Zoning Board of Appeals

Agenda Village of Glen Ellyn Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Tuesday, October 7, 2025 7:00 PM Civic Center, Galligan Room Individuals with disabilities who plan to attend the hearing and who require certain accommodations in order to allow them to observe and participate, or who have questions regarding the accessibility of the meeting or facilities, are requested to contact the Village at least 24 hours before the meeting. A. Call to Order B. Public Comment C. Approval of the Minutes 1) Approval of the Minutes of the September 2, 2025, special meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. 2) Approval of the Minutes of the September 9, 2025, regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. D. Old Business 1) Continuation - Public Hearing — 194 S. Ellyn Avenue - Detached Garage Variations E. New Business 1) Public Hearing — 445 Stagecoach Run - Eave Height Variation 2) Public Hearing — 734 Meredith Place — Non-Conforming Structure Alteration Variation F. Other Business 1) Motion to Adopt Rules of Procedure for the Glen Ellyn Zoning Board of Appeals G. Chairperson's Statement H. Trustee Liaison's Report I. Staff Report J. Adjournment Dear Petitioner(s) and Interested Citizens: Once a variation request has been heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Board may make a recommendation and minutes of the hearing are prepared. The variation, along with the minutes, summary report and all related material, is submitted for consideration by the Village Board at a regularly scheduled Village Board meeting. To confirm exact times and dates for Village Board consideration of a project, please call 630-547-5241. Civility Pledge - In the interest of civility, I pledge to promote civility by listening, being respectful of others, acknowledging that we are striving to support and improve our community, and understanding that we each may have Page 1 of 77 different ideas for achieving that objective.  Glen Ellyn Zoning Board of Meeting 10/7/2025 7:00 PM Appeals Department: Community Development 535 Duane Street Department Head: Jennifer Henaghan Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Category: Minutes Prepared By: Daniel Harper AGENDA ITEM (ID DOC ID: 2025-834 # 2025-834) Approval of the Minutes of the September 2, 2025, special meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Statement of the Issue: Approval of the Minutes of the September 2, 2025, special meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Analysis: Approval of the Minutes of the September 2, 2025, special meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Budget Impact: Contribution to Strategic Plan Action Requested: Approval of the Minutes of the September 2, 2025, special meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Attachments: 1. DRAFT Sept. 2 2025 ZBA Minutes Page 2 of 77  MINUTES Glen Ellyn Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Tuesday, September 2, 2025, at 7:00 PM Glen Ellyn Civic Center Galligan Board Room 535 Duane Street A. Call to Order and Roll Call Roll was called. Present: Board Members, Matthew Jones, Todd Buckton, Noureen Lakhani, Craig Pavlich and Christiane McKnight Absent: Members Chip Miller and Peter Kelly Also in attendance: Daniel Harper, Planning Manager and Adriana Ohl Zamora, Recording Secretary. Due to Chairperson Miller’s absence, Commissioner Pavlich nominated Matthew Jones to be the Acting Chairperson for The Zoning Board of Appeals for the meeting. Member Buckton seconded the notion. The motion was passed by voice vote 4- yes, 0 no. Acting Chairperson Jones called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Acting Chairperson Jones explained the advisory nature of the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) and its process for deliberation and recommendation. He described the Public Hearing protocols and announced that the meeting was being recorded. B. Public Comment (non-agenda items) None C. Other Business 1. Review and Approval of the Rules and Procedure for the Glen Ellyn Zoning Board of Appeals Motion to table until September 9, Zoning Board of Appeals meeting by Commissioner Pavlich, Member McKnight Seconded the motion. Approval to table until September 9th ZBA Meeting was passed by a unanimous voice vote. D. Approval of the Minutes 1. Review and Approval of July 8, 2025, Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes. Motion to Approve July 8, 2025, minutes by Commissioner McKnight, Commissioner Buckton seconded the motion and the motion passed by voice vote. Member Buckton moved to open the Public Hearing on 365 Kenilworth Ave. Member Pavlich seconded the motion and passed by voice vote. E. New Business 1. Public Hearing – 365 S. Kenilworth Ave., Front Yard Setback Variation Sworn in, Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn, introduced the following variation request for 365 Kenilworth Ave.: Page 3 of 77 He described that the petitioner is proposing the construction of an approximately 240-square-foot second-story addition to the existing home on the property. The proposed addition will be within the existing footprint of the existing home, and it is proposed to have a front yard setback of 41 feet. The home is zoned R0- Residential District. The request is for approval of the following variation: 1. Section 10-4-6(D)(1) – to allow the construction of a second-story addition to an existing non- conforming single-family home to be forty-one feet (41’-0”) from the front property line in lieu of the required front yard setback of fifty feet (50’-0”). Mr. Harper showed the commissioners the footprints of the home and aerial map to explain the application. Member Questions Chairperson Jones- the front yard setback when it was in County, it was an R3 district with a 30-foot setback? When we incorporated, they became existing non-conforming? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn- that was my understanding based on surrounding zoning of county lots around this area. I do not know exactly what the required front setback was in 1966 for DuPage County. Commissioner Buckton- I thought it was odd that all these homes were annexed into Village in 1999 except this home did not apply for water connection permit until 10 years later. Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn - Annexation agreement included a timeline agreement that the homeowner had to apply for water within a certain timeframe. Commissioner Pavlich- I noticed 355 S. Kenilworth (house next door) was significantly newer and I asked if there were any recorded variances for that house- you found something different please share what you found. Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn – that house was built in 2001, in 2001 R0 zoning code for the front yard setback was that that if more than 50% of block is developed, the minimum Front yard setback could either be 50 feet or could be the average of all the homes on the block that are constructed. So, homes on Kenilworth there is a front yard setback that ranged from 38-41yard setback. The zoning code updated in 2002 which changed that requirement; with R0 it’s a 50ft minimum and with R2 and R3 it provides a wiggle room, not whole block just adjacent neighbors. Commissioner Pavich- in R2 we have a smaller minimum set back. In this case we just moved to be bigger. My second question, yard setback variance less than 20% should be eligible for administrative variations, was that considered in this case. Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn- this is an existing non-conforming structure, and it has to be an addition to a conforming structure. That is when the administrative variation would apply. Petitioner Jenna Lindman, Patrick Lopardo and Contractor Nicholas Crifase sworn in. Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, explained what a practical hardship is. Page 4 of 77 Petitioner Patrick Lopardo- basically zoning is a hardship, like we said in plans it’s not going into the street, sticking to what is already existing, similar to our neighbors. Tring to expand house and add walking closet. Contractor Patrick Lopardo- Our intention here is to make home more comfortable, replace siding, repainting, new windows and roof. Will make quality of life better and increase home value Chairperson Jones- we have understanding that you can’t pick up house and move it, you don’t want to tear and start all over. No written comments received. Member McKnight made a motion to close the public hearing Member Buckton seconded the motion. Member McKnight made a motion to approve the Finding of Facts as presented; Member Buckton seconded the motion and passed by unanimous voice vote. Findings of fact accepted. Deliberation Commissioner Buckton- I really don’t have anything. I hope to approve with no objection Commissioner Lakhani- Nothing, pretty straight forward. Commissioner Pavlich- I would vote to approve it. Commissioner McKnight- I would vote to approve. Chairperson Jones- I will vote to approve. Member McKnight made a motion to close the deliberations and approve the application as presented. Member Pavlich seconded the motion and the motion with a 5 (yes) and zero (no) votes. 2. Public Hearing- 236 Sunset Ave., Side Yard Setback Variation Sworn in, Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn, introduced the following variation request for 236 Sunset Avenue. Petitioner has applied for a zoning variation to allow the reconstruction of a front porch with an existing non- conforming side yard setback of four feet and three inches (4’-3”) in lieu of the required side yard setback of six feet and six inches feet (6’-6”). Petitioners request approval of the following variation: 1. Section 10-4-8(D)(3) – to allow an interior side yard setback of four feet and three inches (4’-3”) in lieu of the minimum required interior side yard setback of six feet and six inches (6’-6”) to accommodate the reconstruction of an existing non-conforming front porch. They are proposing the reconstruction of an existing non-conforming front porch that is located four feet and three inches (4'-3") from the side property line. The proposed reconstruction will maintain the Page 5 of 77 footprint of the existing porch and will be constructed of composite materials. The pergola over the porch will also be replaced in kind with a metal pergola. Member Questions: Commissioner Buckton – No questions Commissioner Lakhani- No questions Commissioner Pavlich- what is original built date of home? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn -1923 according to the applicant Petitioner Jeffrey Knight sworn in Petitioner Jeffrey Knigt- the hardship is I have a railing running into my front door that will not allow me to open it. That is basically the hardship, just trying to get in and out the front door. Commissioner Buckton- I knew the previous owners. How long have you lived in the house? Petitioner Jeffrery Knight- Three years, the Fischers were previous owners; the neighbors still speak of them, I am trying to maintain their gardening in the front yard. Member McKnight made a motion to close the public hearing Member Buckton seconded the motion. Member Lakhani made a motion to approve the Finding of Facts as presented; Member McKnight seconded the motion and passed was by voice vote 5-0. Findings of fact accepted. Deliberation Commissioner Buckton- no problem with this I will approve. Commissioner Lakhani- same. Commissioner McKnight- I will vote to recommend approval. Chairperson Jones- I am in favor as well. Member McKnight made a motion to approve the application as presented. Member Pavlich seconded the motion and the motion with a 5 (yes) and zero (no) votes. F. Chairperson’s Statement No statement was provided by Acting Chairperson Jones. G. Trustee Liaison Report H. Staff Report Planning Manager Daniel Harper- presented the following: Page 6 of 77  1. 680 Grand basement- recommendation of denial by the ZBA was overturned by the Village Board with a vote to grant the proposed variations. Project will go forward 2. 564 N. Main Street- Backyard patio with swimming pool and pergola, approved with Village Board as conditioned by ZBA. 3. For Monday I have 2 applications: 1. 807 Hill, lot coverage ratio, back yard patio they want to create into a 3 seasons room. 2. 194 S. Ellen- Applicant proposing to increase height of existing detached garage. 4. MK steakhouse that is being constructed on 400 N. Main St, applying for outdoor dining license, also illuminated blade sign variation. 5. Village initiated annexation of a property on Butterfield Rd. in September. 6. RFP Draft for Zoning code update has been finished, kickoff maybe January 2026- will bring in a consultant and do a total overview of zoning codes, want to update zoning code to include graphs and graphics. 7. Village considering doing a text amendment to allow for restaurant usage in C4 zoning district Commissioner Buckton- does that include timeline that involves ZBA and Plan commission being together? