Zoning Board of Appeals

Public participation is invited. When called upon, please approach the microphone and state your name. Kindly limit your remarks to 3 minutes. VILLAGE OF VILLA PARK Villa Park Recreation Center 320 E. Wildwood Ave Villa Park, IL 60181 Special Meeting Zoning Board Of Appeals (ZBA) November 12, 2025 6:00 PM Chair Person: Rodney Pate Commissioners: Wanda Ackermann, Vicki Flaskamp, Troy Clampit, Richard Gonzales, Jason Jarrett, Deborah Cain Board Liaison: President Kevin Patrick Staff Liaison: Michelle House 1. Call to Order - Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes a. Draft Minutes of October 8, 2025 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 3. New Business a. Discussion of appointing Vice Chair and Secretary positions 4. Public Hearing Old Business 5. Public Hearing New Business a. ZBA-25-11 - 427 N. Wisconsin Ave. - Variation for Fence Height and Style - Petitioner: Nathan Mattox 6. Public Comments on Non-Agenda Items 7. Adjournment The Villa Park Village Hall is subject to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. An elevator is operational at the north side entrance to the Village Hall during normal work hours and also during evenings. lndividuals with special needs are requested to contact the Village's Compliance Officer at (630) 834-8500 so that reasonable accommodations can be made for those persons. Page 1 of 17  Village of Villa Park Zoning Board of Appeals October 8,2025 I. CALL TO ORDER BY THE CHAIRMAN Chairperson Pate called the meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL AND DECLARATION OF A QUORUM Commissioners Present Ackermann, Flaskamp, Clampit, Gonzales, Jarrett , Cain Chairperson Pate (7) Commissioners Absent: none Staff/Liaison Present: Community & Economic Development Interim Director Michelle House, Planner Rachel Leedom and Village President Kevin Patrick A Quorum was present. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Clampit moved to approve the minutes from September 10, 2025, with changes Commissioner Flaskamp’s name was misspelled on a vote. The Motion was seconded by Commissioner Flaskamp. On roll call: AYES: Ackermann, Flaskamp, Clampit, Gonzales, Jarrett, Cain, Chairperson Pate (7) NAYS: None (0) The motion carried. III. Public Hearing Old Business None IV. Public Hearing New Business a. Petition ZBA-25-05 - 523 W. North Ave. - Special Use and Variation – Petitioner Nabeel Sayed Rachel Leedom presented the Petitioner is seeking a Special Use to permit a fueling station in the C-3, Service Business District. The Petitioners would like to reopen a gas station. The Special Use is required due to lapse in service and to the length of time that this location was closed, they are no longer eligible for non-conforming status. The Petitioner would like to reopen the fueling station and Page 2 of 17 convenience store without any modifications to the existing site. Currently the property has five parking stalls on site. I don’t believe that there is space to add more parking stalls without interfering with the driving isles. There are eight gas pumps which would require sixteen total parking stalls, and seven parking stalls would be required for convenience use, giving it a total of twenty-three required parking stalls. The convenience store is permitted by right in this zoning district. It is only the fueling station that requires special use and that is just because of the lapse in service. This location has existed as a gas station before. Commissioner Jarrett asked how long has the gas station been vacant. Nabell Sayed said he purchased it from Diamond Bank in 2014. Commissioner Jarrett stated there was a lot of mature landscaping on the property that was removed sometime between March of 2024 and March of 2025. A couple of shade trees, a lot of shrubs. Was there a reason that was done, did you guys do that. Nabell Sayed said he can check with the property manager, they have a landscaper that does that. Some shrubs were removed to make the site more visible. Commissioner Jarrett stated that there were two large shade trees one on the corner at North Avenue. He thought there was some real nice landscaping that is now gone. Nabell Sayed said they were removed to put in flowers and make it look prettier but also make it more visible. Commissioner Gonzales asked if he originally owned it and then refurbish it or did you buy it from somebody else? And if that is the case how long has it been owned by somebody else that it was a gas station? And then why did it close? Nabell Sayed responded when they purchased it, it was already closed. It was purchased directly from the bank, so it has never been operable since we owned it. And yes, we are the owners from 2014 until now. Commissioner Gonzales asked if anyone checked the tanks? Nabell