O-16-01 03/12/2001VILLAGE OF LEMONT
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A VARIANCE
TO THE MINLMUM LOT SIZE AND ALLOWING
A 7,260 SQUARE FOOT MINLMUM LOT AREA INSTEAD
OF THE MINIMUM 7,500 FOOT LOT AREA
410 Una Avenue
ADOPTED BY THE
PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES
OF THE VILLAGE OF LEMONT
This /A46 day of tic .rdi , 2001.
Published in pamphlet form by
authority of the President and
Board of Trustees of the Village
of Lemont, Cook, DuPage, and Will
Counties, Illinois this i a 4,
day of Al arch , 2001
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A VARIANCE
TO THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND ALLOWING
A 7,260 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM LOT AREA P STEAD
OF THE MINLMUM 7,500 FOOT LOT AREA
410 Una Avenue
WHEREAS, Bagio (Bill) and Virginia Sava., hereinafter referred to as "the Petitioners ", are
the owners of a 7.260 foot parcel, hereinafter referred to as "the subject property ", located just east of
1201 Hillview in Lemont, Illinois and legally described in Exhibit "A ".
WHEREAS, the Petitioner made application under the provisions of the Lemont Zoning
Ordinance, Section VII.E.3.c., for a Variance to permit a minimum lot area of 7,260 square feet
instead of the minimum required 7,500 square feet; and
WHEREAS, the Lemont Zoning Ordinance requires a Public Hearing before a Hearing
Officer in cases where variations are no greater than five percent of the applicable standard; and
WHEREAS, the required hearing of the Village of Lemont, Illinois, was held on Friday,
March 2, 2001 at 3:00 p.m. in the Lemont Village Hall; and
WHEREAS, a notice of the aforesaid Administrative Hearing was made in the manner
provided by law and was published in the Lemon Reporter Met, a newspaper of general circulation
within the Village; and
WHEREAS, the Hearing Officer has recommended approval of the variation to the Village
Board.
WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village have determined that the best
interest of the Village will be served by the approval of this petition granting variations for the subject
property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the President and Board of Trustees of the
Village of Lemont, that the petitioners, Biagio (Bill) and Virginia Sava, be granted the requested
variance, subject to the following conditions:
1. The owner of the property, or its successors and assigns, shall be responsible for the
following public improvements, all to comply with current Village ordinances:
a. completion of the public sidewalk across the front of the property; and
b. completion of water and sanitary sewer service lines; and
c. preservation of the existing parkway trees or replacement with a new tree .
2
2 The owner of the property, or its successors and assigns, shall be responsible for the grant of
any new public utility and drainage easements needed to provide public utility service to a
new dwelling on the subject property or to protect drainage ways.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE VILLAGE OF LEMONT, COUNTY OF COOK, ILLINOIS, on this I a day
of Mcure- ti , 2001.
John Benik
Debbie Blatzer
Keith Latz
Connie Markiewicz
Rick Rimbo
Mary Studebaker
Approved by me this /A/'
Attest:
AYES
NAYS PASSED ABSENT
HARLENE SMOLLEN, Village Clerk
T% RLENE SMOLLEN, Village Clerk
3
EXHIBIT "A"
THAT PART OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 37 NORTH,
RANGE 11 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, DEFINED: BEGINNING AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1 IN BLOCK 4 OF GLENYS DOWNS SUBDIVISION UNIT
NUMBER 3 RUNNING THENCE EAST ON THE EASTERLY CONTINUATION OF THE
NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1, A DISTANCE OF 60 FEET; THENCE SOUTH A DISTANCE
OF 121 FEET ON A LINE PARALLEL WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 1, THENCE
WEST ON A LINE PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF TRACT HEREIN DESCRIBED A
DISTANCE OF 60 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1, THENCE
RUNNING NORTH ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 1, A DISTANCE OF 121 FEET
TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS.
