Zoning Board of Appeals

Agenda Village of Glen Ellyn Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Tuesday, June 9, 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 May 12, 2026, Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes D. New Business 1) Public Hearing - 113 S. Parkside Avenue 2) Public Hearing - 565 Hill Avenue 3) Public Hearing - 253 Anthony Street 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 93 different ideas for achieving that objective.  Glen Ellyn Zoning Board of Meeting 6/9/2026 7:00 PM Appeals Department: Community Development 535 Duane Street Department Head: Jennifer Henaghan Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Category: Minutes Prepared By: Daniel Harper AGENDA ITEM (ID DOC ID: 2026-432 # 2026-432) Review and Approval of the May 12, 2026, Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Statement of the Issue: Review and Approval of the May 12, 2026, Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Analysis: Review and Approval of the May 12, 2026, Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Budget Impact: Contribution to Strategic Plan Action Requested: Review and Approval of the May 12, 2026, Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Attachments: 1. DRAFT May 12, 2026 Zoning Board Minutes Page 2 of 93  DRAFT MINUTES Glen Ellyn Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Tuesday, May 12, 2026, at 7:00 PM Glen Ellyn Civic Center Galligan Board Room 535 Duane Street A. Call to Order and Roll Call Roll was called. Present: Board Members, Todd Buckton, Christine McKnight, Craig Pavlich, and Chairperson Miller Late: Peter Kelly arrived at 7:15 pm Absent: Board Members, Matthew Jones, and Noureen Lakhani Also in attendance: Daniel Harper, Planning Manager; Jordan Frahm, Associate Planner, Robert Duncan, Village Trustee and Adriana Ohl Zamora, Recording Secretary. Chairperson Miller called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Chairperson Miller explained the advisory nature of the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) and its process for deliberation and recommendation. He described the Public Hearing protocols and announced that the meeting was being recorded. B. Public Comment (non-agenda items) None C. Approval of April 14, 2026 Zoning Meeting Minutes Motion to Approve April 14, 2026 minutes by Member Buckton, Member Pavlich seconded the motion and the motion passed by voice vote. Member McKnight moved to open the Public Hearing on 285 N. Main St. Member Buckton seconded the motion, and the motion passed by voice vote. Sworn in Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn, Daniel Frahm, Associate Planner for the Village of Glen Ellyn, Charles and Emily Price, Petitioners 285 N. Main St., Tim Nelson, Petitioner representing Kevin McCarthy (Owner) 593 Lee St., Johnathan Lantz, Petitioner 635 Carolyn Drive D. New Business 1. Public Hearing - 285 N. Main St. Sworn in, Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn, introduced the following variation request for 285 N. Main St. 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"). The subject property is zoned R2 Residential District and improved with an existing single-family home. There is a cistern located underneath the deck which caused the shift of the deck. 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 set back 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”). 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 of 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 Page 3 of 93 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. Following attachments were all presented to the Members: Aerial Map Zoning Maps Approved Deck Plan and Deck Construction Photo Site Plan Letter of Support Member Questions: Chairperson Miller asked who provided the photo with framing and at what stage the need for variance was discovered. Mr. Harper responded that the photo was provided to Village and the need for variance was discovered at the very end of the project, not at the footing inspection. At the time, the deck was about 90% completed. Petitioner Keaton Price, the homeowner, explained that during excavation, it was discovered that there was a cistern underneath the deck. To avoid disruption to the structure, the contractor moved footings of the deck, causing an 11-inch move. He added that the neighbors to the south provided a letter of support. Members asked the homeowner the following questions: 1. What was the cistern used for? 2. When the cistern was discovered, what was the through process? 3. What percentage of the deck is complete? Petitioner Price stated that his house was built in 1925, and when they pulled back dirt, the cistern seemed to be non-functional. He was not informed until the framing inspection, and they asked the inspector to come back and discuss what the right path was. He added that since footings were poured and they were at the second inspection, they decided to move forward. The deck is currently 90% complete per last inspection. Member Pavlich added that the house was built in 1925, and the construction of the principal structure predates current setbacks. The deck is substantially aligned with the house now. He shared a photo of the finished deck, which he took on his cell phone, showing that it is aligned with the original setback of the home. Member Buckton moved to accept Findings of Fact, and Member McKnight seconded the motion. The motion passed by unanimous vote. Deliberation - (Member Kelly did not participate in deliberation, as he arrived late @ 7:15pm) Member Buckton explained what a hardship is and how as homeowners, they have all been in positions where they have encountered a hardship with a new build/construction project. He is in favor of this variance and is voting yes. Member McKnight added that she would be voting yes due to the cistern, which is a hardship. Member Pavlich stated that he will be voting yes due to the unforeseen cistern that was discovered. Chairperson Miller will be voting no because he would like to have this go to Village Board. He noted that it’s important that they see these types of cases. Member McKnight recommended approval of the variation based on findings of facts, and Member Buckton seconded the motion. The motion did not pass by vote (3) yes and 1 (no). Member Buckton moved to open the Public Hearing on 593 Lee St. Member McKnight seconded the motion, and the motion passed by voice vote. 2. Public Hearing 593 Lee Street Sworn in, Jordan Frahm, Associate Planning for the Village of Glen Ellyn, introduced the following variation request for 593 Lee St. Page 4 of 93 Petitioner Tim Nelson, 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 (4’-4”) in lieu of the required 6 feet, 6 inches (6’-6”) and requesting a lot coverage ratio of 30.1 percent in lieu of the required 20 percent. The subject property is zoned R2 Residential District and improved with an existing one-story single-family home. 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 thirty four feet and two inches (34'-2") and complies with the exemption for vertical additions found in the 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 thirty feet (30'-0"). The existing side yard setback of four feet and four inches (4'-4") is beyond the exemption for vertical additions found in the 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 four feet and six inches (4'-6"). The proposal would also require a variation from the maximum lot coverage ratio of 20 percent. One-story homes in the Village of Glen Ellyn are permitted to have a maximum lot coverage ratio of 35 percent. The existing home has a current lot coverage ratio of 27.5 percent 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." 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. Following attachments were all presented to the Members: Aerial Map Zoning Maps Plat of Survey Building Elevations Site Plan Opposed Correspondence Member Questions: Member Pavlich clarified with Associate Planner Jordan Frahm that the lot is about 50 feet by 130 feet average, with non- conforming total area around 6418 square feet. He asked if in order to build, they would need a variation. Mr. Frahm confirmed that it was indeed correct. Mr. McCarthy, the homeowner, stated that the purpose of the project is to solely build forever home. They have lived in this home for six years and have had their first baby with plans for more. The house has become tight. Their only choice is to build up because of the side yard and rear yard setbacks. The objections come from the neighbor that backs up to them. He stated that they are just talking about 2 inches, and they have 46 feet between their homes. With the rear yard, there is already a code exception for their lot size. Mr. McCarthy said that the Village stated values, what is best for the community. He hopes that the Members have read the letters of support and that the community has already informed the Members of what is best for the community by reading those letters. They have no front door, which makes it difficult for first responders to locate front door. For safety issues, someone Page 5 of 93 could hide and cause harm. Their architect is