Zoning Board of Appeals

Agenda Village of Glen Ellyn Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Tuesday, January 13, 2026 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) Review and Approval of the December 9, 2025, Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes. D. New Business 1) Public Hearing - 466 Sunset Court 2) Public Hearing - 863 Highview Avenue E. Other Business F. Chairperson's Statement G. Trustee Liaison's Report H. Staff Report I. 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 66 different ideas for achieving that objective.  Glen Ellyn Zoning Board of Meeting 1/13/2026 7:00 PM Appeals Department: Community Development 535 Duane Street Department Head: Jennifer Henaghan Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Category: Minutes Prepared By: Jordan Frahm AGENDA ITEM (ID DOC ID: 2025-1048 # 2025-1048) Review and Approval of the December 9, 2025, Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes. Statement of the Issue: Review and Approval of the December 9, 2025, Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes. Analysis: Review and Approval of the December 9, 2025, Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes. Budget Impact: Contribution to Strategic Plan Action Requested: Review and Approval of the December 9, 2025, Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes. Attachments: 1. 2025-12-9 ZBA Minutes Draft Page 2 of 66  Draft Minutes Village of Glen Ellyn Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting December 9, 2025 7:00PM Glen Ellyn Civic Center Galligan Board Room Board or Zoning Board of Appeals Date: December 9, 2025 Commission: Meeting: Regular Called to 7:00 p.m. Order: Quorum: Yes Adjourned: 8:01 p.m. MEMBER ATTENDANCE: Chip Miller Chairperson Present Todd Buckton Commissioner Present Matthew Jones Commissioner Absent Peter Kelly Commissioner Present Noureen Lakhani Commissioner Present Christine McKnight Commissioner Present Craig Pavlich Commissioner Present Also Present: Jordan Frahm Associate Planner Present Robert Duncan Trustee Liaison Present Public Present: A. CALL TO ORDER The December 9, 2025, regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order by Chairperson Miller at 7:00 p.m. Page 3 of 66  Zoning Board of Appeals 2 December 9, 2025 B. PUBLIC COMMENT – None C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM NOVEMBER 4, 2025, MEETING. MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETINGS OF 11/4/2025 with the modification and correction that Member Lakhani be marked as present, instead of absent. RESULT: Motion Unanimously Carried MOVER: McKnight SECONDER: Lakhani AYES: 6 D. OLD BUSINESS – 1. Continuation – Public Hearing, 189 East Road Trustee Duncan swears in Staff, Associate Planner Jordan Frahm; the petitioner, Chalet Vavrek; and Matt Haber of Western DuPage Landscaping, Inc. Motion to open the public meeting by Member Kelly, seconded by Member McKnight. Planner Frahm provided an update to the staff report of the project of 189 East Road, recalling the November 4 meeting where the Vavrek family had proposed a residential sport court with a setback of 7-feet. The required setback for a residential sport court on the 150-foot wide lot is 15-feet. The petitioners have updated their plans to include a more developed landscape plan and increased the proposed setback of the residential sport court to 9-feet. Planner Frahm adds that an additional piece of information to consider is that the neighboring property 188 N. Park Boulevard, the Johnson Family, has submitted a new letter of support to indicate they are in favor of the updated site plan. Previously the Johnsons had entered a letter of support and rescinded that support after the documents in the November 4 meeting agenda packet were published. At the time of the November 4 meeting, the Johnsons said they did not have a complete idea of the project. There were no questions for Staff from ZBA members. Chairperson Miller reminds the audience that the ZBA is looking for unique circumstances, particular hardships that are outlined in Village Code as powers of the ZBA to grant variance. Chalet Vavrek gives an overview of the proposed project as the petitioner. The home on Revere Road is a longstanding family property once owned by the petitioner’s great grandparents. The petitioners purchased the neighboring lot to remove the home to create a layout that best fits their family so they can live there “forever”. Part of that design is a basketball court, as the sport is important to their family. Mrs. Vavrek emphasizes the two changes to their proposal. 1. The petitioners expedited a full landscape design proposal that depicts the long-term vision of the property and 2. The family met with the Johnsons, including their daughter, to further describe the project so that the neighbors understand the zoning rules for private sport courts and reviewing the possible locations of the sport court that is considerate and aesthetically pleasing. Page 4 of 66  Zoning Board of Appeals 3 December 9, 2025 The petitioner says they discussed sound, height, screening, fencing, and overall quality of the redevelopment of the site with the neighbors. The petitioner says that the 9-foot proposed setback of the sport court allows for privacy trees and green space as a buffer. The petitioner also states that the 9-foot setback would require less ground disturbance or stormwater engineering than the required 15-foot setback. Additionally, Mrs. Vavrek says that at a 15-foot setback, the height of a basketball hoop would also be higher due to the elevation change on the lot and therefore more visually disruptive. The petitioner states that when discussing the location with neighboring property owners, the proposed 9-foot setback would be favored as a 15-foot setback would require the sport court to be “in the open” and a lesser setback better conceals the residential sport court behind detached garages on the neighboring properties. Mrs. Vavrek thanks the ZBA for the opportunity to table the public hearing at the November meeting. The applicants appreciate the Board’s time and their consideration of their updated proposal. Chairperson Miller asks Mr. Haber if he plans to make an additional presentation. Mr. Haber says he is attending to answer questions from the Board, as the petitioner has covered the project at depth at the December and November meetings. Member Pavlich clarifies that the petitioner now has the support of all adjacent property owners. This is confirmed. Member McKnight asks about the proposal of additional hardscape. The petitioner says that the added patio in the rear-yard would meet all zoning requirements but was added to the plan so that the Board and neighboring property owners could get a better understanding of the Vavreks’ final plan for the property. Originally the petitioner had included only a simple site plan of the proposed sport court location. Member McKnight asks how much distance is between the proposed sport court and the patio as depicted in the site plan. Mr. Haber answers approximately 5-feet. Member Buckton asks the petitioner about greenspace in the western portion of the lot and if that could be used for the proposed hardscape. Planner Frahm states that the sport court would not be allowed in the corner side yard, a terrace or patio may be allowed but no zoning analysis has been done on any part of the proposal other than the basketball court. The petitioner adds that the patio is intended to go in the proposed location as there is an indoor access point with a canopy that must be at that location due to zoning rules. Mr. Haber adds that window wells are being preserved and an existing egress would be preserved. Member Buckton asks if they were not granted the variation what would be the impact on the proposed hardscaping. The petitioner says that this would be unchanged, however, there are some engineering impacts. Mr. Haber confirms that water flow would be north-to-south in both cases, but a 9-foot setback provides greenspace on both sides of the proposed patio. Member Buckton asks if there would be hardscape modification of the proposed patio if the sport court was at the required 15-foot setback. Mr. Haber confirms that there would have to be a redesign. Chairperson Miller states the hardships are the elevation they would have to grade if moved forward, that the neighbors would be more visually impacted, and the flow of the water. Mrs. Vavrek adds that the proposed 9-foot setback adds screening. The petitioner Page 5 of 66  Zoning Board of Appeals 4 December 9, 2025 clarifies that, yes, those three things – screening, soil, and water are the hardships for this location. Chairperson Miller asks Mr. Haber if they can change the course of the water. Mr. Haber confirms that they can. Chairperson Miller does not understand how the Johnson and Hoppe family would be more impacted if the natural flow of the water is unchanged. Mr. Haber says that the proposed setback allows them to manage the water in a more effective way. Member Buckton asks if the petitioner has plans for the west side of the property. Mrs. Vavrek says they intend to keep the space open and landscaped with trees. Mr. Haber adds that they are trying to maintain the existing grade in that area of the lot from the street. The highest point on the property is on the northwest corner, and that the landscape design of the proposal tries to incorporate the elevation and setting. Member Pavlich asks Staff how the lot dimensions are determined. Planner Frahm answers that on a 150-foot by 160-foot lot that the narrower portion of the lot would be the front yard (150-foot side) and clarifies that the lot is considered as a combined zoning lot. Member Pavlich clarifies that if the property at 189 East Road were to build a sport court in the current condition, that the sport court would be allowed a 7-foot setback. Mr. Floyd Johnson of 188 N. Park Boulevard is sworn in by Village Staff. Mr. Johnson says that he is concerned about the water flow due to the positioning of the adjacent streets. Chairperson Miller directs this question to Village Staff. Planner Frahm says that although he does not have an engineering background, there are a number of different water controls that can be made on a property and defers to Mr. Haber for how they plan to control water per the proposal at 189 East Road. Mr. Haber shows that the grading in the north is higher in the south and also indicates a retaining wall on the property that would also help to redirect water. Mr. Johnson asks if they have elevations and Mr. Haber responds that they are not at that stage of the development yet, but reiterates that the project would receive a stormwater review. Mr. Johnson details some