Z: \ORDINANC TNN'S\SAVAVAR
4
LEMONT
'v if ;oge 31 Fads'
APPLIC_NT:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
418 Main Street, Lemont, Illinois 60439
Telephone: (630)257 -1595
LAND USE APPLICATION
ADDRESS: 1, -'-1 ,J �G / �L� l CITY: FtC'/ STATEIZIP:
P H O YE : ;._-: 2,
PROJECT ADDRESS (if different from above).4.<2;Y4 i)./4 C 6 PI rC =(-v
c 3 l�G�.
PLEA/SE CHECK ONEOF -THE FOLLOWIN
Applicant is the owner of the subject property and is the signer of this application.
Applicant is the contract purchaser of the subject property and has attached a copy of said contract.
Applicant is acting on behalf of the beneficiary of a trust.
Applicant is acting on behalf of the owner (notarized letter of consent from owner required)
In the event that the subject property is held in a trust. a notarized letter from an authorized trust officer identifying the applicant as an
authorized individual acting in behalf of the beneficiaries and providing the name, address and percentage of interest of each benef.c a,7,
is rttachea to this executed application.
SUBJECT PROPERTY INFORMATION: J� J
LOCATION: Li !). /ii C ,vr 12-e
/ !'71 l(G l �'�✓
— T---716;,4}C– Lr,L/A
Number of Acres:
Tax Parcel No.:
1/45 3• -cc�
The foil ng documents should be attached (if applicable):
Legal Description List surrounding property owners Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plan
Sales 'ontract r/Plat of Survey Final Plat Final Plan Bank Trust Letter
roof of Ownership
TYPE OF: REQUESTED aETII
Please check all that apply:
A. ANNEXATION:
B. DEVELOPMENT/
SUBDIVISION: Prelim. Plat Final Plat Prelim.Ptan Final Plan
Annexation Petition Annexation Agreement
C. ZONING RELATED: Rezoning Petition from to
\/ / Variance Special Use
D. MISCELLANEOUS: County Case Review Curb -cut request onto a limited access freeway
Text Amendment Other
Submitted with this application is the required filing fee of S
The applicant understands that the fee is non - refundable. Please confirm the fee amount with the Planning Staff if there
are any questions.
Notification to the Will -South Cook Soil Conservation District.
Endangered Species Act Report to Illinois Department of Conservation
QUALIFYING STATEMENT OF APPLICATION
Brief statement describing the proposed development:
` \,}I /Vr's.' \e)‘...,\ / -! 4' a am `--mot ,,,,,,,-, Y ... -c,, _; -,,, `� ,vim \ 7 so Gj L; T
C
i
r-
Number of dwelling units . Type of unit
(Please attach additional sheets if necessary).
Specifically requested variations to the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances:
AUTHORIZATION:
I hereby affirm that I have full legal capacity to authorize the filing of this application and that all information and exhibits
herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The applicant invites Village representatives to
make all reasonable inspections and investigations of the subject property during the period of processing this application.
The applicant understands that they are responsible for the posting of all hearing signs and the mailing of legal notice to
all surrounding property owners as required under Ordinance N . 694, unless advised othe se by the Village.
STATE OF i; /
e v Q Lt"
Date
COUNTY OF
Signature of Applicant
I, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the said County and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that
is personally known to me to be the same person whose name is
subscribed to the foregoing instrument. and that said person signed, sealed and delivered the above petition as a free and
voluntary act for the uses and purposes set forth.
Notary Signature
Given under my hand and notary seal this day of A.D. 1999. My commission expires
day of A.D. 1999.
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY.
HEARING OFFICER REPORT
MINOR ZONING VARIATION CASE
Prepared by Timothy Teddy, Community Development Director
GENERAL CASEFILE INFORMATION
Case Number 21.03
Petitioner Mr. Biagio W. Sava
Request Variation from Section VII.E.3.c, reduction of minimum lot
area from 7,500 square feet to 7,260 square feet (3.2 percent
reduction)
Location 1201 Hillview Drive "Parcel 2"
Parcel Number 22 -29 -403 -005
Size 7,260 square feet (60' x 12F)
Street Frontage 60 feet on Una Avenue
Current Zoning R -4 Single - family Residence
Contiguous Zoning & North, R-4 (Glenys Downs III)
Land Use South, R -4 (Hillview Estates IV)
East, R -4 (Hillview Estates IV)
West, R -4 (Glenys Downs III)
Current Land Use Vacant, part of residential yard
of subject property
Comp Plan Designation Residential
Exhibits
1) Location Map.