from Geneva, and they would like to maintain the charm of Lee Street and are very happy to live on Lee Street. Member McKnight asked what the practical difficulty or hardship is. Mr. Nelson responded that it is the lot size, which causes them to build up and ask for a variance for the side yard. Member Buckton asked for the total square footage of the additions. Mr. Nelson stated that it is 800 square feet. The 2nd floor will have 3 bedrooms, a bathroom, and a laundry and small desk area (loft). Currently, the home is a 2-bedroom. The front entrance is created to be more of a vestibule with a covered entry and visible front entrance from the street, as the only entrance is on the side of the house. The garage will stay unchanged. Member Pavlich asked what the original construction date was. Mr. McCarthy stated it was about 1952. Member Pavlich asked if presumably, lots of this size were allowed to be plotted in 1952, presumably? Mr. Harper responded that typically, about 10% of the lot width was the required setback, and no zoning history was found on this property. Member Miller asked if they looked at other options to minimize this. Mr. McCarthy stated that the side yard setback is at their rear, so their homes are 46 feet (46’-0”) away. They want to minimize impact and retain of aesthetic charm of Lee Street. Martin Didera is sworn in, the resident of 735 Crescent Blvd. He stated that he is the neighbor that is perpendicular to Mr. McCarthy’s residence. He appreciates the point and understands the growing family. However, in the hardship guidelines, it specifically states that one’s family size cannot be included as a hardship. He said that when you look into the other homes, they are essentially about 80 feet (80’-0”) away from each other, now he will be 46 feet (46’-0”) away from this home. He states that the need of a front door does not necessitate an addition. He stated that he has worked on a project with Mr. Nelson, and while he appreciates that he is an award-winning architect, it does not mean this is a great project. He said that he has concerns, but rather than address his concerns, the homeowner went around to their neighbors to get their support. This is not about a popularity contest; it is about following the zoning rules. By doing this, they are creating higher density. Brandy Wilson, an architect and neighbor, is sworn in. She stated that she, too, is an award-winning architect and shares the northeast side of the lot. She lives in a ranch and had to significantly downsize. She said that if she did an addition, she would keep in mind the current setbacks. She noted that it’s a tight lot and her yard is deep. She didn’t want to shoot down what they were proposing and wanted to be realistic and compassionate. She thought of light and bearings in the diagram she created. It’s important to know that a centralized addition would look better and didn’t know why they would want to push their addition to the rear of their house. She said that a more balanced and central design should be looked at that is considerate of their neighbors. Density is something to consider here. Every project she has worked on has a budget and has to follow the code, and they will not be able to do the addition without a lot coverage variance. It’s a matter of pulling the home in, some offsets would have gone a long way. Member Buckton wants to confirm that all the things she had mentioned do not refute the fact that the lot coverage ratio goes out the window when you put on a second story. Member Pavlich said that this lot is such that nothing can be done on this house without a variance. He asked if she would consider being in support of a variance, just not this design. Ms. Wilson said yes since she understands building and construction. In this situation, she said that the homeowners have to be more considerate. By doing those diagrams today, it spoke to her that by putting the addition in the back, they are causing obstruction to 3 homes. Member Pavlich asked the homeowner in which year the home was purchased. Homeowner responded that the home was purchased in June 2020. Page 6 of 93 Member Pavlich moved to accept Findings of Facts that includes 13 in-favor letters and 3 opposing letters. Member Buckton seconded the motion, and motion passed by unanimous vote. Member Kelly moved to close the public meeting, Member McKnight seconded the motion, and the motion passed by unanimous voice vote. Deliberation Member McKnight stated that the hardship is not met in this case. Member Buckton said that he is very torn on this one, and without a variation they cannot do anything and must keep home the way it is. He also listened to positive and negative comments about the project. If they let this property do it, then everyone else will look at this property and say, “if they did it why can’t I?”. He said he cannot say yes on this. Member Kelly stated that he is firmly on the fence on this. This is the product of a legal non-conforming lot size, but he has to balance that with the neighbor’s comments absent the opposition, he would be inclined to say yes. He asked if Mr. Harper was aware of any similar requests for variances that are similar to this. Member Pavlich said that on 12/10/2024, they heard a similar case, 654 Essex Rd. In that case, they did find in favor of the owner to give them a variance. That is the only time they had a case like this. Member Miller said his whole neighborhood has lots your size. When his neighbor’s house almost burned down completely, they all had discussions with her about her new build. They were all involved in that process because it was a big deal. He said, “We are all neighbors here, we all have a process to follow.” He said they have a couple of options, they can table this and can come back with a new design, or they can vote and go to the board and try them. Motion to table the New Business at 593 Lee Street for the July 14, 2026, Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting. The motion passed by unanimous vote (5) yes. Member McKnight moved to open the Public Hearing on 635 Carolyn Drive, Member Buckton seconded the motion, and the motion passed by voice vote. 3. Public Hearing - 635 Carolyn Drive 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”). The subject property is zoned R2 Residential District and improved with an existing single-family home. The Petitioners have applied for a variation to the minimum rear yard setback requirement of 40 feet (40’-0”) 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 proposed addition has living area on first floor, mud room, and 2-story addition to the home. The floorplans are presented at the meeting, but no floorplans were shown online for the 1st and 2nd story. Staff encouraged the applicant and architect to expand with a 2nd floor over the existing home, within the footprint. However, the applicant and architect opted to go for a variation instead. 7 emails in support and 1 email opposing were received. 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 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. 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”). The following attachments were all presented to the Members: Page 7 of 93 Aerial Map Zoning Maps Plat of Survey Building Elevations Site Plan Letters of Support Member Questions: Member Kelly asked when the home was built. The home was built in 1973, per the homeowner Chairperson Miller asked if Mr. Harper had a topographical map. Mr. Harper said that they did not in this presentation. Regarding storm water, this would most likely trigger the need for a dry well component. If a variation was approved and they submitted a building permit, it would go through that approval process for storm water requirements. Member Pavlich noted that the existing home currently complies with all setbacks. Mr. Harper noted that there is just a little bit non-conforming on the front yard setback. The overall lot area is 10,356 square feet, the total square footage is 1,842 square feet after bonuses that they receive, which are conforming to the 20 percent. Member Buckton asked if there was an issue with the lot coverage. He noted that an email that came in opposition called into account lot coverage ratio done by village. Mr. Harper stated that he did some investigation, but a plat of survey was done by a professional lot surveyor and correlated with what was submitted by architect. His feeling is that the lower lot area number came from DuPage County. In cases like this, they defer to professional surveyors. Mr. Harper explained that the area highlighted in red on the front elevation shows where the addition is located on the floorplan. The floorplans are not included on the packet online. Nothing exceeds current height. Mr. and Mrs. Lantz state that they have lived in Glen Ellyn for 13 years and are requesting to improve their living area to make it more functional for family, which includes a mud room and kitchen modernization. Their home layout has not been updated in over 50 years, and due to the cul-de-sac curve, their home sits back farther in lot, limiting the construction. Their architect, Mark Kollias, is also in attendance. Member