Sayed said absolutely. Commissioner Gonzales said to make sure you have that on record. Nabell Sayed responded We have fiberglass tanks which were replaced in 2010, they are the twenty year fiberglass tanks. After we get the special use permit, our contractor would have an appointment with Bob the fire marshal to come in and get our green tag notice. In order to put gas in the tanks they have to have a green tag notice. Once they are open, they would get the official one to fill them up with fuel. Commissioner Gonzales questioned the documentation Michelle House informed that the State Fire Marshal holds all of the documentation. The Village does not do testing on the tanks. Chairperson Pate explained that after ZBA passes it would be recommended to the Board for special use approval and this is only the first steps. Commissioner Gonzales asked if the soil has been tested? Nabell Sayed said absolutely for phase one you have to do that. Page 3 of 17 Commissioner Flaskamp asked why is it special use, what was it previously? Nabell Sayed said it was a gas station he was told that any time a gas station is closed for more than ninety days, you have to go through this process. Rachel Leedom added that a fueling station always requires a special use so we can have the conversation that we are having now. Michelle House said she did not see a special use approved for this location previously and the non-conforming section of the code specifies that if a use is closed for more than ninety days you have to reapply. If the use was closed for ninety days it would have to come back to through the process. If the location had closed and a new owner came forward within a ninety-day period, it would not have had gone through this process. Commissioner Flaskamp asked if there was anything else that needs to be upgraded and if they are planning on being part of an independent gas station or are you becoming a franchise of something else? Nabell Sayed said they are going to brand it as Citgo. Commissioner Ackermann asked who said there has to have twenty three stalls. Rachel Leedom replied that’s laid out in our minimum parking ratio code section. For the fueling use the requirement is two parking stalls per gas pump. For the convenience store it’s based off of square footage. That’s where that twenty-three number comes from. Commissioner Ackermann said she noticed the gas station at Addison and Saint Charles, they don’t have more than five or six spots in the front of the store. Michelle House said they also have a variation for parking. Commissioner Gonzales asked how what times this gas station will be open? Nabell Sayed said from 5:00 a.m. until Midnight. Chairperson Pate asked if we had any traffic concerns during high traffic periods. Discussion Commissioner Jarrett said, we do have an opportunity to apply conditions. The landscaping on this site in March 2024 is significantly different than what is there now. I would not want to ask them to replace exactly what was there but wants to raise the possibility of a condition that would enhance the landscaping in a way that would be significantly like what was there. Commissioner Gonzales asked about the signage and if it would be blocking traffic. Nabell Sayed said it is the same one that has been there for years. Michelle House said signage would come through as a signage permit. Staff would review that at a later date when they have identified what brand of gas they will be selling. Commissioner Jarrett explained amending the recommendation approval. The board discussed the wording of the vote. Page 4 of 17 Motion Commissioner Jarrett moves to recommend approval of ZBA-25-05 for a Special Use to permit a fueling station use on the existing property, with a Variation from section 7.2-Minimum Parking Ratios, to reduce the required parking from 23 stalls to 5 stalls condition with the condition that landscaping be installed substantially similar to previously existing landscaping as of August 2023 per the Google Streetview including ornamental trees and shrubs to be approved by staff. The Motion was seconded by Commissioner Flaskamp. On roll call: AYES: Ackermann, Flaskamp, Clampit, Gonzales, Jarrett, Cain, Chairperson Pate (7) NAYS: None (0) The motion was approved with conditions. b. Petition ZBA-25-07 - 146 N. Myrtle Ave. – Variation – Petitioner Ramiro Monyoya Rachel Leedom presented that this request is for a variation to permit gazebo in the front yard. The subject lot is laid out in a triangle shape, with two front yards, on W. Division St. and N. Myrtle Ave, and one side yard to the north. The gazebo is placed on top of a patio which was constructed between 1987 and 1998. This Variation is being applied for as a result of a “work without a permit” violation issued April 2025. The gazebo is in