Zoning Board of Appeals
Regular MeetingGlen Ellyn, IL · September 9, 2025
Minutes
MINUTES
Glen Ellyn Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting
Tuesday, September 9, 2025 at 7:00 PM
Glen Ellyn Civic Center
Galligan Board Room
535 Duane Street
A. Call to Order and Roll Call
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.
Roll was called.
Present: Chairperson Chip Miller, Board Members, Matthew Jones, Todd Buckton, Peter Kelly, Noureen Lakhani, and Craig
Pavlich
Absent: Christiane McKnight
Also in attendance: Daniel Harper, Planning Manager and Adriana Ohl Zamora, Recording Secretary.
B. Public Comment (non-agenda items)
None
Chairperson Miller moved to open the Public Hearing on 807 Hill Ave. Member Buckton seconded the motion and the
motion passed by voice vote.
C. New Business
1. Public Hearing-807 Hill Ave., Lot Coverage Ratio Variation
Sworn in, Petitioners Patrick and Allison Bouchard
Chairperson Miller- Would you like to start with telling us about your project and what you are looking for?
Petitioner- sure we contracted Timber built rooms out of St. Charles to build us a 3 seasons room that is designed to take the
space of our existing back. Looking for more outdoor enjoyment throughout the year. Because of the layout of the house, the
design we are moving it from one side to centering it, which made it a little bit bigger. But it does not hinder any of our
neighbors.
Chairperson Miller- do you have anyone else here with you tonight to speak to this?
Petitioner Patrick Bouchard- Yes, we have Mr. Ben Zell directly to the West of us and Mr. Josh Myer directly to the East of us.
Sworn in, Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn, introduced the following variation request for 680
Grand Ave.
Daniel introduced the zoning variation to the Board Members as follows:
The petitioner is Patrick Bouchard, the owner of the property at 807 Hill Avenue. He has applied for a zoning variation to allow
the construction of an approximately 286 square foot addition to the rear of a two-story single-family home that would be result
in a lot coverage of approximately 1,890 square feet or 22% of the lot.
He explained that wood decks do not count as lot coverage, the applicants want to remove wood deck and replace it with a
sunroom, which would increase lot coverage. The proposed elevations of 3 seasons room are shown to Members. Mr. Harper
explained it would not affect rear setbacks, and the only overall square footage would be affected at 22%.
He stated that the petitioners request approval of the following variation from the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code:
1. Section 10-4-8(E)1 – to allow the total lot coverage ratio of the property to be 22% in lieu of the maximum allowed lot
coverage ratio of 20% to allow the construction of a rear sunroom addition to an existing single-family home. The
subject property is zoned R2 - Residential District and improved with a two- story single-family home.
The existing house was constructed in 1993. The existing lot coverage ratio of the property is approximately 1,608.78 square feet
or 18.2% of the area of the 8,780 square foot property. The proposed 286 square foot addition would result in a total lot coverage
area of 1,890 square feet or 22% of the property.
Member Questions
Member Buckton- How long have you folks owned the house?
Petitioner Patrick Bouchard- it will be 6 years
Member Buckton- So you didn’t build it?
Petitioner Patrick Bouchard- no we did not.
Member Buckton- Daniel says in the item report that the property is currently nonconforming R2, is that because of a change
since the structure was built?
Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn- when property constructed in 1992, there was a variation
approved, under ordinance 3971 that allowed for the construction of a home on a non-confirming lot.
Member Kelly – I have no questions.
Member Lakhani- no questions for me.
Member Pavlich- If they had an actual minimum width of an R2- they would have sufficient coverage. Their buildable width is
restricted by substandard lot width. As follow up question for you Daniel, Decks are included in the lot coverage ration
calculations?
Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn- Decks, are not covered under lot coverage, essentially just
roofed structures, when speaking of the 20%.
Member Pavlich- So theoretically, after the building of this room, they can build a deck as well.
Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn – if they were to build an additional deck around the side, they
would have to meet all the side yard and rear yard setbacks and it would not count as an impermeable surface.
Member Kelly- So it does not cover lot coverage, so they are 2% over which is what is being proposed. If they stick a deck after
the fact, it has zero impact.
Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn -So long as it meets all the other deck requirements.