Pavlich states that the Zoning Code says that the property in question cannot yield a reasonable return and that the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. He asked what is unique to this home that drives the variation. Mark Kollias, their architect, is sworn in. He stated that the position of house is locked in front and side. They would try to go back if they could, and their choice was to bump out the rear to achieve that. However, since they are locked in between two lines, going up on top of the garage is an option. Member Buckton stated that since setback comes into play, the widest part is where family room has an 8-foot (8’-0”) addition and asks if they maybe looked at four feet (4’-0”). Mr. Kollias said cutting down in half will shrink living space, and they didn’t want to push the 20 percent. They figured it would be just the rear yard setback to consider. Member Kelly asked how they would respond to their neighbor and if there are any other alternatives that they have considered on the design. The four-foot buildout is part of an existing patio, so they would be covering an existing impervious area, and there are lots of trees in the backyard for privacy. Mr. Lantz stated that one might see a little bit more as you get closest to the fence and that the storm water in their yard drains very well. Some of the drained water comes from their neighbors’ homes, and all of the construction is on impervious ground in terms of water. They also stated that they had just heard about the opposition yesterday, so they have not had time to discuss and reply to the opposing neighbor. Page 8 of 93 Kevin Wenta, Mr. and Mrs. Lantz’s neighbor, is sworn in. He said that he would 100 percent approve an addition over the garage, but the real issue for them is that the house is up 6 feet (6’-0”), and their gutter dumps water to the south. He said that they are 30 feet (30’-0”) up against the fence, so there is only about 10 feet (10’-0”) available, and the addition will be overlooking their home. He stated that there is no hardship and that they can easily go above the garage. Member Pavlich said that what he clearly observes is that storm water is a concern in this case. Mr. Wenta said yes, and that they are right in their backyard already, where they can just go right above the garage. Mr. Harper added that initially, when it was brought to the Village, they determined that there was available room to expand square footage if that was the goal. They communicated that with the architect, but the objectives of the property owner were not achieved through their plan, so the homeowner decided to move forward with requesting the variance. Member Pavlich moved to accept Findings of Fact to include 8 letters of support and 1 opposing letter. Member Buckton seconded the motion, and the motion passed by unanimous vote. Member McKnight moved to close the public hearing, Member Buckton seconded the motion, and the motion passed by unanimous vote. Deliberation Member Kelly stated that majority of the opposition stems from water drainage, and storm water ordinance was not created until 1991. That particular issue was left to Village to adjudicate. There is nothing that they have control over. He will be inclined to vote yes Member Buckton stated that the cul-de-sac is a weird shape. They have a letter of opposition, the homeowner has a beautiful backyard, but he can see what is going on with their neighbor’s concern. He noted that an administrative variation was not what they are looking for. He is going to vote no. In terms of water, that is not their purview. Member McKnight says she is also inclined to vote no and sees no practical hardship. Member Pavlich says they had a similar case, and in that case, and the board did approve of the variation. They do not deal in precedent, and this falls into that gray area of concern. This is not a super ridiculous request and will not impact the community significantly. He doesn’t think there is a strong case for hardship. The lot is unique in shape, but it gives them other options to explore. He thinks he will be voting yes. Chairperson Miller said he struggles with hardship and unique circumstances and that water is an issue. He stated that the homeowners can postpone, or they can vote and go before the board. He does not feel that there is a hardship and is planning on voting no. Motion to table meeting until July 14, 2026 by Member Buckton seconded by Member Pavlich. The motion passed by unanimous vote (5) yes (0) no. E. Other Business None F. Chairperson’s Statement Members of the Village Board of Trustees have requested that ZBA meeting minutes be provided that are relevant to the cases they will be deliberating at Village Board meetings. What is preventing them from being provided? Mr. Harper stated that there is discussion on whether it is appropriate to provide draft meeting minutes as part of official agenda packets for the trustees and that he is awaiting directions from village administrators. Trustee Duncan stated that Village Attorney Paul can look into approving but that he would also work with Paul to get to a resolution. G. Trustee Liaison Report - Robert Duncan • The two garage requests were both denied on Main St. and St. Charles. • There should be better clarity and direction regarding what constitutes a hardship. Providing that clarity is really going to minimize folks that come in. To educate the community on this would be a good idea. Page 9 of 93  • The big project on the horizon is replacing the Public Works building. Initial discussions are taking place about where to do it and what it will look like. They are looking to move south of Lambert Lake. It will increase square footage and accessibility to vehicles. Mr. Harper added that when residents have variances come up, he sits with the petitioners to discuss what constitutes hardship and provides guidance. H. Staff Report Mr. Harper stated the following: 1. In June, there are variations for: a. 113 S. Parkside b. 565 Hill Ave. c. 253 Anthony St. 2. Village Board on May 26th, a butterfly mural and 250th celebration history center mural are proposed 3. HPC awards presented for projects 4. AAC is looking at reviews of existing appearance guidelines 5. Plan Commission meeting there will be a presentation with a preliminary recommendations report by ZoneCo this month May 28th at 7pm 6. Dutch Bros application for a Special Use Permit in June 7. Consideration of the Metra Station in July or August I. Adjournment Member Kelly made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Member McKnight seconded the motion and the motion passed by voice vote at 9:35 pm. Respectfully submitted, Adriana Ohl-Zamora Page 10 of 93  Glen Ellyn Zoning Board Meeting 6/9/2026 7:00 PM of Appeals Department: Community Development 535 Duane Street Department Head: Jennifer Henaghan Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Category: Public Hearing Prepared By: Daniel Harper AGENDA ITEM (ID DOC ID: 2026-431 # 2026-431) Public Hearing - 113 S. Parkside Avenue Statement of the Issue: Brian Prignano (Petitioner), representing the owners of the property at 113 S. Parkside Avenue, has applied for a zoning variation to allow a side yard setback of six feet and four inches (6’4”) from the interior side yard property line in lieu of the required minimum setback of six feet and six inches (6’6”) and to allow a lot coverage of 23.53% in lieu of the maximum allowed lot coverage of 20%. Analysis:REQUEST: The Petitioners request approval of the following variations from the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code: 1. Section 10-4-8(D)(3) to allow for a side yard setback six feet and four inches (6’4”) from the interior side yard property line in lieu of the required setback of six feet and six inches (6’6”). 2. Section 10-4-8(E)(1) to allow a lot coverage of 23.53% in lieu of the maximum allowed lot coverage of 20%. 