. Wesling stated that they would consider removing a sidewalk in the front yard to

come closer in compliance, but he wasn't sure if they could actually reduce it to fifty

percent (50%). Chairperson DeFalco asked whether they considered reducing the

dimensions of the deck. Mr. Wesling stated that they wanted the peak of the gable

under the second story window, and they needed the deck to extend to the entrance

door.

Chairperson DeFalco discussed the percent of open space that would result from the

removal of the sidewalk. For the purposes of calculating the lot area and amount of

open space, Ms. Kulikowski explained the discrepancy between the “measured” lot

depth and the “recorded” lot depth. She noted that the recorded number is always used

for consistency purposes, and in this case, using the recorded lot depth results in a

smaller lot area.

the lot is angled two different ways. He stated that he considered building the addition

further to the north, but the addition would block windows to the bedroom. He noted that

the proposed location functionally makes the most sense. The addition would be off of

the living room, and an existing window would be replaced with a door. He mentioned

that the only other way would be to build up, but because of his age, he did not want to

add stairs to his home. Mr. Meyer stated that the front yard is sloped toward the street

and the backyard is relatively flat. The runoff pattern would remain the same. He

mentioned that he would also be doing construction at the front entrance which does not

need a variance. He stated that his property is unique for a cul-de-sac, and if the

variation was approved, it would not be setting a precedent for very many properties.

He also noted that it is just the very corner of the addition that would be setback 21' from

the property line, the rest of the addition would be setback farther.

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

favor of or against the petition. He then requested the staff report.

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

property is a “pie-shaped” lot located on a cul-de-sac with a depth that ranges from one

hundred eleven feet (111') to one hundred fifty-nine feet (159'). She noted that the

subject property is approximately twenty-six feet (26') wide at the front property line and

one hundred forty one feet (141') at the rear property line. She mentioned that the

existing residence is currently legal non-conforming with a twenty-eight foot (28') rear

yard setback. She stated that the petitioner is proposing a one story addition to the rear

of the home that would be setback twenty-one feet (21') from the property line, and

because the proposed addition would expand the degree of non-conformity, a variation

is needed in order to construct the addition. Ms. Kulikowski noted that the proposed

addition is twelve and one half by twelve and one half foot (12.5'x12.5'). She mentioned

that the proposed addition could be built meeting the rear yard setback if it were moved

six feet to the northwest. However, the addition would be adjacent to one of the

bedrooms, thus blocking the windows to the exterior. Building Code requires windows in

bedrooms for the purposes of light and ventilation.

Ms. Kulikowski stated that staff has conducted a review of all the petitions for rear yard

variations since 2000. She noted that staff has only recommended approval for rear

yard variations in situations when the proposed improvement maintained the existing

building line or where the depth of the lot was unusual (e.g., less than one hundred feet

(100') in depth). She stated that staff remains consistent in its interpretation of the

standards for variations and finds that the standards for variations have not been

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

cul-de-sac and that the property has sufficient depth ranging from one hundred eleven

feet (111') to one hundred fifty-nine feet (159'). She mentioned 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 stated that the 35-foot rear yard setback for R2 properties has been

consistently applied throughout the Village. She noted that staff finds that the hardship

has not been created by the ordinance, and the requested relief is needed due to a

personal preference for an office addition to the existing residence. She noted that the

granting of the requested relief will set an undesirable precedent.

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

Mr. Bedard asked about locating the addition so that the addition maintained at least the

existing twenty-eight foot (28') building line.

Mr. Meyer stated that it wouldn't work because his property is an odd shaped lot.

Chairperson DeFalco asked about moving the addition to the north so that it met the

setback and constructing a hallway through the corner bedroom to access the addition.

Mr. Meyer stated that the corner bedroom is already small and he wouldn't even be able

to put a bed in the room if the room were made any smaller.

Chairperson DeFalco noted that the petitioner's house is not visible from the Prairie

Path.

Mr. Polley stated that the intent of the ordinance would still be fulfilled because the

petitioner's property is a unique lot.

Chairperson DeFalco mentioned a previous ZBA case on Sycamore Court in which the

Zoning Board of Appeals discussed the intent of the ordinance as it relates to the rear

yard setback. He noted that the intent of the ordinance was to give a sense of

openness in rear yards. He stated that in the Sycamore case the intent of the ordinance

was not met, but in this case it would be.

Mr. Meyer noted that there is a line of trees along the west property line.

Chairperson DeFalco noted that there have been two rear yard variations granted in the

past because the properties backed up to Glenbard East. He also noted that the

properties located at 323 and 329 Garfield are the most impacted.

Mrs. Newman stated that she agreed that those properties are the most impacted, but if

the property owners were concerned, they would probably have come to the meeting.

Chairperson DeFalco noted the Building Code requirement for windows that was

mentioned in the staff report. He asked whether the Village would allow the petitioner to

build the addition further to the north in compliance with the thirty-five foot setback.

Ms. Kulikowski stated that the Village would not issue a permit for the addition to be

located there. The addition would be blocking the windows to one of the bedrooms and

would not comply with building code requirements for light and ventilation in bedrooms.

Mr. Meyer stated that the proposed layout for the addition is the most appropriate for the

interior.

Dr. Corrado stated that the addition will have very little impact on the neighboring

properties because it will not be visible.