water issues that he experiences on his property. Mrs. Vavrek testifies that they are trying to maintain or improve the drainage on their property. Planner Frahm ask Mr. Johnson if they have any experience of water moving from the Vavrek property to the Johnson property. Mr. Johnson says that this has not been an issue. Chairperson Miller asks Mr. Johnson if what he has learned today has changed his support of the project. Mr. Johnson says that he still questions the elevation. Mr. Haber reads into the record that the highpoint on the northwest corner is 784 and the low point to the south is 775 where the driveway meets the public walkway. This indicates a north to south waterflow to Revere Road before eventually heading east. Mr. Johnson states that he agrees. Member Pavlich reads the Finding of Facts into the record seeking a zoning variation for a residential sport court to be setback 9-feet as provided in the site plan at the December 9 meeting. The ZBA considered the following documents: application, plat of survey, location and zoning map, site plan and letters of support from all adjoining Page 6 of 66  Zoning Board of Appeals 5 December 9, 2025 neighbors. Matt and Heidi Hoppe at 189 East Road, Patricia Spence at 192 East Road and an updated letter of support from the Johnsons. Member Pavlich asks if the Johnsons are still in support and this is confirmed. Member Pavlich also notes that if the lots had not been combined a 7-foot setback would be permitted for the sport court. Member Pavlich asks the members to vote on the adoption of the Findings of Fact, and the Findings are adopted by unanimous vote. Zoning Board of Appeals begins their deliberation. Member Kelly states that he is inclined to be a yes, and that they are not being asked to rule on hydraulics or engineering and knows that will be a requirement that will be reviewed. Member Kelly, in review of the topography of the lot, does understand the petitioner’s request. Member Pavlich also states he is inclined to vote yes, as the petitioners have secured letters of support from adjacent properties and feels that the combination of the lot does present a unique situation and that he is in favor of the proposal. Member McKnight states that she is not in favor of recommending approval. Member McKnight says that the standard in the Code to grant variation for a practical difficulty or hardship is not met. Member Lakhani states she is in favor of the project and reiterates that the petitioner has down well to build the support of the neighbors. Member Buckton states that he will be voting no. Member Buckton says the petitioners have done a great job talking with the neighbors and have a talented landscape architect but for the same reasons as Member McKnight had said 15-feet is what the Code calls for. Chairperson Miller also acknowledges that the petitioners have done a great job in working with the neighbors, but he is not in favor. Chairperson Miller does not see a hardship or practical difficulty that would make him vote yes. In deliberation Chairperson Miller says that with split support in anticipating a 3-3 vote that the ZBA should make a motion to recommend approval. Member Buckton asks if there is precedent for the Vote. Chairperson Miller says that this has been practiced in the past. The Board agrees to proceed in this manner. Member McKnight makes a motion to recommend approval of the variation for the residential sport at 189 East Road subject to the conditions that the project is constructed in substantial conformance to the plans presented at the November 4 and December 9 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Seconded by Member Pavlich. Voting Ayes Nays Abstain Absent Miller X Buckton X Jones X Kelly X Lakhani X McKnight X Pavlich X Page 7 of 66  Zoning Board of Appeals 6 December 9, 2025 Recommendation to approve voted three (3) yes, three (3) no. Chairperson Miller reminds the petitioners that the Village Board has ultimate approval, that the ZBA is only making a recommendation to the Village Board, and that the Village Board may be convinced of their practical difficulty or hardship. E. OTHER BUSINESS – None F. CHAIRPERSON STATEMENT – Chairperson Miller reports that the Village Board voted to approve a construction necessitated variation 167 Forest. Chairperson Miller expressed his concern with this approval and says that he had a discussion with the Village President this morning about the vote. Chairperson Miller says that the Village has a reputation in the community of approving the construction necessitated variations. Chairperson Miller asks why a resident will properly get permitted if they know they can break rules and construct a project the way they want and come in later for variation. Chairperson Miller says that this ruling only makes it easier for the next person and he has expressed his disappointment to the President. Chairperson Miller mentions conflicted votes both at the Village Board and at the ZBA level. Member Buckton asks what the ZBA vote was – Member Pavlich and Chairperson Miller respond that it was a recommendation to not approve 4-2, but both note that the two members that voted nay (to support approval of the project) still had concerns. Chairperson Miller voices that he wanted this displeasure on the record and that he believes this does not set a precedent that adheres to the Code. Chairperson Miller asks other ZBA members to speak up if they would like to voice their opinion on the ruling of the Village Board. Member Pavlich says that he is supportive of the ZBA taking a negative view towards those that do not permit first – although he says that he cannot recall during his membership where the ZBA voted to recommend the approval of a Construction Necessitated Variation. Member Pavlich states that hardship is not the only factor when considering variation but that the language also includes impact by rules regulating the district impacting the property owner and whether a project will alter the essential character of the locality. Member Pavlich says that when the Board begins to discuss hardline rules in the Code there also exists gray area. G. VILLAGE BOARD TRUSTEE REPORT – Trustee Duncan says that he was present at the Village Board meeting and that he made the amendment to approve the variation. Trustee Duncan says that he agrees with Member Pavlich with the standards and that the variation being sought per the testimony provided to the Village Board was de minimis. Trustee Duncan says that he considered the recollections of similar projects with Village Staff and believes that the petitioner was contrite and understanding. Trustee Duncan says that it was a close call but in totality of all the presented evidence he believes that he and the other trustees voted to approve the variation with an empathetic perspective. Conversation is made in the room on whether the encroachment into the required setback of the deck in question was 4-inches or 6-inches. Trustee Duncan states that the difference in this encroachment would not affect his vote to approve the variation. Page 8 of 66  Zoning Board of Appeals 7 December 9, 2025 H. STAFF REPORT – Planner Frahm notes that the Community Development Department is planning to reach out to finalize a contract with a consultancy for the Zoning Code rewrite in 2026. Planner Frahm also adds that the Village Board also voted to approve a Historic Preservation Incentive Program which includes a preservation matching grant and may have zoning effects – although none are currently proposed. I. ADJOURNMENT – Member Buckton motions to adjourn the meeting; Member Lakhani seconds the motion. Meeting adjourned at 8:01 p.m. Submitted by Jordan Frahm, Associate Planner Reviewed by Daniel Harper, Planning Manager Page 9 of 66  Glen Ellyn Zoning Board Meeting 1/13/2026 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: 2025-1046 # 2025-1046) Public Hearing - 466 Sunset Court Statement of the Issue: The petitioner, Studio 1 Architects, representing Keven and Neil Bochenek, the owners of the property at 466 Sunset Court, has applied for zoning variations to accommodate a proposed reconstruction and expansion of an existing rear addition of the home with a proposed rear yard setback of thirty-four feet and four inch (34'-4") in lieu of the required rear yard setback of forty feet (40'-0") and to allow an enlargement to the existing covered front porch with a proposed side yard setback of five feet (5’-0”) in lieu of the minimum required setback of six feet and six inches (6’- 6”). Analysis: REQUEST: The petitioners request approval of the following variation from the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code: 1. A variation from Section 10-4-8(D)(2) to allow for a rear yard setback of thirty-four feet and four inches (34’-4”) in lieu of the minimum required setback of forty feet (40’-0”). 2. A variation from Section 10-4-8(D)(3) to allow for a side yard setback of five feet (5’-0”) in lieu of the minimum required setback of six feet and six inches (6’-6”). 3. A variation from Section 10-5-5(B)(4)(25) to allow for a porch to encroach into the minimum side yard setback. ZONING/USE: The subject property is zoned R2 - Residential District and improved with an existing two-story single-family home. PUBLIC NOTICE: Notice of the public hearing was published in the December 18, 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 associated with the property. PERMIT HISTORY: Year Permit No. Type 2019 20190670 Basement Renovation 2017 20170665 Kitchen and Bathroom Remodel Page 10 of 66 2013 20131692 Bathroom Remodel 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. A variation from Section 10-4-8(D)(2) to allow for a rear yard setback of thirty-four feet and four inches (34’-4”) in lieu of the minimum required setback of forty feet (40’-0”). 2. A variation from Section 10-4-8(D)(3) to allow for a side yard setback of five feet (5’-0”) in lieu of the minimum required setback of six feet and six inches (6’-6”). 3. A variation from Section 10-5-5(B)(4)(25) to allow for a porch to encroach into the minimum side yard setback. The applicant is proposing an approximately 93 square foot expansion of the sun room located in the rear of the home. The existing sun room area is approximately 171 square feet. The new sun room is proposed to be approximately 263 square feet. Section 10-4-8(D)(2) of the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code requires additions to principal structures to be no closer than forty feet (40'-0") from the rear property line. The applicant is proposing that the new addition have a rear yard setback of thirty-four feet and four inches (34'-4"), resulting in a setback encroachment of five feet and eight inches (5'-8"). The existing rear addition encroaches into the rear yard setback approximately one foot and one inch (1'-1"). The applicant is also proposing an expanded front porch with a proposed side yard setback of five (5'-0') in lieu of the required six feet and six inches (6'-6"). The applicant has claimed that the property being triangular and the home being constructed at a slight angle in relation to the property lines has reduced the ability of the homeowner to construct the front porch addition in a way that would be consistent with the character of the neighborhood. The proposed additions meet all other zoning code regulations of the village. 