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 May 21, 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. Please note that the application was advertised with a proposed lot coverage variation of 25.4% based on the initial submittal by the applicant. The applicant's statements in their application reflect this original lot coverage request. However, revised plans have since been submitted and recalculated to reflect a requested lot coverage of 23.53%. ZONING HISTORY: There is no zoning history associated with the property. PERMIT HISTORY: Year Permit No. Type 2023 20230200 Roof Replacement 2022 20221584 Driveway Replacement 2014 20141162 Fence 1988 B10284 Deck 1987 B9612 Detached Garage Page 11 of 93 1987 B9601 New Single-Family Residence PROJECT SUMMARY: The Petitioners have applied for variations to the minimum side yard setback requirement and lot coverage requirement to construct a one-story addition to the rear of the existing home. This proposed rear addition would add 254 square feet to the existing building area of 1,401 square feet for a total building area of 1,709 square feet, resulting in a lot coverage ratio of 23.53 percent (including a 140 square foot bonus for the existing front porch and a 498 square foot bonus for the detached garage). The proposed building area requests a variation of 3.53 percent above the maximum allowable lot coverage ratio at 20 percent. The second variation is to allow a side yard setback of six feet and four inches (6'-4") in lieu of the required side yard setback of six feet and six inches (6'-6"). The applicant has reported that this is to maintain the existing setback line of the north wall of the existing structure. The Petitioner states that they are requesting the variations due to the existing condition of the residence being located in the 500-year floodplain. This condition prevented a basement from being constructed within the home. The Petitioners are requesting consideration of this condition, and they state that because basement space cannot be utilized, typical residential functions such as storage and recreation must be accommodated within the first-floor footprint. The proposed 254 square foot one-story addition increases lot coverage to 23.53% to provide space that would normally be located below grade. The petitioner states that without the requested variation, the property would be unable to reasonably accommodate these typical residential functions due to the floodplain restriction. Due to the proposed addition being located in the 500-year floodplain, the request was reviewed by the Village's development engineer consultant, who has stated that the proposed addition likely will interfere with the overland drainage patterns that currently exist on the property and that, if the variations were granted, the building permit submittal would need to show that stormwater can continue to flow in the same general path to the south. All usable space added to the existing building must be elevated, floodproofed, or otherwise protected so that the lowest entry is at least two feet above the base flood elevation to prevent surface stormwater from entering. Any floodproofing measures must operate without human intervention and must be certified by a professional engineer. 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 carried out. Budget Impact: Contribution to Strategic Plan Page 12 of 93 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 3. Zoning Map 4. Contour Map 5. Flood Hazard Zone Map 6. Plat of Survey 7. Site Plan 8. Floor Plan 9. Building Elevations Page 13 of 93  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 14 of 93  APPLICATION FOR ZONING VARIATION Date Filed: 4/7/2026 Application No: 2026-0013 Name of Applicant: Bryan Prignano Address of Applicant: 1114 IRVING AVE WHEATON, IL 60187 Property Interest of Applicant: Owner Representative Name of Owner: Louis Prignano Address of Owner: 812 Crescent St Ofc Wheaton, IL 60187 Type Name Address Phone Email 1114 IRVING AVE Petitioner Bryan Prignano WHEATON, IL 60187 1114 IRVING AVE Web Administrator Bryan Prignano WHEATON, IL 60187 812 Crescent St Ofc Parcel Owner Louis Prignano Wheaton, IL 60187 Property Address: 113 S Parkside Ave Project Name: Web Project Project Description: Construction of a 254 square foot one-story addition to the existing single-family home to provide storage and exercise space. The property is located in a regulated floodplain, which prevents construction of a basement, requiring these typical basement functions to be accommodated within the first-floor footprint. The addition increases lot coverage from 21.9% to 25.4% while maintaining all required setbacks. Legal Description of Property: LOT 9 IN BLOCK 3 IN VILLAGE LINKS RESUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 39 NORTH, RANGE 10 EAST OF THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED FEBRUARY 6, 1976 AS DOCUMENT R76-07880 IN DUPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS Zoning: R2, R2, Single Family Residential District Lot Dimensions: 58.1 X 125.0 Lot Area: 7262 : 05231290030000 Present Use: 2 Story Single Family Home Estimated Date to Begin New Use/Construction: 7/15/2026 Page 15 of 93 Narrative Statement: The applicant requests a variation from the lot coverage requirements of the Zoning Code of Glen Ellyn, which limits lot coverage to 20%. The proposed project results in 25.4% lot coverage. The existing home currently has approximately 1,589 square feet of first-floor lot coverage. The proposal includes a 254 square-foot one-story addition, increasing the total first-floor building footprint to approximately 1,844 square feet. The addition will be used for storage and an exercise area, functions that would typically be located in a basement; however, a basement cannot be constructed due to the property’s location within a regulated floodplain. The property was originally developed under zoning regulations that permitted up to 25% lot coverage. In 1989, the Village reduced the allowable lot coverage to 20%, creating a more restrictive standard after the home was built and limiting the ability to make reasonable improvements that would have previously been permitted. The applicable floodplain mapping was updated after 1988 to include the property. Prior to that update, the property was not fully located within the mapped floodplain. As a result, the property is now subject to floodplain regulations that restrict construction of a basement, further limiting typical residential use. 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 property is located within a floodplain, which prevents the construction of a basement. Because basement space cannot be utilized, typical residential functions such as storage and recreation must be accommodated within the first-floor footprint. The existing home currently has 1,589 square feet of first-floor lot coverage (21.9%). The proposed 254 square foot one-story addition increases lot coverage to 25.4% to provide space that would normally be located below grade. Without the requested variation, the property would be unable to reasonably accommodate these typical residential functions due to the floodplain restriction. 2. Provide evidence that the property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used under the conditions allowed by the Zoning Code (i.e., without one or more variations) OR Provide evidence that the plight of the applicant/owner is due to unique circumstances relating to the property in question: Page 16 of 93  The home is located within a floodplain, which prevents the construction of a basement. In most homes, basement space provides storage and recreational areas that contribute significantly to the functional value of the property. Because the property cannot utilize basement space, these functions must occur within the first- floor footprint. Without the requested variation allowing 25.4% lot coverage, the home would be limited to 21.9% coverage (1,589 square feet) and would lack space typically provided below grade, placing it at a disadvantage compared to similar homes in the neighborhood. 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 hardship is due to the property’s location within a floodplain, which prevents the construction of a basement. Most homes rely on basement space for storage and recreational uses. Because the property cannot utilize below-grade space, these typical functions must be accommodated within the first-floor footprint. This condition is unique to the property and not common to most other properties within the same zoning district. 4. Provide evidence that the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical condition of the property in question would bring particular hardship upon the applicant/owner as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the Zoning Code were to be carried out: The property is in a floodplain, which prevents the construction of a basement. This physical condition limits the ability to place typical residential storage and recreational space below grade. Because these functions must instead be accommodated within the first-floor footprint, strict application of the 20% lot coverage limit would prevent reasonable use of the property. The requested variation allowing 25.4% lot coverage addresses this limitation and reflects a hardship caused by the property’s physical conditions rather than a mere inconvenience. 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 hardship is primarily due to the property’s location within a regulated floodplain, which prevents the construction of a basement. Most properties in the zoning district are not subject to this restriction and are able to utilize basement space for storage and recreation. Because this property cannot use below-grade space, these functions must be accommodated within the first-floor footprint, making the impact of the 20% lot coverage limit uniquely restrictive for this parcel. 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: Page 17 of 93  The purpose of the requested variation is not to increase financial return but to allow reasonable use of the property. Because the property is located within a regulated floodplain, a basement cannot be constructed. The proposed 254 square foot one-story addition will provide storage and exercise space that would typically be located in a basement. The property will remain a single-family residence, and no additional units, bedrooms, bathrooms, or plumbing are proposed. 