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn – most likely you will be together makes it a more cohesive unit. I. Adjournment Member Buckton made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Member McKnight seconded the motion. Metting adjourned at 8:00PM Respectfully submitted, Adriana Ohl-Zamora Page 7 of 77  Glen Ellyn Zoning Board of Meeting 10/7/2025 7:00 PM Appeals Department: Community Development 535 Duane Street Department Head: Jennifer Henaghan Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Category: Minutes Prepared By: Daniel Harper AGENDA ITEM (ID DOC ID: 2025-835 # 2025-835) Approval of the Minutes of the September 9, 2025, regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Statement of the Issue: Approval of the Minutes of the September 9, 2025, regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Analysis: Approval of the Minutes of the September 9, 2025, regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Budget Impact: Contribution to Strategic Plan Action Requested: Approval of the Minutes of the September 9, 2025, regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Attachments: 1. Draft September 9, 2025 Zoning Minutes Page 8 of 77  DRAFT MINUTES Glen Ellyn Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Tuesday, September 9, 2025 at 7:00 PM Glen Ellyn Civic Center Galligan Board Room 535 Duane Street A. Call to Order and Roll Call Chairperson Miller called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Chairperson Miller explained the advisory nature of the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) and its process for deliberation and recommendation. He described the Public Hearing protocols and announced that the meeting was being recorded. Roll was called. Present: Chairperson Chip Miller, Board Members, Matthew Jones, Todd Buckton, Peter Kelly, Noureen Lakhani, and Craig Pavlich Absent: Christiane McKnight Also in attendance: Daniel Harper, Planning Manager and Adriana Ohl Zamora, Recording Secretary. B. Public Comment (non-agenda items) None Chairperson Miller moved to open the Public Hearing on 807 Hill Ave. Member Buckton seconded the motion and the motion passed by voice vote. C. New Business 1. Public Hearing-807 Hill Ave., Lot Coverage Ratio Variation Sworn in, Petitioners Patrick and Allison Bouchard Chairperson Miller- Would you like to start with telling us about your project and what you are looking for? Petitioner- sure we contracted Timber built rooms out of St. Charles to build us a 3 seasons room that is designed to take the space of our existing back. Looking for more outdoor enjoyment throughout the year. Because of the layout of the house, the design we are moving it from one side to centering it, which made it a little bit bigger. But it does not hinder any of our neighbors. Chairperson Miller- do you have anyone else here with you tonight to speak to this? Petitioner Patrick Bouchard- Yes, we have Mr. Ben Zell directly to the West of us and Mr. Josh Myer directly to the East of us. Sworn in, Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn, introduced the following variation request for 680 Grand Ave. Daniel introduced the zoning variation to the Board Members as follows: The petitioner is Patrick Bouchard, the owner of the property at 807 Hill Avenue. He has applied for a zoning variation to allow the construction of an approximately 286 square foot addition to the rear of a two-story single-family home that would be result in a lot coverage of approximately 1,890 square feet or 22% of the lot. He explained that wood decks do not count as lot coverage, the applicants want to remove wood deck and replace it with a sunroom, which would increase lot coverage. The proposed elevations of 3 seasons room are shown to Members. Mr. Harper explained it would not affect rear setbacks, and the only overall square footage would be affected at 22%. He stated that the petitioners request approval of the following variation from the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code: 1. Section 10-4-8(E)1 – to allow the total lot coverage ratio of the property to be 22% in lieu of the maximum allowed lot coverage ratio of 20% to allow the construction of a rear sunroom addition to an existing single-family home. The subject property is zoned R2 - Residential District and improved with a two- story single-family home. Page 9 of 77 The existing house was constructed in 1993. The existing lot coverage ratio of the property is approximately 1,608.78 square feet or 18.2% of the area of the 8,780 square foot property. The proposed 286 square foot addition would result in a total lot coverage area of 1,890 square feet or 22% of the property. Member Questions Member Buckton- How long have you folks owned the house? Petitioner Patrick Bouchard- it will be 6 years Member Buckton- So you didn’t build it? Petitioner Patrick Bouchard- no we did not. Member Buckton- Daniel says in the item report that the property is currently nonconforming R2, is that because of a change since the structure was built? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn- when property constructed in 1992, there was a variation approved, under ordinance 3971 that allowed for the construction of a home on a non-confirming lot. Member Kelly – I have no questions. Member Lakhani- no questions for me. Member Pavlich- If they had an actual minimum width of an R2- they would have sufficient coverage. Their buildable width is restricted by substandard lot width. As follow up question for you Daniel, Decks are included in the lot coverage ration calculations? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn- Decks, are not covered under lot coverage, essentially just roofed structures, when speaking of the 20%. Member Pavlich- So theoretically, after the building of this room, they can build a deck as well. Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn – if they were to build an additional deck around the side, they would have to meet all the side yard and rear yard setbacks and it would not count as an impermeable surface. Member Kelly- So it does not cover lot coverage, so they are 2% over which is what is being proposed. If they stick a deck after the fact, it has zero impact. Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn -So long as it meets all the other deck requirements. Member Jones- Daniel, what is min lot square footage for a lot in R2 district? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn – the min square footage of property in R2 Zoning district is lot area of 8,712 square feet. Member Jones- they are at 8780, so they meet the minimum lot area. If they were wider and shorter they would have same lot and be conforming? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn- correct. Member Jones- that is the only question I had. Chairperson Miller- do you have any practical, unique circumstances that you would like to talk about? Petitioner Patrick Bouchard- only lot being smaller than the average lot and main purpose is to use more throughout the year. Maintaining the deck is problematic, moldy and mildewy. Looking for more space for our family. If the lot was straight, we would not be having this meeting. Page 10 of 77 Member Pavlich- I just want to clarify for the rest of the group what Chip was getting at, we have in the zoning variation standards, outlined some goals that we are trying to check boxes on. Member Pavlich read the goals to the board members and petitioner. Explained that we needed to establish the first of the read goals and the remaining would be evidence to support. Petitioner Bouchard- our neighbors can speak to this but we are not affecting our neighbor’s views, for our unique circumstance is the strange lot size which cannot be changed. Mr. Zell’s house extends further but it does not affect their view. We talked about the ration and permeable surface, and should not affect pavement. If you look at the survey, you can see that we are doing the work in the back and that is the most affected part of the house by the situation of the lot. Member Buckton- you guys refer to this as year-round but the report says it is 3-season, so is it year-round of 3-season? Petitioner Patrick Bouchard- 3 season room or 9-month. Neighbors Ben Zell and Josh Myer (813 Hill) sworn in Neighbor Josh Myer-West side neighbor, 813 hill neighbor- I have been a Glen Ellyn resident for the last six years, living at the same property. We are certainly very supportive of the project, my understanding Patrick was that if you made it smaller, and had it shifted around, it would affect the flow of the kitchen and would maybe start to look at a kitchen remodel as well. That was the comment I was going to add, we are very supportive. Neighbor Ben Zell- I live to the west of them, 387 Bryant Ave., their deck extends, my kitchen is a little bit further, so we have no objection, and we support it. Seeing no further questions from the Board, Chairperson Miller asked a motion to close the public hearing. Member Jones made a motion to close the public hearing Member Lakhani seconded the motion. Roll call was called and the motion passed 6 (yes) 0 (no). Deliberation Member Buckton- Glen Ellyn has lots of lots that do not conform, having 22% does not bother me, I think it is a fine project so I will be voting for it Member Kelly- I have no problem with this other than we need side bar with our Planning Director for a de minis issue once again, this is something that he could have handled Member Lakhani- I am a yes Member Pavlich- I am also supportive, I visited the property, a couple of notes on the property, when you walk around, they have a very steep backyard that limits the structures that you can put on it. It is very apparent that this will be transparent to the neighbors, you will not notice the addition. I think it does not interfere with the neighborhood at all. It is a good move so I will be voting for it. Member Jones- I will be a no, my problem is that there really is no hardship, the front of your property is extended because of the way that the road is, you gain more square footage but as it goes back it is the same width from front to back once you get to sidewalk. Really there is no hardship or unique circumstance to provide the relief today, if you were to come down to 13 by 13, a size, I would be a yes because you are just a little bit over. But when looking at criteria for a unique circumstance or hardship, I do not see it. I am a no. Chairperson Miller- I walked there and I walked the neighborhood and this is also not unique addition to a house in the neighborhood; there are quite a few that are very similar. Your lot is a little narrower and different than some or them, to me that was a hardship, just the size of the lot. Yes, you bought the lot that way but you also didn’t really know that this was going to be a situation, so I am a yes. Member Buckton made a motion to close the deliberation. Member Lakhani seconded the motion; roll was called passed by a unanimous vote 6 (yes) 0 (no). A Motion to approve application on 807 Hill Ave. was made by Member Pavlich and seconded by Member Buckton the motion passed with five (5) votes yes and one (1) vote no. Member Jones in the dissent. Page 11 of 77 Findings of Fact- 807 Hill Ave. The Zoning Board of Appeals having fully heard and considered the testimony of all those present at the hearing, including Josh Myer of 813 Hill Ave and Ben Zell from 387 Bryant Ave., and being fully advised of the premises makes the following findings pursuant to sections 10-10-12 of the Villages Zoning Code. The applicant seeks a zoning variation to allow the total lot coverage of the property be 22% in lieu of the maximum allowed lot coverage of 20% to allow the construction of a rear sun room addition to an existing single-family home. The proposed addition will follow all other zoning regulations and building regulations related to such structure. The Zoning Board of Appeals considered the following documents which were submitted including the application, plot of survey, location and zoning map, proposed construction plans as well as many of the members actually visited the property. The Zoning Variance is granted with a vote of 5 to 1; pursuant the authority vested by the statutes of the State of Illinois and the Village of Glen Ellyn Zoning Board of Appeals herby recommends to the Village of the President Board of Trustees pursuant to a vote of 5 to 1 be approved for the property located at 807 Hill Ave. Glen Ellyn, Illinois. Motion to accept Findings of Fact by Member Buckton Seconded by Member Jones Member Jones motioned to open the Public Hearing on 194 S. Ellyn Ave. Member Kelly seconded the motion and the motion passed by voice vote. 2. Public Hearing- 194 S. Ellyn Ave. Detached Garage Variation Sworn in, Petitioner Dennis Sheehan, owner of 194 S. Ellyn Ave. Sworn in, Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn, introduced the following variation request for 194 S. Ellyn Avenue. Daniel explained that the owner of the property at 194 S. Ellyn Avenue has applied for zoning variations to accommodate the construction a proposed addition to an existing detached garage. The garage was constructed in 1964, permitted in 1964 by Village of Glen Ellyn, now existing non-conforming garage. He stated that the petitioners request approval of the following variation from the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code: 1. Section 10-4-8(F) to allow an eave height for a detached garage to be twenty feet (20’-0”) in lieu of the maximum allowed eave height of twelve feet (12’-0”). 2. Section 10-5-4(A)(2)(a) to allow an addition to an existing non-conforming detached garage on a property which has a total square footage for accessory structures of 1,006 square feet in lieu of the maximum allowed total square footage for accessory structures of 1,000 square feet. 3. Section 10-8-6(B)(2) – to allow an enlargement to an existing non-conforming six hundred and ninety square foot (690 sqft) detached garage which exceeds the maximum allowed square footage of six hundred and sixty square feet (660 sqft) for a detached garage. 4. Section 10-5-4(A)3 to allow for two accessory structures of the same type. The subject property is zoned R2 - Residential District and improved with a two-story single-family home He explained that the property owner would like to allow an eave height for a detached garage to be twenty feet (20’-0”) in lieu of the maximum allowed eave height of twelve feet (12’-0”). The property currently has a 690 square foot two-car garage that is approximately 12 feet in height to the top of the ridge. Based on the historical building permit records, the garage appears to have been permitted about five years after the construction of the primary structure. The applicant is proposing to raid the roof of the existing garage to allow for a second story storage area. The maximum ridge height of the proposed enlargement would be 22 feet and would be the maximum allowed height for a garage per village code. In order to maximize the total usable area of the proposed second story, the property owner is proposing an elevated eave height of 20 feet for the expansion to allow for greater overhead space for storage. Section 10-5-4(A)(2)(a) to allow an addition to an existing non-conforming detached garage on a property which has a total square footage for accessory structures of 1,006 square feet in lieu of the maximum allowed total square footage for accessory structures of 1,000 square feet. The proposed enlargement would be to an existing nonconforming property with accessory structures with a combined area of 1,006 square feet. Village code. Ord. 4673 was adopted in 1998, which created the restriction of limited accessory structures to a maximum total area of 1,000 square feet. Page 12 of 77 Section 10-8-6(B)(2) – to allow an enlargement to an existing nonconforming six hundred and ninety square foot (690 sqft) detached garage which exceeds the maximum allowed square footage of six hundred and sixty square feet (660 sqft) for a detached garage. The proposed enlargement would be to an existing nonconforming garage with a total area of 690 square feet. The maximum allowed area for a detached garage is 660 square feet. The 660 square foot maximum allowed area requirement appears to have been adopted by the Village between 2002 and 2005. Section 10-5-4(A)3 to allow for two accessory structures of the same type. The property currently has two detached garages on the property. The proposed enlargement would be an enlargement to an existing non-conforming use of an accessory structure. Ord. 5035 was adopted in 2002, which created the requirement that no more than one of each type of accessory structure shall be allowed on a zoning lot unless authorized by a Special Use Permit Combined total combined lot coverage is 13.48% Member Questions Member Pavlich- does that include bonuses for detached garage and accessory structures? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn- no it does not, that 13% is with everything combined Member Pavlich- they could have another 500 square feet plus 100 for the shed Member Pavlich- I am going to go from memory and quote the code that you get for every detached garage you get a 500 square foot lot coverage bonus and for additional accessory structure, that would be another 100 square feet of lot coverage bonus, so that lot coverage is maybe substantially less than 13%, maybe even 10%- just as a guess Member Buckton- are you referring to the second garage as a shed? Member Pavlich- It does not matter what the additional structures are, because for your total lot coverage you get 100 extra for any accessory structure and for a detached garage you get 500 additional square feet so if you were right at the limit right at 20% and you put a 500 square foot garage detached, that would be allowed provided it met all the other rules Member Jones- Daniel for the 500 sqft bonus, for the detached garage, if his garage is 1,000 square feet is it the first 500 that counts or if it’s over 500 does that bonus not count at all? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn – that bonus only counts to lot coverages, not the overall square footage. We are over the square footage allowed for accessory structures but we are within the lot coverage. Member Pavlich- it does not count towards the amount of accessory structure. You can add to house but not structures Member Jones- Is the house considered a 1 story or ranch or a 2 story? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn- it’s a 2-story Member Jones- So they are 20 because it’s a 2 story Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn- side elevations shown to Members, storage area shown as well, no bathroom that would indicate living situations, proposed height would meet the overall ridge height, issue is eaves. Property owner requesting 20 feet elevated eave height, would like to go vertical with garage. Petitioner Dennis Sheehan- it’s actually 16 feet, 8 to first level and 8 to the next- structural beam maybe you get to 17, not 20 Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn- Here is how I interpreted, you have 8ft to the ceiling to the top, 4 feet to the eave; oh I see what you are saying, yes you are correct. Member Kelly- was 22 to the roof ridge? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn -22 to the roof ridge, 16 to the eave; I misunderstood the elevations diagram. The proposed eave height is 16 feet. Member Pavlich- in the R2 district rules for eave height in garages there is what is called a low slopped roof provision, so when you reduce the slope of the roof, then you catch that 12ft height limitation. If you make a steeper roof, you can build it to 22 feet without a variation, just to be clear on that. Because of the low pitch of the roof, he falls under the low category instead of the standard ridge height Page 13 of 77 Member Kelly- if I want to build an A frame garage, I’m fine, can I go 22 ft? Member Pavlich- Yes, if it’s steep enough you can go the 22ft. If its flat enough, 12 ft is the max Chairperson Miller- Is that because the steeper we go, the less is bulk it shows, there is a reason for it and a good one Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn – yes, just to be clear I had notice for 20ft eave height based on the applicant he is correct, I see the mistake. It should be 16ft now. Member Kelly- 12 is our code limits? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn-yes, 12 is our code’s limits Member Jones- if they were to attach this garage to house, would the eave and ridge height be, ok? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn - I believe it would be, as it would still be under the lot coverage ratio. I believe it would be, yes. Member Jones- what would be considered attached to the house? On Main St. just north of hawthorn they ran a beam to a house to maintain original house to lower taxes? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn – that is an interesting question that we have ran into before, theoretically, if you ran a pergola, or something like that, I don’t think we would do that. There are fire codes and things like that which you would have to be following. You get into an area that I don’t have expertise in. Member Jones- but then the eave heights would be fine? We would not need any of the variances Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn- I believe so, yes Member Buckton- in 1964 was the garage at 690 feet out of code? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn - no it was not Member Buckton-the garage that was built in 1990, that is only 310 square feet, was code changed after 1990 that does not allow two accessory structures on that property? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn- yes, it was created in 2002. Member Buckton- so when both of these structures were built, they were within code, they were both permitted by village when built Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn – yes, they were both permitted by the Village. Chairperson Miller- would you like to tells us a little bit about your property, why you are here and what makes your particular situation unique? Petitioner Dennis Sheehan- Handed letters of support from neighbors. Please go to overall picture, the next house over to left, Pat Mitchell, he is my neighbor, as tall as it will be it will not interfere. If I were to pitch, house 1100 sq feet, in laws will be moving in, move things around, financial component, getting ready to retire, interest rates, too high. I am not changing anything, just grabbing roof and lifting up. I am here for more storage, family issues, and financial issues. Unfortunately, Jordan is not here tonight because I told him I would through him under the bus, when I walked in and brought picture of plot survey and explained what I want to do, and Jordan said your plot of survey is 1992, you should be grandfathered in 1992, but here I am with you guys and my architect just under $5,000 dollars. If I would have known that I was out in these issues, maybe I would have looked in a different direction and as far as the design of this goes, I didn’t take the design lightly, my yard is meticulously maintained for a reason, my architect and I drove around for a few days taking pictures of the houses and the way the double eave and single eave are so we can make this blend in as good as we possibly could, not to obstruct neighbors or bring in an eye sore into this neighborhood. Member Jones- no questions Member Pavlich- I don’t think that I actually have any questions for you Page 14 of 77 Member Lakhani- I have nothing right now Member Kelly- I have nothing at this point Member Buckton- nobody asked so I am going to; are you related to the guy that your street is next to? Petitioner Dennis Sheehan- I can’t disclose that information, but I don’t get a lot of tickets in Glen Ellyn if that is what you are referring to. If it helps, I did serve on our fire dept. Member Buckton- you want to build this eave at 16 ft and code is 12, I understand that there is a difference in pitch, square footage and size. If you are denied the variation, can you still build it at 12 and be within variation if you don’t get the variation? Petitioner Dennis Sheehan -Like I said, I am willing to work with you guys. If we can come up with compromise, I will work with you guys, 12 would be basically a hallway, I can redesign as a barn type of roof but would not be esthetically pleasing Member Pavlich- what is actual existing ridge house height? Petitioner Dennis Sheehan – it’s about 16ft, garage will probably be a little taller in full disclosure Chairman Miller- Do you have anyone that would like to come up and speak? Sworn in Neighbors Gianni Pesche and Patrick Mitchell Neighbor Gianni Pesche- he covered it perfectly, I am on the other side, same lot as well- older homes with very limited storage, will not disrupt esthetic of the lot, as neighbors just showing support Neighbor Patrick Mitchell-I live to house to north of us, we are here to support him, I look out my window and his garage is right there Petitioner Dennis Sheehan- Patrick Mitchell only neighbor this would impact Member Jones made a motion to close the public hearing Member Lakhani seconded the motion. Roll call was called and the motion passed 6 (yes) 0 (no). Deliberation Member Buckton- Mr. Sheehan, I think that obviously your neighbors like what is going on. I am going to be a stickler for this eave height, difference between 16 and 20 feet is fairly significant in my eyes. I’m sorry 16 and 12. Putting on a second story is fine. My goal would be to adhere to code; I will vote no for the variance. Member Kelly- question; what is the existing ridge height on detached garage? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn-it’s about 8 feet. Member Kelly- and the ridge height will be 22? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn- correct Member Kelly, my biggest concern and I certainly respect your condition is offering a variance in this case is permitted if and only if we are bringing the structure into conformance, we are taking it further out of conformance it seems to me, do I have that right Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn -We have existing non-conforming- village code would not allow us to do any kind of modification or anything like that, if it’s not brought into conformance so this is a variation to do an addition to the garage to an existing non-conforming structure Member Buckton-But at the end of the day, it sounds to me like we were taking an existing non-conforming structure and making it even less conforming, in terms of height, eave height, density. Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn- in terms of eave height yes Page 15 of 77 Member Buckton- I am not going to speak for anyone else but as far as I am concerned, I would never ask the petitioner to reduce the square footage of structure to 600 square feet, right? Member Kelly- As much as I respect the problems you are having, I just don’t see sufficient hardship such as a corner lot where in you have a difficult time with lot coverage because of shape of lot- I am not seeing it here at this point, my vote will be no. Member Lakhani- I agree, it feels like this is moving to something more nonconforming than allowed, in terms of being able to see the hardship it does not completely comply with all the guidelines that we have, I respect what needs to get done, I feel like maybe there could be another way to explore this. Also, a little bit difficult for me to approve this. Member Pavlich- I am the most pro garage but that said, I have to agree with the rest of the board, I think you have a valid problem and need. But I don’t think we have well considered all of the other design options, that could reduce the increase in variance that we are seeing for this particular solution. I ask about how much square footage we had, to see if an attached solution could create an addition, Dorners in garage, that is where I would look to try to work with the Village to try to come up with designs that would reduce the scale and number of variances that would be required for this project. Petitioner Dennis Sheehan- I actually do have two dormer designs, that is kind of what I also looked at because the two other smaller eaves do fit under the 12 feet. Member Pavlich- I will have to look at that separately to be fair, when we approve a project like this, other people will see this and will say, I see this garage and I want the same and we as the Village end up having to answer that question and the other catch is I know that the Board of Trustees is kind of anti-garage, so we have to come with a pretty openly compelling, something that is going to sail because if we don’t have a unanimous vote, I don’t know if it is getting through the Trustees anyway. Petitioner Dennis Sheehan- I did drive around Glen Ellyn; I should have brought pictures in because there are garages that are way after code change that are way larger. My next question would be, how do I continue with the project. Member Kelly- If I may interject, when you spoke to architect, did they offer any other options? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn- just on a note on the dormers, is that the total width of the dormer, they shall not exceed 25 percent length of building Member Kelly- what he or she is proposing here complies with code? Petitioner Dennis Sheehan- yes Member Kelly- it’s not the sexiest design but I think it is properly plotted Chairman Miller- that is also how code winds up changing when things become unpalatable but meet the code Member Jones- Daniel, you said dormer can’t exceed 25% of width of wall, can you have more than one dormer on each side? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn - yes, he can have more than one dormer on each side, no dormer shall be greater than 8 feet in width from the outside of the walls space between dormers must have a min of 5 feet. Width of all dormer’s shall not exceed 25% Member Jones- if he reduces dormer to 25%, then he can keep eave height at 20 or 16 feet, correct? Petitioner Dennis Sheehan- could we split difference and go 14 ft? Would you be opposed to that? Member Jones- Not in favor of project but ok with sections of 2, 3 and 4, I would recommend that we break them out and vote. Chairperson Miller- I am also a no, in your neighborhood I didn’t see anything similar, Petitioner Dennis Sheehan- instead of having double dormer, I can drop to 14 ft and split difference, and look into sprucing up a little. Ridge height will stay at 22. Petitioner was speaking with Commission and attempting to negotiate a plan that would be agreeable with the Members. Member Pavlich- having ridge height for a house increased, will be a sticking point for the Board of Trustees, we need a better visualization of how this will look when done. Page 16 of 77 Chairperson Miller- at this point you are not unanimous, you have two options, because I don’t think we will come to an agreement right now, so you can let us vote or you can come back October 7th, Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn – The board will meet again on October 7th; I’ll give you a 3rd option which will be a split vote of approving variation requests 2-4 to allow for new construction onto garage as long as everything else is within code and then you can do a separate vote on condition 1 for eave height. Chairperson Miller- I think a cleaner version would be to have to have Mr. Sheehan pull the proposal Member Jones- would you be willing to bring that from 16 down to 14, can you bring dormer in to 50%? Petitioner Dennis Sheehan- I want to know exactly required, be as close as we can with the compromises so that I can move forward with the architect? Member Jones- would you be willing to bring it down to 14, peak at 22 Petitioner Dennis Sheehan- Well I can bring it down to 14 and I can take the peak at 22 and possible get to 20 and still get what I want. Member Buckton- I agree the board might be, see issue with peak but not ZBA with peak at 22, I don’t have any problem with it. Member Jones- if he was 14feet, and dormer at 50% instead of where it is right now, I would be ok with it, question is would everyone else? Member Buckton- does that open up another can of worms Daniel, that now we have a dormer at 80% and not 25% Petitioner Dennis Sheehan- I could remove dormer Member Buckton- if this was 13.3 inches instead of 12 could it go through an administrative? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn - not for an eave height. Chairperson Miller- how do you feel about the changes you have made with 14ft? Member Buckton- again I am a code guy but having said that, I want to help Mr. Sheehan out, I can do 14 but I don’t know if the Village or the Board will. Member Kelly- I appreciate your willingness to compromise, I probably still want to see it, the geometry, conceptually I would be good. Member Lakhani- I would be ok with that too; I think it would make sense. Member Pavlich- if this was 660 square foot garage everything would be allowed except for eave height. Initial reaction would be that is a huge garage and we don’t like it. We have to make clear that this could be done anyway, try to make pitch to minimize negative impact. Would you consider converting this to an attached system like we talked about? Is that out of budget for you? Petitioner Dennis Sheehan- It’s not a budget issue, it’s a tax issue, once it becomes an attached garage, in 5 years I will be reassessed and that would increase tax Member Pavlich- assessments are made based on estimated value of the house. Petitioner Dennis Sheehan- once it becomes attached, the value will go way up, right now it’s not attached. Member Kelly- You don’t have mechanical or plumbing, do you; I can’t imagine an assessor would look into this as a livable space. Member Pavlich- you probably will face assessment because assessor will look at permits pulled represent this with additional views of the house. I am just asking what will you be willing to consider. I want to give you guys the best chance to get through. I think we need to come back and represent this with additional views of the house, represent this and try to minimize variations. Page 17 of 77 Chairperson Miller- I am still struggling with this, the practical difficulties, what is unique about this, looking at everything I am still struggling with it. I am not sure what you can do at this point to change it. Member Jones- if you are concerned about taxes, go to Milton Township in Wheaton and any of the assessors can explain to you what will happen, in a way we are assuming what could happen. Like I said, I am fine with items 2 through 4, if we have a compromise that everyone speaks about. Chairperson Miller- where are you with his proposed changes? Member Jones- if he went 14ft across, I think that is a good compromise, I would approve. I still struggle with the hardship. Chairperson Miller- exactly, that is where I am and Craig is telling you that you have to come up with good reasons for the hardship and practical difficulties. Read that list very carefully. Petitioner Dennis Sheehan- the biggest part of this hardship is moving 50% of my house somewhere, this is a financial hardship. Member Kelly- But they only consider hardships that pertain to the built environment Chairperson Miller- that is why I said, take a look at it again, what it is, they take for a good reason the emotional part out of this. You have two choices, we can vote on it and you will get a no, or you can pull eave height right now and ask us to vote on all other 3. Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn -no, so what you can make recommendation for approval of items 2-4 and make a recommendation for denial on item 1 Chairperson Miller- Your choice is we vote or suspend until October Petitioner Dennis Sheehan- I will suspend until October since you can’t split the items and I will come back. Who do I submit my new drawings to? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn – you will be submitting online again Petitioner Dennis Sheehan- do I have to repay? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn- no you do not, this is all the same. Petitioner Dennis Sheehan- ok, I will submit various options of eave heights, 12ft, 14ft, 16ft Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn- that is ok, right now you can go maximum 20 because of my mistake, and if you want to do options A, B,C on different heights is ok. Member Pavlich- I think it’s a great idea, come back with alternatives that you think we would accept- approve the overall visualization of how this would look with the house for the board. The difficulty is your hardship is only you have non- conforming garage. Other thing I would check is foundation of garage, are you sure this foundation is deep enough? Petitioner Dennis Sheehan-It is over 4ft deep, I have dug myself. So, if I come back with eaves of 12ft I comply? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn- if you come back with eaves at 12ft, they would still need to be voted on by ZBA and Village Board Chairperson Miller- part of what he is talking about, improving your package, ask your architect to help us visualize what it will look like, show us pictures of neighborhood to help us see how it fits. Petitioner Dennis Sheehan- Right so we will get pictures and have it redesigned; 16, 14 not good enough Member Pavlich- Zoning is not supposed to consider the Architectural Style but the Board really cares about how it looks. Member Lakhani- adding to house is a financial hardship which we really can’t look at, if you were to consider adding to house, it’s not financial but it would ruin the look and character of the look in the house. Petitioner Dennis Sheehan, the house is a split level so when you go from the lower level to ground floor and bring it straight over you would not have a breeze way. Page 18 of 77 Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn- I want to be very clear that we need to make a motion to table and state what we are asking applicant to bring back Member Pavlich made a Motion to table Variance Request on 194 S. Ellyn Ave., Glen Ellyn until October 7, 2025 at which point we will reconsider updated application from Mr. Sheehan including more specifics about alternative design options, more supporting evidence regarding practical difficulties and hardships related to your property and any other alternative designs that you could consider and why they are not feasible Second by Member Lakhani. Roll call Member Pavlich- for the record submitting drawing and signatures (20) petition for the record. D. Other Business 1. Review and approval of Rules of Rules of Procedure for the Glen Ellyn Zoning Board of Appeals Motion to move the review and to October 7th, 2025, by Member Kelly, Member Lakhani second all in favor. Motion passed unanimously. E. Chairperson’s Statement Thank Matt for his time and service and willingness to stay. I am glad you are staying. I would ask that if you are going to have any changes to the procedures that we will talk about that we discuss them now. Not voting on anything, just bring them out now. This is our Village Attorney saying this. Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn - essentially, they had changed the quorum section, 3.2. that section does not currently exist, so our Village Attorney is amending a section that talks about physical presence of all boards. Member Pavlich- majority of seated board now instead of slated board? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn- correct Member Buckton- are we looking at this again and approving on the 7th? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn - only thing that has changed is section 3.2, if you do have any comments or feedback please submit Chairperson Miller- is there anything that stuck out that anyone would have an issue with, we can talk about it now Member Jones- our agenda where we do Findings of Fact, is not in here? Chairperson Miller- that is Chairman’s discretion, when we do at end, we are saying this is what the board did as a whole, it makes sense to have it at end. Members discussed the Findings of Fact and how the presentation will change to having at end of each case presented. Members discussed having a template that they could read off of when making the Findings of Fact at end of each case and Daniel confirmed that he could provide that to the Board so that it can facilitate the process. F. Trustee Liaison Report No Trustee Liaison Report G. Staff Report Planning Manager Daniel Harper- Stated the following: - 365 S. Kenilworth and 236 Sunset both approved by Village Board, finalizing building permits - September 22, we have annexation of a Property on Butterfield Rd - Historic preservation we have a landmark nomination request for 799 Rifer Rd - Application for 574 N. Main St. as an alteration for Historic Landmark - October meeting, I have 2 items on list as well as today’s request to come back, one is eave height for an addition, renovating attic of home for livable square footage. The other is an application for garage setback, side yard set back Page 19 of 77  - Plan commission for September was cancelled - Metra on hold, waiting for government to get back from us, waiting on consent and approval from Metra and Union Station. - Demolition permit has been issued for the shelter, parks district has plans on moving on that this month, phase one and phase 2 project. Take down US bank, - There is a Village initiated text amendment to allow for C4 zoning district. Danby Station, C4 office district. H. Adjournment Member Buckton made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Member Kelly seconded the motion and the motion passed by voice vote at 9:00 PM. Respectfully submitted, Adriana Ohl-Zamora Page 20 of 77  Glen Ellyn Zoning Board Meeting 10/7/2025 7:00 PM of Appeals Department: Community Development 535 Duane Street Department Head: Jennifer Henaghan Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Category: Public Hearing Prepared By: Daniel Harper AGENDA ITEM (ID DOC ID: 2025-833 # 2025-833) Continuation - Public Hearing — 194 S. Ellyn Avenue - Detached Garage Variations Statement of the Issue: The petitioner is Dennis Sheehan, the owner of the property at 194 S. Ellyn Avenue. He has applied for zoning variations to accommodate the construction of a proposed addition to an existing detached garage. Analysis: UPDATE: After considering the originally proposed variation to allow for an addition to the non- conforming garage at its September 9, 2025, meeting, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to continue the public hearing of this request to the October ZBA meeting to allow for the applicant to bring new proposals showing reduced eave heights and reduced dormer sizes to reduce the overall impact of the proposed massing of the addition to the existing accessory structure. The applicant has brought two new exhibits (Exhibit A and Exhibit B) to be considered by the ZBA. Exhibit A: This proposed addition shows an eave height of 12 feet with two 3'-6" wide dormers. The proposed eave height is conforming per section 10-4-8(F) of the Village Code. The proposed dormer eave heights of approximately 17 feet would also be permissible per Section 10-4-8(F)(1)(4) of the Village Code as the dormers are less than 8 feet in width and do not exceed 25 percent of the building's side. This proposed exhibit would eliminate the need for variation request number 1. Exhibit B: This proposed addition shows an eave height of 14 feet with one 7-foot wide dormer. This proposal reduces the original eave height request by two feet (2'-0") while still maintaining the higher ceilings that is desired by the applicant. This proposal shows one dormer on the west side of the addition and two skylights on the east side. REQUEST: The petitioners request approval of the following variationd from the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code: 1. Section 10-4-8(F) to allow an eave height for a detached garage to be twenty feet (20’-0”) in lieu of the maximum allowed eave height of twelve feet (12’-0”). Page 21 of 77  2. Section 10-5-4(A)(2)(a) to allow an addition to an existing non-conforming detached garage on a property which has a total square footage for accessory structures of 1,006 square feet in lieu of the maximum allowed total square footage for accessory structures of 1,000 square feet. 3. Section 10-8-6(B)(2) – to allow an enlargement to an existing non-conforming six hundred and ninety square foot (690 sqft) detached garage which exceeds the maximum allowed square footage of six hundred and sixty square feet (660 sqft) for a detached garage. 4. Section 10-5-4(A)3 to allow for two accessory structures of the same type. ZONING/USE: The subject property is zoned R2 - Residential District and improved with a two- story single-family home. PUBLIC NOTICE: Notice of the public hearing was published in the August 22, 2025, edition of the Daily Herald, mailed to property owners within 250 feet of the subject property, and a placard was placed on the property. ZONING HISTORY: There is no zoning history for the property. PERMIT HISTORY: Year Permit No. Type 2021 20211490 Driveway 2008 20080535 Fence 1990 11394 Garage 1964 194 Garage 1959 7011 New Single-Family Home ANALYSIS: In order to proceed with the project as proposed, the petitioner will need to be granted the following variations from the Zoning Code: 1. Section 10-4-8(F) to allow an eave height for a detached garage to be twenty feet (20’-0”) in lieu of the maximum allowed eave height of twelve feet (12’-0”). The property currently has a 690 square foot two-car garage that is approximately 12 feet in height to the top of the ridge. Based on the historical building permit records, the garage appears to have been permitted about five years after the construction of the primary structure. The applicant is proposing to raid the roof of the existing garage to allow for a second story storage area. The maximum ridge height of the proposed enlargement would be 22 feet and would be the maximum allowed height for a garage per village code. In order to maximize the total usable area of the proposed second story, the property owner is proposing an elevated eave height of 20 feet for the expansion to allow for greater overhead space for storage. 