2) Plat of Survey.
3) Minutes of Public Hearing, March 2, 2001.
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
Mr. Biagio (Bill) Sava, owner of the subject property, requests a variation to reduce the minimum lot
area of a vacant lot from 7,500 square feet to 7,260 square feet, a variation of 3.2 percent. If granted,
the variation will create a buildable residential lot out of a 60 foot by 121 foot lot currently used as yard
space for Mr. Sava's residence at 1201 Hillview Drive. The existing dwelling is on a 70 foot by 121
foot parcel platted in 1968; the "Parcel 2" that is the subject of this petition is a separate tax parcel.
Hearing Officer Report March 5. 2001
Case 21.03 Lot Area Variation (Sava Property). Parcel 2 at 1201 Hillview Drive
Page 2
The R -4 District normally requires 12.500 square feet per lot but a succession of older subdivided lots
have been "grandfathered," with minimum size a function of the date of final plat. Lots platted between
1968 and 1980 are allowed the 7,500 square foot size.
FINDINGS OF FACT
To qualify for a variation, a property must exhibit the standards for variations enumerated in Section
XVVIII.H.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. Upon review of the available evidence, including testimony
taken at a public hearing on March 2, 2001, I make the following findings:
a. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under
the conditions allowed by the regulations in the district in which it is located. The strict
application of the zoning requires a minimum lot area of 7,500 square feet. The existing lot is
deficient by 240 square feet, or 3.2 percent less than the required size. The petitioner has sold
Lot 1 (1201 Hillview Drive) without parcel 2. If the variation on parcel 2 is denied, it will have
very little economic value. There will be a continuing tax liability (public property tax records
indicate that parcel 2 is taxed separately from parcel 1), yet the owner will only be able to
recover these costs in the event a neighbor or a public agency offers to purchase the parcel for
non - residential (open space) use.
The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. Staff has not encountered a lot created
like parcel 2 elsewhere in the Village. Its boundaries were defined by two subdivisions, Gienys
Downs III in 1968 and Hillview Estates IV in 1977, but it was not included as a numbered lot
in either of the two subdivisions. The petitioner testified that he did not create the lot. 1201
Hillview Drive existed as two lots when he purchased the property approximately 13 years ago.
A resident offered testimony that the original owner of the lot, not the petitioner, purchased the
7,260 square foot parcel sometime after Gienys Downs III was platted and sometime before
the plat of Hillview Estates IV.
c. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Five developed
lots located one block to the north (405 -417 Gienys Drive, inclusive) have the same
dimensions, 60 feet width x 121 feet depth = 7,260 square feet. The 60 foot lot width is
common on the west side of Hillview Drive between Sara Avenue and Gienys Drive.
d. The Community Development Director, in making a determination whether there are
practical difficulties or particular hardship, shall also take into consideration the extent to
which the following facts favorable to the applicant have been established by the evidence:
1. The particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical condition of the subject
property involved would result in a particular hardship upon the owner, as distinguished
from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out. The
physical surroundings are completely developed. The strict letter of the ordinance will require
the parcel to remain vacant and greatly diminished in value.
Hearing Officer Report March 5. 2001
Case 21.03 Lot Area Variation (Sava Property). Parcel 2 at 1201 Hillview Drive
Page 3
2. The conditions upon which the petition for variation is based would not be applicable,
generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. As stated above, staff has
no knowledge of a comparable situation m the Village where a lot was excluded from two
subdivisions but its boundaries were defined by the two subdivisions all the same.
3. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an
interest in the property. The petitioners testified that they did not create the non - conforming lot
nor modify its boundaries in any way during their term of ownership.
.1. The granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. The
parcel is located on an improved public street (though lacking public sidewalk and water and
sewer stubs at this parcel) and it is near public water supply main, sanitary sewer and storm
sewer. Three neighborhood residents testified at the hearing that there are drainage problems
on or around their properties, but the testimony indicated that the problems are attributable to
existing conditions. There is no evidence that construction on the subject parcel will aggravate
or contribute to the problem as long as ordinances are followed.
S. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property, or substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, or increase the danger
of fire, or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values
within the neighborhood. Construction on the subject property will require minimum setbacks
of 25 feet in front, 10 feet on both sides, and 30 feet in the rear, and a maximum building
height of 35 feet, which serve to protect air and light to adjacent properties. Construction of one
additional single - family dwelling in an already developed neighborhood will not increase
congestion or endanger public safety or property values in and of itself.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of the variation reducing the lot area of "Parcel 2" from 7,500 square feet to 7,260 square
feet is recommended, subject to conditions to be satisfied before issuance of a certificate of occupancy
for a new dwelling:
1. The owner of the property, or its successors and assigns, shall be responsible for the following
public improvements, all to comply with current Village ordinances:
a. Completion of public sidewalk across the front of the property;
b. Completion of water and sanitary sewer service lines.
c. Preservation of the existing parkway tree or replacement with a new tree.
2. The owner of the property, or its successors and assigns, shall be responsible for the grant of
any new public utility and drainage easements needed to provide public utility service to a new
dwelling on the subject property or to protect drainage ways.
ragtiUL Z.
Lo C- tO t4 (4 FA- ,C,f-c. Z. v2.01 kAtto/lE
THES1DINELLCOMPANY
3X '' Zoom Factor
Map 22 -29h last modified on 6/9/00
%ao L'oiurol hzlo
Zoom In r Zoom Out r Pan r Full Extent
UNA
P3 =
- OOP
40
!!
era • a/I
OR
' 4 -04 f •
10
S - *Pas 44
---. J
"a -vow L
N
-d0! !a •
4
SARA
P.. •
... /esrimap. dll ?name= Imagevewer &uid =3 04&Lefr= 3.96298221614227 f,Bot on�30.06&Ri09 /20/2000
.1.•:;1111*
J
0-1
0
E
0
•
rtigh°'
4
cn
to
CL TXt
• 'T >-
•• ,„_ 6 20z A,
z
,. s.
71 ;7 )4' ..
ii ni 0 II
••••■••••••;4.
t■Z
f 9
' •:,& ,s,
LLI
•S'' 0
0 tc• "01 1.
• . • (..)
i: -I. . •.t :
„etc)
ck' -'• f< (\I •
:)6/ 4, PVI/ .1(') i(,4
M. 3/41 77 //1
#4,
9
EN THE ABOVE
S IMEN SURVEYED
A TRUE AND
UNDER MY 14AND
7
LaAL 0ESCRIP: I ai
7:7
7 7:X7 4 -TN -‘-‘7v' xis ;VT. S I. Cr
A =7-7' 2N IT
7;r2.7.7t1 72F 77'7 EC-7772AS:7
ZCTI0N -7,--10,-NSTI P 37 NCR! n, 11 F2sST OF
TI-I I RD PRL\C I PAL, MER.ID LAN .
. -
1±-...-122 PART ;OF T} saramsr cliamm OF SECT IC:t7
2 , EiP 37 2,43CIRM , RAZCE 11 EAST a TIE
LTPD ?PT:CI:7'AL MERMLAN , DEP= : nu AT
TILZE NO-R7-7AST CORNE- OF .1..-27 1 ."2.'; aL.X.,K 4 OF
C=FiS DCS suEznri.-siai ET 2P r...c' 3 RUIN DK;
ThNE ?ST al '1.141: EY MINIT INCAT. ION OF ntk..,
W./ECM
LINE OF SAID WI' 1, A DISTAKE a" 60 FT;
i. S�! H A D I STAZCE OR 121 r al A L=..,
PA:ALUM WI 'M TIE EAST LINE OF SMD LOT 1,
;CST ai A LLNE ?A.R,ALLZ, WI 11-1 TEE NORTE
LINE OF TRACT FZREL7 DIMIcRIECED A DISTANZS 0? 60
FEET 10 'M SOCY1ST a)RNIER OF SAID LOT 1,
--‘CE at_71.;I0 17.2 E‘137. ..NE 37 SAI
110'2 1 - C OF 1i. :17 Cif
22EG .1.-N? 7:1 CCOK ..:::C2C11"17, IC:S
LCCAL 161A.MalG ADDRESS: --
1201 F. TT I Virii DRIVE
,
RE: L I M A F I N
rnaita-Timaaw a ASSMATES, WC.