compliance with all other bulk regulations. The commissioners discussed where the main entrance was located. Michelle House told them it is off of Myrtle. Commissioner Clampit asked if it could be moved back. Michelle House said anything in front of the front wall of his home would be considered the front yard. It would be possible, but it would still be considered the zoning front yard. Commissioner Cain asked if he was aware that he needed a permit. Ramiro Monyoya said he did not. He had an old one gazebo that he wanted to tear down and put up a new one. Discussion Chairperson Cain stated that it does not block anyone’s street view, so it is not a safety concern. Motion Commissioner Flaskamp made a motion to recommend approval of ZBA-25-07 for a variation from Section 14.1.9, Setbacks, Table 14-1: Permitted Setback Obstructions/Encroachments, to permit a gazebo in the front yard. The Motion was seconded by Commissioner Ackermann. Page 5 of 17  On roll call: AYES: Ackermann, Flaskamp, Gonzales, Jarrett, Cain, Chairperson Pate (6) NAYS: Clampit, (1) The motion was approved. c. Petition ZBA-25-08 - 300 S. Cornell Ave. – Variation – Petitioner St. Alexnder Catholic Church Michelle House presented the petitioner proposes to construct a patio area on the south of the property with benches, a statue, and memorial bricks for quiet contemplation and prayer. This variation would permit a patio in the front yard, increase the maximum width of a walkway from 5.0 feet to 8.0 feet, and permit a lot coverage of 86%. This is off Cornell and Central. Deacon Matthew Tretina spoke of the hardship. St. John the Apostle church closed, and they would like to pick up the memorial grotto and move it to St. Alexander to show solidarity with the people and make it a welcoming spot.They choose that spot because it is visible. Commissioner Flaskamp would like to recuse herself from this vote because she has memory blocks and a bench that is part of the memorial. It would be an emotional issue for her. Mike Pusich described what they would be doing with the grotto and dimensions. Commissioner Clampit asked what the lot coverage would be and if this would be a chance to reclaim some of that area. Rachel Leedom said the 86% was for the whole property. Questions were asked about lighting by Commissioner Gonzales. Mike Pusich said the statue will have lighting on it. Commissioners asked about impervious surfaces and if they could be used. Mike Pusich said they had not investigated it. Later it was determined that it would be uneven to walk on, the upkeep would be difficult, and the cost would be high. Mike Pusich stated that St Alexandar Church is experiencing huge growth, and they are looking for ways to optimize the facilities the best that they can. Chairperson Cain asked staff if the reason we want 60% or less ground coverage was for for water displacement? Michelle House confirmed and added that most of the properties zoned residential are single family homes with front and back yards. Public Comments Nick Cuzzone wanted to point out that most of the churches in Villa Park are residential and you need to look more along the lines of commercial property regulations. Page 6 of 17 Deacon Mark Ranieri spoke saying that the impervious services would be uneven and hard for the elderly to walk on. He expressed how it is more than a patio it is a memorial prayer garden that will bring two churches together. Vicki Flaskamp wanted to echo that it would be hard for the elderly to walk on impervious pathways. Discussion Commissioner Cain stated that she thinks it would make that side of the street look nice and bring beauty to the area. Commissioner Clampit spoke about how permeable surfaces are ADA friendly, almost like a brick patio that allows water to permeate and wants to look at something more friendly. Commissioner Caine would like to ask if there is something else, they can use but if not she will understand. Motion Commissioner Jarrett motioned to recommend approval of ZBA-25-08 for a variation from Section 14.1.9, Setbacks, Table 14-1: Permitted Setback Obstructions/Encroachments, to permit a patio in the front yard, a Variation from Section 6.10.2, Table 6-2 Accessory Structure Regulations to permit a walkway width of 8.0 feet, and a Variation from Section 2.3- Lot and Building Regulations to permit a Lot Coverage of 86%. The Motion was seconded by Commissioner Gonzales. On roll call: AYES: Ackermann, Gonzales, Jarrett, Cain, Chairperson Pate (5) NAYS: Clampit (1) Abstained: Flaskamp (1) The motion was approved d. Petition ZBA-25-09 - 610 N. Michigan Ave. – Variation – Petitioner - Alison and Austin Gardiner Michelle House presented the Petitioner is seeking a Variation from Section 2.3 Lot and Building Regulations, to permit a front setback of 21.0 feet instead of 