2. Section 10-5-4(A)(2)(a) to allow an addition to an existing non-conforming detached garage on a property which has a total square footage for accessory structures of 1,006 square feet in lieu of the maximum allowed total square footage for accessory structures of 1,000 square feet. The proposed enlargement would be to an existing nonconforming property with accessory Page 22 of 77 structures with a combined area of 1,006 square feet. Village code. Ord. 4673 was adopted in 1998, which created the restriction of limited accessory structures to a maximum total area of 1,000 square feet. 3. Section 10-8-6(B)(2) – to allow an enlargement to an existing nonconforming six hundred and ninety square foot (690 sqft) detached garage which exceeds the maximum allowed square footage of six hundred and sixty square feet (660 sqft) for a detached garage. The proposed enlargement would be to an existing nonconforming garage with a total area of 690 square feet. The maximum allowed area for a detached garage is 660 square feet. The 660 square foot maximum allowed area requirement appears to have been adopted by the Village between 2002 and 2005. 4. Section 10-5-4(A)3 to allow for two accessory structures of the same type. The property currently has two detached garages on the property. The proposed enlargement would be an enlargement to an existing non-conforming use of an accessory structure. Ord. 5035 was adopted in 2002, which created the requirement that no more than one of each type of accessory structure shall be allowed on a zoning lot u Budget Impact: Contribution to Strategic Plan Action Requested: The ZBA should consider the testimony presented during the public hearing and review the written evidence presented as part of the petitioners’ application packet. The ZBA should make findings of fact and determine if practical difficulty or a particular hardship exists for the requested variation and if the essential character of the neighborhood is maintained. The ZBA may choose to make a recommendation to the Village Board for the approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the request per Section 10-10-12 of the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code. Attachments: 1. Aerial Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Application - Zoning Variation 4. Plat of Survey 5. Exhibit A 12 ft eave 6. Exhibit B 14 ft eave 7. Originally Requested Elevations and Floor Plan Page 23 of 77  194 S. Ellyn Avenue - Aerial Map Legend 0 50 100 Print Date: 9/3/2025 Notes ft Disclaimer: The GIS Consortium and MGP Inc. are not liable for any use, misuse, modification or disclosure of any map provided under applicable law. This map is for general information purposes only. Although the information is believed to be generally accurate, errors may exist and the user should independently confirm for accuracy. The map does not constitute a regulatory determination and is not a base for engineering design. A Registered Land Surveyor should be consulted to determine precise location boundaries on the ground. Page 24 of 77  194 S. Ellyn Avenue - Zoning Map Legend Zoning and Development Zoning R2: Single Family Residential District 0 100 200 Print Date: 9/3/2025 Notes ft Disclaimer: The GIS Consortium and MGP Inc. are not liable for any use, misuse, modification or disclosure of any map provided under applicable law. This map is for general information purposes only. Although the information is believed to be generally accurate, errors may exist and the user should independently confirm for accuracy. The map does not constitute a regulatory determination and is not a base for engineering design. A Registered Land Surveyor should be consulted to determine precise location boundaries on the ground. Page 25 of 77  VILLAGE OF GLEN ELLYN Zoning Variation Application Packet Community Development Department 535 Duane Street – Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 – Telephone 630.547.5250 – Fax 630.547.5370 Page 26 of 77  APPLICATION FOR ZONING VARIATION Date Filed: 7/31/2025 Application No: 2025-0025 Name of Applicant: Dennis Sheehan Jr Address of Applicant: 194 S ELLYN AVE GLEN ELLYN, AL 60137 Property Interest of Applicant: Owner Name of Owner: Dennis Sheehan Address of Owner: 194 S Ellyn Ave Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Type Name Address Phone Email 194 S ELLYN AVE GLEN Petitioner Dennis Sheehan Jr ELLYN, AL 60137 194 S ELLYN AVE GLEN Web Administrator Dennis Sheehan Jr ELLYN, AL 60137 194 S Ellyn Ave Glen Ellyn, Parcel Owner Dennis Sheehan IL 60137 Property Address: 194 S Ellyn Ave Project Name: Web Project Project Description: detached garage raising the roof to add additional storage Legal Description of Property: lot 13 in block 3 in glen acres sub. ,being a sub. of part of section 23, township 39 north 10 east of the thed principal meridian according to the plat thereof recorded october 8, 1995 as document 201017 in dupage county il. Zoning: R2, Single Family Residential District Lot Dimensions: 200x82 by 180x 62 Lot Area: 16500 : 05232200430000 Present Use: residential Estimated Date to Begin New Use/Construction: 9/1/2025 Page 27 of 77 Name(s), Address(es) and Phone No(s). of Experts (architects, engineers, etc.): Narrative Statement: footprint and eve hight EVIDENCE RELATING TO ZONING CODE STANDARDS FOR A VARIATION: 1. Provide evidence that due to the characteristics of the property in question, there are practical difficulties or particular hardship for the applicant/owner in carrying out the strict letter of the Zoning Code: unable to change existing footprint 2. Provide evidence that the property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used under the conditions allowed by the Zoning Code (i.e., without one or more variations) OR Provide evidence that the plight of the applicant/owner is due to unique circumstances relating to the property in question: these building were built be for i took ownership 3. Provide evidence that the requested variation(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality of the property in question: we are just razing the roof of said structure 4. Provide evidence that the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical condition of the property in question would bring particular hardship upon the applicant/owner as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the Zoning Code were to be carried out: we are willing to work with the city but we also are looking to make this look as nice as possible 5. Provide evidence that the conditions upon which the petition for variation is based would not be applicable generally to other property within the same zoning district: this is a pre existing structure 6. Provide evidence that the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire to make more money out of the property in question: this will be use for personal use only 7. Provide evidence that the alleged difficulty or particular hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property in question or by the applicant. this situation has been a cause of a change of city code Page 28 of 77 8. Provide evidence that the granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property in question is located. there is no substantial change other than the roof hight 9. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. the ne Hight will not affect any Nabers do to the distance and location form the structure 10. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Substantially increase the hazard from fire or other dangers to the property in question or adjacent property. this is an preexisting building 11. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Otherwise impair the public health, safety, comfort, morals or general welfare of the inhabitants of the Village. as stated above this is a preexisting building 12. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. this will most likely increased value 13. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Unduly increase traffic congestion in the public streets and highway. this is for personal use 14. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Create a nuisance. this will be built to be as unintrusive as possible 15. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Results in an increase in public expenditures. there is no public use 16. Provide evidence that the variation is the minimum variation that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. as stated above its per existing building and the changes are for storage only 17. Please add any comments which may assist the commission in reviewing this application. the issues we are having are due to the city out building code changes in which i was not living here and cannot rebuild original structure Page 29 of 77  OWNERSHIP BY LAND TRUST Date: 7/31/2025 Address: 194 S Ellyn Ave Legal Description: lot 13 in block 3 in glen acres sub. ,being a sub. of part of section 23, township 39 north 10 east of the thed principal meridian according to the plat thereof recorded october 8, 1995 as document 201017 in dupage county il. TRUSTEE: TRUST NO.: Address: LIST ALL BENEFICIARIES: Page 30 of 77  OWNERSHIP BY A CORPORATION Date: 7/31/2025 Address: 194 S Ellyn Ave Legal Description: lot 13 in block 3 in glen acres sub. ,being a sub. of part of section 23, township 39 north 10 east of the thed principal meridian according to the plat thereof recorded october 8, 1995 as document 201017 in dupage county il. LIST ALL SHAREHOLDERS AND OFFICERS/DIRECTORS (AND % OF INTEREST OWNED IN EXCESS OF 5% OF STOCK): Page 31 of 77 Page 32 of 77 EXHIBIT A Page 33 of 77 EXHIBIT B Page 34 of 77 Page 35 of 77  Glen Ellyn Zoning Board Meeting 10/7/2025 7:00 PM of Appeals Department: Community Development 535 Duane Street Department Head: Jennifer Henaghan Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Category: Public Hearing Prepared By: Daniel Harper AGENDA ITEM (ID DOC ID: 2025-838 # 2025-838) Public Hearing — 445 Stagecoach Run - Eave Height Variation Statement of the Issue: The petitioner, Jamie Simoneit, representing Thomas and Ann Villanova, the owners of the property at 445 Stagecoach Run, has applied for a zoning variation to accommodate the proposed interior remodel of the home attic which includes a new shed dormer with a proposed eave height of twenty-eight feet and eight inches (28'-8") in lieu of the maximum allowed eave height of twenty-five feet (25'-0"). Analysis: REQUEST: The petitioners request approval of the following variation from the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code: 1. Section 10-4-8(F) to allow an eave height of a proposed dormer on the principal structure of twenty-eight feet, eight inches (28’-8”) in lieu of the maximum allowed eave height of twenty-five feet (25’-0”). ZONING/USE: The subject property is zoned R2 - Residential District and improved with a two- story single-family home. PUBLIC NOTICE: Notice of the public hearing was published in the September 19, 2025, edition of the Daily Herald, mailed to property owners within 250 feet of the subject property, and a placard was placed on the property. ZONING HISTORY: The property was included in a zoning variation petitioned by the Stacy Woods Homeowners Association to allow for the construction of a 6'-6" solid wood fence to be constructed along the southern property lines of 443, 445, 447, and 451 Stagecoach Run and 465, 569 and 473 Stagecoach Court in lieu of the minimum 4-foot tall, 50% open fence permitted. The approving ordinance of the variation is Ordinance No. 5688. PERMIT HISTORY: Year Permit No. Type 2019 20191429 Patio & Walkway 2018 20180827 Roof, Gutters, Downspouts Page 36 of 77 2010 20101900 Fence 1995 B15252 Finish Basement 1990 B11490 Deck 1989 B11278 New Single-Family Home ANALYSIS: In order to proceed with the project as proposed, the petitioner will need to be granted the following variation from the Zoning Code: 1. Section 10-4-8(F) to allow an eave height of a proposed dormer on the principal structure of twenty-eight feet, eight inches (28’-8”) in lieu of the maximum allowed eave height of twenty-five feet (25’-0”). The applicant is proposing an interior remodel and exterior alteration to convert the existing attic into a third story for a home office and loft space. As part of this proposed conversion, the plans include a shed dormer located in the rear of the home to provide natural light into the space and provide a more accessible point of egress. The eave height of the proposed shed dormer is approximately 28'-8" in height, or 3'-8" higher than the maximum allowed eave height of 25'-0". The Zoning Code has a bonus provision that allows dormers to be exempted from the maximum allowable eave height, but that is limited to dormers that do not exceed eight feet (8') in width individually and, in the case of this home, no more than 16.5' in total. The proposed dormer exceeds 18' in width, so it does not qualify for the dormer height bonus. There is also a bonus provision that allows the maximum eave height to be increased on homes that are set back a greater distance than the minimum required by the Code. In this case, to qualify for a bonus that would allow for an eave height of 28’-8”, the side yard setbacks would need to be no less than 12.7' on each side. The existing side yard setbacks of 9.47' (west) and 9.6' (east) are less than one (1) foot greater than the minimum required and below what would be necessary to qualify for a four-foot eave height bonus. NOTE: The existing home has a lot area coverage ratio of approximately 25.9%, which does not conform to the maximum 20% lot coverage ratio that is permitted for homes more than one story in height. However, the home was lawfully constructed as there was no lot coverage ratio in place at the time the home was permitted in 1989. The proposed Class I alteration to a nonconforming structure is permitted by Section 10-8-6(B)(3) of the Zoning Code. Budget Impact: Contribution to Strategic Plan Action Requested: The ZBA should consider the testimony presented during the public hearing and review the written evidence presented as part of the petitioners’ application packet. The ZBA should make findings of fact and determine if practical difficulty or a particular hardship exists for the requested variation and if the essential character of the neighborhood is maintained. Page 37 of 77 The ZBA may choose to make a recommendation to the Village Board for the approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the request per Section 10-10-12 of the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code. Attachments: 1. Application - Zoning Variation 2. Aerial Map 445 Stagecoach 3. Zoning Map 445 Stagecoach 4. Plat of Survey 5. Building Elevations 6. Floor Plan Page 38 of 77  VILLAGE OF GLEN ELLYN Zoning Variation Application Packet Community Development Department 535 Duane Street – Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 – Telephone 630.547.5250 – Fax 630.547.5370 Page 39 of 77 Page 40 of 77  APPLICATION FOR ZONING VARIATION Date Filed: 9/5/2025 Application No: 2025-0036 Name of Applicant: Daniel J Simoneit Address of Applicant: 864 Woodland Avenue Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Property Interest of Applicant: Owner Representative - Architect Name of Owner: Thomas & Ann Villanova Address of Owner: 445 Stagecoach Run Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Phone: Email: Contacts: Type Name Address Phone Email 864 Woodland Avenue Glen Petitioner Daniel J Simoneit Ellyn, IL 60137 864 Woodland Avenue Glen Web Administrator Daniel J Simoneit Ellyn, IL 60137 Thomas & Ann 445 Stagecoach Run Glen Parcel Owner Villanova Ellyn, IL 60137 Property Address: 445 Stagecoach Run Project Name: Web Project Project Description: Interior remodel w/ a new shed dormer at the existing third floor attic to provide natural light and egress for a proposed "work from home" office Legal Description of Property: OF LOT 34 IN STACY WOODS RESUBDIVISION UNIT 3, BEING A SUBDIVISION OP PART OF THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 39 NORTH, Page 41 of 77 RANGE 10 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED MAY 12, 1989 AS DOCUMENT R89-055876 IN DU PAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS. Freestanding Single Family Private Residence w/ a (2) car attached garage Estimated Date to Begin New Use/Construction: 11/1/2025 Present Use: Zoning: R2, Single Family Residential District Lot Dimensions: irregular: N: arc 60.55' x E: 117.49 x S: 71.25 x 137.16 Lot Area: 10224 : 05023240120000 Narrative Statement: Zoning Variation to: 10-4-8: R2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (F) MAXIMUM HEIGHT - MAXIMUM EAVE, Lot Width 66' to 90' (25'). We are seeking a 28'8" (+ 3'8") eave height for a proposed shed dormer located on the south/backside of an existing 2-story single family private residence. EVIDENCE RELATING TO ZONING CODE STANDARDS FOR A VARIATION: 1. Provide evidence that due to the characteristics of the property in question, there are practical difficulties or particular hardship for the applicant/owner in carrying out the strict letter of the Zoning Code: 1. The home was constructed in 1989, (13) years prior to the adoption of the current code 2. The property is irregular in shape on a curving street w/ side yards that taper to the rear - thus a reduced/smaller rear and interior side yard widths 3. The maximum eave height forces egress window egress sills down onto the the floor creating a hazardous condition 4. the maximum eave height reduces the amount of natural light and ventilation to the proposed office 2. Provide evidence that the property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used under the conditions allowed by the Zoning Code (i.e., without one or more variations) OR Provide evidence that the plight of the applicant/owner is due to unique circumstances relating to the property in question: The home is built in a very unique Neo-eclectic French Cottage style w/ a soaring roof line that masks the second + third floors behind what appears to be 1.5 story home. The elevated ridge line and four-sided hipped roof yields +/- 350 sf of usable floor are at the third floor/attic that is currently unused/unfinished Page 42 of 77 3. Provide evidence that the requested variation(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality of the property in question: The proposed shed dormer faces the south back yard and will not be able to be viewed from the street. 4. Provide evidence that the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical condition of the property in question would bring particular hardship upon the applicant/owner as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the Zoning Code were to be carried out: The property is irregularly shaped on a curved street w/ side yards that taper from a wide front to a narrower back thus creating smaller side yards. If the lot was not tapered this variation request would not be necessary because the home would qualify for a 30'+ Maximum Eave Bonus 5. Provide evidence that the conditions upon which the petition for variation is based would not be applicable generally to other property within the same zoning district: Forty homes face Stagecoach Run. Thirty six of them present themselves as traditional 2- story homes. The Villanova residence is one offer that present as 1.5 story. 6. Provide evidence that the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire to make more money out of the property in question: The purpose of the variation is to create a usable work from home office w/ adequate (per code) natural light and ventilation in existing usable third floor square footage in lieu of a more expensive addition. 7. Provide evidence that the alleged difficulty or particular hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property in question or by the applicant. The home was built in 1989 - (13) years before the current code was adopted. The Villanova's purchased the home in 2018 8. Provide evidence that the granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property in question is located. None expected at this time. We are seeking a variation to increase an eave that is to be located in the rear yard by (.102% ) from 25' to 28'8" 9. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. None expected at this time. The proposed dormer is on the south side and below the homes ridge line - thus the homes existing shadow line will not be changed - thus the proposed dormer will have zero impact on both the supply of light and air to neighboring/adjacent properties. 10. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Substantially increase the hazard from fire or other dangers to the property in question or adjacent property. Page 43 of 77  None expected at this time. The existing home is outfitted with smoke detectors per code, as will the proposed attic office. The distance between the adjacent homes will remain unchanged. 11. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Otherwise impair the public health, safety, comfort, morals or general welfare of the inhabitants of the Village. None expected at this time. We believe that upon completion of this project that we will be greatly improving the property and thus the welfare of the neighborhood and the Village of Glen Ellyn. 12. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. None expected at this time. We believe that upon completion of this project that we will be greatly improving the home and it's value - thus improving property values with in Stagecoach Run and the Village of Glen Ellyn. 13. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Unduly increase traffic congestion in the public streets and highway. None expected at this time. Construction debris dumpsters and material delivery will be staged on the property in the driveway. 14. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Create a nuisance. None expected at this time. The General Contractor shall be respectful of all codes + ordinances regarding construction with in the Village. 15. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Results in an increase in public expenditures. None expected at this time. This project is on private property and is to be fully funded privately. 16. Provide evidence that the variation is the minimum variation that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. The requested increase of 3'8" will allow for the windows to be lifted up off the floor and allow them to be set at typical head height of 6'8" 17. Please add any comments which may assist the commission in reviewing this application. The Villanova's have lived in the home for a little over over 7 years and are now re- investing in the house to update its original 36 year old finishes in the effort to make this their forever home. Tom works from home putting in over forty hours a week and spends the majority of that time on the phone - converting the unused and unfinished attic space to a usable work office creates the amenity that will keep him and his family of four in 445 Stagecoach Run for many years to come. Thank you for your valuable time and your consideration in the matter. Page 44 of 77  Aerial Map - 445 Stagecoach Run 0 150 300 Print Date: 9/15/2025 Notes ft Disclaimer: The GIS Consortium and MGP Inc. are not liable for any use, misuse, modification or disclosure of any map provided under applicable law. This map is for general information purposes only. Although the information is believed to be generally accurate, errors may exist and the user should independently confirm for accuracy. The map does not constitute a regulatory determination and is not a base for engineering design. A Registered Land Surveyor should be consulted to determine precise location boundaries on the ground. Page 45 of 77  Zoning Map - 445 Stagecoach Run Legend Zoning and Development Zoning R1: Single Family Residential District R2: Single Family Residential District 0 300 600 Print Date: 9/15/2025 Notes ft Disclaimer: The GIS Consortium and MGP Inc. are not liable for any use, misuse, modification or disclosure of any map provided under applicable law. This map is for general information purposes only. Although the information is believed to be generally accurate, errors may exist and the user should independently confirm for accuracy. The map does not constitute a regulatory determination and is not a base for engineering design. A Registered Land Surveyor should be consulted to determine precise location boundaries on the ground. Page 46 of 77 Villanova Residence 445 Stagecoach Run Page 47 of 77  ISSUE DATES DESCRIPTION DATE 00 PROPOSAL MTG. 11.07.24 2X01 2X02 2X03 2X04 2X05 00 CONTRACT / RETAINER 12.06.24 00 DOCUMENT EXISTING 01.16.25 00 INPUT EXISTING 03.20.25 01 PROGRAM + SD.01 04.18.25 02 SD.02 + DD.01 05.02.25 RIDGE 03 SD.03 + DD.01 05.16.25 04 SD.04 + DD.02 06.19.25 05 SD.05 + DD.03 05.18.25 3'6" 05 PRELIMINARY PRICING 05.18.25 EAVE 11'4.25" 03 VILLANOVA RESIDENCE 1'3.25" 9.25" 9'0" TOFF. FL.02 TO TOP FIN. FL.03 32'2" AVE. GRADE TO HIGHEST RIDGE 28'8" 6'8" H.HT. 445 STAGECOACH RUN 02 1'0" 2'4" 6'8" H.HT. 9'0" TOFF. FL.01 TO TOP FIN. FL.02 GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 60137 01 1'0" 8'8.5" TOS. FL.00 TO TOP FIN. FL.01 7'8.5" 00 1X01 1N01 1X02 1X03 GN01 architecture + interiors 504 hillside avenue glen ellyn,illinois 60137 p 630.858.5888 f 630.858.5828 zplusoai@astound.net EXTERIOR ELEVATION: FRONT / NORTH 1/4" = 1'0" 02 zpluso.com 01010101010101010101 STATE OF ILLINOIS DESIGN FIRM REGISTRATION NUMBER 184007431-0001 EXPIRES: 2026-11.30 DRAWING TITLE EXTERIOR ELEVATION FRONT / NORTH FACADE PROJECT NO.: 24.016 SHEET NUMBER WINDOW SCHEDULE: 1/4" = 1'0" 01 A4.00 Page 48 of 77 3’8” ISSUE DATES DESCRIPTION DATE 00 PROPOSAL MTG. 11.07.24 2X06 2X07 2X08 2N01 00 CONTRACT / RETAINER 12.06.24 00 DOCUMENT EXISTING 01.16.25 00 INPUT EXISTING 03.20.25 proposed dormer 01 PROGRAM + SD.01 04.18.25 02 SD.02 + DD.01 05.02.25 03 SD.03 + DD.01 05.16.25 existing roof RIDGE 04 SD.04 + DD.02 06.19.25 05 SD.05 + DD.03 05.18.25 Proposed 28'-8" Eave Height 3'6" 05 PRELIMINARY PRICING 05.18.25 EAVE 11'4.25" 3'-8" Difference in Proposed and Allowed Eave Heights 03 VILLANOVA RESIDENCE 1'3.25" 9.25" 9'0" TOFF. FL.02 TO TOP FIN. FL.03 32'2" AVE. GRADE TO HIGHEST RIDGE 6'8" H.HT. 25'-0" 28'8" 445 STAGECOACH RUN 02 1'0" Maximum Allowed Eave Height 2'4" 6'8" H.HT. 9'0" TOFF. FL.01 TO TOP FIN. FL.02 GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 60137 01 1'0" 8'8.5" TOS. FL.00 TO TOP FIN. FL.01 7'8.5" 00 1X04 1X02 1X05 1X06 architecture + interiors 504 hillside avenue glen ellyn,illinois 60137 p 630.858.5888 f 630.858.5828 zplusoai@astound.net EXTERIOR ELEVATION: RH / WEST FACADES 1/4" = 1'0" 02 zpluso.com 01010101010101010101 STATE OF ILLINOIS DESIGN FIRM REGISTRATION NUMBER 184007431-0001 EXPIRES: 2026-11.30 DRAWING TITLE EXTERIOR ELEVATION RH / WEST FACADE PROJECT NO.: 24.016 SHEET NUMBER DOOR SCHEDULE: EXTERIOR 1/4" = 1'0" 10 01 A4.01 Page 49 of 77 3’-8” ISSUE DATES DESCRIPTION DATE 00 PROPOSAL MTG. 11.07.24 3N01 3N02 3N03 proposed dormer 00 CONTRACT / RETAINER 12.06.24 00 DOCUMENT EXISTING 01.16.25 00 INPUT EXISTING 03.20.25 existing roof 01 PROGRAM + SD.01 04.18.25 02 SD.02 + DD.01 05.02.25 RIDGE 03 SD.03 + DD.01 05.16.25 04 SD.04 + DD.02 06.19.25 Proposed 28'-8" Eave Height 05 SD.05 + DD.03 05.18.25 3'6" 05 PRELIMINARY PRICING 05.18.25 EAVE 11'4.25" 3'-8" Difference in Proposed and Allowed Eave Height 03 VILLANOVA RESIDENCE 1'3.25" 9.25" 9'0" TOFF. FL.02 TO TOP FIN. FL.03 32'2" AVE. GRADE TO HIGHEST RIDGE Maximum Allowed 25'-0" Eave Height 28'8" 6'8" H.HT. 445 STAGECOACH RUN 25'-0" 02 1'0" 2'4" 6'8" H.HT. 9'0" TOFF. FL.01 TO TOP FIN. FL.02 GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 60137 01 1'0" 8'8.5" TOS. FL.00 TO TOP FIN. FL.01 7'8.5" 00 2X09 2X10 2X11 1X08 1X10 1X11 1X12 architecture + interiors 504 hillside avenue glen ellyn,illinois 60137 p 630.858.5888 f 630.858.5828 zplusoai@astound.net EXTERIOR ELEVATION: BACK / SOUTH FACADE 1/4" = 1'0" 02 zpluso.com 01010101010101010101 STATE OF ILLINOIS DESIGN FIRM REGISTRATION NUMBER 184007431-0001 EXPIRES: 2026-11.30 DRAWING TITLE EXTERIOR ELEVATION BACK / SOUTH FACADE PROJECT NO.: 24.016 SHEET NUMBER LIGHT + VENTILATION SCHEDULE 10 01 A4.02 Page 50 of 77 3’-8” ISSUE DATES DESCRIPTION DATE proposed dormer 00 PROPOSAL MTG. 11.07.24 2N02 00 CONTRACT / RETAINER 12.06.24 00 DOCUMENT EXISTING 01.16.25 existing roof 00 INPUT EXISTING 01 PROGRAM + SD.01 03.20.25 04.18.25 02 SD.02 + DD.01 05.02.25 RIDGE 03 SD.03 + DD.01 05.16.25 04 SD.04 + DD.02 06.19.25 Proposed 28'-8" Eave Height 05 SD.05 + DD.03 05.18.25 3'6" 05 PRELIMINARY PRICING 05.18.25 EAVE 3'-8" Difference in Proposed and Allowed Eave Height 11'4.25" 03 VILLANOVA RESIDENCE 1'3.25" 9.25" 9'0" TOFF. FL.02 TO TOP FIN. FL.03 32'2" AVE. GRADE TO HIGHEST RIDGE Maximum Allowed Eave Height 28'8" 6'8" H.HT. 445 STAGECOACH RUN 25'-0" 02 1'0" 2'4" 6'8" H.HT. 9'0" TOFF. FL.01 TO TOP FIN. FL.02 GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 60137 01 1'0" 8'8.5" TOS. FL.00 TO TOP FIN. FL.01 7'8.5" 00 1X04 1X13 1X14 1X15 architecture + interiors 504 hillside avenue glen ellyn,illinois 60137 p 630.858.5888 f 630.858.5828 zplusoai@astound.net EXTERIOR ELEVATION: LH / EAST FACADE 1/4" = 1'0" 02 zpluso.com 01010101010101010101 STATE OF ILLINOIS DESIGN FIRM REGISTRATION NUMBER 184007431-0001 EXPIRES: 2026-11.30 DRAWING TITLE EXTERIOR ELEVATION LH / EAST FACADE PROJECT NO.: 24.016 SHEET NUMBER EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE 13 MILLWORK SCHEDULE 07 PLUMBING FIXTURE SCHEDULE 01 A4.03 Page 51 of 77  ISSUE DATES DESCRIPTION DATE 00 PROPOSAL MTG. 11.07.24 00 CONTRACT / RETAINER 12.06.24 00 DOCUMENT EXISTING 01.16.25 00 INPUT EXISTING 03.20.25 01 PROGRAM + SD.01 04.18.25 02 SD.02 + DD.01 