AND SURVEYORS - ENG/NEERS- CONSULTANTS
3)0 N. OTTAWA ST JOLtET , ILLINOIS 60431 PH. C 815 ) 727- 4988
909 E. OGDE N AVE. NAPERVI LL MIMES EOM PI& (312 ) 420- 7740
7 21-- 87 / SCALE = 30 pftAWN 14°F13.27-19, P20
A4TONOPOULOS,ViRTEL & GROSELAK "
MOO. z MEASURED
JRVETOR No_ 2317 Lt. :L� tto 60434
-111,AMPOte
zr
-0511NORK.
owe
4_ (
• -
I87-t534
VILLAGE OF LEMONT
ADMLNISTRATIVE HEARLNG
MARCH 2, 2001
A Hearing was called by Tim Teddy, Community Development Director, on Friday,
March 2, 2001 at 3:00 p.m. The Hearing was conducted in the Council Room of the
Village Hall at 418 Main Street in Lemont, Illinois and was brought to order at 3:05 p.m.
Present at the meeting were Hearing Officer Tim Teddy, Recording Secretary Lynn
Stratton Cholewa, and Petitioners Biagio (Bill) and Virginia Sava.
Mr. Teddy introduced himself and described his function as Hearing Officer, and followed
with the introduction of Administrative Assistant Lynn Stratton - Cholewa. Mr. Teddy said
that the Lemont Zoning Ordinance provides for public hearings before a seven member
Planing and Zoning Commission, but one rule specifies that if a variation request is 5%
less than the required standard, a hearing may be conducted by the Community
Development Director. Mr. Teddy said this is the case today.
Mr. Teddy outlined the procedure to be followed: first, the Petitioner would make a brief
statement as to the necessity of a variation; next, Mr. Teddy would ask questions for facts
relevant to the case; third, the meeting would be open for neighbors and residents to
speak; fourth, the hearing is closed. After the closing, Mr. Teddy said, he would write a
recommendation to the Village Board. The next Village Board meeting would be held on
March 12, so that would be the earliest opportunity that the Board would have to hear the
matter. The Village Board is the only body with the authority to make an adjustment to
the zoning rules, Mr. Teddy explained, so, his recommendation would be only that —a
recommendation, which the Board could or would not, follow.
Mr. Teddy said that if residents or neighbors wished to speak, they should sign their
names on the sign -in sheet, and include addresses. Their wishes would also be presented to
the Village Board for consideration. As with Mr. Teddy's recommendation, however, only
the Village Board's decision is binding.
Mr. Teddy said that the Administrative Hearing was called for the following reason: Mr.
and Mrs. Savas own the property at 1201 Hillview- -Lot 1, along with the adjoining parcel,
Lot 2. Mr. and Mrs. Sava are seeking a variation in the buildable lot size for Lot 2. Zoning
regulations state that a lot must be 7,500 square feet in size, and the Sava's Lot 2 is 7,260
square feet in size. If the variation is granted, Mr. Teddy said, the percentage is only 3.2%
below the minimum standard lot area.
Mr. Teddy said he wished to explain a bit of the history of the land in the subject area. He
displayed two subdivision plats and pointed out two separate developers that backed up to
this parcel. Mr. Teddy explained, however, that neither subdivision included the subject
parcel, it is marked as an exception. The lot is now vacant, and is presently being used as a
backyard. The Petitioner wishes to treat the parcel as separate and sell as a buildable
single- family lot if permitted.
Parcel 2 became a lot, but the zoning specifications did not recognize it as a buildable one.
However, in looking at the tax records, Mr. Teddy said, he discovered that the Sava's
taxes showed that they were paying on a buildable lot. The hardship lies in the fact that if
Mr. Sava cannot sell the lot, he will continue to pay taxes on a piece of land that is open
and vacant.