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 variations 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. Zoning Map Page 11 of 66 3. Aeiral Map 4. Plat of Survey 5. Proposed Site Plan 6. Proposed Elevations Page 12 of 66  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 13 of 66  APPLICATION FOR ZONING VARIATION Date Filed: 11/20/2025 Application No: 2025-0054 Name of Applicant: Studio 1 Architects Address of Applicant: 1105 Burlington Ave Western Springs, IL 60558 Property Interest of Applicant: Owner Representative Name of Owner: Keven & Nell Bochenek Address of Owner: 466 Sunset Ct Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Type Name Address Phone Email 1105 Burlington Ave Petitioner Studio 1 Architects Western Springs, IL 60558 1105 Burlington Ave Web Administrator Studio 1 Architects Western Springs, IL 60558 Keven & Nell 466 Sunset Ct Glen Ellyn, IL Parcel Owner Bochenek 60137 466 Sunset Court Glen Web Administrator Kevin Bochenek Ellyn, IL 60137 Property Address: 466 Sunset Ct Project Name: Web Project Project Description: We respectfully submit this application requesting administrative variations from Sections 10-4-8(D)2 (rear yard setback), 10-4-8(D)3 (side yard setback), and 10-5-5 Table 10-5-5(B)4 Item 25 (encroachments into yards) of the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code. The purpose of this request is to allow the reconstruction and modest expansion of the existing screened porch at the rear of the home and to enlarge the existing covered front porch. Legal Description of Property: See attached survey Page 14 of 66  Zoning: R2, Single Family Residential District Lot Dimensions: 120x158.8x26.3x161.62 Lot Area: 11130 Present Use: Single family residential Estimated Date to Begin New Use/Construction: 2/1/2026 Narrative Statement: On behalf of homeowners Kevin and Nell Bochenek of 466 Sunset Court, Glen Ellyn, we respectfully submit this application requesting variations from Sections 10-4-8(D)2 (rear yard setback), 10-4-8(D)3 (side yard setback), and 10-5-5 Table 10-5-5(B)4 Item 25 (encroachments into yards) of the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code. The purpose of this request is to allow the reconstruction and modest expansion of the existing screened porch at the rear of the home and to enlarge the existing covered front porch. The proposed rear porch addition would reduce the rear yard setback from the district requirement of 40'-0" to 34'-4", resulting in a 5'-8" encroachment. The existing porch currently encroaches 1'- 1" with a setback of 38'-11". The new configuration is designed to improve functionality while minimizing further encroachment. The front porch enlargement requires relief from the side yard setback by approximately 1'-6" due to the tapering shape of the lot and the home’s orientation on the cul-de-sac. 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: Requesting variations from Sections 10-4-8(D)2 (rear yard setback), 10-4-8(D)3 (side yard setback), and 10-5-5 Table 10-5-5(B)4 Item 25 (encroachments into yards) of the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code. 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: Page 15 of 66  The existing lot is located on a cul-de-sac. The property is pie shaped and is narrow at the front and increases considerably towards the rear of the lot. The home is not square to any property line which means it is skewed. Increasing the covered porch out to the existing stoop is not possible due to the taper of the lot even though the concrete stoop is already encroaching into the side yard setback. The topography of the lot also slopes from west to east. We plan to replace the existing sun room with a new slightly larger functional room on the west due to the topography and the skew of the home on the lot makes the slight enlargement a smaller encroachment than if it were on the east side. see proposed site plan attached. The existing sun room currently encroaches into the rear yard setback. 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 plight of the owner is created by the existing orientation of the home on the lot. The lot is on a cul-de-sac. The lot is small at the front and increases as it goes to the back. The lot also slopes from west to east. 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 character of the home will be enhanced with the new porch as it will reflect other homes in town that have done this type of addition/remodel. 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: The lot is the hardship in regards to topography, shape and the homes orientation. 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 hardships result directly from the lot’s irregular cul-de-sac configuration and slope rather than any action by the property owners. Most lots within the zoning district are rectangular and do not face similar constraints, making this request site-specific and not generally applicable to other properties. Page 16 of 66 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 owners are a young family with young children and plan to live in the home for many years. The purpose of this variation is not to enhance property value but is always a consideration with home projects but to allow reasonable and functional use of the home, including a safer and more accessible front entry and an improved screened porch for seasonal living space. 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 practical difficulties stem from the existing lot geometry and topography, and home skew not from any self-created condition by the owners. 9. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. This variation is for a standard addition and remodel. Nothing will bd detrimental or injurious to the neighborhood. 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 will be no impairment of light or air 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. Thee will be no hazards from fire or dangers created. 12. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The addition will not impair health safety comfort moral or welfare of the village. 13. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Unduly increase traffic congestion in the public streets and highway. The additions will provide increase value to the neighborhood. This is an addition that is seen across town and has added value to all homes. Page 17 of 66 14. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Create a nuisance. No increased traffic or congestion is anticipated due to the project. 15. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Results in an increase in public expenditures. No nuisance is intended or expected. All guidelines and rules of the village will be adhered to. 16. Provide evidence that the variation is the minimum variation that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. No increased expenditures are expected for the village. 17. Please add any comments which may assist the commission in reviewing this application. The requested encroachments—5'-8" into the rear yard and 1'-6" into the side yard— represent the minimum relief required to allow a functional design. The porches are proportionate to the existing home and do not exceed what is reasonably necessary for use. The proposed variations satisfy the Village’s standards for variation review. They reflect practical responses to unique site conditions, maintain the integrity of the neighborhood, and align with the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance. Page 18 of 66  466 Sunset Court - Zoning Map Legend Zoning and Development Zoning R2: Single Family Residential District 0 100 200 Print Date: 12/23/2025 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 19 of 66  466 Sunset Court - Aerial Map Legend 0 50 100 Print Date: 12/23/2025 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 20 of 66 Page 21 of 66 Page 22 of 66 1105 Burlington Avenue Western Springs, IL 708.783.1124 studio1architects.com A2.1 Page 23 of 66  Glen Ellyn Zoning Board Meeting 1/13/2026 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: 2025-1047 # 2025-1047) Public Hearing - 863 Highview Avenue Statement of the Issue: The petitioners, James & Kristine Stepicka, the owners of the property at 863 Highview Avenue, have applied for a zoning variation to accommodate a proposed three-season room addition to the home with a proposed lot coverage ratio of 20.23% in lieu of the maximum required lot coverage ratio of 20%. Analysis: REQUEST: The petitioners request approval of the following variation from the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code: 1. A variation from Section 10-4-8(E)(1) to allow for a lot coverage ratio of 20.23% of the lot in lieu of the maximum allowed lot coverage ratio of 20%. ZONING/USE: The subject property is zoned R2 - Residential District and improved with an existing two-story single-family home. PUBLIC NOTICE: Notice of the public hearing was published in the December 18, 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 associated with the property. PERMIT HISTORY: Year Permit No. Type 2019 20192962 Roof Replacement 2018 20181598 Front Walkway Replacement 2006 B26291 Irrigation 2005 B25448 Construction of New Two-Story 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: Page 24 of 66 1. A variation from Section 10-4-8(E)(1) to allow for a lot coverage ratio of 20.23% of the lot in lieu of the maximum allowed lot coverage ratio of 20%. The applicant is proposing an approximately 206 square foot addition to the sun room located on the west side of the home located on top of a new deck that is in approximately the same location as an existing deck. The existing lot coverage is 3,140 square feet. The proposed 206 square feet of lot coverage raises the total LCR above the maximum lot coverage of 3,308 square feet by 38 square feet. The proposed lot coverage ratio is 20.23 percent. The applicant approached the village and requested an administrative zoning variation. Upon review of the application, Village staff determined that the application did not demonstrate unique circumstances that would prevent compliance with the LCR regulations and, thus, did not qualify for an administrative zoning variation. Reducing the width of the proposed sunroom from 17'-2" to 14'- 0" would eliminate the need for a variation. The proposed addition meets all other village zoning code regulations. 