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 was not created by the applicant or any current owner of the property. The limitation arises from the property’s location within a regulated floodplain, which restricts the construction of a basement. These conditions existed prior to the applicant’s ownership and are the result of natural site conditions and applicable regulations, not actions taken by 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. Granting the requested variation will not be detrimental to public welfare or injury to nearby properties. The proposal is for a modest 254 square foot one-story addition to an existing single- family home. The addition will comply with all required setbacks, including the 40-foot rear yard setback, and will follow all applicable building and floodplain regulations. The property will continue to be used as a single-family residence, and no additional density or plumbing is proposed. 9. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. The proposed 254 square foot one-story addition will maintain all required setbacks, including the 40-foot rear yard setback, and will not increase building height. Because the addition is modest and single-story, it will not impair the supply of light and air 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 18 of 93  The proposed 254 square foot one-story addition will comply with all applicable building and fire safety codes and maintain all required setbacks, including the 40-foot rear yard setback. Because the addition is modest in size and does not change the use of the property, it will not increase hazards to the property 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 254 square foot one-story addition will not impair public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. The property will remain a single-family residence, and the project will comply with all required setbacks and building codes. 12. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The proposed 254 square foot one-story addition is modest in size and consistent with surrounding single-family homes. The project maintains all required setbacks and will not alter the character of the neighborhood and therefore will not diminish nearby property values. 13. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Unduly increase traffic congestion in the public streets and highways. The property will remain a single-family residence, and the proposed 254 square foot one-story addition does not change the use or occupancy of the home. Therefore, the project will not increase traffic congestion on nearby streets. 14. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Create a nuisance. The proposed 254 square foot one-story addition will maintain the existing single-family residential use and comply with all zoning and building requirements. The modest addition will not generate noise, activity, or other conditions that would create a nuisance for neighboring properties. 15. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Results in an increase in public expenditures. The proposed 254 square foot one-story addition will not change the use or density of the property. No additional bathrooms or plumbing are proposed, and the project will rely on existing utilities and public infrastructure. Therefore, it will not result in increased public expenditure. 16. Provide evidence that the variation is the minimum variation that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. Page 19 of 93  The requested variation represents the minimum relief necessary to allow reasonable use of the property. The proposal includes a modest 254 square foot one-story addition, increasing lot coverage from 21.9% to 25.4%. This limited increase is necessary to provide storage and exercise space that would typically be located in a basement, which cannot be constructed due to the property’s location within a regulated floodplain. 17. Please add any comments which may assist the commission in reviewing this application. The property is located within a regulated floodplain, which prevents construction of a basement. The request is for a modest 254 square foot one-story addition for storage and exercise space that would typically be located below grade. The existing home has 1,589 square feet of first-floor lot coverage (21.9%), and the proposal increases coverage to 25.4%. All required setbacks will be maintained, including the 40-foot rear yard setback. The property will remain a single-family residence, with no additional bathrooms or plumbing proposed. The applicant believes the request represents reasonable and minimal relief necessary due to the floodplain constraint affecting the property. Page 20 of 93  Aerial Map - 113 S. Parkside Avenue Legend 0 35 70 Print Date: 6/1/2026 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 21 of 93  Zoning Map - 113 S. Parkside Avenue Legend Zoning and Development Zoning R2: Single Family Residential District 0 50 100 Print Date: 6/1/2026 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 22 of 93  Contour Map - 113 S. Parkside Avenue Legend DuPage County DuPage County Contour 2022 Contour Line, Intermediate Contour Line, Major 0 35 70 Print Date: 6/1/2026 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 23 of 93  Flood Hazard Zone Map - 113 S. Parkside Avenue Legend Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Hazard Zones 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard DuPage County DuPage County Contour 2022 Contour Line, Intermediate Contour Line, Major 0 35 70 Print Date: 6/1/2026 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 24 of 93 Page 25 of 93 Site Plan 113 S Parkside LOT 7,263 SF Proposed Addition 254 SF Existing 2 Story Existing Open Front Porch Residence 1,401 SF Existing Detached Garage 498 SF Existing Concrete Drive Existing Home: 1,401 SF Existing Home: 1,401 sf Proposed 1-Story Addition: 254 SF Front Porch with 140 sf Bonus Applied: 54 sf Proposed Lot Coverage: 1,655 SF Proposed Addition: 254 sf Lot: 7,263 SF Proposed lot coverage: 1709 sf Current Lot Coverage %: 19.3% Lot Area: 7263 sf 0 5' 10' 25' Proposed Lot Coverage %: 22.8% Proposed Lot Coverage: 23.53% Page 26 of 93 Existing home Addition Page 27 of 93 Page 28 of 93  Glen Ellyn Zoning Board Meeting 6/9/2026 7:00 PM of Appeals Department: Community Development 535 Duane Street Department Head: Jennifer Henaghan Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Category: Public Hearing Prepared By: Daniel Harper AGENDA ITEM (ID DOC ID: 2026-433 # 2026-433) Public Hearing - 565 Hill Avenue Statement of the Issue: Daniel Simoneit (Petitioner), representing the owners of the property at 565 Hill Avenue, has applied for a zoning variation to allow an interior side yard setback of five feet and six inches (5’-6”) in lieu of the required setback of ten feet and three inches (10-3”). Analysis:REQUEST: The Petitioners request approval of the following variations from the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code: 1. Section 10-4-8(D)(3) to allow an interior side yard setback of five feet and six inches (5’-6”) in lieu of the required setback of ten feet and three inches (10-3”). 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 May 21, 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. A letter of support from the eastern neighbors of 571 Hill Avenue was submitted as part of the application. The letter is located in the attachments for review. ZONING HISTORY: There is no zoning history associated with the property. PERMIT HISTORY: Year Permit No. Type 2023 20230578 Basement Finish Out 2023 20230128 HVAC and Boiler Replacement 2020 20201212 Indoor Plumbing 2020 20200651 House and Garage Roof 2016 20162118 Garage Roof 1996 B16511 Detached Garage 1980 B6221 Boiler Replacement Page 29 of 93 1968 B816 Electrical PROJECT SUMMARY: The Petitioners have applied for a variation to the minimum side yard setback requirement to construct a one-story addition to the rear of the existing home. The applicant has reported that this is to maintain the existing setback line of the east wall of the existing structure. The applicant is requesting consideration of the property shape that flares wider behind the front property line, which creates a larger required side yard setback and that the proposed addition is inline with the existing home which has an existing nonconforming setback of six feet (6'-0"). This proposed rear addition would add 671 square feet to the existing building area of 1,306.91 square feet for a total building area of 1,978 square feet. The proposed addition would raise the proposed lot coverage ratio of the property from approximately 7.5% to 11%. 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. 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 3. Zoning Map 4. Plat of Survey 5. Site Plan 6. Floor Plan 7. Building Elevations 8. 565 Hill Rendering 9. 565 Hill Existing Photos 10. 