Member Jones- Daniel, what is min lot square footage for a lot in R2 district?
Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn – the min square footage of property in R2 Zoning district is lot
area of 8,712 square feet.
Member Jones- they are at 8780, so they meet the minimum lot area. If they were wider and shorter they would have same lot and
be conforming?
Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn- correct.
Member Jones- that is the only question I had.
Chairperson Miller- do you have any practical, unique circumstances that you would like to talk about?
Petitioner Patrick Bouchard- only lot being smaller than the average lot and main purpose is to use more throughout the year.
Maintaining the deck is problematic, moldy and mildewy. Looking for more space for our family. If the lot was straight, we
would not be having this meeting.
Member Pavlich- I just want to clarify for the rest of the group what Chip was getting at, we have in the zoning variation
standards, outlined some goals that we are trying to check boxes on. Member Pavlich read the goals to the board members and
petitioner. Explained that we needed to establish the first of the read goals and the remaining would be evidence to support.
Petitioner Bouchard- our neighbors can speak to this but we are not affecting our neighbor’s views, for our unique circumstance
is the strange lot size which cannot be changed. Mr. Zell’s house extends further but it does not affect their view. We talked about
the ration and permeable surface, and should not affect pavement. If you look at the survey, you can see that we are doing the
work in the back and that is the most affected part of the house by the situation of the lot.
Member Buckton- you guys refer to this as year-round but the report says it is 3-season, so is it year-round of 3-season?
Petitioner Patrick Bouchard- 3 season room or 9-month.
Neighbors Ben Zell and Josh Myer (813 Hill) sworn in
Neighbor Josh Myer-West side neighbor, 813 hill neighbor- I have been a Glen Ellyn resident for the last six years, living at the
same property. We are certainly very supportive of the project, my understanding Patrick was that if you made it smaller, and had
it shifted around, it would affect the flow of the kitchen and would maybe start to look at a kitchen remodel as well. That was the
comment I was going to add, we are very supportive.
Neighbor Ben Zell- I live to the west of them, 387 Bryant Ave., their deck extends, my kitchen is a little bit further, so we have
no objection, and we support it.
Seeing no further questions from the Board, Chairperson Miller asked a motion to close the public hearing.
Member Jones made a motion to close the public hearing Member Lakhani seconded the motion. Roll call was called and
the motion passed 6 (yes) 0 (no).
Deliberation
Member Buckton- Glen Ellyn has lots of lots that do not conform, having 22% does not bother me, I think it is a fine project so I
will be voting for it
Member Kelly- I have no problem with this other than we need side bar with our Planning Director for a de minis issue once
again, this is something that he could have handled
Member Lakhani- I am a yes
Member Pavlich- I am also supportive, I visited the property, a couple of notes on the property, when you walk around, they have
a very steep backyard that limits the structures that you can put on it. It is very apparent that this will be transparent to the
neighbors, you will not notice the addition. I think it does not interfere with the neighborhood at all. It is a good move so I will be
voting for it.
Member Jones- I will be a no, my problem is that there really is no hardship, the front of your property is extended because of the
way that the road is, you gain more square footage but as it goes back it is the same width from front to back once you get to
sidewalk. Really there is no hardship or unique circumstance to provide the relief today, if you were to come down to 13 by 13, a
size, I would be a yes because you are just a little bit over. But when looking at criteria for a unique circumstance or hardship, I
do not see it. I am a no.
Chairperson Miller- I walked there and I walked the neighborhood and this is also not unique addition to a house in the
neighborhood; there are quite a few that are very similar. Your lot is a little narrower and different than some or them, to me that
was a hardship, just the size of the lot. Yes, you bought the lot that way but you also didn’t really know that this was going to be
a situation, so I am a yes.
Member Buckton made a motion to close the deliberation. Member Lakhani seconded the motion; roll was called passed
by a unanimous vote 6 (yes) 0 (no).
A Motion to approve application on 807 Hill Ave. was made by Member Pavlich and seconded by Member Buckton the
motion passed with five (5) votes yes and one (1) vote no. Member Jones in the dissent.
Findings of Fact- 807 Hill Ave.