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 variations 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. Application 3. Zoning Map 4. Aerial Map 5. Plat of Survey 6. Construction Plans Page 25 of 66  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 66 Page 27 of 66  APPLICATION FOR ZONING VARIATION Date Filed: 12/3/2025 Application No: 2025-0059 Name of Applicant: James B Slepicka Address of Applicant: 863 HIGHVIEW AVE GLEN ELLYN, IL 60137 Property Interest of Applicant: Owner Name of Owner: James &Kristine Slepicka Address of Owner: 863 Highview Ave Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Contacts: Type Name Address Phone Email 863 HIGHVIEW AVE Petitioner James B Slepicka GLEN ELLYN, IL 60137 863 HIGHVIEW AVE Web Administrator James B Slepicka GLEN ELLYN, IL 60137 James &Kristine 863 Highview Ave Glen Parcel Owner Slepicka Ellyn, IL 60137 Property Address: 863 Highview Ave Project Name: Web Project Project Description: We are requesting a variation for the allowable lot coverage required for the R2 District according to Chapter 4, Section 10-4-8. R2 Residential District sub section (E) Maximum lot coverage ratio: Part 1. Lot coverage ratio, more than one story: Lot coverage ratio, single family dwellings, more than one story, and accessory buildings: 20 percent of the lot. The variance request is for a .23% additional lot coverage for an unconditioned sunroom addition changing the total lot coverage percentage from 20% to 20.23%. Legal Description of Property: THE NORTH 170.5 FEET OF THE EAST 130 FEET (EXCEPT THE EAST 33 FEET THEROF) OF LOT 1 OF OWNERS DIVISION OF LOT 11 OF J.R. SMITH'S Page 28 of 66 ADDITION TO GELN ELLYN, IN SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 39 NORTH, RANGE 10 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIN, IN DUPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS. Zoning: R2, Single Family Residential District Lot Dimensions: 170.50 by 97.00 Lot Area: 16538 05131080070000 Present Use: Residence Estimated Date to Begin New Use/Construction: 1/30/2026 Narrative Statement: We are requesting a variation for the allowable lot coverage required for the R2 District according to Chapter 4, Section 10-4-8. R2 Residential District sub section (E) Maximum lot coverage ratio: Part 1. Lot coverage ratio, more than one story: Lot coverage ratio, single family dwellings, more than one story, and accessory buildings: 20 percent of the lot. The variance request is for a .23% additional lot coverage for an unconditioned sunroom addition changing the total lot coverage percentage from 20% to 20.23%. 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: See attached documentation. 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: See attached documentation. 3. Provide evidence that the requested variation(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality of the property in question: See attached documentation. 4. Provide evidence that the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical condition of the property in question would bring particular hardship upon the Page 29 of 66  applicant/owner as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the Zoning Code were to be carried out: See attached documentation. 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: See attached documentation. 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: See attached documentation. 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. See attached documentation. 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. See attached documentation. 9. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. See attached documentation. 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. See attached documentation. 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. See attached documentation. 12. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. See attached documentation. 13. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Unduly increase traffic congestion in the public streets and highway. Page 30 of 66  See attached documentation. 14. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Create a nuisance. See attached documentation. 15. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Results in an increase in public expenditures. See attached documentation. 16. Provide evidence that the variation is the minimum variation that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. See attached documentation. 17. Please add any comments which may assist the commission in reviewing this application. See attached documentation. Page 31 of 66 Docusign Envelope ID: 9518264A-91EA-436D-A117-5E78F521D221 VILLAGE OF GLEN ELLYN Zoning Variation Request Packet Community Development Department 535 Duane Street – Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 – Telephone 630.547.5250 – Fax 630.547.5370 X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Zoning Variation Request Packet FILLABLE 102523lg.doc Page 32 of 66 Docusign Envelope ID: 9518264A-91EA-436D-A117-5E78F521D221 VILLAGE OF GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS Community Development Department 535 Duane Street Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 (630) 547-5250 ZONING VARIATION REQUEST PACKET ______________________________________________________________________________ Contents 1. Information Sheet for Potential Zoning Variation Requests and Related Options 2. Sample Schedule for a Zoning Variation 3. Description of the Zoning Variation Request Process and Instructions 4. Zoning Code Variation Guidelines for Particular Hardship and Practical Difficulty Criteria 5. Application for Variation form 6. Affidavit of Authorization 7. Disclosure of Interest or Ownership forms 8. Affidavit Affirming No Conflict of Interest X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Zoning Variation Request Packet FILLABLE 102523lg.doc Page 33 of 66 Docusign Envelope ID: 9518264A-91EA-436D-A117-5E78F521D221 VILLAGE OF GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS INFORMATION SHEET FOR POTENTIAL ZONING VARIATION REQUESTS AND RELATED OPTIONS ______________________________________________________________________________ Note: This Information Sheet should be provided to each person who has been advised by a staff member of the Village Community Development Department, acting in his or her official capacity, that the project proposed by such person requires the granting of one or more variations from the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code. ______________________________________________________________________________ This Information Sheet lists options available to you now that you have been officially advised by the staff of the Community Development Department that your proposed project requires the granting of one or more variations from the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code (Ordinance No. 3617-Z, as amended). The options listed below are not intended to be exhaustive nor are they mutually exclusive. (For example, you could decide to proceed under options 1 and 2 below as alternatives). You may wish to contact an attorney to discuss the options listed or explore other options that may be available to you. OPTION 1 - You could (1) decide not to revise your proposed project to reduce or eliminate the required zoning variation(s); and (2) apply for the required zoning variation(s). If this option is chosen, you will need to apply for approval of a zoning variation. OPTION 2 - You could (1) revise your proposed project to reduce the number and/or size of the required zoning variation(s) or (2) reduce the degree of your variation request; and (3) apply for the required zoning variation(s) for your revised proposal. If this option is chosen, you should proceed as described under Option 1 above. OPTION 3 - You could revise your proposed project to eliminate the need for the required zoning variation(s). OPTION 4 - You could decide not to revise or proceed with your proposed project. If this option is chosen, no zoning variation will be required. OPTION 5 - You could appeal the Village’s staff interpretation of the zoning code to the Glen Ellyn Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) per Section 10-10-9, all appeals go to ZBA. If this option is chosen, you must file, within 45 days after the decision by Village staff that your proposed project requires one or more zoning variations, a notice of appeals specifying the grounds therefore and containing the information required by Section 10-10-9 of the Zoning Code X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Zoning Variation Request Packet FILLABLE 102523lg.doc Page 34 of 66 Docusign Envelope ID: 9518264A-91EA-436D-A117-5E78F521D221 with the Director of the Village Community Development Department and the Zoning Board of Appeals. Such an appeal would be governed by Section 10-10-9 of the Zoning Code and applicable State law. In general, the appeal process entails (1) a public hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals following reasonable notice to interested parties and (2) a decision by the Zoning Board of Appeals, based on the evidence presented at the hearing, within a reasonable period of time after the conclusion of the hearing. Under the Zoning Code, the Zoning Board of Appeals has the authority to affirm or reverse, wholly or in part, or modify the decision of Village staff being appealed. Unlike the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals on a variation application (which constitutes a recommendation to the Village Board), the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals on such an appeal is the final Village action on the matter in question. Regardless of the option you choose, members of the Village staff will be available to continue working with you in an effort to bring your proposed project to a conclusion. Please note: All zoning code variation requests for single-family and two-family homes and accessory structures are reviewed by the ZBA with a recommendation to the Village Board. All other zoning code variation requests are reviewed by the Plan Commission (PC) with a recommendation to the Village Board. X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Zoning Variation Request Packet FILLABLE 102523lg.doc Page 35 of 66 Docusign Envelope ID: 9518264A-91EA-436D-A117-5E78F521D221 VILLAGE OF GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS SAMPLE SCHEDULE FOR A ZONING VARIATION ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Application submitted and reviewed by staff - Consult with staff for the number of copies for Plan Commission (PC) - 2 copies for Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) 2. After the application is determined complete, it is placed on next available ZBA or PC Agenda - 15-30 days for public hearing notice in local newspaper - Usually about 6 weeks from the date of submittal to the public hearing 3. Hearing before ZBA or PC 4. Minutes/Transcripts from hearing prepared and forwarded to the Village Board 5. Variation considered by the Village Board Steps 1 – 5: Approximately 90 to 120 days Zoning variations that are reviewed by the Plan Commission in association with a requested Special Use Permit or proposed Subdivision may take longer to process than what is represented by the above sample schedule. X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Zoning Variation Request Packet FILLABLE 102523lg.doc Page 36 of 66 Docusign Envelope ID: 9518264A-91EA-436D-A117-5E78F521D221 VILLAGE OF GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS DESCRIPTION OF THE ZONING VARIATION REQUEST PROCESS AND INSTRUCTIONS ______________________________________________________________________________ I. OVERVIEW: A. Introduction: In general, the zoning variation process involves the following three steps (each of which is described in more detail below): STEP 1 - Application: Zoning variation requests are initiated by filing a completed Application for Variation form, together with other supporting documents and materials, with the Director of the Village Community Development Department. Prior to completing the Application for Variation form, applicants and their representatives, if any, are strongly encouraged to carefully review the Glen Ellyn Zoning Variation Request Package and to become familiar with the applicable provisions of the Zoning Code. STEP 2 - Public Hearing before the ZBA or PC which both make Findings of Fact and Recommendation to the Village Board: After notice has been published and mailed to the surrounding property owners, a public hearing on the requested zoning variation(s) will be held before the ZBA or PC. Based on the evidence presented at the hearing by or on behalf of the applicant or by others, the ZBA or PC is required to make specific findings of fact to support its recommendation to the Village Board regarding the requested zoning variation(s). See Section I. B. below for a brief description of the findings/standards for a variation under the Zoning Code. STEP 3 - Village Board Action: After the minutes or transcript of the public hearing containing the Commission’s findings of fact and recommendation have been delivered to the Village Board, the Village Board will consider the requested zoning variation(s). Under the Zoning Code, the Village Board has the final authority to act on the requested zoning variation(s). X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Zoning Variation Request Packet FILLABLE 102523lg.doc Page 37 of 66 Docusign Envelope ID: 9518264A-91EA-436D-A117-5E78F521D221 A sample schedule for a zoning variation is included in this Zoning Variation Request Package. The actual schedule for particular requested zoning variation(s) may differ from the representative schedule for a wide variety of reasons. Questions regarding the zoning variation process should be directed to the Community Development Department at (630) 547-5250. B. Required Findings of Fact/Standards for a Variation: Set forth below is a short summary of the three principal findings of fact or standards which must be met in order for the ZBA or PC to recommend, and the Village Board to grant, a requested zoning variation from the Zoning Code. This summary is a simplified version of Section 10-10-12(C) of the Zoning Code, which the applicant is referred to for the governing legal language. All three of the following findings of fact or standards must be established and met to support a requested zoning variation (since #2 below consists of two alternatives, only one of the two is required; however, the applicant may present evidence on both alternatives): 1. There would be practical difficulties or particular hardship for the applicant/owner resulting from the characteristics of the property in question if strict compliance with the Zoning Code were required (i.e., if no zoning variation were granted); and 2. Either: A. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return without a zoning variation, or B. The plight of the applicant/owner is due to unique circumstances relating to the property in question; and 3. Granting the requested zoning variation will not alter the essential character of the locality of the property in question. Applicants are also referred to Section 10-10-12(D) of the Zoning Code for a list of supplemental findings. The primary purpose of both the Application for Variation form and the public hearing before the ZBA or PC is to elicit evidence relating to these findings of fact or standards upon which the ZBA or PC and the Village Board can base their actions on the requested zoning variation(s). X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Zoning Variation Request Packet FILLABLE 102523lg.doc Page 38 of 66 Docusign Envelope ID: 9518264A-91EA-436D-A117-5E78F521D221 II. APPLICATION FOR VARIATION AND RELATED MATTERS: A. Application for Variation: The following items must be submitted to the Director of the Village Community Development Department to begin the process for a zoning variation: 1. A properly completed Application for Variation form, together with all supporting documents and materials. Applicants should note that Section 10-10-10(B) of the Zoning Code contains a list of requirements that should be carefully reviewed and includes submitting disclosure of ownership interests and authorization letters depending on the type and capacity of the person or entity holding fee title to the property in question or acting as the applicant for the zoning variation (e.g., representatives, land trusts, corporations, partnerships, other business entities, etc.). Disclosure of Interest and Affidavit of Authorization forms are attached with this packet. Applicants should also note that they are obligated to notify the Village in writing of any change in the requirements relating to the applicant under Section 10-10-10(B) of the Zoning Code (e.g., new 5% or more stockholder in a corporate applicant or new partner in a partnership applicant) that occur at any time after the Application for Variation has been submitted and before final action by the Village Board on their requested zoning variation(s). 2. An application fee must be paid at the time the application is made. Staff will inform the Petitioner of the amount. Depending on the type of application, an escrow (amount to be determined by the Community Development Director) may also be required to pay out of pocket Village expenses related to public notice costs, recording costs and other items related to the project application. 3. A site plan (at a scale of no less than 1 inch = 100 feet) showing: --Site dimensions and area --Location of any existing buildings and/or structures on the lot --Lot location --Placement of proposed building(s)/structure(s) on the lot --Street width, sidewalks and curb cuts --Easements --Type of construction --Floor layout --Building elevations --Parking area and layout --Front, rear and side yard setbacks, and --Other data that may be necessary for the review of the application X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Zoning Variation Request Packet FILLABLE 102523lg.doc Page 39 of 66 Docusign Envelope ID: 9518264A-91EA-436D-A117-5E78F521D221 4. Proof of ownership from the most recent title insurance policy, deed or commitment covering the property in question. 5. A plat of survey of the property in question, with a topographical map containing a statement made by a registered Illinois land surveyor that the property is or is not in a flood plain or other type of special management area. 6. Reimbursement of Fees Agreement (for Plan Commission cases). 7. Affidavit Affirming No Conflict of Interest B. Village Review: The Village staff will examine each Application for Variation and accompanying items within a reasonable time after filing. When the Application for Variation and accompanying items appear to be complete and in good order, the requested zoning variation(s) will be scheduled for consideration at a public hearing before the ZBA or PC. C. Public Hearing Notices and Related Matters: Village staff will produce a legal notice of the public hearing before the ZBA or PC to be published not more than 30 or less than 15 days before the beginning of the hearing in one or more newspapers generally circulated within the Village. Such legal notice will state the time, date and location of the hearing and the particular location of the property in question and briefly describe the applicant's requested zoning variation(s). Not less than 10 days prior to the public hearing, the Village Community Development Department will cause notice of the public hearing to be mailed to all property owners within a 250-foot radius of the property in question. The Village will place one or more placards on the property in question not less than 15 days prior to the date of the public hearing. The placard(s) must remain until completion of the public hearing, at which time it will be removed by the Village. The placard(s) will be provided by the Village and will contain such information as is directed by the Director of the Village Community Development Department. Jurisdiction of the ZBA or PC to hold a hearing will not be affected by the absence of the placard(s), if the absence is not the result of the applicant's act or omission. The Community Development Department will submit the Application for Variation and all accompanying and related items to the ZBA or PC for the public hearing. Applicants are advised that members of the ZBA or PC and Village Board may visit the property in question to inspect it for themselves prior to the hearing. X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Zoning Variation Request Packet FILLABLE 102523lg.doc Page 40 of 66 Docusign Envelope ID: 9518264A-91EA-436D-A117-5E78F521D221 III. PUBLIC HEARING: A. Time, Date and Location: Regularly scheduled meetings of the ZBA are on the 2nd and 4th Tuesday of each month and the regularly scheduled meetings of the PC are on the 2nd and 4th Thursday of each month both at 7:00 p.m. on the third floor of the Civic Center at 535 Duane Street, Glen Ellyn, Illinois. B. Public Hearing: The public hearing for the ZBA or PC is typically divided into five separate stages (which are described in more detail below) – (1) Staff Presentation, (2) Petitioner’s Presentation, (3) Public Participation, (4) Commission Deliberation, and (5) Findings of Fact & Recommendation by the Commission. 