565 Hill Avenue - East Neighbors Support Letter Page 30 of 93  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 31 of 93  APPLICATION FOR ZONING VARIATION Date Filed: 4/29/2026 Application No: 2026-0019 Name of Applicant: Daniel J Simoneit Address of Applicant: 864 Woodland Avenue Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Property Interest of Applicant: Owner Representative Name of Owner: Matthew & Sarah Coe Address of Owner: 565 Hill Ave Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Contacts: Type Name Address Phone Email 864 Woodland Avenue Glen Petitioner Daniel J Simoneit Ellyn, IL 60137 864 Woodland Avenue Glen Web Administrator Daniel J Simoneit Ellyn, IL 60137 Matthew & Sarah 565 Hill Ave Glen Ellyn, IL Parcel Owner Coe 60137 Property Address: 565 Hill Ave Project Name: Web Project Project Description: New 1-story addition to the south side of the existing 2-story single family private residence Legal Description of Property: THE NORTH 1/2 OF LOT 1 AND ALSO THAT PART OF LOT 2 DESCRIBED BY BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 2 AND RUNNING THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 2, 180 FEET TO THE SOUTH LIE OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF SAID LOT 2; THENCE EAST PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF HILL AVENUE, 15 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY 179 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE LACE OF BEGINNING, ALL IN BLOCK 5 OF TURNER AND MCCLEAN’S SUBDIVISION OF THE NORTHERLY 460 FEET OF THAT PART OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF Page 32 of 93 SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 39 NORTH, RANGE 10 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIFIAN, LYING SOUTH OF HILL AVENUE (FORMERLY GARDNER BRIDGE ROAD) AND WEST OF GLEN ELLYN AVENUE (FORMERLY JOILET ROAD), ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED MARCH 18, 1905 IN BOOK 6 OF PLATS, PAGE 15, AS DOCUMENT 83929, IN DUPAGE COUNTY, ILLIONIS. Zoning: R2, R2, Single Family Residential District Lot Dimensions: N: 100.00 x E: 178.76 x S: 115.00' x W: 180.00' Lot Area: 19200 : 05141180010000 Present Use: Single Family Private Residence Estimated Date to Begin New Use/Construction: 7/6/2026 Narrative Statement: We are seeking a variation to: 10-4-8. - R2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (D) MINIMUM YARD AND LOT REQUIREMENTS 3. Interior side yard: Minimum Interior Side Yard Setback: Each side yard shall be 6.5 feet or 10% of the lot width, whichever is greater We are requesting: An interior side yard setback of 5’6” in lieu of the required 10% lot width equaling 10’3 3/8”. EVIDENCE RELATING TO ZONING CODE STANDARDS FOR A VARIATION: 1. Provide evidence that due to the characteristics of the property in question, there are practical difficulties or particular hardship for the applicant/owner in carrying out the strict letter of the Zoning Code: 1. The existing home in currently non-conforming in regards to the interior side yard setback overlay 2. The existing home was built in 1921 prior to the adoption of the current code 3. The lot is not a typical rectangular interior lot - it is parallelogram corner lot 4. The rectangular home was built slightly off of being parallel to the east property line Page 33 of 93  5. The existing home is justified to the east side of the lot - thus the only route of expansion is limited to the south rear yard. 6. The code requires 10’0’ offset from the existing detached garage - good design required as much as possible 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: Per the Plat of Survey, the lot area equals 19,200 sf and yields a developable lot coverage of 3,840 sf. The original house (1,306.91 sf) plus the new addition (671.09 sf) totals 1,978.00 sf of coverage. The proposed Lot Coverage ratio equals only 10.30% on a property that that is allowed 20% per current code. Thus…. this variation request is not being made in the effort to yield a return, reasonable or not. This request is being made in the effort to enhance an existing home and improve the owner's quality of life. The interior side yard variation request is being made due to the unique circumstances created not by the homeowners but by the following: 1. Zoning that was adopted +/- 81 years after the home was constructed 2. Unique property boundary shape - the a-typical flair outward on both the east and west property line creates an over 100-foot lot width that results in a 10’3 3/8” interior side yard set back 3. Unique eastern justification of the structure that “as it sits” is existing as non-conforming 4. The homes expansion is limited to the south rear and interior side yard 3. Provide evidence that the requested variation(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality of the property in question: We are attempting to renovate/update this classic Glen Ellyn home so that it will remain on the property under the same ownership for another 20 years…. if not more. 4. Provide evidence that the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical condition of the property in question would bring particular hardship upon the Page 34 of 93  applicant/owner as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the Zoning Code were to be carried out: The home was constructed in 1921 and sits currently in its original condition in its original footprint. Both the “one of a kind” irregular shape of the property and the unique placement of the home on the corner lot property create hardship and limits the opportunity to expand the home in only one direction - to the south and thus into the east interior side yard. The hardship would be to modify/renovate/update the existing home and not replace the sub- standard foundation-less 3-season (unheated) enclosed room that was sold to the Coe’s in a state of neglect and decline. 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 petition for variation is based on unique conditions on a unique corner lot site on a unique style home. It is fair to assume that this 2-story private residence is one-of-a-kind in the village and will continue to be upon completion of the proposed interior renovation + 1-story addition. 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: There are no partners. The property is privately owned by the Coe’s. There is no other person/s having any interest in our property. 7. Provide evidence that the alleged difficulty or particular hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property in question or by the applicant. This home is the Coe’s principal residence and hopefully their forever home. They are trying to renovate a home that will be only 457 sf larger than what currently exists while modernizing/upgrading it to a 2026 lifestyle. This is not a flip for resale. 8. Provide evidence that the granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property in question is located. None expected at this time. We are seeking a single variation. We are proposing a modest 671 sf addition over the 200 sf footprint of the (to be removed) one story addition that upon Page 35 of 93  its completion will partially exceed the required interior side yard setback by 57 3/8”. This is only 6 1/4” more than what has currently existed for over 105 years. 9. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. The proposed addition is only 1 story and upon completion will have zero impact on the adjacent/surrounding 2-story neighbors. 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. None expected at this time. The closest adjacent/neighboring/east property will still be separated by more than approximately 20 feet. 11. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not otherwise impair the public health, safety, comfort, morals or general welfare of the inhabitants of the Village. None expected at this time. We believe that upon approval and completion of our proposed project that we will be greatly improving the property and thus the welfare of the neighborhood and the Village of Glen Ellyn. 12. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. None expected at this time. We believe that upon approval and completion of the proposed project that we will be greatly improving the Coe’s property and thus improving neighborhood property values. 13. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Unduly increase traffic congestion in the public streets and highways. This project will have zero impact on any traffic whatsoever. 14. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Create a nuisance. None expected at this time. 15. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Results in an increase in public expenditures. None expected at this time. 16. Provide evidence that the variation is the minimum variation that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. Page 36 of 93  The footprint of the encroachment is an elongated triangle with a blunt tip that measures 4’9” at the deepest point of encroachment and tapers back down the long leg of the triangle to the house yielding only 78.33 sf of additional coverage over the side yard setback (please refer to attached graphic). 