Zoning Board of Appeals

Agenda Village of Glen Ellyn Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Tuesday, May 12, 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 April 14, 2026, Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes. D. New Business 1) Public Hearing - 285 N. Main Street 2) Public Hearing - 593 Lee Street 3) Public Hearing - 635 Carolyn Drive E. Chairperson's Statement F. Trustee Liaison's Report G. Staff Report H. 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 74 different ideas for achieving that objective.  Glen Ellyn Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 5/12/2026 7:00 PM 535 Duane Street Department: Community Development Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Department Head: Jennifer Henaghan Category: Minutes Prepared By: Daniel Harper AGENDA ITEM (ID # 2026-355) DOC ID: 2026-355 Review and Approval of the April 14, 2026, Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes. Statement of the Issue: Review and Approval of the April 14, 2026, Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes. Analysis: Review and Approval of the April 14, 2026, Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes. Budget Impact: Contribution to Strategic Plan Action Requested: Review and Approval of the April 14, 2026, Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes. Attachments: 1. Draft April 14, 2026 Zoning Minutes Page 2 of 74  DRAFT MINUTES Glen Ellyn Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Tuesday, April 14, 2026 at 7:00 PM Glen Ellyn Civic Center Galligan Board Room A. Call to Order and Roll Call Roll was called. Present: Board Members, Matthew Jones, Noureen Lakhani, Craig Pavlich, and Chairperson Miller Absent: Board Members, Todd Buckton, Christine McKnight, and Peter Kelly Also in attendance: Daniel Harper, Planning Manager; Robert Duncan, Village Trustee, and Adriana Ohl Zamora, Recording Secretary. Chairperson Miller called the meeting to order at 7:01 PM. Chairperson Miller explained the advisory nature of the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) and its process for deliberation and recommendation. He described the Public Hearing protocols and announced that the meeting was being recorded. B. Public Comment (non-agenda items) None C. Approval of March 10, 2026, Meeting Minutes Motion to Approve March 10, 2026, minutes by Member Lakhani, Member Jones seconded the motion, and the motion passed by voice vote. Member Pavlich moved to re-open the Public Hearing on 718 N. Main St. Member Jones seconded the motion, and the motion passed by voice vote. Sworn in Daniel Harper, Planning Manager Village of Glen Ellyn, Petitioner Thomas Cornelli, Resident John Adduci, Resident Don Foster D. New Business 1. Public Hearing-718 N. Main St. Sworn in, Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn, introduced the following variation request for 718 N. Main St. Mr. Harper introduced the zoning variation to the Board Members as follows: Beth and Thomas Coronelli, the petitioners and owners of the property at 718 N. Main Street, have applied for two zoning variations to accommodate a proposed detached garage that would be nine hundred and forty-six (946) square feet in lieu of the maximum allowed six hundred and sixty (660) square feet for detached garages. This garage will have a maximum parapet height of twenty feet and nine inches (20'-9") in lieu of the maximum allowed parapet height of twelve feet (12’-0”) for detached garages. Petitioners would like to retain the integrity of the existing property. They would like 2nd floor to serve as an outdoor living area, which will have stairs within the garage. The property is zoned R2 Residential District and will be improved with existing two-story single-family home. In order to proceed with the project as proposed, the petitioners will need to be granted the following variations from the Zoning Code: 1. Section 10-4-8(F) to allow a maximum parapet height of twenty feet and nine inches (20’-9”) in lieu of the maximum allowed parapet height of twelve feet (12’-0”) for detached garages. 2. Section 10-5-5(B)(4) to allow a maximum detached garage area of nine hundred and forty-six square feet (946) in lieu of the maximum allowed area for detached garages of six hundred and sixty (660) square feet. Page 3 of 74 The applicants are proposing an approximately nine hundred and forty-six (946) square foot detached garage in the rear yard of the residential property. The proposed garage is a tandem design and would be twenty-two feet (22'-0") by twenty-five feet (25'- 0") in dimension with a tandem extension in the rear that is twenty-two feet (22'-0) by eighteen feet (18'-0"). The proposed garage would be located further behind the home than the existing detached garage and would be located approximately one-hundred and sixty-four feet and three inches (164'-3") from the front property line. The applicants are also proposing a maximum parapet height of twenty feet and nine inches (20’-9”) in lieu of the maximum allowed parapet height of twelve feet (12’-0”) for detached garages to accommodate for a flat roof design above the tandem structure that could be utilized as an outdoor amenity. The proposed garage would meet all other zoning requirements regarding setbacks and yard and lot coverage. The proposed garage is set back six feet and five inches (6'-5") from the side property line and sixty-six feet and four inches (66'-4") from the rear property line. The proposed total lot coverage on the 32,839 square foot property is approximately 17.4%, and the proposed garage is not located in the required rear yard area. This is below 20% mark of what is required in R2 district. Due to the scale of the proposed garage, the building permit would require a Site Development Grading Plan, and a drywell would likely be needed to offset stormwater requirements. 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 a findings of fact and determine if a practical difficulty or a particular hardship exists for the requested variation and if the essential character of the neighborhood is maintained. The ZBA may choose to make a recommendation to the Village Board for the approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the request per Section 10-10-12 of the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code. Following attachments were all presented to the Members: Aerial Map Zoning Maps Plat of Survey Site and Elevation Plans Member Questions: Chairperson Miller asked if another permit would be needed for the petitioners to put in the deck. Mr. Harper explained that it would be part of the building permit package. Member Pavlich asked what counts as a low sloped roof and how it applies here. Mr. Harper stated that this roof is flat along the surface, so that is how we counted in that. Mr. Harper later clarified that the definition of a low slope roof in the zoning code is “any roof surface with a pitch less than three inches vertically in 12 inches horizontally (3:12), including flat roofs.” NO FURTHER QUESTIONS Petitioner Thomas Coronelli stated that they have owned 3 homes in Glen Ellyn and that they have been able to save them all. They love the character of Glen Ellyn, and this house is one that they worked on (Cottage Ave.) This is referring to a picture which he showed Members. He explained that they wanted to create something that was fitting with the neighborhood. They are not doing this for profit; and they are trying to save most architectural elements of the home to retain character. They were able to save columns and molding, and they raised the 2nd floor out of old house. They are trying to preserve the streetscape, house, and pergola in the back of the house. They hired an architect to try to attach the house to the side of building where current garage is. Currently, there is a chunk taken out of the corner because of the setback. After several attempts, it did not look proper without destroying the large existing tree, and they would need to increase the height of the garage. He stated that they could have attached the garage to the house, as they have the lot coverage, but that is not what they want to do. They don’t believe the attached garage fits the character of the house. They did try another option, but they would have created a huge structure next to the neighbor’s home. Due to angle of lot and curvature of lot, it would have been difficult to get cars in and out. It would not have been efficient, and many windows would have been blocked. If the garage was pushed up north, there would be many cars parked out front. There could be 4-5 cars of people living there. They want to pull that from the streetscape of what they think is a beautiful historical home. They are asking for square footage, Page 4 of 74 not storage, in front of the garage. They didn’t want to see a big, long structure, which is why they didn’t make the upper portion of the garage go all the way across. The flat part of roof will have a limestone cap around the roof designed to not see a flat roof. They don’t currently have the designs to build a deck off the back of garage. They are asking for accommodation because of the size of lot. They have made accommodations for the basement of the house, and the garage’s wide space could accommodate someone in the future. They want to stay in Glen Ellyn and make it accessible, as it was built in 1910. Mr. Adduci, a resident across the street, is also a member of the Police Pension Board. He stated that his neighbor didn’t ask him to come here. He saw the sign in front of his house. He stated that Mr. Cornelli’s house is a beautiful house, and he has enjoyed looking at the transformation of the house. He said that everything seems reasonable based on the size of his lot. Mr. Foster, a neighbor at 534 Maple street, said that they get a good view of their entire back yard. They have seen a variety of things in their backyard, and he appreciates what the Canellis have done to preserve that house. They have three car garages, and this lot that he owns is very unique. It has a lot of space, and it’s very appropriate for a bigger garage. He knows that the Village is redoing the zoning code, so the lot size might be something to consider. Glen Ellyn has a mix of big, small, and medium-sized houses. It’s not like other communities. Member Pavlich asked why the petitioners needed 946 square feet versus the 660 square foot garage. The petitioners stated that their intention was to compliment the roof line of house. Their old family room needed to be upgraded, and they had to then