The Zoning Board of Appeals having fully heard and considered the testimony of all those present at the hearing,
including Josh Myer of 813 Hill Ave and Ben Zell from 387 Bryant Ave., and being fully advised of the premises makes
the following findings pursuant to sections 10-10-12 of the Villages Zoning Code. The applicant seeks a zoning variation to
allow the total lot coverage of the property be 22% in lieu of the maximum allowed lot coverage of 20% to allow the
construction of a rear sun room addition to an existing single-family home. The proposed addition will follow all other
zoning regulations and building regulations related to such structure. The Zoning Board of Appeals considered the
following documents which were submitted including the application, plot of survey, location and zoning map, proposed
construction plans as well as many of the members actually visited the property. The Zoning Variance is granted with a
vote of 5 to 1; pursuant the authority vested by the statutes of the State of Illinois and the Village of Glen Ellyn Zoning
Board of Appeals herby recommends to the Village of the President Board of Trustees pursuant to a vote of 5 to 1 be
approved for the property located at 807 Hill Ave. Glen Ellyn, Illinois.
Motion to accept Findings of Fact by Member Buckton Seconded by Member Jones
Member Jones motioned to open the Public Hearing on 194 S. Ellyn Ave. Member Kelly seconded the motion and the
motion passed by voice vote.
2. Public Hearing- 194 S. Ellyn Ave. Detached Garage Variation
Sworn in, Petitioner Dennis Sheehan, owner of 194 S. Ellyn Ave.
Sworn in, Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn, introduced the following variation request for 194 S.
Ellyn Avenue.
Daniel explained that the owner of the property at 194 S. Ellyn Avenue has applied for zoning variations to accommodate the
construction a proposed addition to an existing detached garage. The garage was constructed in 1964, permitted in 1964 by
Village of Glen Ellyn, now existing non-conforming garage. He stated that the petitioners request approval of the following
variation from the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code:
1. Section 10-4-8(F) to allow an eave height for a detached garage to be twenty feet (20’-0”) in
lieu of the maximum allowed eave height of twelve feet (12’-0”).
2. Section 10-5-4(A)(2)(a) to allow an addition to an existing non-conforming detached garage
on a property which has a total square footage for accessory structures of 1,006 square feet
in lieu of the maximum allowed total square footage for accessory structures of 1,000 square
feet.
3. Section 10-8-6(B)(2) – to allow an enlargement to an existing non-conforming six hundred
and ninety square foot (690 sqft) detached garage which exceeds the maximum allowed
square footage of six hundred and sixty square feet (660 sqft) for a detached garage.
4. Section 10-5-4(A)3 to allow for two accessory structures of the same type.
The subject property is zoned R2 - Residential District and improved with a two-story single-family home
He explained that the property owner would like to allow an eave height for a detached garage to be twenty feet (20’-0”) in lieu
of the maximum allowed eave height of twelve feet (12’-0”). The property currently has a 690 square foot two-car garage that is
approximately 12 feet in height to the top of the ridge. Based on the historical building permit records, the garage appears to have
been permitted about five years after the construction of the primary structure. The applicant is proposing to raid the roof of the
existing garage to allow for a second story storage area. The maximum ridge height of the proposed enlargement would be 22
feet and would be the maximum allowed height for a garage per village code. In order to maximize the total usable area of the
proposed second story, the property owner is proposing an elevated eave height of 20 feet for the expansion to allow for greater
overhead space for storage.
Section 10-5-4(A)(2)(a) to allow an addition to an existing non-conforming detached garage on a property which has a total
square footage for accessory structures of 1,006 square feet in lieu of the maximum allowed total square footage for accessory
structures of 1,000 square feet. The proposed enlargement would be to an existing nonconforming property with accessory
structures with a combined area of 1,006 square feet. Village code. Ord. 4673 was adopted in 1998, which created the restriction
of limited accessory structures to a maximum total area of 1,000 square feet.
Section 10-8-6(B)(2) – to allow an enlargement to an existing nonconforming six hundred and ninety square foot (690 sqft)
detached garage which exceeds the maximum allowed square footage of six hundred and sixty square feet (660 sqft) for a
detached garage. The proposed enlargement would be to an existing nonconforming garage with a total area of 690 square feet.