17. Please add any comments which may assist the commission in reviewing this application. To make this home renovation and addition a success, we have explored multiple schemes and footprints in the effort to create an excellent solution on a large yet challenging site. The result is an encroachment on an oversized interior side yard of 10’3 3/8”. The 5’6” setback at the encroachment’s deepest inset would only be 1’0” less than the Glen Ellyn minimum or 6’6” and again is only 6 1/4” deeper than the conditions that have existed since 1921 - well before the adoption of the current code. Page 37 of 93  Aerial Map - 565 Hill Avenue Legend 0 50 100 Print Date: 6/2/2026 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 38 of 93  Zoning Map - 565 Hill Avenue Legend Zoning and Development Zoning R2: Single Family Residential District 0 100 200 Print Date: 6/2/2026 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 39 of 93 Page 40 of 93  1’0” 18’6” 11’4” 11’4” 2’6” 33’4” 11’0” 22’0” 11’0” 21’0” 565 Hill Avenue - site plan Page 41 of 93  109.86 SF radon 56.05 SF 78.39 SF ac. 36 formal 30 kitchen 3 season (199.64 SF) 24 pantry chute coats 24 1X10 30 casual 36 vest. deck (160.43 SF) 30 powder 24 UP DN 1X09 DN 1X08 DN proposed (671.09 SF) GRADE DN living 11 x 17 format coe 2D.02 Page 42 of 93  ac. radon 33’4” 13'8" 11'1.25" 3’9.75” 48" r + f 24" t + r 36" sink + disposal 24" dw 4’9.5” kitchen 420.00 SF 24" t + r 36" sink + disposal 24" dw 30 30 9'8.75" scullery 9'5.25" vest. 04 03 02 01 GRADE 104.83 SF 36 DN FL.01 9'1.5" 04 pantry chute 03 coats 6'2" 20'0" 24 -09 mud 7'6.75" -08 82.69 SF -07 30 -06 36 vest. -05 36 DN -04 30 powder 24 -03 DN 1X09 02 -02 21'0" -01 DN 01 1X08 DN GRADE DN living 11 x 17 format coe 2D.04 Page 43 of 93  S E W forest avenue hill avenue N site coe 3D.01 Page 44 of 93 north / front elevaton coe 3D.02 Page 45 of 93 west / rh side elevaton w/ detached garage coe 3D.03 Page 46 of 93 west / rh side elevation w/o detached garage coe 3D.04 Page 47 of 93 view between home + detached garage - new “front” door coe 3D.05 Page 48 of 93 view looking northeast coe 3D.06 Page 49 of 93 south / back elevation coe 3D.07 Page 50 of 93 view looking north coe 3D.08 Page 51 of 93 view looking northwest coe 3D.09 Page 52 of 93 east / lh side elevation coe 3D.10 Page 53 of 93 aerial view looking southeast coe 3D.11 Page 54 of 93 aerial view looking northwest coe 3D.12 Page 55 of 93 Page 56 of 93 Page 57 of 93 Page 58 of 93 Page 59 of 93 Page 60 of 93 Page 61 of 93 Page 62 of 93  Glen Ellyn Zoning Board Meeting 6/9/2026 7:00 PM of Appeals Department: Community Development 535 Duane Street Department Head: Jennifer Henaghan Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Category: Public Hearing Prepared By: Daniel Harper AGENDA ITEM (ID DOC ID: 2026-434 # 2026-434) Public Hearing - 253 Anthony Street Statement of the Issue: Scott McDonald (Petitioner), representing the owners of the property at 253 Anthony Street, has applied for a zoning variation to allow an accessory structure less than ten feet from a principal structure to be setback six feet and nine inches (6’-9”) from the interior side property line in lieu of the required seven foot (7’-0”) side yard setback. Analysis:REQUEST: The Petitioners request approval of the following variation from the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code: 1. Section 10-5-4(A)(4)(b) to allow an accessory structure less than ten feet from a principal structure to be setback six feet and nine inches (6’-9”) from the interior side property line in lieu of the required seven foot (7’-0”) side yard setback. 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 May 21, 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: The property was granted a variation in 1991, per Ordinance 3847-2, to allow the existing front porch of the home to continue to extend 7.65 feet into the required 30 foot front yard setback and to remain attached to the home as the land was subdivided. The property was designated a Glen Ellyn Local Landmark by the Village Board of Trustees in 2013 per Ordinance 6183. The property owner will need to seek approval to the alteration of the structure by the Historical Preservation Commission if the requested variation requested is granted by the Village Board of Trustees. PERMIT HISTORY: Year Permit No. Type 2025 2025-1490-RFGT Roof and Gutters 2016 20160016 Kitchen Remodel 2013 20130243 Fence 2011 20111019 Exterior Drain Tile Page 63 of 93 2009 20090555 Front Porch Alteration 1997 B17154 Deck 1996 B15789 Sewer Repair 1993 B14118 Sewer Service Repair 1934 B63 Alteration PROJECT SUMMARY: The Petitioners have applied for a variation to the minimum side yard setback requirement for an accessory structure less than ten feet from a principal structure to be setback six feet and nine inches (6’-9”) from the interior side property line in lieu of the required seven-foot (7’-0”) side yard setback. The applicant has proposed an addition to the rear of the home that would meet all other zoning requirements. However, the proposed addition to the existing residence would be located approximately 6 feet 2 inches from the existing detached garage. This changes the required setback for the detached garage as provided in Section 10-5-4(A)(4) of the Zoning Code. Additionally, Section 10-4-1(I) of the Zoning Code requires that no existing building or structure shall be enlarged, altered, reconstructed, converted or relocated in such a manner as to conflict or further conflict with the bulk requirements of this title for the zoning district in which such building or structure is located. The proposal of the rear building addition would present a conflict with the required setbacks for detached accessory structures. 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 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 3. Zoning Map 4. Site Plan Page 64 of 93 5. Building Elevations 6. Variation Ordinance No 3847 7. Local Landmark Ordinance No 6183 Page 65 of 93  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 66 of 93  APPLICATION FOR ZONING VARIATION Date Filed: 5/7/2026 Application No: 2026-0026 Name of Applicant: Scott Macdonald Address of Applicant: 35 E Division St Villa Park, IL 60181 Property Interest of Applicant: Owner Representative Name of Owner: McLain TR, Jake Thomas & Address of Owner: 253 Anthony St Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Type Name Address Phone Email 35 E Division St Villa Park, Petitioner Scott Macdonald IL 60181 35 E Division St Villa Park, Web Administrator Scott Macdonald IL 60181 McLain TR, Jake 253 Anthony St Glen Ellyn, Parcel Owner Thomas & IL 60137 Property Address: 253 Anthony St Project Name: Web Project Project Description: Seeking a variance on the side yard setback to an existing garage for 2.4". From 7'-0" to 6'-9.6". Legal Description of Property: LOT 1 IN SCRIPTURE PUBLICATIONS RESUBDIVISION, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF PART OF LOT 7 IN BLOCK 3 OF ROBERTON'S SEVENTH ADDITION TO GLEN ELLYN IN THE EAST 1/2 OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 39 NORTH, RANGE 10, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF SAID SCRIPTURE PRESS PUBLICATIONS RESUBDIVISION RECORDED AUGUST 7, 1991 AS DOCUMENT R91-101194, IN DUPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS Page 67 of 93  Zoning: C4, R2, Single Family Residential District Lot Dimensions: 70' X 166' Lot Area: 11620 : 05104080180000 Present Use: RESIDENTIAL R2 Estimated Date to Begin New Use/Construction: 8/10/2026 Narrative Statement: To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to request a zoning variation for the property located at 253 Anthony Street, Glen Ellyn, Illinois (PIN 05-10-408-018), which is zoned R2 Single-Family Residence District. The subject property is uniquely situated, as it is flanked on both sides by publicly owned school and park land, resulting in no adjacent residential structures. Pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 5, Section 10-5-4(A)(4)(b) of the Glen Ellyn Code of Ordinances, accessory structures located less than ten (10) feet from a principal structure are required to comply with the same setback requirements as the principal structure. The proposed addition to the existing residence will be located approximately 6 feet 2 inches from the existing detached garage, thereby triggering this provision. Accordingly, the applicable standard becomes the interior side yard requirement for the principal structure, as outlined in Section 10-4-8(D)(3), which requires a minimum side yard of six feet six inches (6'-6") or ten percent (10%) of the lot width, whichever is greater. Given the subject lot width of 70 feet, the required side yard setback is 7 feet. The existing detached garage, as documented on the recorded plat of survey, is located approximately 6.8 feet (6 feet 9.6 inches) from the side property line. This results in a minor encroachment of approximately 2.4 inches into the required setback. We respectfully request approval of a variation to allow the existing garage to remain in its current location. EVIDENCE RELATING TO ZONING CODE STANDARDS FOR A VARIATION: 1. Provide evidence that due to the characteristics of the property in question, there are practical difficulties or particular hardship for the applicant/owner in carrying out the strict letter of the Zoning Code: Page 68 of 93  It is impractical to move the existing garage 2.4". It would also be detrimental to the houses aesthetic to step the addition back further than it already is to retain a 10' gap between the addition and the garage. 