address that. They did not intend the garage to be as big as it is, and he thinks it is reasonable to request what is essentially a four- car garage for an 8-bedroom house. The square footage that they are asking for is to make it a little wider. It is a shelter for cars as well. The modifications were all made under their ownership. What you see from street and side is the original house. Member Lakhani asked if there were any other variations granted. The petitioner stated No Chairperson Miller asked what the plan was for the 2nd floor of the garage. The petitioners said that they don’t have any more need for additional square footage, and there is no purpose for it other than storage. They do not plan on using it for an apartment of any type. The door is there to open and let the air in, adding glass doors which would function as light and air. He owns a van camper which he would put in the garage, and he doesn’t want to put a boat in the garage. He doesn’t know if you can park a camper in garage. The glass will be filtered. The purpose of a 2nd door is to access the roof, gutters, and chimneys easier. Mr. Harper stated that for clarity, that the code states that “Unless parked within an enclosed building no more than one recreational vehicle, trailer or boat of any kind or type may be parked in the open, and then only behind the front building line and not in a required side yard.” Findings of Fact; The applicant is seeking for a variance for Section 10-4-8(F) to allow a maximum parapet height of twenty feet and nine inches (20’-9”) in lieu of the maximum allowed parapet height of twelve feet (12’-0”) for detached garages. They are also seeking a variance for Section 10-5-5(B)(4) to allow a maximum detached garage area of nine hundred and forty-six square feet (946) in lieu of the maximum allowed area for detached garages of six hundred and sixty (660) square feet. We heard from neighbors Mr. Foster and Mr. Adduci. Member Lakhani moved to accept Findings of Fact, and Member Buckton seconded the motion. The motion passed by unanimous vote. Deliberation Member Lakhani said that it is hard to accept whatever the petitioners are trying to do, and it does not fall in line with the current Zoning Board and the codes. Member Pavlich said that he is very pro garage and all things with motors as a resident of Village. All the hardships that the petitioners are speaking of, he feels for them dearly. There are a lot of dynamics, but while they have granted garages for a lot of purposes, they have never granted variations for bigger garages. He understands their position because they have a large lot, and they have spent a lot of money modifying this house. Member Jones stated that being on this board for 10 years, they have approved garages larger than 660 square feet. Every single garage has passed. The petitioners have two lots there, which would allow them to build two homes as big as they want and two garages of 660 square feet. The Village is looking at the rewriting the code, and if they wait, maybe the petitioners will get their garage. He thinks this should be deliberated at the Village Board. He will be a yes vote, which will end up being debated at the Board. Page 5 of 74 Chairperson Miller stated that he believes that regardless of our vote, he doesn’t see a hardship or practical difficulty that would allow him to vote for it. They can vote to table this and they can go back to drawing board and come back to them. Or, they can have them vote on it now and plead their case before the Village Board. Member Pavlich recommended denial based on findings of facts and Member Lakhani seconded the motion. The motion passed by voice vote (3) yes and 1 (no). E. Other Business None F. Chairperson’s Statement . Chairperson reminded the audience that there is a survey online to fill out regarding the current rezoning project. G. Trustee Liaison Report- Robert Duncan He spoke about the Strategic Plan and re-zoning issues. There are things to be excited about for the 4th of July this year. H. Staff Report Mr. Harper- Stated the following: 1. Both garages will be at the May 11th Village Board meeting. 2. 863 Highview, with a sunroom on the deck, withdrew their application. 3. This Thursday, we have the Historic Preservation Commission Awards. 4. Kenilworth Arms Condominiums would like to construct a deck that needs a variation. 5. There is a busy schedule on the ZBA May agenda. There are 3 variations in the queue. 6. The AAC is revising the exterior appearance approval guidelines 7. We are in the first rounds of comment reviews for Dutch Bros. 8. Lens Ace Hardware is looking to add a garden center located in parking lot to the west of the building. Ace Harware has purchased that property. I. Adjournment Member Lakhani made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Member Pavlich seconded the motion, and the motion passed by voice vote at 8:15 PM Respectfully submitted, Adriana Ohl-Zamora Page 6 of 74  Glen Ellyn Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 5/12/2026 7:00 PM 535 Duane Street Department: Community Development Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Department Head: Jennifer Henaghan Category: Public Hearing Prepared By: Daniel Harper AGENDA ITEM (ID # 2026-357) DOC ID: 2026-357 Public Hearing - 285 N. Main Street Statement of the Issue: The petitioners Charles and Emily Price , the owners of the property at 285 N. Main Street, have applied for a zoning variation to allow a deck that was built with a setback of five feet and six inches (5'-6") from the south property line in lieu of the required 6-feet, 6-inches (6'-6"). Analysis:REQUEST: The petitioners request approval of the following variation from the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code: 1. Section 10-5-5(B)(4)(8) to allow for a deck to be setback five feet and six inches (5’6”) from the interior side yard property line in lieu of the required setback of six feet and six inches (6’6”). ZONING/USE: The subject property is zoned R2 - Residential District and improved with an existing single-family home. PUBLIC NOTICE: Notice of the public hearing was published in the April 24, 2026, 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 2025 20250283 Deck and Pergola 2022 20221389 Fence 1999 B18743 Finished Basement PRJOECT HISTORY: The deck was permitted for construction per permit #20250283 on 4/21/2025. The original deck permit was approved for the construction of a new rear yard deck with a conforming side yard setback of six feet and six inches (6'-6"). According to the applicant, during the construction of the deck in May and June 2025, the construction team discovered a previously undocumented cistern structure underneath the old deck that was being replaced. According to the applicant, the cistern’s location made it structurally infeasible to install four of the concrete piers as originally designed. In order to avoid undermining the cistern and to maintain proper structural support for the deck, the contractor relocated the affected piers to what he deemed to be the nearest feasible structural position. Page 7 of 74 This adjustment resulted in the reduced setback described of five feet and five inches (5'-5"). The overall height, scale, and residential use of the deck and pergola remain consistent with the originally approved permit plans. Village staff has received correspondence from the owners of 279 N. Main Street, the property located directly south of the subject property, stating their support for the requested zoning variation. Budget Impact: Contribution to Strategic Plan Action Requested: The ZBA should consider the testimony presented during the public hearing and review the written evidence presented as part of the petitioners’ application packet. The ZBA should make findings of fact and determine if practical difficulty or a particular hardship exists for the requested variation and if the essential character of the neighborhood is maintained. The ZBA may choose to make a recommendation to the Village Board for the approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the request per Section 10-10-12 of the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code. Attachments: 1. Application - Zoning Variation 2. Zoning Map 3. Aerial Map 4. Site Plan 5. Approved Deck Plan 6. Deck Construction Photo 7. Photo of Cistern 8. Letter of Support Page 8 of 74  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 9 of 74  APPLICATION FOR ZONING VARIATION Date Filed: 2/17/2026 Application No: 2026-0009 Name of Applicant: Charles Keaton Price Address of Applicant: 285 N Main Street Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Phone: (815) 263-2596 Email: ckeatonprice@gmail.com Property Interest of Applicant: Owner Name of Owner: Emily A Price Address of Owner: 285 N Main St Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Type Name Address Phone Email Charles Keaton 285 N Main Street Glen Petitioner Price Ellyn, IL 60137 Charles Keaton 285 N Main Street Glen Web Administrator Price Ellyn, IL 60137 285 N Main St Glen Ellyn, Parcel Owner Emily A Price IL 60137 Property Address: 285 N Main St Project Name: Web Project Project Description: Deck and pergola in back of residence Legal Description of Property: The south 5 feet of Lot 1 and all of Lot 2 in block 1 in owner’s subdivision of part of Lot 24 County clerk’s sixth assessment division in the east 1/2 of the northwest and 1/4 of section 14, Township 39 north, range 10, east of the third principle Meridian, according to the plat of said owners subdivision record recorded March 31, 1923 as document 164050, in DuPage County, Illinois Page 10 of 74  Zoning: R2, R2, Single Family Residential District Lot Dimensions: 55’ x 150’ Lot Area: 8266 : 05141230020000 Present Use: Single-family residential Narrative Statement: This application requests a construction-necessitated variation from the minimum interior side yard setback requirement established under Title 10-4-8(D)(3) of the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code (R2 Residential District), which requires each interior side yard to be six and one-half feet or 10% of the lot width, whichever is greater. For this property, the required interior side yard setback is 6 feet 6 inches (78 inches). The as-built south side yard setback is 67 inches, resulting in a request for 11 inches of relief. During excavation for the approved rear deck and pergola, a previously undocumented underground cistern approximately 12 feet in diameter was discovered within the originally approved pier locations. The cistern’s location made it structurally infeasible to install four of the concrete piers as originally designed. In order to avoid undermining the cistern and to maintain proper structural support for the deck, the contractor relocated the affected piers to the nearest feasible structural position. This adjustment resulted in the reduced setback described above. The overall height, scale, and residential use of the deck and pergola remain consistent with the originally approved permit plans. The requested 11-inch variation represents the minimum relief necessary to accommodate the unforeseen subsurface condition while maintaining safe construction practices. 