30.0 feet for a new garage and porch. The petitioner would like to convert the existing garage into living space and build a new attached garage. The new garage would be attached inside the northeast corner of the existing house and attached garage. The new garage would be set back 21.64 feet from the front (east) property line. The current residence has a very unique shape that requires the homeowners to turn south to enter the garage. This new design would utilize the current driveway and allow the homeowners to pull Page 7 of 17 straight into the garage. A new front porch is also proposed as part of the design. This porch would also have a front setback of 21.64 feet and would continue south of the proposed garage. Chairperson Pate asked if there would be encroachments on the lot line. How much space would be from the garage to the sidewalk. Michelle House said 21.6 feet from the front of the garage to the property line. Commissioner Clampit asked if they were going to do this for more living space. Austin Gardiner said he wanted to have a two-car garage, and this would be the best way to do it so they did not have to move the driveway. Commissioner Jarrett explained zoning uniqueness. Commissioner Caine wanted to know if the garage would stick out past the neighbor’s house. Jason Jarrett explained that it would not. Commissioner Flaskamp expressed concerns about the size of the garage if it would be big enough to house two cars. Commissioner Ackermann was concerned about future owners having big cars and not being able to fit. Public Hearing Maria Saratos lives in the house that sticks out. She is concerned that it will block the view of the rest of the houses. She is concerned about the value of her house. Discussion Commissioner Clampit is concerned about the encroachment of the setback. He does not see a reason to encroach further on the setbacks. He is also not sold that this is the best solution and there are other options that do not require a variance. Commissioner Cain shared her feelings that it would increase value on the street. She asked if there was something that they could do to decrease the porch. Michelle House explained how the architect was trying to meet the code. The garage can not be greater than 50% of the porch width and the garage width. They are almost equal right now so that’s the reason for the narrower garage. There is a section of the code that requires the porch to have a five-foot depth for the front wall of the entrance. The garage can be in front of the house if it has a five-foot porch. Commissioner Jarrett asks that there be interest added to the front wall. Commissioner Cain points out that the homes on that block are not a consistent line. Page 8 of 17 Motion Commissioner Flaskamp motions to recommend approval of ZBA-25-09 for a variation from Section 2.3 Lot and Building Regulations, to permit a front setback of 21.0 feet instead of 30.0 feet for a new garage and porch. The Motion was seconded by Commissioner Jarrett. On roll call: AYES: Ackermann, Flaskamp, Gonzales, Clampit, Jarrett, Cain, Chairperson Pate (6) NAYS: Ackermann (1) The motion was approved V. Public Comments Michelle House said that our next meeting will be at the Village Park Recreation Center on November 12th due to the elevator being repaired which will take 4-6 weeks. Commissioner Jarrett informed us that the commission allows for a Vice Chair and a Secretary. The advantage of a Vice Chair is you don’t have to decide who will be the chair if the chair is not present. He is not sure what the secretary’s role might be. A discussion will be put on the next agenda. VI. Adjournment Motion to Adjourn was made by Chairperson Pate Second, Commissioner Clampit. Meeting ended at 7:55 p.m. Page 9 of 17  Village of Villa Park Community & Economic Development 11 W Home Avenue, Villa Park, IL 60181 TO: Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Community & Economic Development Department DATE: November 12, 2025 RE: Petition ZBA-25-11 | 427 N. Wisconsin Ave. | Variation PETITIONER OWNER Nathan Mattox Nathan Mattox 427 N. Wisconsin Ave. 427 N. Wisconsin Ave. Villa Park, IL 60181 Villa Park, IL 60181 Request Summary The Petitioner is seeking a Variation from Section 9.2.2, Allowed Fence Heights and Locations to permit a 5.0-ft. tall privacy fence in the front yard, instead of 4.0-ft. tall open-style fence. Background The subject lot is on the corner of N. Wisconsin Avenue and W. Vermont Street. The home faces W. Vermont Street but the zoning front yard is on Wisconsin Avenue. The majority of the fence is a 3.0-foot tall, open style fence, surrounding the south and west property lines. Approximately 40 feet of 5.0-foot tall privacy fence was installed along the northern property line, between the northwest property corner and the