05.02.25 03 SD.03 + DD.01 05.16.25 04 SD.04 + DD.02 06.19.25 05 SD.05 + DD.03 05.18.25 05 PRELIMINARY PRICING 05.18.25 VILLANOVA RESIDENCE 445 STAGECOACH RUN PROJECT LIMITS - NEW SHED DORMER GENERAL NOTES: 03 GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 60137 architecture + interiors 504 hillside avenue glen ellyn,illinois 60137 p 630.858.5888 f 630.858.5828 zplusoai@astound.net SYMBOLS: 02 zpluso.com 01010101010101010101 STATE OF ILLINOIS DESIGN FIRM REGISTRATION NUMBER 184007431-0001 PROJECT LIMITS - GARAGE EXTENSION MTG.05: 2025-07.18 ROOF EXPIRES: 2026-11.30 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DRAWING TITLE N PRELIMINARY DEMOLITION BUDGET PRICING ROOF PROJECT NO.: 24.016 SHEET NUMBER DEMOLITION: ROOF 1/4" = 1'0" 04 KEY NOTES: 01 A1.03 Page 52 of 77  ISSUE DATES DESCRIPTION DATE 00 PROPOSAL MTG. 11.07.24 00 CONTRACT / RETAINER 12.06.24 00 DOCUMENT EXISTING 01.16.25 00 INPUT EXISTING 03.20.25 01 PROGRAM + SD.01 04.18.25 02 SD.02 + DD.01 05.02.25 03 SD.03 + DD.01 05.16.25 04 SD.04 + DD.02 06.19.25 05 SD.05 + DD.03 05.18.25 3N03 3N02 3N01 05 PRELIMINARY PRICING 05.18.25 482.43 gsf VILLANOVA RESIDENCE 445 STAGECOACH RUN GENERAL NOTES: 03 section GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 60137 DN 48 loft office architecture + interiors 504 hillside avenue glen ellyn,illinois 60137 p 630.858.5888 f 630.858.5828 zplusoai@astound.net SYMBOLS: 02 zpluso.com 01010101010101010101 STATE OF ILLINOIS DESIGN FIRM REGISTRATION NUMBER section 184007431-0001 MTG.05: 2025-07.18 ROOF EXPIRES: 2026-11.30 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DRAWING TITLE N PRELIMINARY NEW CONSTRUCTION BUDGET PRICING THIRD FLOOR PROJECT NO.: 24.016 SHEET NUMBER NEW CONSTRUCTION: THIRD FLOOR 1/4" = 1'0" KEY NOTES: 01 A2.03 Page 53 of 77  Glen Ellyn Zoning Board Meeting 10/7/2025 7:00 PM of Appeals Department: Community Development 535 Duane Street Department Head: Jennifer Henaghan Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Category: Public Hearing Prepared By: Daniel Harper AGENDA ITEM (ID DOC ID: 2025-839 # 2025-839) Public Hearing — 734 Meredith Place — Non-Conforming Structure Alteration Variation Statement of the Issue: The petitioners are Dan and Anna Wilt, the owners of the property at 734 Meredith Place. They have applied for zoning variations to accommodate the proposed enlargement and structural alteration of an existing nonconforming detached garage. Analysis: REQUEST: The petitioners request approval of the following variation from the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code: 1. Section 10-5-4(A)4(a) to allow for an existing accessory structure to be enlarged or structurally altered with a corner side-yard setback of one-foot (1’-0”) in lieu of the required twenty-foot (20’-0”) corner side-yard setback. ZONING/USE: The subject property is zoned R2 - Residential District and improved with a two- story single-family home. PUBLIC NOTICE: Notice of the public hearing was published in the September 19, 2025, edition of the Daily Herald, mailed to property owners within 250 feet of the subject property, and a placard was placed on the property. ZONING HISTORY: According to a building permit record dated 5/1/1969, a variation was granted on 9/23/1968 to allow for the construction of the detached garage at its current location. PERMIT HISTORY: Year Permit No. Type 2013 20131490 Roof Remodel 2012 20121322 Fence 2012 20120665 Window and Siding Replacement 1978 B5157 Water and Wastewater Connection 1969 B1124 Detached Garage 1966 B352 New Single-Family Home Page 54 of 77 ANALYSIS: In order to proceed with the project as proposed, the petitioner will need to be granted the following variations from the Zoning Code: 1. Section 10-5-4(A)4(a) to allow for an existing accessory structure to be enlarged or structurally altered with a corner side-yard setback of one-foot (1’-0”) in lieu of the required twenty-foot (20’-0”) corner side-yard setback. The property currently has a 500 square foot two-car garage that is located approximately one foot (1'-0") from the eastern property line. The applicant is proposing to raise the roof of the existing garage to allow for a garage door opening of eight feet (8'-0") in height. According to the applicant, the current garage door opening is six feet (6'-0") tall and does not accommodate heights of contemporary cars. The maximum ridge height of the proposed enlargement would be thirteen feet and eight inches (13'-8") and would be the allowed height for a detached garage per village code. The alteration of the structure requires a zoning variation because a structural modification to a legally existing non-conforming structure is not permissible per village code. Budget Impact: Contribution to Strategic Plan Action Requested: The ZBA should consider the testimony presented during the public hearing and review the written evidence presented as part of the petitioners’ application packet. The ZBA should make findings of fact and determine if practical difficulty or a particular hardship exists for the requested variation and if the essential character of the neighborhood is maintained. The ZBA may choose to make a recommendation to the Village Board for the approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the request per Section 10-10-12 of the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code. Attachments: 1. Application - Zoning Variation 2. Narrative statement-Variance Application 3. Aerial Map 734 Meredith 4. Zoning Map 734 Meredith 5. Plat of Survey 6. Site Plan 7. Building Elevations 8. Floor Plan 9. Photo 1 10. Photo 2 11. Photo 3 Page 55 of 77  VILLAGE OF GLEN ELLYN Zoning Variation Application Packet Community Development Department 535 Duane Street – Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 – Telephone 630.547.5250 – Fax 630.547.5370 Page 56 of 77  APPLICATION FOR ZONING VARIATION Date Filed: 8/19/2025 Application No: 2025-0032 Name of Applicant: Dan Wilt Address of Applicant: 734 Meredith Place Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Property Interest of Applicant: Owner Name of Owner: Daniel & Anna Wilt Address of Owner: 734 Meredith Pl Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Phone: Email: Contacts: Type Name Address Phone Email 734 Meredith Place Glen Petitioner Dan Wilt Ellyn, IL 60137 734 Meredith Place Glen Web Administrator Dan Wilt Ellyn, IL 60137 734 Meredith Pl Glen Ellyn, Parcel Owner Daniel & Anna Wilt IL 60137 Property Address: 734 Meredith Pl Project Name: Web Project Project Description: We have an existing detached garage that is assumed to have been built along with the primary residence in 1969. The garage is needing several repairs and the garage opening is only 6 feet tall, which cannot accept many modern cars. Therefore, we are seeking to complete the needed repairs and lift the garage 2 feet to allow for a modern door opening or we may decide to build a new garage. In either case, we are seeking to maintain the garage in the existing location. Legal Description of Property: Page 57 of 77 Lot 13 in Merediths addition to Glen Ellyn, a subdivision in sections 2 and 11, Township 39 North, range 10, east of the third principal meridian, according to the plat thereof recorded October 20, 1926 as document 224493 in Dupage county, Illinois. Zoning: R2, Single Family Residential District Lot Dimensions: 158.51' x 57.77' x 165.59' x 59.87' Lot Area: 9604 : 05024210170000 Present Use: Primary residence Estimated Date to Begin New Use/Construction: 10/6/2025 Narrative Statement: We are seeking variance approval for code 10-5-4 (A)4(a), which states that Accessory Structures in the corner-side yard must be set back a minimum 20-feet from the corner-side property line. Our garage is less than 20 feet from the property line and we are seeking approval to keep it in the same location. EVIDENCE RELATING TO ZONING CODE STANDARDS FOR A VARIATION: 1. Provide evidence that due to the characteristics of the property in question, there are practical difficulties or particular hardship for the applicant/owner in carrying out the strict letter of the Zoning Code: We could not complete this project as planned and still comply with the code. It is not physically practical to comply with the code given the existing structures and landscaping. The configuration and layout of our back yard would have be to be completely changed. The existing garage would need to be torn down, existing fencing would need to move, up to 13 mature trees removed, landscaping impacted, a new driveway installed and power line considerations. Likely other issues. 2. Provide evidence that the property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used under the conditions allowed by the Zoning Code (i.e., without one or more variations) OR Provide evidence that the plight of the applicant/owner is due to unique circumstances relating to the property in question: The garage was built with the house in 1969. Page 58 of 77 The properly and landscaping is mature and established. Moving the garage would be a significant financial burden and a disruption to the mature, long standing configuration of the property. 3. Provide evidence that the requested variation(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality of the property in question: A garage has already existed in this location since 1969 and rehabbing or replacing it will only improve the character but not alter the essential character of the locality of the property in question. 4. Provide evidence that the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical condition of the property in question would bring particular hardship upon the applicant/owner as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the Zoning Code were to be carried out: The property is less than 60 feet wide. The configuration and layout of our back yard would have be to be completely changed. The existing garage would need to be torn down, existing fencing would need to move, up to 13 mature trees removed, landscaping impacted, a new driveway installed and power line considerations. Likely other issues. 5. Provide evidence that the conditions upon which the petition for variation is based would not be applicable generally to other property within the same zoning district: Other properties may have wider lots, may not have mature trees to remove, may be able to use the existing driveway, and/or may be newer compliant structures built after this code was published. 6. Provide evidence that the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire to make more money out of the property in question: The purpose of this variance is to repair our garage, make it more functional, and improve it cosmetically, in alignment with the character of the neighborhood. 7. Provide evidence that the alleged difficulty or particular hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property in question or by the applicant. The garage was built before the current property owners were born. 8. Provide evidence that the granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property in question is located. The garage has remained in the existing location since the home was built in 1969. Since that time, the garage has not been detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood. 9. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. Page 59 of 77  Keeping the garage is the existing location and raising the structure approximately 2 feet will not have a material impact on supply of light or air to the property to the north or west. There is no properties to the east and the primary residence is to the south. 10. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Substantially increase the hazard from fire or other dangers to the property in question or adjacent property. There are no power lines that hang over the garage currently. There are no new fire hazards or other dangers as a result of this variation. 11. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Otherwise impair the public health, safety, comfort, morals or general welfare of the inhabitants of the Village. The existing garage has not impaired public health, safety, comfort, morals or general welfare since it was built in 1969. 12. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The proposed variation will retain or improve property values with a nicer, repaired structure. 13. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Unduly increase traffic congestion in the public streets and highway. No new traffic will result in maintaining a garage in this location. 14. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Create a nuisance. There has not been a nuisance since the garage was build in 1969. 15. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Results in an increase in public expenditures. The current garage has remained in place since 1969 and we are not aware of it causing an increase in publish expenditures. 16. Provide evidence that the variation is the minimum variation that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. Keeping the garage in the current location is the minimum variance to continue use of the land and structure. 17. Please add any comments which may assist the commission in reviewing this application. We've lived in Glen Ellyn for 10+ years and love living in this community. We are simply seeking to improve our property and add value to the properties in the neighborhood. We appreciate you approving this request without any conditions. Thank you! Page 60 of 77 Narrative statement Detached Garage Rehabilitation Project 734 Meredith Place, Glen Ellyn We have an existing detached garage that was built along with the primary residence in 1969. The garage is needing several repairs, including to the concrete slab and roof. Also, the garage opening is only 6 feet tall, which cannot accept many modern cars. Therefore, we are seeking to complete the needed repairs and lift the garage 2 feet to allow for a modern garage door opening. In the future, we may decide to build a new garage. In either case, we are seeking to maintain the garage in the existing location. Page 61 of 77  Aerial Map - 734 Meredith Place 0 250 500 Print Date: 9/15/2025 Notes ft Disclaimer: The GIS Consortium and MGP Inc. are not liable for any use, misuse, modification or disclosure of any map provided under applicable law. This map is for general information purposes only. Although the information is believed to be generally accurate, errors may exist and the user should independently confirm for accuracy. The map does not constitute a regulatory determination and is not a base for engineering design. A Registered Land Surveyor should be consulted to determine precise location boundaries on the ground. Page 62 of 77  Zoning Map - 734 Meredith Place Legend Zoning and Development Zoning R2: Single Family Residential District 0 150 300 Print Date: 9/15/2025 Notes ft Disclaimer: The GIS Consortium and MGP Inc. are not liable for any use, misuse, modification or disclosure of any map provided under applicable law. This map is for general information purposes only. Although the information is believed to be generally accurate, errors may exist and the user should independently confirm for accuracy. The map does not constitute a regulatory determination and is not a base for engineering design. A Registered Land Surveyor should be consulted to determine precise location boundaries on the ground. Page 63 of 77 Page 64 of 77 'Ie rns fpeuog o Fl lgJoPlrsls sl(xtl :!lt st otOZ E .nqur1&S :pqr1dtl€):loropg '0 unrlsrn .pu$ll $rslJtlc elc q .urrolr€ eo!