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: The practical difficulty arises from the presence of a previously undocumented underground cistern located within the originally approved pier alignment. The cistern is a physical characteristic unique to this property and was not visible prior to excavation. Compliance with the strict setback requirement would have required placement of structural piers over the cistern, which is not structurally feasible. 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 Page 11 of 74  variations) OR Provide evidence that the plight of the applicant/owner is due to unique circumstances relating to the property in question: The need for the variation is due to unique physical circumstances relating to this property, specifically the location of the underground cistern within the deck pier zone. The requested relief is directly tied to accommodating this condition and not to economic considerations. 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 requested 11-inch setback reduction will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The deck remains consistent in scale, height, and residential use with surrounding properties and the originally approved plans. 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 hardship results from an existing subsurface structure (cistern) that affects the physical buildable area of the lot. This condition required relocation of structural supports and created the need for minor setback relief. 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 presence and location of the underground cistern are specific to this property and are not conditions generally applicable to other properties within the zoning district. 6. Provide evidence that the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire to make more money out of the property in question: The purpose of the variation is not to increase financial return but to safely construct the deck in response to an unforeseen structural constraint. 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. Page 12 of 74  The hardship was not created by the applicant. The cistern pre-existed the project and was discovered only during excavation. The adjustment was made to address this unforeseen condition. 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 requested variation will not be detrimental to public welfare or injurious to adjacent property. The structure remains compliant in height and use, and no adverse drainage, access, or safety impacts result from the minor setback reduction. 9. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. The 11-inch reduction in setback will not impair adequate light and air to adjacent properties, as the deck height and overall structure remain consistent with the originally approved design. 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. The proposed variation does not increase fire or other hazards. The deck is constructed in compliance with applicable building codes and maintains adequate separation from adjacent structures. 11. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Otherwise impair the public health, safety, comfort, morals or general welfare of the inhabitants of the Village. The variation will not impair public health, safety, or general welfare. The adjustment was made to maintain structural integrity and safe construction practices. 12. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The minor setback reduction will not diminish property values. The deck and pergola are residential improvements consistent with neighborhood character. 13. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Unduly increase traffic congestion in the public streets and highway. The proposed variation will not increase traffic congestion, as the project is limited to a residential deck and pergola. Page 13 of 74 14. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not create a nuisance. The variation will not create a nuisance. The use remains residential and consistent with surrounding properties. 15. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Results in an increase in public expenditures. The variation will not result in any increase in public expenditures. 16. Provide evidence that the variation is the minimum variation that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. The requested 11-inch reduction represents the minimum variation necessary to accommodate relocation of the structural piers while avoiding the underground cistern. The adjustment was limited to what was structurally required and no greater relief is sought. Page 14 of 74  Zoning Map - 285 N. Main Street Legend Zoning and Development Zoning R2: Single Family Residential District Subject Property 0 50 100 Print Date: 3/23/2026 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 15 of 74  Aerial Map - 285 N. Main Street Legend 0 35 70 Print Date: 3/23/2026 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 16 of 74 Page 17 of 74 Page 21 of 74  Glen Ellyn Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 5/12/2026 7:00 PM 535 Duane Street Department: Community Development Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Department Head: Jennifer Henaghan Category: Public Hearing Prepared By: Jordan Frahm AGENDA ITEM (ID # 2026-358) DOC ID: 2026-358 Public Hearing - 593 Lee Street Statement of the Issue: Tim Nelson ("Petitioner"), representing Kevin McCarthy, the owner of the property at 593 Lee Street, has applied for two zoning variations to allow for a two-story addition to an existing residence. The petitioner is requesting a side yard setback of 4 feet, 4 inches in lieu of the required 6 feet, 6 inches and requesting a lot coverage ratio of 30.1 percent in lieu of the required 20 percent. Analysis:REQUEST: The petitioner requests approval of variations from the following sections of the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code: 1. Section 10-4-8(D) to allow for a setback of four feet, four inches (4'4") from the side property line in lieu of the required minimum setback of six feet, six inches (6'6"). 2. Section 10-4-8(E) to allow for a lot coverage ratio of 30.1 percent in lieu of the required maximum lot coverage ratio of 20 percent. ZONING/USE: The subject property is zoned R2 Residential District and improved with an existing one-story single-family home. PUBLIC NOTICE: Notice of the public hearing was published in the April 24, 2026, edition of the Daily Herald, mailed to property owners within 250 feet of the subject property, and a placard was placed on the property. Village staff has received one (1) piece of correspondence opposed to the application. This correspondence can be reviewed in the attachments. ZONING HISTORY: The property is zoned R2 Residential District and has no previous zoning variations. PERMIT HISTORY: Year Permit No. Type 1990 B11447 Remodel 1990 B11436 Fence 1990 B11303 Electric Service Upgrade 1952 B3547 New Residence ANALYSIS: Page 22 of 74 The petitioner, Tim Nelson, and the homeowner, Kevin McCarthy, are proposing an 81-square foot first-story near the front entrance of the home, and an 831-square foot vertical second-story addition in the rear yard. The second-story addition is completely above the existing first-story footprint. However, the home is legally nonconforming with regard to both the side yard and rear yard setbacks. The existing rear yard setback is 34'-2" and complies with the exemption for vertical additions found in Village Code Section 10-4-1(N)(2), which allows for a vertical addition over the existing foundation walls at a setback that does not encroach greater than 30'-0". The existing side yard setback of 4'-4" is beyond the exemption for vertical additions found in Village Code Section 10-4-1(N)(2), which would allow for a vertical addition of existing foundation walls at a setback that does not exceed a side yard setback of 4'-6". The proposal would also require a variation from the maximum lot coverage ratio of 20 percent. One-story homes in the Village are permitted to have a maximum lot coverage ratio of 35 percent. The existing home has a current lot coverage ratio of 27.5% and is conforming to one-story lot coverage requirements. However, by constructing a vertical addition as proposed, the home would be subject to the maximum lot coverage ratio for two-story homes. Any vertical addition would require zoning relief as the existing lot coverage ratio is above 20 percent. The applicant is seeking a lot coverage ratio of 30.1 percent in lieu of the required 20 percent. Within the applicant's narrative, practical difficulties are described regarding the nonconforming area and lot width. The vertical addition would allow for an increase in floor area without increasing the footprint of the home and the proposed addition will not worsen existing setbacks. The applicant notes within the application narrative that the proposal will not alter the essential character of the locality and that the granting of the variances will "not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood." Per the Zoning Code, a practical difficulty or particular hardship cannot be self-created. A zoning variation runs with the land indefinitely and should be considered only if the property is unique in its particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions specific to the property involved and would bring a particular hardship upon the owner as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. Budget Impact: Contribution to Strategic Plan Action Requested: The ZBA should consider the testimony presented during the public hearing and review the written evidence presented as part of the petitioners’ application packet. The ZBA should make findings of fact and determine if practical difficulty or a particular hardship exists for the requested variation and if the essential character of the neighborhood is maintained. The ZBA may choose to make a recommendation to the Village Board for the approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the request per Section 10-10-12 of the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code. Page 23 of 74 Attachments: 1. Application - Zoning Variation 2. Zoning Map - 593 Lee Street 3. Aerial Map - 593 Lee Street 4. 