northwest corner of the home. Due to administrative error, the need for a variation was missed during the permit approval process and a permit was issued for this fence work. The fence plan complies with all required visibility triangle regulations and does not pose any safety risks. Site Information Present Zoning: Residential Single-Dwelling District - RS-7.5 Present Land Use: Residential Property Size: 6,591.5 sq. ft. / 0.15 acres PIN: 06-04-228-011 Surrounding Zoning Surrounding Land Use North: Residential Single-Dwelling District- RS-7.5 Residential West: Residential Single-Dwelling District- RS-7.5 Residential East: Residential Single-Dwelling District- RS-7.5 Residential South: Residential Single-Dwelling District- RS-7.5 Residential Comprehensive Plan Designation- Residential Single-dwelling residential areas are neighborhoods where each lot contains one dwelling unit, which can be a standalone house or attached units like townhomes and duplexes. These areas should encompass carefully planned subdivisions and older, established neighborhoods exhibiting classic neighborhood layouts. Single- dwelling homes are the most common form of residential property in the Village and most likely will remain so. Zoning Request The Petitioner is seeking a Variation from Section 9.2.2, Allowed Fence Heights and Locations to permit a 5.0-ft. tall privacy fence in the front yard, instead of 4.0-ft. tall open style fence. Page 10 of 17 Internal Staff Review Variation The Zoning Ordinance specifically allows for Variation petitions in order to grant relief to a property owner from strict compliance with the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. Variations are intended to help alleviate a practical difficulty or particular hardship that would be caused by the literal enforcement of the subject ordinance requirements and are site specific. The front yard of this property faces N. Wisconsin Avenue, although the main entrance to the home faces W. Vermont Street. The variation is needed for the 5.0-foot tall privacy fence because it is located inside the zoning front yard of the property. This Variation request is to correct an administrative error which incorrectly permitted this fence plan with a 5.0 foot tall, privacy style fence. This section of fence is outside of any required visibility triangles and would not impair traffic visibility. Site Plan Review 1. Building and Structure Location - The following comments relate to the issue of building and structure location in regard to the proposed development plans: a. The proposed 5.0-foot tall privacy fence would run along the north (side) property line, in the front yard of the property, from the front property line to the northwest corner of the house. b. The required 20.0-foot visibility triangle at the southwest corner of the property would still be maintained with the 3.0-foot tall open style fence. 2. Building scale - The following comments relate to the issue of building scale in regard to the proposed development plans: a. The scale of the existing home is not changing. 3. Lot Coverage - The following comments relate to the issue of lot coverage in regard to the proposed development plans: a. No new lot coverage would be added as a result of this project. 4. Completeness - If the Zoning Board of Appeals requires additional information to determine whether the applicant’s development requests comply with the applicable standards of the Code, they may direct the Petitioner to furnish additional information and evidence that may provide clarity regarding their concerns. Findings Per Sec. 11.5.6.8. The Zoning Board of Appeals’ recommendation must be accompanied by specific findings of fact regarding whether practical difficulties or particular hardships would result if a Variation is not granted. The Petitioner has submitted the following justification for a Variation from Article 2, Section 2.3, Table 2-3 of the Zoning Ordinance: A. State the particular hardship and/or practical difficulty created for you in carrying out the strict letter of the zoning regulations to wit: To comply strictly with the 4.0 ft open design requirement would require removing the existing fence, installing a shorter, open-style fence, reducing privacy and enjoyment for my family, and incurring significant cost and disruption. Given the orientation of the lot and how the yard is used, the burden is disproportionate relative to the deviation requested (1.0 foot in height and change of design). B. A reasonable return or use of your property is not possible under the existing regulations because: I relied on the Village-approved fence drawings to construct the fence. Because the permit was approved and the work completed, the requirement to now reduce the height or convert to an open design imposes undue burden