^J.s lot opqF,d eqr cfn 'dlo,c llg cqt .roJ Pculrqltd ,L^rtts 3 uetc^tD(n8 p rqd Pcar@su :toqD8 ,o .te8 'L encDtfp OloZ 'OC .rqtrn oN .qeo uogo4dB ru€llqoqil tlllllr gxrD pco peJol€ p foqqpp er5 1nolgr gto.r q lern5 p fog 3Hf '9 "eoqrD ttzcffio0 'oN e3r'on 'il JO {x.p'lD *arltrxre rt o rrode, puo lln3req4P -I9 e.dup -o.ld 's }l9qqu 'Flot, Fro nrorl ccptl Flr,ol tllq srDq qllur^ordq Plrro5r3Plj'l oil 't slOMTI '6upc ,!q Furno .g PiFt| touap{r oil 'C oo3A180 'rc.rlc q.od pufoep Fp fq u! tllop eD luoprup W Z 'uo3rq ulort ero uog lPqns p rold p.groo, 'ol0z '4 3pum lD pelDo IrrDs€€0 orf, to rcFcP eeun #ogr 6ttilttq np ornunn nq 4rc 't wvHcll€ :agloN to trlplusrde, o q gd Pepuuo df,-eic tr?3rt ura3gou uroW sgprO qS PeI$rn o oq I rots A*yeo q q qql ( rnnrY ,o ,(lrnoc ss( ( oPuln P s1o15 uoFueurp pJo.".U (U .O'OO!) edta -Fr+-Vq fu--lr EI uolsueurKl PeJnsoeil n .0o'ool ctod il6n H Jo s .z'o ? rclt@ ? 3 .S'0 B! lpt epd rerod -G 9un uo ? JeuJoc Jo s .z'o dld adta peiS o teels .t/g ptnoJ dttlugo1cg 0t€9:n lco8 o- g, = ,p J, a .t'o s! lloffl eun ,o 3 .C'0 8! Jeqtuu Q : o tr n eun lo o ct) qcJcuq 3 .6'0 8! Joqurll \lo uo o o o ggt ta 6! llDr$ I .qb qt ,!lla3aEn q € ('r e €:. n -U e N ^ao.ts z .1 Jo c) ll .z'0 8! ocrJoJ o\, doors o .g ('r € e.rt{ zz'o g I ro-I z I ro-I P $$ oOr eun Jo \ 3 .S'l 8! poa ,g eun ,o uo$cnlsuoc Pro#u ol ? c'n 8r aatuaJ onP 1.6 lou qe)t Poot t's Jo 3 .g'l oun Jo 3 .9'Z 5l ejnsopu3 q Poon s.ro (u .ge Ptr "tg"z s) 3 l0,zz"g0 N olpd .e od ,o n .s'o 8! eoueJ I{ Fuet Poon .9 uo0rn4Duoc Proltu o] (u o'es) oun uo ? J?uJoc enP l.6 vl,lJ'Lg ,o s .t'o dld lee5 .t,/S punoJ ,o "un s .9'l 8! Jo s .9'o ? ,OZ - .J IIIVIIS 3 .z'o 8! llD|l I ro-l Z IO-I t68900f8t'oN $5uH NeF30 -tvNOtSS:uOUd SloN ml O99t'Zl6'089:d 'stoNmr 'AtNnoc 30vdn0 Nl cotczz lN3nncoo sv 9z6t gtg09 qoqil 'o6enre6r 'oz u380lco 030uoc3u Jo3u3l{t l\nd 3Hl or 9Nlouoccv ploJ slEed flrg 'twtotu3n tvdtcNtud outHt 3Ht Jo lsut 'ot 30tf!d 'ltnloN 6c dtHsMiol 't I otw z sNou"c3s Nl Nolslruo8ns V 'MTl3 Mng Or NOIIJOO/ Sl{ll0:luiln Nl C I LOl co J AE/\UnSCOTv-Id Page 65 of 77 'Ie rns fpeuog o Fl lgJoPlrsls sl(xtl :!lt st otOZ E .nqur1&S :pqr1dtl€):loropg '0 unrlsrn .pu$ll $rslJtlc elc q .urrolr€ eo!^J.s lot opqF,d eqr cfn 'dlo,c llg cqt .roJ Pculrqltd ,L^rtts 3 uetc^tD(n8 p rqd Pcar@su :toqD8 ,o .te8 'L encDtfp OloZ 'OC .rqtrn oN .qeo uogo4dB ru€llqoqil tlllllr gxrD pco peJol€ p foqqpp er5 1nolgr gto.r q lern5 p fog 3Hf '9 "eoqrD ttzcffio0 'oN e3r'on 'il JO {x.p'lD *arltrxre rt o rrode, puo lln3req4P -I9 e.dup -o.ld 's }l9qqu 'Flot, Fro nrorl ccptl Flr,ol tllq srDq qllur^ordq Plrro5r3Plj'l oil 't slOMTI '6upc ,!q Furno .g PiFt| touap{r oil 'C oo3A180 'rc.rlc q.od pufoep Fp fq u! tllop eD luoprup W Z 'uo3rq ulort ero uog lPqns p rold p.groo, 'ol0z '4 3pum lD pelDo IrrDs€€0 orf, to rcFcP eeun #ogr 6ttilttq np ornunn nq 4rc 't wvHcll€ :agloN to trlplusrde, o q gd Pepuuo df,-eic tr?3rt ura3gou uroW sgprO qS PeI$rn o oq I rots A*yeo q q qql ( rnnrY ,o ,(lrnoc ss( ( oPuln P s1o15 uoFueurp pJo.".U (U .O'OO!) edta -Fr+-Vq fu--lr EI uolsueurKl PeJnsoeil n .0o'ool ctod il6n H Jo s .z'o ? rclt@ ? 3 .S'0 B! lpt epd rerod -G 9un uo ? JeuJoc Jo s .z'o dld adta peiS o teels .t/g ptnoJ dttlugo1cg 0t€9:n lco8 o- g, = ,p J, a .t'o s! lloffl eun ,o 3 .C'0 8! Jeqtuu Q : o tr n eun lo o ct) qcJcuq 3 .6'0 8! Joqurll \lo uo o o o ggt ta 6! llDr$ I .qb qt ,!lla3aEn q € ('r --- 734 e €:. n -U e N ^ao.ts z .1 Jo c) ll .z'0 8! ocrJoJ o\, doors o .g ('r € e.rt{ zz'o g I ro-I z I ro-I P $$ oOr eun Jo \ 3 .S'l 8! poa ,g eun ,o uo$cnlsuoc Pro#u ol ? c'n 8r aatuaJ onP 1.6 lou qe)t Poot t's Jo 3 .g'l oun Jo 3 .9'Z 5l ejnsopu3 No changes q proposed Poon s.ro (u .ge Ptr "tg"z s) 3 l0,zz"g0 N olpd .e od ,o n .s'o 8! eoueJ I{ Fuet Poon .9 uo0rn4Duoc Proltu o] (u o'es) oun uo ? J?uJoc enP l.6 vl,lJ'Lg ,o s .t'o dld lee5 .t,/S punoJ ,o "un s .9'l 8! Jo s .9'o ? ,OZ - .J IIIVIIS 3 .z'o 8! llD|l I ro-l Z IO-I Existing Site Plan t68900f8t'oN $5uH **No changes proposed*** NeF30 -tvNOtSS:uOUd SloN ml O99t'Zl6'089:d 'stoNmr 'AtNnoc 30vdn0 Nl cotczz lN3nncoo sv 9z6t gtg09 qoqil 'o6enre6r 'oz u380lco 030uoc3u Jo3u3l{t l\nd 3Hl or 9Nlouoccv ploJ slEed flrg 'twtotu3n tvdtcNtud outHt 3Ht Jo lsut 'ot 30tf!d 'ltnloN 6c dtHsMiol 't I otw z sNou"c3s Nl Nolslruo8ns V 'MTl3 Mng Or NOIIJOO/ Sl{ll0:luiln Nl C I LOl co J AE/\UnSCOTv-Id  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Garage front view 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 13' 8" total height 7 Light Light 6 5 16' 0" x 8' 0" Garage door 4 3 2 1 20' 0" total width Garage Rear view 13' 8" total height 20' 0" total width 2 of 3 Page 66 of 77  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 15 Garage west view 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 13' 8" total height 7 6 24" x 60" Window 5 4 30" door 3 2 1 25' 0" total length Garage east view 30" door 13' 8" total height 25' 0" total length 3 of 3 Page 67 of 77  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 GARAGE 30" door 9 24' 0" x 20' 0" 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 30" door 19 20 21 22 23 16' 0" Garage door 24 25 20' 0" Page 68 of 77 24' 0" Page 69 of 77 Page 70 of 77 Page 71 of 77 Page 72 of 77  Glen Ellyn Zoning Board of Meeting 10/7/2025 7:00 PM Appeals Department: Community Development 535 Duane Street Department Head: Jennifer Henaghan Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Category: Policy Prepared By: Daniel Harper AGENDA ITEM (ID DOC ID: 2025-832 # 2025-832) Motion to Adopt Rules of Procedure for the Glen Ellyn Zoning Board of Appeals Statement of the Issue: The Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”) does not currently have a document that formalizes rules and procedures for how the Board should govern its meetings and public hearings. Village Attorney Paul Stephanides has drafted a document outlining rules and procedures for the ZBA to adopt and implement for its future business. Analysis: The ZBA was presented with the draft Rules of Procedure of the Glen Ellyn Zoning Board of Appeals at its July 8 meeting. The Rules of Procedure to be considered and adopted by the ZBA shall govern the ZBA’s meetings and public hearings. Budget Impact: Contribution to Strategic Plan Action Requested: Review and Approval of Rules of Procedure for the Glen Ellyn Zoning Board of Appeals. Attachments: 1. GE ZBA Rules 09-25-25 Page 73 of 77  ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE VILLAGE OF GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED ON ______________, 2025 Page 74 of 77 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS 1.1. The Rules of Procedure adopted herein (“Rules”) by the Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”) shall govern the ZBA’s meetings and public hearings. In the event any Rule herein conflicts with a requirement of state law, the Glen Ellyn Village Code or Glen Ellyn Zoning Code (collectively referred to as “other requirement”), the other requirement shall govern and control. 1.2. These Rules are adopted as a supplement to the applicable provisions of the Illinois Compiled Statutes, the Glen Ellyn Village Code (“Village Code”), the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code (“Zoning Code”), and any ordinances, resolutions, or rules adopted by the Village Board as they relate to the ZBA. 1.3. These Rules are adopted pursuant to the authority granted by Section 2-14-4 (“Meetings”) of the Village Code. 2. MEMBERS AND DUTIES 2.1. The ZBA Chair is appointed by the Village President with the advice and consent of the Board of Trustees. The Chair shall preside at all meetings and hearings of the ZBA, shall administer oaths to witnesses or authorize the administration of oaths, and shall decide all points of order or procedure. 2.2. In case of the absence or disability of the Chair, an Acting Chair shall be nominated by the ZBA and a motion shall be adopted to appoint the Acting Chair. The Acting Chair shall perform all the duties and exercise all the powers of the Chair. 2.3. Any ZBA member who has a proprietary interest, or other conflict of interest pursuant to Chapter 12 (“Ethics”) of Title 1 (“Administrative”) of the Village Code in any matter before the ZBA shall not vote thereon and shall remove themself from any meeting or hearing at which said matter is under consideration. If more than a majority of ZBA members remove themselves from a hearing, the Board shall refer the matter to the Village President and Board of Trustees for direction. 2.4. Any person appearing before the ZBA is prohibited from communicating with the ZBA’s members about matters before the ZBA outside of ZBA meetings. If a member receives such an “ex parte” communication, it must be made part of the public record by the member who received the communication. Failure to adhere to this Rule by any person appearing before the ZBA may result in the member who received the ex parte communication having to recuse themselves from a hearing or result in the dismissal of an application. 3. MEETINGS 3.1. Regular ZBA meetings shall be held on the second Tuesday of every month at 7:00 P.M., or such other days and/or times as determined by the ZBA, in the Galligan Board Room of the Civic Center or other noticed place, unless such day shall be a recognized holiday. Any regular 2 Page 75 of 77 meeting may be cancelled by the ZBA if any case or matter is not ready to proceed, or if a quorum of the ZBA is not available for a regular meeting. 3.2. A quorum for a meeting of the ZBA shall be the physical presence of a majority of the ZBA members then in office pursuant to Section 2-14-4(D) of the Village Code. Electronic attendance at a meeting shall be governed by the rules adopted by the Village President and Board of Trustees on September 22, 2025. 3.3. All ZBA meetings shall comply with the Illinois Open Meetings Act, 5 ILCS 120/1 et seq. All ZBA meetings shall be open to the public, and no official action shall be taken except during a public meeting. 3.4. The latest edition of Robert’s Rules of Order shall govern the ZBA’s meetings except when in conflict with the Village Code or any applicable Village ordinances, rules adopted by the Village Board, these Rules, or State law. 3.5. The order of agenda items may be modified by the Chair with the consent of the ZBA. 3.6. The Rules for Public Comment adopted by the Village President and Board of Trustees on September 22, 2025 (“Rules for Public Comment”), as amended, shall govern the ZBA. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4.1. Notice of public hearings shall be given in accordance with the Village Zoning Code and State law. 4.2. The Chair shall request a motion to open a public hearing which shall be voted upon by a voice vote. 4.3. Continuances: If a public hearing is to be continued, a motion to continue the hearing to a date certain shall be made which shall be voted upon by a voice vote. All continuances shall be to a date certain, and no further notice shall be required other than appearing on a subsequent agenda. One continuance shall be granted to a petitioner who has filed an application with the Village, if requested. Further continuances shall be at the ZBA’s discretion. If after the presentation of the petitioner’s application, other interested parties wish to have the hearing continued so that they might prepare evidence or testimony of their own concerning or in response to the petitioner’s application, the ZBA may grant a continuance pursuant to a motion voted upon by a voice vote. 4.4. At the conclusion of a public hearing, a motion to close the public hearing shall be made which shall be voted upon by a voice vote. 4.5. A record of a public hearing must be maintained in the form of minutes. 3 Page 76 of 77 4.6. The petitioner, or the petitioner’s authorized representative, must be present at the public hearing. Whenever a petitioner or the petitioner’s representative fails to appear, the ZBA may choose to dismiss the application. Dismissal for a failure to appear is not a determination on the merits and shall not bar the filing of a new application. 4.7. Each person speaking at a public hearing shall be sworn in as a witness and shall identify themselves and provide their address. A speaker may choose to decline to provide their address. 4.8. Petitioners or objectors may present witnesses for direct questions. The ZBA may limit the number of witnesses whose testimony is cumulative or not relevant to a matter before the ZBA. 4.9. Cross-examination of witnesses shall be permitted, provided that the Chair may limit redundant questions and make other limitations based on relevancy. The examination of a witness shall not be used by a questioner to offer testimony or evidence of the questioner. 4.10. The Chair may require a preliminary statement of the nature of the evidence proposed to be elicited from a witness. 4.11. All questions or statements from the floor must be directed to the Chair. 4.12. Public comment and testimony shall take place in accordance with the Village’s Rules for Public Comment. 4.13. Upon the close of a public hearing, the ZBA shall deliberate on an application and shall vote to either recommend to the Village Board that an application be approved or denied by a majority vote of those members in attendance. The ZBA must conduct its deliberations and vote in a public session. 4.14. Upon the adoption of a motion to either recommend approval or denial of an application, the ZBA shall adopt written findings of fact and a recommendation based upon the ZBA’s adopted motion by a majority vote of those members in attendance. 4.15. ZBA members who are absent for one or more hearing sessions may vote on the ZBA’s recommendation and the adoption of written findings of fact and recommendation if they affirm that they have either listened to the audio of the proceedings and reviewed the evidentiary materials or read the draft meeting minutes and reviewed the evidentiary materials. 4.16. If a petitioner wishes a court reporter to be present at a hearing, the petitioner must engage the court reporter at the petitioner’s cost. The Village shall audio record hearings. 5. AMENDMENT TO RULES 5.1. These Rules may be amended by a majority vote of members of the ZBA at any regular meeting of the ZBA. 4 Page 77 of 77