593 Lee Plat of Survey 5. 593 Lee Site Plan 6. 593 Lee Building Elevations 7. Correspondance - Opposed Page 24 of 74  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 25 of 74  APPLICATION FOR ZONING VARIATION Date Filed: 4/10/2026 Application No: 2026-0015 Name of Applicant: Tim Nelson Address of Applicant: 421 James Street Geneva, IL 60134 Property Interest of Applicant: Owner Representative Name of Owner: Kevin McCarthy Address of Owner: 593 Lee St Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Type Name Address Phone Email 421 James Street Geneva, IL Petitioner Tim Nelson 60134 421 James Street Geneva, IL Web Administrator Tim Nelson 60134 593 Lee St Glen Ellyn, IL Parcel Owner Kevin McCarthy 60137 Property Address: 593 Lee St Project Name: Web Project Project Description: First and second story addition and remodeling of an existing one-story frame residence. Legal Description of Property: That part of lot 79 in Collins and Gauntlett’s first addition to Lake Glen Ellyn, in section 11, township 39 North, range 10, East of the third principal meridian, described as follows: beginning at the South corner of said lot 79, thence northwesterly along the westerly line of said lot, 50 feet; thence northeasterly along a line parallel to the southerly line of said lot to a point in the North line of said lot; thence East along the North line of said lot to the East corner of said lot; t Page 26 of 74  Zoning: R2, R2, Single Family Residential District Lot Dimensions: 50.00' x 135.30' x 49.39' x 124.90' Lot Area: 6418 : 05114080070000 Present Use: Single family residence Estimated Date to Begin New Use/Construction: 9/1/2026 Narrative Statement: An increase in lot coverage from 20% allowable per the Village of Glen Ellyn zoning code to 30.1% to allow for a second-floor addition as well as a first-floor addition to the residence. Total lot coverage variance requested: 10.1% A decrease in the side yard setback of the northwesterly side of the lot from 6.50 feet required by the Village of Glen Ellyn zoning code to 4.32 feet for the addition of a second floor over the existing first floor of the residence. Total side yard setback variance requested: 2.18’ 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: The owner, Kevin McCarthy, of 593 Lee Street in Glen Ellyn wishes to obtain variances to construct a new second floor and a small first floor addition and covered front entry. The residence is in the R-2 zoning district, which requires a minimum lot width of 66 feet and a minimum lot area of 8,712 square feet. The lot does not meet either of these requirements as it is less than 50 wide and 6,418 square feet. The size of the lot presents significant challenges to construct a functional first-floor addition to the home. A second-floor addition would be much more desirable in terms of the usable space it would provide. Unfortunately, the maximum lot coverage allowed per the Village of Glen Ellyn zoning code decreases from 35% for a one-story home to 20% for a two-story home which would require a lot coverage variation for any size second floor addition to the home. Page 27 of 74  Since the home currently encroaches on both interior side yard setbacks as well as the rear yard setback, the proposed second floor addition would also require variances to decrease each of these three setbacks. There is an exception in the Village of Glen Ellyn zoning code that allows for a vertical addition over the existing perimeter walls of a house provided the minimum side yard setback is not less than four and one-half feet and the minimum rear yard setback is not less than 30 feet. The home’s current rear yard setback is 34.11 feet which meets the code exception. 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: With the lot being undersized in regard to the width and the square footage for the residential zone, there is a hardship in regard to the lot coverage available for an addition. In addition to this, one existing side yard setbacks is 0.18 feet away from meeting an exception that would allow for the proposed second floor addition with no variances required for yard setbacks. When compared to other houses in the area that meet this exception, it would be difficult to obtain a reasonable return on the property without variances being granted. It is because of these unique circumstances that the variances are being applied for. 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 locality, and the granting of the variances will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. The new second floor has been intentionally designed at the rear of the existing house in order to minimize any impact on neighboring properties. The addition will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent houses, nor will it substantially increase the hazard from fire or other dangers to said property or neighbors. Furthermore, the addition will not impair the Page 28 of 74  public health, safety, comfort, morals, or general welfare of the inhabitants of the village nor increase traffic congestion in the public streets or highways. Finally, the addition will not create a nuisance, result in an increase in public expenditures, or diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. In fact, it should increase property values in the neighborhood. 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 owner, Kevin McCarthy, of 593 Lee Street in Glen Ellyn wishes to obtain variances to construct a new second floor and a small first floor addition and covered front entry. The residence is in the R-2 zoning district, which requires a minimum lot width of 66 feet and a minimum lot area of 8,712 square feet. The lot does not meet either of these requirements as it is less than 50 wide and 6,418 square feet. The size of the lot presents significant challenges to construct a functional first-floor addition to the home. A second-floor addition would be much more desirable in terms of the usable space it would provide. Unfortunately, the maximum lot coverage allowed per the Village of Glen Ellyn zoning code decreases from 35% for a one-story home to 20% for a two-story home which would require a lot coverage variation for any size second floor addition to the home. Since the home currently encroaches on both interior side yard setbacks as well as the rear yard setback, the proposed second floor addition would also require variances to decrease each of these three setbacks. There is an exception in the Village of Glen Ellyn zoning code that allows for a vertical addition over the existing perimeter walls of a house provided the minimum side yard setback is not less than four and one-half feet and the minimum rear yard setback is not less than 30 feet. The home’s current rear yard setback is 34.11 feet which meets the code exception. 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: Page 29 of 74  With the lot being undersized in regard to the width and the square footage for the residential zone, there is a hardship in regard to the lot coverage available for an addition. In addition to this, one existing side yard setbacks is 0.18 feet away from meeting an exception that would allow for the proposed second floor addition with no variances required for yard setbacks. When compared to other houses in the area that meet this exception, it would be difficult to obtain a reasonable return on the property without variances being granted. It is because of these unique circumstances that the variances are being applied for. 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 homeowners have lived in the house for six years and recently had their first child. They have no intention of moving from the house in the near future, so the purpose of the variations is not based on a desire to make money out of the property. The main purpose of the addition is to add bedrooms so the homeowners can provide space for a growing family. The secondary purpose of the addition is to provide a street-facing front entrance which currently does not exist. Clearly, the hardship prompting the need for variances has not been created by any person having an interest in the property, inclusive of the applicant. 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 homeowners have lived in the house for six years and recently had their first child. They have no intention of moving from the house in the near future, so the purpose of the variations is not based on a desire to make money out of the property. The main purpose of the addition is to add bedrooms so the homeowners can provide space for a growing family. The secondary purpose of the addition is to provide a street-facing front entrance which currently does not exist. Clearly, the hardship prompting the need for variances has not been created by any person having an interest in the property, inclusive of the applicant. 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 proposed addition will not alter the essential character of the locality, and the granting of the variances will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property Page 30 of 74  or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. The new second floor has been intentionally designed at the rear of the existing house in order to minimize any impact on neighboring properties. The addition will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent houses, nor will it substantially increase the hazard from fire or other dangers to said property or neighbors. Furthermore, the addition will not impair the public health, safety, comfort, morals, or general welfare of the inhabitants of the village nor increase traffic congestion in the public streets or highways. Finally, the addition will not create a nuisance, result in an increase in public expenditure, or diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. In fact, it should increase property values in the neighborhood. 9. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. The proposed addition will not alter the essential character of the locality, and the granting of the variances will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. The new second floor has been intentionally designed at the rear of the existing house in order to minimize any impact on neighboring properties. The addition will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent houses, nor will it substantially increase the hazard from fire or other dangers to said property or neighbors. Furthermore, the addition will not impair the public health, safety, comfort, morals, or general welfare of the inhabitants of the village nor increase traffic congestion in the public streets or highways. Finally, the addition will not create a nuisance, result in an increase in public expenditure, or diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. In fact, it should increase property values in 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. The proposed addition will not alter the essential character of the locality, and the granting of the variances will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. The new second floor has been intentionally designed at the rear of the existing house in order to minimize any impact on neighboring properties. The addition will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent houses, nor will it substantially increase the hazard from fire or other dangers to said property or neighbors. Furthermore, the addition will not impair the public health, safety, comfort, morals, or general welfare of the inhabitants of the village nor increase traffic congestion in the public streets or highways. Finally, the addition will not create a nuisance, result in an increase in public expenditures, or diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. In fact, it should increase property values in the neighborhood. 11. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Otherwise impair the public health, safety, comfort, morals or general welfare of the inhabitants of the Village. The proposed addition will not alter the essential character of the locality, and the granting of the Page 31 of 74  variances will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. The new second floor has been intentionally designed at the rear of the existing house in order to minimize any impact on neighboring properties. The addition will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent houses, nor will it substantially increase the hazard from fire or other dangers to said property or neighbors. Furthermore, the addition will not impair the public health, safety, comfort, morals, or general welfare of the inhabitants of the village nor increase traffic congestion in the public streets or highways. Finally, the addition will not create a nuisance, result in an increase in public expenditure, or diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. In fact, it should increase property values in the neighborhood. 12. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The proposed addition will not alter the essential character of the locality, and the granting of the variances will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. The new second floor has been intentionally designed at the rear of the existing house in order to minimize any impact on neighboring properties. The addition will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent houses, nor will it substantially increase the hazard from fire or other dangers to said property or neighbors. Furthermore, the addition will not impair the public health, safety, comfort, morals, or general welfare of the inhabitants of the village nor increase traffic congestion in the public streets or highways. Finally, the addition will not create a nuisance, result in an increase in public expenditures, or diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. In fact, it should increase property values in the neighborhood. 13. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Unduly increase traffic congestion in the public streets and highway. The proposed addition will not alter the essential character of the locality, and the granting of the variances will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. The new second floor has been intentionally designed at the rear of the existing house in order to minimize any impact on neighboring properties. The addition will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent houses, nor will it substantially increase the hazard from fire or other dangers to said property or neighbors. Furthermore, the addition will not impair the public health, safety, comfort, morals, or general welfare of the inhabitants of the village nor increase traffic congestion in the public streets or highways. Finally, the addition will not create a nuisance, result in an increase in public expenditures, or diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. In fact, it should increase property values in the neighborhood. 14. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Create a nuisance. The proposed addition will not alter the essential character of the locality, and the granting of the variances will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property Page 32 of 74  or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. The new second floor has been intentionally designed at the rear of the existing house in order to minimize any impact on neighboring properties. The addition will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent houses, nor will it substantially increase the hazard from fire or other dangers to said property or neighbors. Furthermore, the addition will not impair the public health, safety, comfort, morals, or general welfare of the inhabitants of the village nor increase traffic congestion in the public streets or highways. Finally, the addition will not create a nuisance, result in an increase in public expenditures, or diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. In fact, it should increase property values in the neighborhood. 15. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Results in an increase in public expenditures. The proposed addition will not alter the essential character of the locality, and the granting of the variances will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. The new second floor has been intentionally designed at the rear of the existing house in order to minimize any impact on neighboring properties. The addition will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent houses, nor will it substantially increase the hazard from fire or other dangers to said property or neighbors. Furthermore, the addition will not impair the public health, safety, comfort, morals, or general welfare of the inhabitants of the village nor increase traffic congestion in the public streets or highways. Finally, the addition will not create a nuisance, result in an increase in public expenditure, or diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. In fact, it should increase property values in the neighborhood. 16. Provide evidence that the variation is the minimum variation that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. The absolute minimum variations to the lot coverage and side and rear yard setbacks necessary have been requested for the building of a second floor over the existing exterior walls of the first floor. Page 33 of 74  Zoning Map - 593 Lee Street Legend Zoning and Development Zoning R2: Single Family Residential District Subject Property 0 50 100 Print Date: 5/6/2026 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 34 of 74  Aerial Map - 593 Lee Street Legend 0 35 70 Print Date: 5/6/2026 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 35 of 74  THAT PART OF LOT 79 IN COLLINS AND GAUNTLETT’S FIRST ADDITION TO LAKE GLEN ELLYN, IN SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 39 NORTH, RANGE 10, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTH CORNER OF SAID LOT 79, THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT, 50 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG A LINE PARALLEL TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT TO A POINT IN THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT; THENCE EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT TO THE EAST CORNER OF SAID LOT; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE 20' 10' 0 20' SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING, EXCEPTING THE FOLLOWING: THAT PART BASIS OF BEARING: OF THE SOUTHEASTERLY 50 FEET TO LOT 79 IN COLLINS AND GAUNTLETT’S FIRST ADDITION TO LAKE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF LEE STREET AS GLEN ELLYN, IN SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 39 NORTH, RANGE 10, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL FOUND MONUMENTED AND OCCUPIED PER RECORD MERIDIAN WHICH LIES NORTHERLY OF THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF LOT 4 OF SWANSON’S CRESCENT SUBDIVISION. BOULEVARD ADDITION TO GLEN ELLYN, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF SAID SWANSON’S SUBDIVISION N 47°12'38" W (A) RECORDED NOVEMBER 2, 1925 AS DOCUMENT 202446 IN DUPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS. AREA OF SURVEY: 6,419 "CONTAINING _________ 0.15 SQ. FT. OR _______ ACRES MORE OR LESS" LEGEND A = ASSUMED NW = NORTHWEST C = CALCULATED P.O.B. = POINT OF BEGINNING CH = CHORD P.O.C. = POINT OF COMMENCEMENT CL = CENTERLINE R = RECORD D = DEED RAD = RADIUS E = EAST R.O.W. = RIGHT OF WAY F.I.P. = FOUND IRON PIPE S = SOUTH F.I.R. = FOUND IRON ROD S.I.P.= SET IRON PIPE FT. = FEET/FOOT S.I.R.= SET IRON ROD S 87°57'24" E S 87°57'24" E L = ARC LENGTH SE = SOUTHEAST 12.90' M = MEASURED SW = SOUTHWEST 76.90' N = NORTH W = WEST NE = NORTHEAST CENTER OF WOOD 3' " W .8 F.I.P. = CHAIN LINK FENCE FENCE 0.2' NW & 0.1' SW 13 8'00 1/2" = WOOD FENCE °0 0.28' NE & 0.10' SE = METAL FENCE 5 2 = VINYL FENCE S = EASEMENT LINE = SETBACK LINE = INTERIOR LOT LINE S ) .3 (M 49 2" E 3'1 ) °1 (M 7 9 35 9' D L O T 4. V AR 33 ' LE ' U .9 BO F.I.P. 1/2" 17 NT F.I.R. 1/2" CE 0.28' NW ) 0.35' NW & ES (M ' CR "E ) 14 .5 39 ON LINE OF 8'0 0 /M .4 ' LI NE CENTER OF WOOD FENCE 1.3' NW 52 °0 0 ' (R CENTER OF WOOD TH N .3 ' FENCE 0.1' SE SOU CENTER OF METAL 135 2. 7' 5. 0 FENCE 1.2' NW ' 15 .6 0. 00 BRICK WALL NE 21 LOT '( M ) 0.5' NW AG S TO 1. 1 STORY 80 FL 2' BRICK & FRAME 5. 46 ' BUILDING .3 ' ' 21 .4 48 CENTER OF METAL FENCE 1.1' NW & ON LINE ' CENTER OF WOOD ' .6 .3 17 .6' FENCE 0.4' SE F.I.P. 1/2" 13 15 ) ON LINE & 0.74' NW CO LT E R /M(M) HA 59 ' IV WING WALL ( ' W NC P 30 DR 0 " RE AS . 4 .9 08'00 TE 1 S52 2° 0' 5. 