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: It would be financially not viable to move the garage as part of this addition. 3. Provide evidence that the requested variation(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality of the property in question: Allowing the garage to remain in it's current location will maintain the aesthetics from the public right of way. 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: n/a 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: Due to the nature of this property allowing this variance will not be applicable to other properties. The properties flanking the subject property are publicly owned school/park land. 6. Provide evidence that the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire to make more money out of the property in question: The purpose of this variation is to make it financially viable for the homeowner to create an addition to their home and make it a more livable space for their family. It is not in the pursuit of making money. This addition is not being proposed for a spec construction to be put out for a real estate sale. 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 was created by the parties who owned the property when the garage was originally constructed. This was not the current owners. Page 69 of 93 8. Provide evidence that the granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injury to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property in question is located. The main justification for greater side yard setbacks is for fire protection (generally). Due to the nature of the property (being flanked by open park/school land) there is no threat of a fire spreading to adjacent structures. 9. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. Properties directly adjacent are non-developed park and school land. 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 main justification for greater side yard setbacks is for fire protection (generally). Due to the nature of the property (being flanked by open park/school land) there is no threat of a fire spreading to 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 main justification for greater side yard setbacks is for fire protection (generally). Due to the nature of the property (being flanked by open park/school land) there is no threat of a fire spreading to adjacent structures. In addition, the owner is prepared to provide gypsum boards on the interior surfaces of the garage to provide greater fire resistance. 12. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The garage is existing and allowing it to remain will not decrease or diminish any property values. Allowing the owner to provide the addition will only increase the potential value of the subject property which typically increases adjacent property values. 13. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Unduly increase traffic congestion in the public streets and highways. This project will not increase occupancy nor change any traffic flows. 14. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Create a nuisance. This is a private residence and allowing this variance will not affect any other adjacent properties, as it will also mostly be not visible from the street. Page 70 of 93 15. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Results in an increase in public expenditures. This project is neither asking for nor will create a burden on the public. it is a private residence. 16. Provide evidence that the variation is the minimum variation that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. We are asking for a variance of only 2.4" which will bring the garage just into compliance. We are not seeking to extend the garage structure beyond its current limits. 17. Please add any comments which may assist the commission in reviewing this application. Page 71 of 93  Aerial Map - 253 Anthony Street Legend 0 50 100 Print Date: 6/2/2026 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 72 of 93  Zoning Map - 253 Anthony Street Legend Zoning and Development Zoning C4: Office District CR: Conservation/Recreation District R2: Single Family Residential District R4: Multi-Family Residential District 0 150 300 Print Date: 6/2/2026 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 73 of 93  15'-8" NEW ADDITION WITH A SECOND STORY 6'-1" REMOVE EXISTING DECK Page 74 of 93  DUKE consulting, llc. 3 5 E D i v i s i o n S t. V i l l a P a r k , I L 60181 p : 6 3 0 . 9 9 1 . 7574 REVISIONS: DATE: D.D. DOCUMENTS 03/07/2026 D.D. REV #1 03/16/2026 D.D. REV #2 04/21/2026 PERMIT SET REVISION #1 REVISED PERMIT SET ISSUE FOR CONSTRUCTION ISSUE FOR PERMIT REVISION ISSUE FOR PERMIT REVISION .\Monica IL Stamp.bmp THE ABOVE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND IDEAS, DESIGNS AND ARRANGEMENTS REPRESENTED THEREBY ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THIS OFFICE: AND NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS OR USED IN THE CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OR PROJECT OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIC PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED AND DEVELOPED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THIS OFFICE. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS SHALL CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS ON THESE DRAWINGS SHALL HAVE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS: CONTRACTORS SHALL VERIFY AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS ON THE JOB AND THIS OFFICE MUST BE NOTIFIED OF ANY VARIATIONS FROM THE DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS SHOWN BY THESE DRAWINGS. SHOP DETAILS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THIS OFFICE FOR APPROVAL BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH FABRICATION. DRAWN BY CHECKED BY JOB NUMBER 26001 SHEET NAME Page 75 of 93  DUKE consulting, llc. 3 5 E D i v i s i o n S t. V i l l a P a r k , I L 60181 p : 6 3 0 . 9 9 1 . 7574 REVISIONS: DATE: D.D. DOCUMENTS 03/07/2026 D.D. REV #1 03/16/2026 D.D. REV #2 04/21/2026 PERMIT SET REVISION #1 REVISED PERMIT SET ISSUE FOR CONSTRUCTION ISSUE FOR PERMIT REVISION ISSUE FOR PERMIT REVISION .\Monica IL Stamp.bmp THE ABOVE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND IDEAS, DESIGNS AND ARRANGEMENTS REPRESENTED THEREBY ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THIS OFFICE: AND NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS OR USED IN THE CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OR PROJECT OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIC PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED AND DEVELOPED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THIS OFFICE. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS SHALL CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS ON THESE DRAWINGS SHALL HAVE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS: CONTRACTORS SHALL VERIFY AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS ON THE JOB AND THIS OFFICE MUST BE NOTIFIED OF ANY VARIATIONS FROM THE DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS SHOWN BY THESE DRAWINGS. SHOP DETAILS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THIS OFFICE FOR APPROVAL BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH FABRICATION. DRAWN BY CHECKED BY JOB NUMBER 26001 SHEET NAME Page 76 of 93  DUKE consulting, llc. 3 5 E D i v i s i o n S t. V i l l a P a r k , I L 60181 p : 6 3 0 . 9 9 1 . 7574 REVISIONS: DATE: D.D. DOCUMENTS 03/07/2026 D.D. REV #1 03/16/2026 D.D. REV #2 04/21/2026 PERMIT SET REVISION #1 REVISED PERMIT SET ISSUE FOR CONSTRUCTION ISSUE FOR PERMIT REVISION ISSUE FOR PERMIT REVISION .\Monica IL Stamp.bmp THE ABOVE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND IDEAS, DESIGNS AND ARRANGEMENTS REPRESENTED THEREBY ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THIS OFFICE: AND NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS OR USED IN THE CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OR PROJECT OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIC PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED AND DEVELOPED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THIS OFFICE. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS SHALL CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS ON THESE DRAWINGS SHALL HAVE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS: CONTRACTORS SHALL VERIFY AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS ON THE JOB AND THIS OFFICE MUST BE NOTIFIED OF ANY VARIATIONS FROM THE DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS SHOWN BY THESE DRAWINGS. SHOP DETAILS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THIS OFFICE FOR APPROVAL BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH FABRICATION. DRAWN BY CHECKED BY JOB NUMBER 26001 SHEET NAME Page 77 of 93 Page 78 of 93 Page 79 of 93 Page 80 of 93 Page 81 of 93 Page 82 of 93 Page 83 of 93 Page 84 of 93 Page 85 of 93 Page 86 of 93 Page 87 of 93 Page 88 of 93 Page 89 of 93 Page 90 of 93 Page 91 of 93 Page 92 of 93 Page 93 of 93