and is the result of regulatory change after reliance rather than a 2 Page 11 of 17  voluntary choice. C. Your situation is unique (not applicable in other properties in the area or zoning classification) in the following respect: My lot has the unusual circumstance that the portion of the lot used as our yard (what would typically be considered a backyard) is legally defined as a front yard under the zoning code. This mismatch was not created by me and is not typical of lots in the neighborhood. Because of this orientation difference, the standard front-yard fence rule (4.0 ft height + open design) imposes a significant limitation on the yard’s usability and privacy. D. The variation will not alter the essential character of the locality, impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property; not increase hazard from fire; not impair property values in the neighborhood; not unduly increase congestion in the streets, or otherwise impair public safety; health and convenience because: Granting the variance will not materially affect neighborhood aesthetics, public safety, or property values. The fence is constructed in a high quality manner, consistent in style and finish with other residential fences, does not create sight-line issues or obstruct traffic/pedestrians. The difference from the code requirement is modest and the fence achieves the intended purpose of residential screening, safety and compatibility. Although I am seeking relief from the height and design requirements, the fence still aligns with the ordinance’s purpose of providing safe, appropriately scaled fencing, and respects neighborhood character. Given the unique orientation of my lot and prior permit reliance, granting the variance is equitable and consistent with the intent of the zoning rules. Notification Legal Notice was published in the Daily Herald on October 27, 2025, a sign placed on the subject property, and notifications sent to property owners within a 250.0-foot radius of the subject property in advance of the Public Hearing. Sample Motion To recommend approval of ZBA-25-11 for a variation from Section 9.2.2, Allowed Fence Heights and Locations, to permit a 5.0-foot tall, solid style fence in the front yard. Exhibit List • Exhibit A - Plat of Survey • Exhibit B- Fence Plans 3 Page 12 of 17  439 436 435 N WISCONSIN AV 432 431 300 427 R S - 7 . 5 W VERMONT ST Legend Zoning Districts Zoning Districts RS-10 - Residential Single-Dwelling District - 10,000 Sq. Ft. RS-7.5 - Residential Single-Dwelling District - 7,500 Sq. Ft. RD-7.5 - Residential Duplex District - 7,500 Sq. Ft.. RM-9 - Residential Multi-Unit District - 9,000 Sq. Ft. O-R - Office Research District C-1 - Convenience Business District C-2 - Neighborhood Business District C-3 - Service Business District MX-1 - Mixed-Use TOD District MX-2 - Mixed-Use Main Street District MX-3 - Mixed-Use Corridor District MX-T - Mixed Transitional (Office-Residential) District MX-R1 - Mixed Residential District 1 ¯ MX-R2 - Mixed Residential District 2 M-1 - Light Industrial District M-2 - General Industrial District PI-1 - Neighborhood-scale Institutional and Public District PI-2 - Campus-scale Institutional and Public District P.U.D.-R - Planned Unit Development Residential P.U.D.-C - Planned Unit Development Commercial P.U.D.-I - Planned Unit Development Industrial 30 15 0 30 Feet Page 13 of 17 Page 14 of 17 Page 15 of 17  J o t &l CLAS f nual:s CLEFIKIN ttrL alvirt cLlt* ,.o t o o 0 sUnVFv NUMIER: l!,41 1.4937 PRoPE8TV ADPFGSS; 427 N WSCONSIN AVENIJE, VILLA PARK, ltLlNOlS 60181 tL2411.4937 PLAT OF SURVEY DUPAGE COUNTY ,,,,i,,,,,r-,,,,,,,'" I : 1 ! fencing to be 36" above grade r ill]lilfi t t {} s ci LOT IJ toT 10 6 SLK 1O BLK IO zf F'i FI (ol ill Fp S{i I 0ll E-l s Jl dl I STORY FMME *. b $i € B bl BRICK E STONE &\n. <(i b tt h Ul 'l RES. #427 LOT 11 8LK 10 cl l, ii Ri q! l"i 2 c :f E; ()l BLK 0 CDI sa,rr s: =l ASPH LT t D PE lT 60" wide gate 1I -!:- ' - WVERMONTSTREET (66wW ENGINEERING ptuiri'Bll.tc zoNlNG gL 5 3' oW {<rnc'a- pntx- fl i-,.,, dfu i V|ULAGE OF LLA PARK '#.$-' rlinXt ?ri'lac"X F$ Permit De rtment GMPHIC sCALE {ln Foet} I inch " 30'ff. POINTS OF INTEREsT: S'ATE OF ILL{NOIS NONE VISIBLE COUNTY OF LA9ALI.i ]" IO THIS I5 TO CERTIFY THA'I' THIS PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CONFORMS rxt cuRae nr tLurt'rors MTNtMUM SrANoARDs FoR A BouNoAr{/ sunver. Grvelr uttoe R MY tJAt'lD AND SEAL THls oAr€ H€liEoN ^& €tdaldLand 9rryeyor!,LLC "(EXACT,A ff und &evore' \-Lc eut lli1808dt9 or,llJ los 40ll Jl6f Jll,a.kron !h{et I Morrit,lt 60450 rLt.rl'to{5 LICFNSE StIRVEVOR No' 2e?l a*tsrrrreysrARs DATEOF5URVEY: 12]12124 SEE PA6E 2 OF 2 FOR LEGAL DE5CRIPTION FIELo WoRK DATat 1U1112A24 PA6E T OT 2 . NOT VALID WITHOUT ALt PAGES REvl5loN DATE{slt lRw l 12/12/20241 Page 16 of 17 Page 17 of 17