Mr. Teddy asked Mr. Sava several questions about the history of the lot. He explained
that the gap in sidewalk on Una Street would have to be filled should an ordinance be
granted. Mr. Sava said he was not aware of any water or service lines. Mr. Teddy said that
sanitary sewer as well as a water main stubs exist, but a builder would have to run the lines
to any home built on the lot.
Mr. Teddy said that if the ordinance passed, the builder would have to provide detailed
grading with a registered civil engineer to ensure proper drainage. Mr. Teddy said that a
haphazard condition could not be created should this lot be buildable, and drainage to the
nearest storm sewer, catch basin, or both would have to be ensured.
Mr. Teddy then asked the Petitioners to make a statement on their behalf.
Mr. Sava said that for twelve years, they have kept the property in tip -top shape; the lot is
manicured to the "tune of' $30.00 per week for maintenance- just for the neighbors. Mr.
Sava said that their home had been up for sale for three months, but he has now sold the
home, but the new buyer does not wish to purchase the second adjoining lot (Lot 2). The
gentleman is retiring, and does not wish to care for an extra burden.
So, said Mr. Sava, this leaves me with a hardship. In addition to not being able to sell the
parcel, we are now paying $1,200 on the lot in taxes per year, and it is not
buildable— although the taxes are twice what we pay for the improved lot (Lot 1).
Mr. Sava said he must sell this lot to live, and he has been working with Tim Teddy to
"cover all of the bases." Mr. Sava said that "as Tim said ", he wants input from the
neighbors; he wishes to know how they feel. Mr. Sava said "it was like being on a teeter -
totter, waiting for someone to come and say, `no, you can't have it. '
Mr. Teddy asked Mr. Sava if he knew who created the lot, and who owned it before the
Savas. Mr. Sava replied that Finnan sold him the home, and prior to that, Ludwig was the
owner of both; at least that was their impression.
Indicating the plat, Mr. Teddy asked Mr. Sava if he had an idea why a twenty -five foot
easement for public utilities and draining was to the rear of the lot, or why an easement
this large existed in the rear? Mr. Sava said he did not know.
2
Mr. Teddy asked Mr. Sava if he knew of any public utilities on the lot. Mr. Sava and his
wife both responded that the cable companies had a cable across the rear of the lot, a cable
sloppily buried.
Mr. Teddy asked Mr. Sava if he understood that when he sells the second parcel (Lot 2), a
builder will have other requirements to build. Mr. Sava said he understood. Mr. Teddy
said that Lot 2 is not as well - prepared a lot as his neighbors'. Mr. Sava said he assumed
the lots were the same.
Mr. Teddy asked Mr. Sava if we granted the variation, would he sell the property quickly?
Mr. Sava said he would, and that he thought he had a buyer already. Mr. Teddy asked,
"other than the utility stubs, did he know of anything else on the land ?" Mr. Sava said that
Commonwealth Edison has a hole on the north side of the lot, in the southeast section of
the southwest side, but that it was within the easement.
Mr. Teddy asked if Mr. Sava was aware of any defects or problems with the lot, to which
Mr. Sava responded he was not.
Mr. Teddy said that the way the house sits on Lot 1, slightly over ten feet would be
between that house and the setback of the new one. So, parcel two would allow 25 feet
frontage, ten feet on each side, a rear setback of thirty feet —the builder would have to
know that a deck cannot be added, or any other structure because the area is so small.
Mr. Teddy said for the record: a sixty -foot lot width for a parcel is the lot width
requirement; others have seventy feet, but these are on Gillian. There is a row of five
homes on Glenys, near Hillview, with the same footage as this house. Mr. Teddy said he is
mentioning this because a variation cannot change the character of the neighborhood, and
he wished to add to the record that this variation would not change the character.
Mr. Sava announced to his neighbors in the audience, "To assure my neighbors about their
biggest worry ... the people who are buying it are very well to do. The structure built will
be of the highest quality, this is very important to know. I was particular in who bought it,
and the house, as I had put many years into the inside."
Mr. Teddy thanked Mr. Sava for his words and asked if anyone in the audience wished to
speak to the issue.