50 28 .3 61 N .0 ' 47 0' CO °1 2' (R NC 38 " W M) / RE TE (A L (6 CU ) W AL EE 6' R .O RB K F.I.P. 1/2" 1.05' SW & 0.61' NW .W .) ST CONCRETE 1.3' SW R EE T STATE OF ILLINOIS }SS NOTE: COUNTY OF DUPAGE 1. ALL TIES SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY ARE MEASURED TO THE I, THE UNDERSIGNED, AN ILLINOIS PROFESSIONAL LAND BUILDING'S SIDING (BRICK, FRAME, STUCCO, METAL, ETC.) SURVEYOR, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT "THIS PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CONFORMS TO THE CURRENT ILLINOIS MINIMUM AND NOT TO THE FOUNDATION, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. STANDARDS FOR A BOUNDARY SURVEY," AND THAT THE 2. ROOF LINES AND OVERHANGS ARE TYPICALLY NOT SHOWN HEREON. PLAT HEREON DRAWN IS A CORRECT REPRESENTATION 3. COMPARE ALL DISTANCES AND POINTS IN FIELD AND REPORT OF SAID SURVEY. ANY DISCREPANCIES TO SURVEYOR AT ONCE. 4. NO DIMENSIONS SHALL BE ASSUMED BY SCALING. 17TH DATED, THIS_______DAY JUNE OF____________, A.D., 2020, AT LISLE, ILLINOIS. 593 LEE STREET ADDRESS COMMONLY KNOWN AS ____________________________________ Morris Engineering, Inc. GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS ____________________________________ 515 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532 BELLOCK & COOGAN, LTD. CLIENT _______________________________________________________ Phone: (630) 271-0770 FAX: (630) 271-0774 06/13/2020 (DS/JB) FIELDWORK DATE (CREW)_________________________________________ WEBSITE: WWW.ECIVIL.COM NG DRAWN BY:_______ REVISED:__________ 20-06-0089 ________ JOB NO. ___________________ Page 36 of 74  TIM NELSON ARCHITECT, LTD. 9' .3 STOOP 49 0' 3 421 James, Geneva, IL 60134 5 . 13 STOOP 2-STORY FRAME Tel (630) 397-5122 Fax (630) 232-1135 RESIDENCE K AL W E N O 1-STORY ST L AG BRICK & .F tim@timnelsonarchitect.com I ST FRAME EX 1-STORY RESIDENCE 0 ' ADDITION . 9 2 4 EXISTING ASPHALT DRIVE COVERED ENTRY 1 50 WALK STEPS .0 0' NORTH PROPOSED SITE PLAN, PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN, & PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN 3 4 Page 37 of 74  4 TIM NELSON ARCHITECT, LTD. PROPOSED ELEVATIONS 421 James, Geneva, IL 60134 4 Tel (630) 397-5122 Fax (630) 232-1135 tim@timnelsonarchitect.com Page 38 of 74 Daniel Harper From: Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 11:28 AM To: Daniel Harper Cc: Marty Dedera Subject: Opposition to Zoning Variation Request – 593 Lee Street (May 12 Hearing) | 735 Crescent Blvd [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Subject: Opposition to Zoning Variation Request – 593 Lee Street (May 12 Hearing) | 735 Crescent Blvd Dear Mr. Harper, Thank you for speaking with my husband Marty Dedera. I am following up in writing with our formal opposition to the zoning variation requests submitted for 593 Lee Street, ahead of the May 12, 2026 hearing. I have attached photographs taken from our property at 735 Crescent Boulevard, which is situated directly along the applicant's side yard setback line. We are among the most directly affected neighbors and wish to register our objection to both requested variations. Marty, who will represent us at the hearing, is a licensed general contractor with over 20 years of experience working in the Chicagoland area. Several of the construction and safety concerns raised in this letter reflect his professional assessment of the proposed plans. 1. Side and Rear Yard Setback (Section 10-4-8(D)) The applicants request a setback of 4'4" to the foundation rather than the required 6'6" — a reduction of nearly two feet. Per the proposed elevations, this addition will raise the eave height on the side facing our property from 9'10" to 18'1" — nearly doubling the wall height at that reduced distance from our property line. The roof overhang will extend beyond the foundation, meaning the eave itself will sit at approximately three feet or less from our property line at a height of over 18 feet. What is currently a low one-story roofline becomes a two- story wall looming over our yard, with direct consequences on our use of our property, on mature trees, and a significant loss of outlook both from within our home and throughout our yard — a quality that was central to our decision to purchase this home for our family. We also note that our property sits at a higher elevation, with a direct line of sight to the applicants' rear yard. The proposed two-story structure, with a ridge height of 26'5", will be prominently visible from our home and yard in a way the existing one-story structure is not, and will cast significant morning shade into our yard. The rear of the structure is also already non-conforming on its setback, meaning the full height of this addition will be closer to our property than it should be on that side as well. The impact of this on our property is not limited to the side setback alone. The structure proposed for conversion to two stories is already non-conforming with respect to three setbacks: the rear yard and both side yards. This proposal does not simply request relief on one line — it seeks to take a structure already out of compliance on three sides and nearly double its wall height. Expanding the vertical scale of a pre-existing, multi-sided non-conformity is a more serious ask than a routine variance. 2. Lot Coverage (Section 10-4-8(E)) The conversion to a two-story structure triggers a reduction in the allowable lot coverage from 35% to 20%. The proposed footprint of 1,835 sq ft represents 30.1% of the 6,418 sq ft lot — exceeding the applicable 20% 1 Page 39 of 74 limit of 1,283 sq ft by over 43%. The applicants are proposing a change that simultaneously subjects them to a stricter lot coverage standard and pushes them well beyond it. This is not a marginal variance request; it is a substantial departure from the density standards the R2 district is designed to preserve. 3. The Hardship Standard Is Not Met We have reviewed the Village's own Zoning Code Variation Guidelines for Particular Hardship and Practical Difficulty Criteria and believe the applicants' request fails on multiple grounds. The Guidelines make clear that hardship cannot be self-created, and that this applies even to actions taken by previous owners. The non-conforming setbacks over which the applicants now wish to build a two-story structure were created by a previous owner. This is explicitly cited in the Village's own guidelines as an example of a request that does not constitute hardship: "Request to expand beyond conditions created by a previous owner." This is precisely what is being asked here. The Guidelines also establish a two-part test: the plight of the owner must be due to unique circumstances, and the variation, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality. The applicants fail both parts. There are no unique circumstances — and notably, the applicants themselves have acknowledged in writing that the lot is already undersized for the R2 district. A below-minimum lot with pre-existing non-conforming setbacks created by a previous owner does not constitute the kind of unique physical hardship that justifies a variance. And granting these variations would result in a large two-story home on an undersized lot that exceeds the applicable lot coverage limit by over 43% — a scale of development that is fundamentally inconsistent with the character of this neighborhood and would set a precedent that, if applied broadly, would materially change the nature of the R2 district. We also note that the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code contains a separate provision allowing vertical additions over existing non-conforming structures under certain conditions — but that provision explicitly requires that all other applicable bulk regulations be met. The applicants cannot satisfy that requirement given their lot coverage of 30.1% against a maximum of 20%. The lot coverage variance is therefore not a secondary concern; it independently disqualifies the applicants from any available exception and makes a formal variance on both counts unavoidable. We would note that we similarly purchased our home knowing the neighboring structure was quite close to our property line at its existing setbacks — and accepted that because it was a single-story structure. Converting that same non-conforming footprint to two stories is a material and permanent change to conditions we reasonably relied upon when we bought our home. This is a decision by the applicants to build over the existing non-conforming setbacks rather than upward over a compliant area of their home. Beyond the self-created hardship issue, the request also fails several of the specific standards the Zoning Board must consider:    Standard 4 requires that the hardship not be created by any person presently having an  interest in the property. The applicants have chosen to site their addition over the existing non- conforming footprint rather than over a compliant area of the lot. The encroachment is a product of their design choice, not the characteristics of the property.     Standard 6(a) requires that the variation not impair an adequate supply of light and  air to adjacent property. The proposed two-story wall at this reduced setback will cast significant shade onto our property, directly impairing our access to light. 2 Page 40 of 74      Standard 6(b) requires that the variation not substantially increase the hazard from  fire. The reduced setback raises serious fire separation concerns under IRC Section R302.1 that have not been addressed in the submitted plans, as described in Section 5 of this email below.     Standard 7 requires that the variation be the minimum variation that will make possible  the reasonable use of the land. The applicants are simultaneously requesting a setback variance and a lot coverage ratio that exceeds the allowable maximum by over 43%. This is not a minimum variation — it is the maximum the applicants can extract from the  property, at the direct expense of adjacent neighbors.  