1. Staff Presentation: The Village staff will present a general overview of the applicant’s request based on applicant’s submittals and/or adherence to the Village’s Zoning Code, review guidelines, stormwater standards and other relevant data. 2. Petitioner’s Presentation: After the Village staff’s presentation, the applicant is given the opportunity to present his or her case. Applicants should note that it is the responsibility of the applicant and/or his or her representatives to present evidence supporting the requested zoning variation(s) in a complete and logical manner and to have all supporting documentation available at the hearing. 3. Public Participation: The purpose of the public participation portion of the hearing is to give the public an opportunity to testify and to present evidence related to the requested zoning variation(s). Pursuant to State law, all testimony by witnesses in the hearing must be given under oath. 4. Commission Deliberation/Finding of Fact: The Commission then discuss whether the evidence presented at the hearing is sufficient to establish and meet the findings/standards required under the Zoning Code to support a requested zoning variation. (See Section I.B. above for a short summary of the requisite findings/standards for a variation under the Zoning Code). Following this discussion, the Commission makes its recommendation and findings of fact under the Zoning Code and State law, based on the evidence presented during the public participation portion of the X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Zoning Variation Request Packet FILLABLE 102523lg.doc Page 41 of 66 Docusign Envelope ID: 9518264A-91EA-436D-A117-5E78F521D221 hearing to the Village Board concerning the requested zoning variation(s) by vote. 5. Vote: An affirmative vote of the majority of the members present at the ZBA meeting and the PC meeting is necessary to recommend the granting of a requested zoning variation to the Village Board. Under the Zoning Code, the Commission may recommend to the Village Board a lesser variation than the requested zoning variation. In addition, the ZBA or PC may recommend to the Village Board such conditions and restrictions upon the property in question as may, in the opinion of the Commission, be necessary (1) to comply with the standards for a variation set forth in Section 10-10-12 of the Zoning Code, (2) to reduce or minimize the injurious effect of the variation upon other property in the neighborhood, and/or (3) to implement the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code. IV. VILLAGE BOARD ACTION: After a record of the public hearing containing the Commission’s findings and recommendations has been delivered to the Village Board, the Village Board considers the requested zoning variation(s) against the findings/standards required under the Zoning Code for a variation. The Village Board may choose to consider the requested zoning variation(s) at a workshop meeting before a request is considered at the regular meeting of the Village Board. The Village Board has final authority to act on the requested zoning variation(s). The Village Board holds its meetings on the second (2nd) and fourth (4th) Mondays of every month at 7:00 PM. On the third (3rd) Monday of the month, the Village Board holds a workshop, where it discusses various requests but does not act on any applications. Without further public hearing, the Village Board may grant, deny or amend the recommendation for variation or refer the requested zoning variation back to the ZBA or PC for further consideration. A zoning variation may only be granted by an ordinance which is duly passed and approved by the Village Board and President. Pursuant to state law, passage of an ordinance granting a zoning variation which failed to receive a recommendation for approval from the ZBA or PC requires the affirmative vote of two-thirds of all Trustees on the Village Board. After final action by the Village Board, the Village Clerk will notify the applicant, the Director of the Village Community Development Department, the Village Building and Zoning Official and the Director of the Village Public Works Department of the decision of the Village Board. Applicants should note that unless a building permit to begin construction is applied for within 24 months after the approval of an ordinance granting a zoning variation, the X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Zoning Variation Request Packet FILLABLE 102523lg.doc Page 42 of 66 Docusign Envelope ID: 9518264A-91EA-436D-A117-5E78F521D221 ordinance granting the zoning variation becomes null and void (unless the 24-month time limit is expressly extended by the Village Board by ordinance). X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Zoning Variation Request Packet FILLABLE 102523lg.doc Page 43 of 66 Docusign Envelope ID: 9518264A-91EA-436D-A117-5E78F521D221 Zoning Code Variation Guidelines for Particular Hardship and Practical Difficulty Criteria Seeking a variation is a legal process that allows property owners to build structures or use land in a way that is contrary to the local zoning regulations. Variations are meant to be used sparingly. Granting a variation should be based on a practical difficulty or a particular hardship that is directly related to the property and related uses. The Glen Ellyn Zoning code reads: “The Zoning Board of Appeals shall not recommend, and the Village Board shall not vary, the provisions of this Zoning Code, except in cases where there are practical difficulties or particular hardship in the way of carrying out the strict letter of any regulation of this Zoning Code relating to the use, construction or alteration of buildings or structures or the use of land.” It is very important to consider what constitutes a practical difficulty or particular hardship. Unfortunately, there is more information about what is not a practical difficulty or particular hardship than there is to define one. This is probably because there are an infinite number of variation probabilities and scenarios. The courts have ruled that a practical difficulty or particular hardship cannot be self created, cannot be just showing that the property would be worth more if a variation were granted, and it cannot be just a demonstration that a property is better suited for a use that is prohibited than a use that is permitted. In trying to define the practical difficulty or particular hardship the person making the decision on whether or not to support the variance will need to evaluate if: 1. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations governing the district in which it is located; or 2. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances; and that the Variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; The first test above essentially applies to the variety of uses that could be developed on the land. The applicant or owner must show more than a loss. The applicant or owner must demonstrate that there would be a loss or lack of reasonable return from each and every permitted use on the property. The second test implies that the hardship conditions shall not be generally applicable to a similar situation in the same zoning district. If that were the case, then the zoning of the district would be materially changed. Uniqueness relates to hardship, which refers to the land and not to the personal circumstances of the applicant or owner. Furthermore, the Zoning Board must also consider other standards prescribed in the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code when deciding on variations: 1. That the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical condition of the specific X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Zoning Variation Request Packet FILLABLE 102523lg.doc Page 44 of 66 Docusign Envelope ID: 9518264A-91EA-436D-A117-5E78F521D221 property involved would bring particular hard-ship upon the owner as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulation were to be carried out; 2. That the conditions upon which the petition for Variation is based would not be applicable generally to other property within the same zoning district; 3. That the purpose of the Variation is not based exclusively upon a desire to make more money out of the property; 4. That the alleged difficulty or particular hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property or by the applicant; 5. 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 is located; 6. That the proposed Variation will not: a. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property; b. Substantially increase the hazard from fire or other dangers to said property or adjacent property; c. Otherwise impair the public health, safety, comfort, morals or general welfare of the inhabitants of the Village; d. Diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood; e. Unduly increase traffic congestion in the public streets and highways; f. Create a nuisance; or g. Result in an increase in public expenditures; 7. That the Variation is the minimum Variation that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. A zoning variation runs with the land indefinitely. This reinforces that variations should not be granted based on personal circumstances; while the people eventually will go away, the variation does not. The New York Supreme Court defined a variance as: “An authority to a property owner to use the property in a manner forbidden by the ordinance.” The owners seeking variations are expected to bear a “higher burden of proof”. Where a request for a variation is not unique or changes the essential character of the area, the petitioner should seek an amendment to the zoning code that would then apply throughout the district, rather than a variation. Variations are meant to be used sparingly, which is intentional as suggested in a reference from the case of Real Properties v. Board of Appeals of Boston that reads: “The power of variances is to be sparingly exercised and only in rare instances and under exceptional circumstances peculiar in their nature and with due regard to the main purpose of a zoning ordinance to preserve the property rights of others.” X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Zoning Variation Request Packet FILLABLE 102523lg.doc Page 45 of 66 Docusign Envelope ID: 9518264A-91EA-436D-A117-5E78F521D221 Here are a couple of examples of variation requests that have hardships: 1. A platted lot that is uniquely shaped and when the zoning code is applied, interferes with the buildable area of the lot. 2. Unusual topography or natural conditions within a parcel. These are a few variations requests that do not include hardships: 1. The cost of a project would be greater if it were constructed in an area that would be otherwise permissible. 