The maximum allowed area for a detached garage is 660 square feet. The 660 square foot maximum allowed area requirement
appears to have been adopted by the Village between 2002 and 2005.
Section 10-5-4(A)3 to allow for two accessory structures of the same type. The property currently has two detached garages on
the property. The proposed enlargement would be an enlargement to an existing non-conforming use of an accessory structure.
Ord. 5035 was adopted in 2002, which created the requirement that no more than one of each type of accessory structure shall be
allowed on a zoning lot unless authorized by a Special Use Permit
Combined total combined lot coverage is 13.48%
Member Questions
Member Pavlich- does that include bonuses for detached garage and accessory structures?
Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn- no it does not, that 13% is with everything combined
Member Pavlich- they could have another 500 square feet plus 100 for the shed
Member Pavlich- I am going to go from memory and quote the code that you get for every detached garage you get a 500 square
foot lot coverage bonus and for additional accessory structure, that would be another 100 square feet of lot coverage bonus, so
that lot coverage is maybe substantially less than 13%, maybe even 10%- just as a guess
Member Buckton- are you referring to the second garage as a shed?
Member Pavlich- It does not matter what the additional structures are, because for your total lot coverage you get 100 extra for
any accessory structure and for a detached garage you get 500 additional square feet so if you were right at the limit right at 20%
and you put a 500 square foot garage detached, that would be allowed provided it met all the other rules
Member Jones- Daniel for the 500 sqft bonus, for the detached garage, if his garage is 1,000 square feet is it the first 500 that
counts or if it’s over 500 does that bonus not count at all?
Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn – that bonus only counts to lot coverages, not the overall square
footage. We are over the square footage allowed for accessory structures but we are within the lot coverage.
Member Pavlich- it does not count towards the amount of accessory structure. You can add to house but not structures
Member Jones- Is the house considered a 1 story or ranch or a 2 story?
Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn- it’s a 2-story
Member Jones- So they are 20 because it’s a 2 story
Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn- side elevations shown to Members, storage area shown as well,
no bathroom that would indicate living situations, proposed height would meet the overall ridge height, issue is eaves. Property
owner requesting 20 feet elevated eave height, would like to go vertical with garage.
Petitioner Dennis Sheehan- it’s actually 16 feet, 8 to first level and 8 to the next- structural beam maybe you get to 17, not 20
Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn- Here is how I interpreted, you have 8ft to the ceiling to the top, 4
feet to the eave; oh I see what you are saying, yes you are correct.
Member Kelly- was 22 to the roof ridge?
Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn -22 to the roof ridge, 16 to the eave; I misunderstood the
elevations diagram. The proposed eave height is 16 feet.
Member Pavlich- in the R2 district rules for eave height in garages there is what is called a low slopped roof provision, so when
you reduce the slope of the roof, then you catch that 12ft height limitation. If you make a steeper roof, you can build it to 22 feet
without a variation, just to be clear on that. Because of the low pitch of the roof, he falls under the low category instead of the
standard ridge height
Member Kelly- if I want to build an A frame garage, I’m fine, can I go 22 ft?
Member Pavlich- Yes, if it’s steep enough you can go the 22ft. If its flat enough, 12 ft is the max
Chairperson Miller- Is that because the steeper we go, the less is bulk it shows, there is a reason for it and a good one
Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn – yes, just to be clear I had notice for 20ft eave height based on
the applicant he is correct, I see the mistake. It should be 16ft now.
Member Kelly- 12 is our code limits?
Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn-yes, 12 is our code’s limits
Member Jones- if they were to attach this garage to house, would the eave and ridge height be, ok?
Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn - I believe it would be, as it would still be under the lot coverage
ratio. I believe it would be, yes.
Member Jones- what would be considered attached to the house? On Main St. just north of hawthorn they ran a beam to a house
to maintain original house to lower taxes?
Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn – that is an interesting question that we have ran into before,
theoretically, if you ran a pergola, or something like that, I don’t think we would do that. There are fire codes and things like that
which you would have to be following. You get into an area that I don’t have expertise in.
Member Jones- but then the eave heights would be fine? We would not need any of the variances
Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn- I believe so, yes
Member Buckton- in 1964 was the garage at 690 feet out of code?
Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn - no it was not
Member Buckton-the garage that was built in 1990, that is only 310 square feet, was code changed after 1990 that does not allow
two accessory structures on that property?
Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn- yes, it was created in 2002.
Member Buckton- so when both of these structures were built, they were within code, they were both permitted by village when
built
Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn – yes, they were both permitted by the Village.
Chairperson Miller- would you like to tells us a little bit about your property, why you are here and what makes your particular
situation unique?
Petitioner Dennis Sheehan- Handed letters of support from neighbors. Please go to overall picture, the next house over to left, Pat
Mitchell, he is my neighbor, as tall as it will be it will not interfere. If I were to pitch, house 1100 sq feet, in laws will be moving
in, move things around, financial component, getting ready to retire, interest rates, too high. I am not changing anything, just
grabbing roof and lifting up. I am here for more storage, family issues, and financial issues. Unfortunately, Jordan is not here
tonight because I told him I would through him under the bus, when I walked in and brought picture of plot survey and explained
what I want to do, and Jordan said your plot of survey is 1992, you should be grandfathered in 1992, but here I am with you guys
and my architect just under $5,000 dollars. If I would have known that I was out in these issues, maybe I would have looked in a
different direction and as far as the design of this goes, I didn’t take the design lightly, my yard is meticulously maintained for a
reason, my architect and I drove around for a few days taking pictures of the houses and the way the double eave and single eave
are so we can make this blend in as good as we possibly could, not to obstruct neighbors or bring in an eye sore into this
neighborhood.
Member Jones- no questions
Member Pavlich- I don’t think that I actually have any questions for you
Member Lakhani- I have nothing right now
Member Kelly- I have nothing at this point
Member Buckton- nobody asked so I am going to; are you related to the guy that your street is next to?
Petitioner Dennis Sheehan- I can’t disclose that information, but I don’t get a lot of tickets in Glen Ellyn if that is what you are
referring to. If it helps, I did serve on our fire dept.
Member Buckton- you want to build this eave at 16 ft and code is 12, I understand that there is a difference in pitch, square
footage and size. If you are denied the variation, can you still build it at 12 and be within variation if you don’t get the variation?
Petitioner Dennis Sheehan -Like I said, I am willing to work with you guys. If we can come up with compromise, I will work
with you guys, 12 would be basically a hallway, I can redesign as a barn type of roof but would not be esthetically pleasing
Member Pavlich- what is actual existing ridge house height?
Petitioner Dennis Sheehan – it’s about 16ft, garage will probably be a little taller in full disclosure
Chairman Miller- Do you have anyone that would like to come up and speak?
Sworn in Neighbors Gianni Pesche and Patrick Mitchell
Neighbor Gianni Pesche- he covered it perfectly, I am on the other side, same lot as well- older homes with very limited storage,
will not disrupt esthetic of the lot, as neighbors just showing support
Neighbor Patrick Mitchell-I live to house to north of us, we are here to support him, I look out my window and his garage is right
there
Petitioner Dennis Sheehan- Patrick Mitchell only neighbor this would impact
Member Jones made a motion to close the public hearing Member Lakhani seconded the motion. Roll call was called and
the motion passed 6 (yes) 0 (no).
Deliberation
Member Buckton- Mr. Sheehan, I think that obviously your neighbors like what is going on. I am going to be a stickler for this
eave height, difference between 16 and 20 feet is fairly significant in my eyes. I’m sorry 16 and 12. Putting on a second story is
fine. My goal would be to adhere to code; I will vote no for the variance.
Member Kelly- question; what is the existing ridge height on detached garage?
Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn-it’s about 8 feet.
Member Kelly- and the ridge height will be 22?
Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn- correct
Member Kelly, my biggest concern and I certainly respect your condition is offering a variance in this case is permitted if and
only if we are bringing the structure into conformance, we are taking it further out of conformance it seems to me, do I have that
right
Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn -We have existing non-conforming- village code would not allow
us to do any kind of modification or anything like that, if it’s not brought into conformance so this is a variation to do an addition
to the garage to an existing non-conforming structure
Member Buckton-But at the end of the day, it sounds to me like we were taking an existing non-conforming structure and making
it even less conforming, in terms of height, eave height, density.
Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn- in terms of eave height yes
Member Buckton- I am not going to speak for anyone else but as far as I am concerned, I would never ask the petitioner to reduce
the square footage of structure to 600 square feet, right?
Member Kelly- As much as I respect the problems you are having, I just don’t see sufficient hardship such as a corner lot where
in you have a difficult time with lot coverage because of shape of lot- I am not seeing it here at this point, my vote will be no.
Member Lakhani- I agree, it feels like this is moving to something more nonconforming than allowed, in terms of being able to
see the hardship it does not completely comply with all the guidelines that we have, I respect what needs to get done, I feel like
maybe there could be another way to explore this. Also, a little bit difficult for me to approve this.
Member Pavlich- I am the most pro garage but that said, I have to agree with the rest of the board, I think you have a valid
problem and need. But I don’t think we have well considered all of the other design options, that could reduce the increase in
variance that we are seeing for this particular solution. I ask about how much square footage we had, to see if an attached solution
could create an addition, Dorners in garage, that is where I would look to try to work with the Village to try to come up with
designs that would reduce the scale and number of variances that would be required for this project.
Petitioner Dennis Sheehan- I actually do have two dormer designs, that is kind of what I also looked at because the two other
smaller eaves do fit under the 12 feet.
Member Pavlich- I will have to look at that separately to be fair, when we approve a project like this, other people will see this
and will say, I see this garage and I want the same and we as the Village end up having to answer that question and the other
catch is I know that the Board of Trustees is kind of anti-garage, so we have to come with a pretty openly compelling, something
that is going to sail because if we don’t have a unanimous vote, I don’t know if it is getting through the Trustees anyway.
Petitioner Dennis Sheehan- I did drive around Glen Ellyn; I should have brought pictures in because there are garages that are
way after code change that are way larger. My next question would be, how do I continue with the project.
Member Kelly- If I may interject, when you spoke to architect, did they offer any other options?
Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn- just on a note on the dormers, is that the total width of the
dormer, they shall not exceed 25 percent length of building
Member Kelly- what he or she is proposing here complies with code?
Petitioner Dennis Sheehan- yes
Member Kelly- it’s not the sexiest design but I think it is properly plotted
Chairman Miller- that is also how code winds up changing when things become unpalatable but meet the code
Member Jones- Daniel, you said dormer can’t exceed 25% of width of wall, can you have more than one dormer on each side?
Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn - yes, he can have more than one dormer on each side, no dormer
shall be greater than 8 feet in width from the outside of the walls space between dormers must have a min of 5 feet. Width of all
dormer’s shall not exceed 25%
Member Jones- if he reduces dormer to 25%, then he can keep eave height at 20 or 16 feet, correct?
Petitioner Dennis Sheehan- could we split difference and go 14 ft? Would you be opposed to that?
Member Jones- Not in favor of project but ok with sections of 2, 3 and 4, I would recommend that we break them out and vote.
Chairperson Miller- I am also a no, in your neighborhood I didn’t see anything similar,
Petitioner Dennis Sheehan- instead of having double dormer, I can drop to 14 ft and split difference, and look into sprucing up a
little. Ridge height will stay at 22. Petitioner was speaking with Commission and attempting to negotiate a plan that would be
agreeable with the Members.
Member Pavlich- having ridge height for a house increased, will be a sticking point for the Board of Trustees, we need a better
visualization of how this will look when done.
Chairperson Miller- at this point you are not unanimous, you have two options, because I don’t think we will come to an
agreement right now, so you can let us vote or you can come back October 7th,
Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn – The board will meet again on October 7th; I’ll give you a 3rd
option which will be a split vote of approving variation requests 2-4 to allow for new construction onto garage as long as
everything else is within code and then you can do a separate vote on condition 1 for eave height.
Chairperson Miller- I think a cleaner version would be to have to have Mr. Sheehan pull the proposal
Member Jones- would you be willing to bring that from 16 down to 14, can you bring dormer in to 50%?
Petitioner Dennis Sheehan- I want to know exactly required, be as close as we can with the compromises so that I can move
forward with the architect?
Member Jones- would you be willing to bring it down to 14, peak at 22
Petitioner Dennis Sheehan- Well I can bring it down to 14 and I can take the peak at 22 and possible get to 20 and still get what I
want.