Mary Ellen Foley, at 1227 Hillview, stood up and asked how they were prepping the land.
She said when Gale Moriarty on Sara in the back built her home, it "wasn't supposed to
flood, but every two years, we have a crash when the water comes ". She asked if this
home won't make the matter worse.
Mr. Teddy asked if her concern then, was that drainage from the home would be more
potential for water on her property. He said in these cases, the builder and civil engineer
3
have to prepare a plan to direct storm run -off to the storm drain. He said that the yard
would be watched. Mrs. Foley said that a greater rate of runoff might go to the street. Mr.
Teddy said that the Village Engineer would help with the water. Mr. Teddy asked if Mrs.
Foley could to stay on the subject at hand, explaining that he could direct the Village
Engineer to look at her property and make suggestions, but at this time, the need for a
variation must be discussed.
Mrs. Foley said that is what she is doing; she said the lots were supposed to have "perc"
tests, so would these lots? Mr. Teddy said that they look for 3.000 pound bearing
strength, but that soils might be too wet, in which case they would bring clay, etc., or
perform other measures. He said it would be incumbent upon the builder to do these
things. Mr. Teddy said again that we could have an inspector come out, but that is
incidental to the hearing.
Mr. Teddy said that over time the Village has become more sophisticated in dealing with
water drainage, driveway slopes, and other similar issues.
Mrs. Sava said that two of her neighbors directed their gutters to the back of Lot 2; she
thought it was rude, but did not say anything. Mr. Teddy said that sometimes, no matter
how good the plan is, ponding will occur — sometimes problems occur. He said that
ordinary ponding occurs because this area had a lot of surface water prior to building, and
we cannot entirely eliminate it and protect all property. He said the idea is to maintain the
area and try to prevent damage.
Betty Gruchas, Una Street, spoke next. She asked why sewers don't handle water when
homes are built. She said her yard "stands with water," and her only concern is that if we
keep building, who will take care of the sewer problem? She said when it rains, the street
is knee -high in water.
Mrs. Gruchas said that she wishes to ensure that the Village double -check the sewer to
handle another house.
Mr. Sava interrupted Mrs. Gruchas and asked why she chose his hearing to discuss this
matter. He suggested a neighborhood meeting to address the issue and then bring to the
Village Board. Mr. Sava said he wished the minutes to reflect that he is willing to stand
with the neighbors to fight the flooding problem. He said that they would get together and
call upon Tim Teddy to help with proceeding. Mr. Sava told the audience that you could
not find a nicer, kinder, more professional gentleman than Tim Teddy.
Mr. Salvitore Esposito, 405 Sara, asked to speak.
Mr. Esposito said he had one question, since his house is 30 feet from the house in the
rear, and it was, would another party be able to come before the Board and request and be
granted another variation?
4
Mr. Teddy said that variances are not granted as a matter of course, there would have to
be a unique situation like this. Mr. Teddy said of course he couldn't guarantee any
outcome in the future, but said that a title company would not approve less than 25 feet.
Mr. Esposito said that he would like the Village to make sure the grading is what it is
supposed to be, because we don't want any more problems. He said he came to echo
concern over the water.
Mr. Teddy said that the fact that the neighbors came to the Hearing will be reflected in his
recommendation, and will be presented to the Village Board for their consideration. He
said that all departments would be aware of the situation, and that specifications must be
followed through on in this situation. Mr. Teddy said that in general, drainage is the most
frequent complaint in the Village, and the one seen the most. He said the Village is always
trying to keep water to a minimum.
The neighbors then asked Mr. Teddy about taxes, but he said the Village did not control
taxes; they should to speak to the Township Assessor.
Mr. Teddy said he has heard about drainage and other variations and will invite interested
parties to the Village Board meeting. He said that Village Board meetings are public
meetings and that the Mayor will ask for any questions and further comments.
Mr. Teddy said that he is recommending that the Village Board grant the variation with
conditions: impact on the neighbors be taken into consideration; the sidewalk on Una be
repaired and extended; and drainage matters be incorporated into any ordinance.
Mr. Teddy closed the Hearing at 4:15 p.m.
5