2. Request to accommodate the size of one’s family or personal health issues. 3. Request to expand beyond conditions created by a previous owner. For example, the previous owner may have elected to build the structure up to the setback line even though there was ample space to provide more distance from the property line. In conclusion, a hardship is not just ordinary inconvenience or difficulty and the owner must be able to show that there is an inability to make reasonable use of the land. The hardship or difficulty must be unique and should not generally apply to other properties. Hardships cannot be self-created, which even applies to action taken by previous owners, including work performed without a permit. According to the courts, a hardship does not include a potential for economic loss or less than maximum return. Finally, the use or modification must not alter the essential character of the area. The ultimate question that must be asked is “Is the property owner deprived of rights or deprived of their desires?” X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Zoning Variation Request Packet FILLABLE 102523lg.doc Page 46 of 66 Docusign Envelope ID: 9518264A-91EA-436D-A117-5E78F521D221 VILLAGE OF GLEN ELLYN 535 Duane Street Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 CLEAR PAGES (630) 547-5250 APPLICATION FOR VARIATION For the property at 863 Highview Ave. ____________________________________________ Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 ________________________________________________________________________________ Note to the Applicant: This application should be filed with, and any questions regarding it, should be directed to the Director of the Village Community Development Department. You may attach separate sheets of paper if additional space is needed for the following answers. ________________________________________________________________________________ The undersigned hereby petitions the Village of Glen Ellyn, Illinois, for one or more variations from the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code (Ordinance No. 3617-Z, as amended), as described in this application. I. APPLICANT INFORMATION: (Note: The applicant must comply with Section 10-10-10(B) of the Zoning Code). Name: James Slepicka _______________________________________________________________ Address: 863 Highview Ave. _______________________________________________________________ Home Phone No.: (630)310-1055 Cell Phone No.: Fax No.: _______________________________________________________________ E-mail: jslepicka@gmail.com _______________________________________________________________ Ownership Interest in the Property in Question: Homeowner X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Zoning Variation Request Packet FILLABLE 102523lg.doc Page 47 of 66 Docusign Envelope ID: 9518264A-91EA-436D-A117-5E78F521D221 II. INFORMATION REQUIRED BY SECTION 10-10-10(B) OF THE ZONING CODE, IF APPLICABLE: NOTE: All parties, whether petitioner, agent, attorney, representative and or organization et al. must be fully disclosed by true name and address in compliance with Section 10-10-10(B) of the Zoning Code. Disclosure forms are attached for your convenience. Name and address of the legal owner of the property (if other than the applicant): Name and address of the person or entity for whom the applicant is acting (if the applicant is acting in a representative capacity): Is the property in question subject to a contract or other arrangement for sale with the fee owner? (Choose "Yes" or "No") YES NO If YES, the contract purchaser must provide a copy of the contract to the Village and must either be a co-petitioner to this application or submit the attached Affidavit of Authorization with the application packet. Is the property in question the subject of a land trust agreement? (Choose "Yes" or "No") YES NO If YES, (1) either the trustee must be a co-petitioner or submit the attached Affidavit of Authorization from the trustee to represent the holders of the beneficial interests in the trust and (2) the applicant must provide a trust disclosure in compliance with "An Act to Require Disclosure of All Beneficial Interests", Chapter 148, Section 71 et seq., Illinois Revised Statutes, signed by the trustee. X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Zoning Variation Request Packet FILLABLE 102523lg.doc Page 48 of 66 Docusign Envelope ID: 9518264A-91EA-436D-A117-5E78F521D221 III. PROPERTY INFORMATION: 863 Highview Ave. Common address: _______________________________________________________ 05-13-108-007 Permanent tax index number: ______________________________________________ Legal description: THE NORTH 170.5 FEET OF THE EAST 130 FEET (EXCEPT THE EAST 33 FEET THEROF) OF LOT 1 OF OWNERS DIVISION OF LOT 11 OF J.R. SMITH'S ADDITION TO GELN ELLYN, IN SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 39 NORTH, RANGE 10 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIN, IN DUPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS. R2 Residential District Zoning classification: _____________________________________________________ 170.50 ft. x __________ Lot size: __________ 97.00 ft. 16538.5 Area: ____________ sq. ft. Present use: Residential IV. INFORMATION REGARDING THE VARIATION(S) REQUESTED: Description of the variation(s) requested (including identification of the Zoning Code provisions from which variation is sought) and proposed use(s): We are requesting a variation for the allowable lot coverage required for the R2 District according to Chapter 4, Section 10-4-8. R2 Residential District sub section (E) Maximum lot coverage ratio: Part 1. Lot coverage ratio, more than one story: Lot coverage ratio, single family dwellings, more than one story, and accessory buildings: 20 percent of the lot. The variance request is for a .23% additional lot coverage for an unconditioned sunroom addition changing the total lot coverage percentage from 20% to 20.23%. X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Zoning Variation Request Packet FILLABLE 102523lg.doc Page 49 of 66 Docusign Envelope ID: 9518264A-91EA-436D-A117-5E78F521D221 Estimated date to begin construction: January 2026 ________________________________________ Names and addresses of any experts (e.g., planner, architect, engineer, attorney, etc.): TimberBuilt Rooms 841 Equity Drive St. Charles, IL 60174 V. EVIDENCE RELATING TO ZONING CODE STANDARDS FOR A VARIATION: The following items are intended to elicit information to support conclusions by the ZBA or PC and the Village Board that the required findings/standards for a variation under the Zoning Code have been established and met. Therefore, please complete these items carefully. A. Standards Applicable to All Variations Requested: 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: The property located at 863 Highway Ave is a corner lot and has a covered concrete patio located in the rear of the property. Because of this the area is counted towards the total lot coverage calculations even though it does not contain a conditioned enclosed space. Having this area included in the lot coverage calculation with the proposed sunroom puts the lot coverage over the allowable 20% by .23%. 2. a. 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 X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Zoning Variation Request Packet FILLABLE 102523lg.doc Page 50 of 66 Docusign Envelope ID: 9518264A-91EA-436D-A117-5E78F521D221 b. Provide evidence that the plight of the applicant/owner is due to unique circumstances relating to the property in question: The property currently has an unconditioned, non enclosed covered patio which is increasing the existing lot coverage calculations causing a request to increase the allowable lot coverage from 20% to 20.23%. 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 addition will not alter the essential character of the property, the addition will be constructed using similar materials and styles to match the existing home making it appear as if the addition has always been on the property. B. For the purpose of supplementing the above standards, the ZBA or PC, in making its recommendation that there are practical difficulties or particular hardships, shall also take into consideration the extent to which the evidence establishes or fails to establish the following facts favorably to the applicant: 1. 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 existing property has a covered patio that is not conditioned or enclosed. X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Zoning Variation Request Packet FILLABLE 102523lg.doc Page 51 of 66 Docusign Envelope ID: 9518264A-91EA-436D-A117-5E78F521D221 2. 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: The property is a corner lot and has an unconditioned and non enclosed covered patio. 3. 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 proposed addition is not the desire to make a profit off the property but to remove the existing old deck and create a usable space that can be enjoyed year round. 4. 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 current hardship has not been created by any person with interest in the property or knowingly by the homeowner. Examples include the lot being a corner lot, items being considered towards lot coverage instead of impervious surface. 5. 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 proposed sunroom is located within the lot lines of the property and will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood. X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Zoning Variation Request Packet FILLABLE 102523lg.doc Page 52 of 66 Docusign Envelope ID: 9518264A-91EA-436D-A117-5E78F521D221 6. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: a. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property; The proposed sunroom will be located in the side yard of the property between the home and existing tree line and below the existing peak of the home. No supply of light or air will be impacted towards the adjacent property. b. Substantially increase the hazard from fire or other dangers to the property in question or adjacent property; The proposed sunroom will replace an existing old deck and will be built to comply with existing Village of Glen Ellyn building and electrical codes. c. Otherwise impair the public health, safety, comfort, morals or general welfare of the inhabitants of the Village; The proposed sunroom will be located in the side yard of the home and only viewable from a small portion of the parkway. This will not impair the public health, safety, comfort, morals or general welfare of the inhabitants of the village. d. Diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood; The proposed sunroom will replace and existing older deck and be constructed to match the style of the existing home; it will neither diminish nor impair property values within the neighborhood. e. Unduly increase traffic congestion in the public streets and highway; The proposed addition is located in the side yard of the property, this will not cause and increase in traffic congestion on the public streets or highway. f. Create a nuisance; or The proposed addition is located in the side yard of the property and will replace an existing older deck because of this it will not cause a nuisance. X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Zoning Variation Request Packet FILLABLE 102523lg.doc Page 53 of 66 Docusign Envelope ID: 9518264A-91EA-436D-A117-5E78F521D221 g. Results in an increase in public expenditures. The proposed addition is for a residential property and located within the lot lines resulting in no effect to public expenditure. 7. Provide evidence that the variation is the minimum variation that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. The variance is to request a change from the allowable 20% to a 20.23%, which is less than a 1% request. 8. Please add any comments which may assist the commission in reviewing this application. X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Zoning Variation Request Packet FILLABLE 102523lg.doc Page 54 of 66 Docusign Envelope ID: 9518264A-91EA-436D-A117-5E78F521D221 VI. CERTIFICATIONS, CONSENT AND SIGNATURE(S) I (We) certify that all of the statements and documents submitted as part of this application are true and complete to the best of my (our) knowledge and belief. I (We) consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in the application by any authorized official of the Village of Glen Ellyn. I (We) certify that I (we) have carefully reviewed the Glen Ellyn Zoning Variation Request Package and applicable provisions of the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code. I (We) consent to accept and pay the cost to publish a notice of Public Hearing as submitted on an invoice from the publishing newspaper. I (we) understand that our request will not be scheduled for a Village Board agenda until and unless this invoice is paid. 11/21/2025 James Slepicka Date Print Name Signature of Applicant Date Print Name Signature of Applicant Date Print Name Signature of Applicant X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Zoning Variation Request Packet FILLABLE 102523lg.doc Page 55 of 66 Docusign Envelope ID: 9518264A-91EA-436D-A117-5E78F521D221 AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION I, __________________________________________________ owner of the property described as verify that is duly authorized to apply and represent my interests before the Glen Ellyn Plan Commission, Zoning Board of Appeals and/or Village Board. Owner acknowledges that any notice given applicant is actual notice to owner. ____________________________ Owner Signature Subscribed and sworn to before me this _______ day of _______________, 20_____ ____________________________________ Notary Public X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Zoning Variation Request Packet FILLABLE 102523lg.doc Page 56 of 66 Docusign Envelope ID: 9518264A-91EA-436D-A117-5E78F521D221 OWNERSHIP BY A CORPORATION Date: Address: Legal Description: LIST ALL SHAREHOLDERS AND OFFICERS/DIRECTORS (AND % OF INTEREST OWNED IN EXCESS OF 5% OF STOCK) Name: Address: % Name: Address: % Name: Address: % Name: Address: % Name: Address: % Name: Address: % Name: Address: % Name: Address: % Name: Address: % Name: Address: % Name: Address: % Name: Address: % Name: Address: % Name: Address: % Name: Address: % Name: Address: % X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Zoning Variation Request Packet FILLABLE 102523lg.doc Page 57 of 66 Docusign Envelope ID: 9518264A-91EA-436D-A117-5E78F521D221 OWNERSHIP BY LAND TRUST Date: _________________ Address: ______________________________________________________________________ Legal Description: TRUSTEE: _________________________________________ TRUST NO.________________ Address: ______________________________________________________________________ LIST ALL BENEFICIARIES: Name: __________________________ Address: ______________________________________ Name: __________________________ Address: ______________________________________ Name: __________________________ Address: ______________________________________ Name: __________________________ Address: ______________________________________ Name: __________________________ Address: ______________________________________ Name: __________________________ Address: ______________________________________ Name: __________________________ Address: ______________________________________ Name: __________________________ Address: ______________________________________ Name: __________________________ Address: ______________________________________ Name: __________________________ Address: ______________________________________ Name: __________________________ Address: ______________________________________ Name: __________________________ Address: ______________________________________ Name: __________________________ Address: ______________________________________ Name: __________________________ Address: ______________________________________ Name: __________________________ Address: ______________________________________ X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Zoning Variation Request Packet FILLABLE 102523lg.doc Page 58 of 66 Docusign Envelope ID: 9518264A-91EA-436D-A117-5E78F521D221 Affidavit Affirming No Conflict of Interest The undersigned, being duly sworn and under oath, states as follows: James Slepicka 1. My name is ____________________________________, and I hold the position of Homeowner _________________________ 863 Highview Ave. for ___________________________ (“Owner”). 2. I have personal knowledge of all facts stated in this Affidavit, and if called to testify, I could and would testify competently thereto. 3. I am authorized by the Owner to make the representations and statements in this Affidavit on the Owner’s behalf in support of the application for development approval (“Application”) the Owner filed with the Village of Glen Ellyn (“Village”). 4. To the best of my knowledge, and as of the Application’s date, no individual that is employed by the Village or sits on an elected or appointed Village board or commission has a financial interest in the Owner, the Application, or the project proposed by the Owner. 5. To the best of my knowledge, and as of the Application’s date, no individual that is related to any person that is employed by the Village or sits on an elected or appointed Village board or commission has a financial interest in the Owner, the Application, or the project proposed by the Owner. 6. I will immediately notify the Village if the Owner learns of the material inaccuracy of any statement within this Affidavit. Further affiant sayeth naught. Name: James Slepicka Title: Homeowner Owner’s Name: Subscribed and sworn to me this _______ day of ___________________, 20____. ________________________________ Notary Public X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Zoning Variation Request Packet FILLABLE 102523lg.doc Page 59 of 66  Zoning Map - 863 Highview Avenue Legend Zoning and Development Zoning R2: Single Family Residential District 0 100 200 Print Date: 12/23/2025 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 60 of 66  Aerial Map - 863 Highview Avenue Legend 0 50 100 Print Date: 12/23/2025 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 61 of 66 Page 62 of 66  PROJECT: SLEPICKA Project Overview DATE: 10-8-2025 CUSTOMER PAGE #: 1A James Slepicka REVISION: A 863 Highview Ave. DRAWING SCALE: N/A Glen Ellyn, IL. 60137 DRAWN BY: TH ARCHITECT SEAL Page 63 of 66  12 8 5" ALUM. GUTTER & 2x3" DOWN SPOUT EXISTING BRICK WHT / WHT VINYL WHT / WHT VINYL WHT / WHT VINYL WHT / WHT VINYL 1'-0" EXISTING EXISTING SINGLE SLIDER SINGLE SLIDER SINGLE SLIDER SINGLE SLIDER LOW-E ARGON LOW-E ARGON LOW-E ARGON LOW-E ARGON WINDOW DOOR HEIGHT @ WALLS A & C 8'-0 3/4" LP TRIM NEW COMPOSITE DECK W/ ALUM. RAILING 1X4 LP TRIM FIBER CEMENT SIDING COMPOSITE FASCIA OPEN AC2 SUPPORT POSTS HEIGHT TO GRADE AC2 SUPPORT POSTS AC2 SUPPORT 7'-11" @ POSTS "B/C" CORNER 12" RND. 12" RND. CONC PIER CONC PIER 18" RND. 8" RND. 8" RND. 42" BELOW 42" BELOW CONC PIER CONC PIER CONC PIER FIN. GRADE FIN. GRADE 42" BELOW 18" RND. 42" BELOW 42" BELOW FIN. GRADE CONC PIER FIN. GRADE FIN. GRADE 18" RND. 42" BELOW FIN. GRADE CONC PIER 15" RND. 42" BELOW CONC PIER FIN. GRADE 42" BELOW FIN. GRADE NOTES: PROJECT: SLEPICKA IRC. 2018 NEC. 2017 ROOM IS AN UNCONDITIONED SPACE Front Elevation DATE: 10-8-2025 ASSUMED WIND LOAD = 115 MPH ULTIMATE CUSTOMER PAGE #: 1 ASSUMED SNOW LOAD James Slepicka REVISION: A = 30 PSF ALL FASTENERS & CONNECTORS 863 Highview Ave. DRAWING SCALE: 1/4" = 1'0" TO BE HOT DIPPED GALVANIZED Glen Ellyn, IL. 60137 DRAWN BY: TH ARCHITECT SEAL Page 64 of 66  NOTES: CONTINUOUS RIDGE VENT PROJECT: SLEPICKA 235# ASPHALT SINGLES TO MATCH EXISTING DATE: 10-8-2025 PAGE #: 2 REVISION: A DRAWING SCALE: 1/4" = 1'0" DRAWN BY: TH Left Elevation 1'-0" James Slepicka WHT / WHT VINYL WHT / WHT VINYL PATIO DOOR SINGLE SLIDER LOW-E ARGON LOW-E ARGON 8'-0 3/4" LP TRIM TEMPERED TEMPERED 863 Highview Ave. LP TRIM HEIGHT @ WALLS A & C CAULK NEW COMPOSITE DECK CONNECTION W/ ALUM. RAILING CUSTOMER EXISTING HOUSE Glen Ellyn, IL. 60137 COMPOSITE FASCIA OPEN HEIGHT TO GRADE 3'-11 1/2" AC2 SUPPORT @ POSTS STAIRS GRADE 12" RND. 12" RND. CONC PIER CONC PIER 42" BELOW 12" RND. 42" BELOW FIN. GRADE CONC PIER FIN. GRADE 42" BELOW FIN. GRADE ARCHITECT SEAL Left Elevation SCALE 1/4" = 1' - 0" Page 65 of 66  NOTES: CONTINUOUS RIDGE VENT 235# ASPHALT SINGLES TO MATCH EXISTING PROJECT: SLEPICKA EXISTING 5" ALUM. GUTTER & HOUSE DATE: 10-8-2025 2x3" DOWN SPOUT PAGE #: 3 REVISION: A WHT / WHT VINYL WHT / WHT VINYL SINGLE SLIDER LOW-E ARGON SINGLE SLIDER LOW-E ARGON DRAWING SCALE: 1/4" = 1'0" HEIGHT @ WALLS A & C DRAWN BY: TH 8'-0 3/4" LP TRIM Right Elevation James Slepicka 1X4 LP TRIM 863 Highview Ave. FIBER CEMENT SIDING CAULK CONNECTION CUSTOMER OPEN Glen Ellyn, IL. 60137 HEIGHT TO GRADE AC2 SUPPORT @ 7'-11" POSTS "B/C" CORNER 12" RND. CONC PIER 42" BELOW FIN. GRADE GRADE 15" RND. CONC PIER 15" RND. 42" BELOW CONC PIER FIN. GRADE 42" BELOW FIN. GRADE ARCHITECT SEAL Right Elevation SCALE 1/4" = 1' - 0" Page 66 of 66