4. Tree Preservation (Section 4-8-3) We are deeply concerned about the impact of this construction on trees along our shared boundary and wish to draw the Board's attention to Glen Ellyn's tree preservation ordinance under Section 4-8-3. A mature pine tree sits approximately two feet from our property line and will in all likelihood not survive construction at this proximity, nor the permanent loss of light from a two-story wall at 4'4" away. Of particular concern is a 125-year-old oak tree located approximately 25 feet into our property along the side boundary. Its canopy overhangs the boundary line and will require substantial pruning to accommodate both the addition and the taller chimney — improper cutting on a tree of this age can cause irreversible damage or destabilization. Its critical root zone will also extend well beyond the trunk, potentially to or beyond the property line, making it directly vulnerable to soil disturbance during construction. There is a second oak tree of concern, over 150 years old, located closer to the applicants' rear setback, whose root zone may similarly be at risk. We wish to draw the Board's particular attention to the compounding risk these two oaks present. Oak trees of this age frequently share interconnected root systems, and construction stress or damage that affects one tree can spread to the other through those connections — a phenomenon well documented in the context of oak wilt. The potential loss of both trees as a result of this construction project would be an irreversible ecological and financial harm to our property, and one that the applicants have not acknowledged or addressed. Our understanding is that under Section 4-8-3(A), a tree preservation plan is required with any building permit application. Under Section 4-8-3(B)(3), the applicant must notify adjacent property owners that a plan has been prepared and make it available for review. Under Section 4-8-3(C)(4), any pruning of adjacent property trees directly affected by construction must be conducted in accordance with the Arboricultural Specifications Manual. Under Section 4-8-3(C)(5), no soil may be added to or removed from within the critical root zone of any adjacent property tree without it being shown on the approved tree preservation plan. We would ask the Board to confirm that these requirements will be strictly enforced, and that a certified arborist be required to assess all three trees — and the interconnected risk between the two oaks — before any permit is issued. 5. Additional Concerns We wish to raise several further concerns for the Board's consideration. 3 Page 41 of 74 The Glen Ellyn Zoning Code exists to protect the health, safety, comfort, and property values of all residents — not just those seeking a variance. Granting two simultaneous variances on a property already non-conforming on three setbacks runs counter to that purpose, and sets a concerning precedent for the neighborhood. We would ask the Board to weigh carefully the cumulative impact of what is being requested.    Fire safety:  Under IRC Section R302.1, walls less than 5 feet from a property line require one-hour fire-rated construction, and roof overhangs less than 5 feet from the property line require one-hour fire protection on the underside. At a foundation setback of 4'4" with  the eave extending to approximately three feet, both the wall and the eave underside are subject to these requirements. We would ask the Board to confirm that the proposed construction meets this standard. We note that granting a setback variance of this nature  makes fire separation compliance all the more critical, not less.     Chimney:  We are also concerned about the structural integrity and long-term maintenance of the chimney. The proposed plans show the chimney being extended significantly above the new two-story roofline, resulting in a tall masonry column with no apparent lateral support.  Under IRC Section 1001.1, chimneys must be structurally sound and properly anchored, and we are not aware of any structural engineering assessment of this extension in the submitted plans. A chimney of this height will require ongoing inspection, repointing,  and repair over time. Given the design, future maintenance will be a serious logistical challenge, and a poorly maintained chimney presents a direct fire risk to neighboring properties. We would ask the Board to require a structural engineering assessment  before any permit is issued, and to consider how safe access for future maintenance will be ensured.     Roof Drainage:  With the eave at roughly three feet from our property line, roof runoff from an 18-foot wall will discharge directly along or onto our property. In winter this also creates the potential for ice accumulation along our boundary. The proposed plans that have  been shared with us do not appear to address drainage on this side of the structure. We would ask the Board to confirm that a stormwater permit application has been or will be required, and that drainage onto adjacent properties is addressed before any permit  is issued.  We are also concerned about the practical risks of construction at this proximity to our property line. At 4'4" from our boundary — with the eave extending even closer — we ask whether the Village requires a pre- construction survey and what protections exist for neighboring property owners should damage occur during the build. We would also ask how the Village ensures that construction materials, debris, and equipment do not encroach on our property — at this distance, even incidental items such as nails, screws, or debris falling from height pose a direct safety risk. We have an active two-year-old, and construction of this scale, this close to our property line will make it unsafe for our son to use our own yard for the duration of the project. This is not a minor inconvenience — it is a direct loss of use of our property during what could be a lengthy construction period. 4 Page 42 of 74 Finally, we note that the proposed addition would create a four-bedroom home served by a one-car garage that is quite small by modern standards, and a two-car driveway that is already at capacity. While we understand the code requires a minimum of two parking spaces per unit, we would ask the Board to consider whether the existing parking situation is adequate for the scale of home being created — for both the current and any future occupants. 6. Process Concerns We also wish to bring to the Board's attention an email we received from the applicants on April 22, after the Village posted a notice on their property. The email states: "The house currently encroaches on all of these setbacks. Therefore, constructing a second floor aligned with the existing first floor would also encroach on these setbacks. From my conversations with the Village Zoning Dept., it sounds likely that the variances will be approved. The lot is already undersized for its residential district and the project is very close to meeting the exception requirements." We wish to flag two things about this communication. First, the applicants' own words confirm that the existing structure encroaches on all relevant setbacks — the same non-conformities we have described in this letter, and that the lot is already undersized for the R2 district. Second, characterizing the outcome of an ongoing public process as likely approved may have discouraged other affected neighbors from participating. We would ask the Board to confirm that the process remains open and that no determination has been made prior to the public hearing. I will be traveling for work and unable to attend in person. My husband Marty will be present on May 12 on our behalf. We request that this letter and the attached photographs be entered into the official record. If you have any issues with the Google Drive link and associated photographs, please do let me know and I will re-send. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, Dana Logalbo 735 Crescent Boulevard Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 To help protect y our priv acy , Micro so ft Office prev ented auto matic download of View from 735 Crescent.zip this pictu re from the In ternet. 5 Page 43 of 74 Page 44 of 74 Page 45 of 74 Page 46 of 74 Page 47 of 74 Page 48 of 74 Page 49 of 74 Page 50 of 74 Page 51 of 74 Page 52 of 74 Page 53 of 74 Page 54 of 74  Glen Ellyn Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 5/12/2026 7:00 PM 535 Duane Street Department: Community Development Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Department Head: Jennifer Henaghan Category: Public Hearing Prepared By: Daniel Harper AGENDA ITEM (ID # 2026-359) DOC ID: 2026-359 Public Hearing - 635 Carolyn Drive Statement of the Issue: Lindsay and Johnathan Lantz (Petitioners), owners of the property at 635 Carolyn Drive, have applied for a zoning variation to allow a rear yard setback thirty-two feet and nine inches (32’9”) from the rear yard property line in lieu of the required minimum setback of forty feet (40’0”). Analysis: REQUEST: The Petitioners request approval of the following variation from the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code: 1. Section 10-4-8(D)(2) to allow for a rear yard setback thirty-two feet and nine inches (32’9”) from the rear yard property line in lieu of the required setback of forty feet (40’0”). ZONING/USE: The subject property is zoned R2 - Residential District and improved with an existing single-family home. PUBLIC NOTICE: Notice of the public hearing was published in the April 24, 2026, edition of the Daily Herald, mailed to property owners within 250 feet of the subject property, and a placard was placed on the property. Village staff has received eight (8) pieces of correspondence in support of the application. These correspondences can be reviewed in the attachments. ZONING HISTORY: There is no zoning history associated with the property. PERMIT HISTORY: Year Permit No. Type 2022 20221503 Fence 2020 20200964 Roof Replacement 2015 20150590 Interior Remodel 2006 B25809 Fence 2005 B24718 Sewer Service Repair 1999 B18964 Screened Porch Addition 1999 B18965 Shed PROJECT SUMMARY: The Petitioners have applied for a variation to the minimum rear yard setback requirement of 40 feet Page 55 of 74 to construct a two-story addition to the rear of the existing home. This proposed rear addition would add 178 square feet to the existing building area of 1,842 square feet for a total building area of 2,059 square feet (including bonuses for the proposed front porch, existing backyard shed and the removal of the existing rear bay window). The proposed building area meets the maximum allowable lot coverage ratio at 19.9 percent. The Petitioners state that they are requesting the variation due to the non-rectilinear shape of the lot due to its location on a cul-de-sac, which presents difficulties in satisfying setback requirements for the proposed addition. The Petitioners are requesting consideration of the unique lot shape, and they state that the design and placement of the existing single-story residence with attached garage are unique to this lot and not generally applicable to other properties within the same zoning district. Per the Zoning Code, a practical difficulty or particular hardship cannot be self-created. A zoning variation runs with the land indefinitely and should be considered only if the property is unique in its particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions specific to the property involved and would bring a particular hardship upon the owner as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. Budget Impact: Contribution to Strategic Plan Action Requested: The ZBA should consider the testimony presented during the public hearing and review the written evidence presented as part of the petitioners’ application packet. The ZBA should make findings of fact and determine if practical difficulty or a particular hardship exists for the requested variation and if the essential character of the neighborhood is maintained. The ZBA may choose to make a recommendation to the Village Board for the approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the request per Section 10-10-12 of the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code. Attachments: 1. Application - Zoning Variation 2. Aerial Map - 635 Carolyn Drive 3. Zoning Map - 635 Carolyn Drive 4. Plat of Survey 5. Site Plan and Elevations 6. Letters of Support Page 56 of 74  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 57 of 74  APPLICATION FOR ZONING VARIATION Date Filed: 4/9/2026 Application No: 2026-0014 Name of Applicant: Lindsay Lantz Address of Applicant: 635 Carolyn Drive Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Property Interest of Applicant: Owner Name of Owner: Jonathan & Lindsay Lantz Address of Owner: 635 Carolyn Dr Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Type Name Address Phone Email 635 Carolyn Drive Glen Petitioner Lindsay Lantz Ellyn, IL 60137 635 Carolyn Drive Glen Web Administrator Lindsay Lantz Ellyn, IL 60137 Jonathan & Lindsay 635 Carolyn Dr Glen Ellyn, Parcel Owner Lantz IL 60137 Property Address: 635 Carolyn Dr Project Name: Web Project Project Description: Home remodel to improve the family living space including a mudroom, kitchen and family room. Legal Description of Property: Lot 5 in Parsons and Mae-Francis subdivision, of part of lots 1 and 2 in Frank Roderus' subdivision in the northeast quarter of section 11, township 39 north, range 10, east of the third principal meridian, according to the Plat of said Parsons and Mae-Francis subdivision recorded July 19, 1965 as document number R65-26021, in the Village of Glen Ellyn, DuPage County, Illinois. Page 58 of 74  Zoning: R2, R2, Single Family Residential District Lot Dimensions: 110' x 123.71' x 107.8' x 80' ( +- ) Lot Area: 10356 : 05112010100000 Present Use: owner / applicant occupied single family residence Estimated Date to Begin New Use/Construction: 8/1/2026 Narrative Statement: A variance is requested to allow reduction of the required 40' rear yard setback to 32'-9" to allow construction of an addition to improve the current living space for the family. (owner seeks an exception to zoning code section 10-4-8(D)2). 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: The existing residence is situated between the required rear 40' setback line and the front 30' setback line therefore any desired expansion of the footprint would require a variance. 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: Without the requested variance improving the living space and functionality within the home would not be possible. 3. Provide evidence that the requested variation(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality of the property in question: If granted the requested variation will maintain the character of the property. 4. Provide evidence that the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical condition of the property in question would bring particular hardship upon the Page 59 of 74  applicant/owner as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the Zoning Code were to be carried out: Given the positioning of the house on the property denial of the requested variance would not allow improvement of the living space for the family. 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 irregular shape of the property and placement of the existing home create a unique hardship for the owner which is not generally typical of other properties within the same zoning district. 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 goal of the request for variance is to improve the living space for the family as opposed to monetary gain. 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 hardship has existed since the home was originally constructed and is not due to actions by the owner. 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. Granting the variance will not be detrimental to public welfare and will not affect other properties or the neighborhood. 9. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. The proposed variation will have no effect on light or air supply to adjacent properties. 10. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Substantially increase the hazard from fire or other dangers to the property in question or adjacent property. Page 60 of 74  The proposed variation will not increase dangers to the property in question or adjacent properties. 11. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Otherwise impair the public health, safety, comfort, morals or general welfare of the inhabitants of the Village. The proposed variation will in no way negatively affect the wellbeing of Village inhabitants. 12. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The proposed variation will not impair property values. It would likely help improve values. 13. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Unduly increase traffic congestion in the public streets and highway. The proposed variation will have no effect on traffic. 14. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Create a nuisance. The proposed variation will not create a nuisance. 15. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Results in an increase in public expenditures. The proposed variation will not increase public expenditures. 16. Provide evidence that the variation is the minimum variation that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. Given the position of the existing residence on the property the requested variation will allow improved living space and functionality for the family. Page 61 of 74  Aerial Map - 635 Carolyn Drive Legend 0 50 100 Print Date: 5/6/2026 Notes ft Disclaimer: The GIS Consortium and MGP Inc. are not liable for any use, misuse, modification or disclosure of any map provided under applicable law. This map is for general information purposes only. Although the information is believed to be generally accurate, errors may exist and the user should independently confirm for accuracy. The map does not constitute a regulatory determination and is not a base for engineering design. A Registered Land Surveyor should be consulted to determine precise location boundaries on the ground. Page 62 of 74  Zoning Map - 635 Carolyn Drive Legend Zoning and Development Zoning R2: Single Family Residential District Subject Property 0 50 100 Print Date: 5/6/2026 Notes ft Disclaimer: The GIS Consortium and MGP Inc. are not liable for any use, misuse, modification or disclosure of any map provided under applicable law. This map is for general information purposes only. Although the information is believed to be generally accurate, errors may exist and the user should independently confirm for accuracy. The map does not constitute a regulatory determination and is not a base for engineering design. A Registered Land Surveyor should be consulted to determine precise location boundaries on the ground. Page 63 of 74 Page 64 of 74 Page 65 of 74 Page 66 of 74 Daniel Harper From: Sent: Monday, April 27, 2026 7:54 PM To: Daniel Harper Subject: Lantz 635 Carolyn project [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Hi Daniel- we are in favor of the home remodel for 635 Carolyn drive. Thanks Brian and Sarah Bedo 12 Muirwood Dr. Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Sent from my iPhone 1 Page 67 of 74 Daniel Harper From: Sent: Monday, April 27, 2026 11:58 AM To: Daniel Harper Subject: Lantz 635 Carolyn Dr Project [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Hello Daniel, We write to advise you that we are in favor of the home remodel project for 635 Carolyn Drive, Glen Ellyn. Thank you, Paul and Lise Bozych 636 Carolyn Drive Sent from my iPhone 1 Page 68 of 74 Daniel Harper From: Sent: Monday, April 27, 2026 11:49 AM To: Daniel Harper Subject: Lantz 635 Carolyn project [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Hi Daniel- I’m in favor of the home remodel for 635 Carolyn drive. Thanks Kelly and Jeff Ehrhart 1 Page 69 of 74 Daniel Harper From: Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 8:07 AM To: Daniel Harper Cc: Scott Fischer Subject: Lantz 635 Carolyn Project [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Hi Daniel, I am writing to inform you that we are in favor of the home remodel located at 635 Carolyn Drive. Any questions, please let us know. Thanks, Kristin & Scott Fischer 795 N. Park Blvd. 1 Page 70 of 74 Daniel Harper From: Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 11:26 AM To: Daniel Harper Subject: Variance request for 635 Carolyn Dr [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Dear Daniel, We are neighbors of the Lantz family at 635 Carolyn Dr. We know they have requested a variance for a building project and we are in favor of gran ng this variance. Thanks. Jenny and Dean Fischer 11 Muirwood Dr Glen Ellyn 630 981 7631 Sent from my iPhone 1 Page 71 of 74 Daniel Harper From: Sent: Monday, April 27, 2026 12:08 PM To: Daniel Harper Subject: Lantz 635 Carolyn project [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Hi Daniel, I’m in favor of the home remodel for 635 Carolyn Drive. Thanks, Cynthia Nelson 630 Carolyn Drive Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Sent from my iPhone 1 Page 72 of 74 Daniel Harper From: Sent: Monday, April 27, 2026 2:37 PM To: Daniel Harper Subject: Lantz 635 Carolyn project [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Good A ernoon Daniel, Jim and Linda Raymond are in favor of the home remodel for 635 Carolyn Dr. Thank you, Jim and Linda Raymond 631 Carolyn Dr Glen Ellyn 1 Page 73 of 74 Daniel Harper From: Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 11:10 AM To: Daniel Harper Subject: Lantz 635 Carolyn Dr project [EXTERNAL EMAIL] I am in favor of the home project at the above address Patricia Warren 641 Carolyn Dr Glen Ellyn Sent from my iPhone 1 Page 74 of 74