Member Buckton- I agree the board might be, see issue with peak but not ZBA with peak at 22, I don’t have any problem with it.
Member Jones- if he was 14feet, and dormer at 50% instead of where it is right now, I would be ok with it, question is would
everyone else?
Member Buckton- does that open up another can of worms Daniel, that now we have a dormer at 80% and not 25%
Petitioner Dennis Sheehan- I could remove dormer
Member Buckton- if this was 13.3 inches instead of 12 could it go through an administrative?
Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn - not for an eave height.
Chairperson Miller- how do you feel about the changes you have made with 14ft?
Member Buckton- again I am a code guy but having said that, I want to help Mr. Sheehan out, I can do 14 but I don’t know if the
Village or the Board will.
Member Kelly- I appreciate your willingness to compromise, I probably still want to see it, the geometry, conceptually I would
be good.
Member Lakhani- I would be ok with that too; I think it would make sense.
Member Pavlich- if this was 660 square foot garage everything would be allowed except for eave height. Initial reaction would
be that is a huge garage and we don’t like it. We have to make clear that this could be done anyway, try to make pitch to
minimize negative impact. Would you consider converting this to an attached system like we talked about? Is that out of budget
for you?
Petitioner Dennis Sheehan- It’s not a budget issue, it’s a tax issue, once it becomes an attached garage, in 5 years I will be
reassessed and that would increase tax
Member Pavlich- assessments are made based on estimated value of the house.
Petitioner Dennis Sheehan- once it becomes attached, the value will go way up, right now it’s not attached.
Member Kelly- You don’t have mechanical or plumbing, do you; I can’t imagine an assessor would look into this as a livable
space.
Member Pavlich- you probably will face assessment because assessor will look at permits pulled represent this with additional
views of the house. I am just asking what will you be willing to consider. I want to give you guys the best chance to get through. I
think we need to come back and represent this with additional views of the house, represent this and try to minimize variations.
Chairperson Miller- I am still struggling with this, the practical difficulties, what is unique about this, looking at everything I am
still struggling with it. I am not sure what you can do at this point to change it.
Member Jones- if you are concerned about taxes, go to Milton Township in Wheaton and any of the assessors can explain to you
what will happen, in a way we are assuming what could happen. Like I said, I am fine with items 2 through 4, if we have a
compromise that everyone speaks about.
Chairperson Miller- where are you with his proposed changes?
Member Jones- if he went 14ft across, I think that is a good compromise, I would approve. I still struggle with the hardship.
Chairperson Miller- exactly, that is where I am and Craig is telling you that you have to come up with good reasons for the
hardship and practical difficulties. Read that list very carefully.
Petitioner Dennis Sheehan- the biggest part of this hardship is moving 50% of my house somewhere, this is a financial hardship.
Member Kelly- But they only consider hardships that pertain to the built environment
Chairperson Miller- that is why I said, take a look at it again, what it is, they take for a good reason the emotional part out of this.
You have two choices, we can vote on it and you will get a no, or you can pull eave height right now and ask us to vote on all
other 3.
Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn -no, so what you can make recommendation for approval of items
2-4 and make a recommendation for denial on item 1
Chairperson Miller- Your choice is we vote or suspend until October
Petitioner Dennis Sheehan- I will suspend until October since you can’t split the items and I will come back. Who do I submit my
new drawings to?
Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn – you will be submitting online again
Petitioner Dennis Sheehan- do I have to repay?
Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn- no you do not, this is all the same.
Petitioner Dennis Sheehan- ok, I will submit various options of eave heights, 12ft, 14ft, 16ft
Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn- that is ok, right now you can go maximum 20 because of my
mistake, and if you want to do options A, B,C on different heights is ok.
Member Pavlich- I think it’s a great idea, come back with alternatives that you think we would accept- approve the overall
visualization of how this would look with the house for the board. The difficulty is your hardship is only you have non-
conforming garage. Other thing I would check is foundation of garage, are you sure this foundation is deep enough?
Petitioner Dennis Sheehan-It is over 4ft deep, I have dug myself. So, if I come back with eaves of 12ft I comply?
Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn- if you come back with eaves at 12ft, they would still need to be
voted on by ZBA and Village Board
Chairperson Miller- part of what he is talking about, improving your package, ask your architect to help us visualize what it will
look like, show us pictures of neighborhood to help us see how it fits.
Petitioner Dennis Sheehan- Right so we will get pictures and have it redesigned; 16, 14 not good enough
Member Pavlich- Zoning is not supposed to consider the Architectural Style but the Board really cares about how it looks.
Member Lakhani- adding to house is a financial hardship which we really can’t look at, if you were to consider adding to house,
it’s not financial but it would ruin the look and character of the look in the house.
Petitioner Dennis Sheehan, the house is a split level so when you go from the lower level to ground floor and bring it straight
over you would not have a breeze way.
Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn- I want to be very clear that we need to make a motion to table
and state what we are asking applicant to bring back
Member Pavlich made a Motion to table Variance Request on 194 S. Ellyn Ave., Glen Ellyn until October 7, 2025 at which point
we will reconsider updated application from Mr. Sheehan including more specifics about alternative design options, more
supporting evidence regarding practical difficulties and hardships related to your property and any other alternative designs that
you could consider and why they are not feasible Second by Member Lakhani.
Roll call
Member Pavlich- for the record submitting drawing and signatures (20) petition for the record.
D. Other Business
1. Review and approval of Rules of Rules of Procedure for the Glen Ellyn Zoning Board of Appeals
Motion to move the review and to October 7th, 2025, by Member Kelly, Member Lakhani second all in favor. Motion
passed unanimously.
E. Chairperson’s Statement
Thank Matt for his time and service and willingness to stay. I am glad you are staying. I would ask that if you are going to have
any changes to the procedures that we will talk about that we discuss them now. Not voting on anything, just bring them out now.
This is our Village Attorney saying this.
Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn - essentially, they had changed the quorum section, 3.2. that
section does not currently exist, so our Village Attorney is amending a section that talks about physical presence of all boards.
Member Pavlich- majority of seated board now instead of slated board?
Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn- correct
Member Buckton- are we looking at this again and approving on the 7th?
Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn - only thing that has changed is section 3.2, if you do have any
comments or feedback please submit
Chairperson Miller- is there anything that stuck out that anyone would have an issue with, we can talk about it now
Member Jones- our agenda where we do Findings of Fact, is not in here?
Chairperson Miller- that is Chairman’s discretion, when we do at end, we are saying this is what the board did as a whole, it
makes sense to have it at end.
Members discussed the Findings of Fact and how the presentation will change to having at end of each case presented. Members
discussed having a template that they could read off of when making the Findings of Fact at end of each case and Daniel
confirmed that he could provide that to the Board so that it can facilitate the process.
F. Trustee Liaison Report
No Trustee Liaison Report
G. Staff Report
Planning Manager Daniel Harper- Stated the following:
- 365 S. Kenilworth and 236 Sunset both approved by Village Board, finalizing building permits
- September 22, we have annexation of a Property on Butterfield Rd
- Historic preservation we have a landmark nomination request for 799 Rifer Rd
- Application for 574 N. Main St. as an alteration for Historic Landmark
- October meeting, I have 2 items on list as well as today’s request to come back, one is eave height for an addition,
renovating attic of home for livable square footage. The other is an application for garage setback, side yard set back
- Plan commission for September was cancelled
- Metra on hold, waiting for government to get back from us, waiting on consent and approval from Metra and Union
Station.
- Demolition permit has been issued for the shelter, parks district has plans on moving on that this month, phase one and
phase 2 project. Take down US bank,
- There is a Village initiated text amendment to allow for C4 zoning district. Danby Station, C4 office district.
H. Adjournment
Member Buckton made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Member Kelly seconded the motion and the motion passed by
voice vote at 9:00 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Adriana Ohl-Zamora
Agenda
Agenda
Village of Glen Ellyn
Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting
Tuesday, September 9, 2025
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. New Business
1) Public Hearing - 807 Hill Avenue, Lot Coverage Ratio Variation
2) Public Hearing - 194 S. Ellyn Avenue - Detached Garage Variations
D. Other Business
1) Review and Approval of Rules of Procedure for the Glen Ellyn Zoning Board of
Appeals
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.
Packet
Agenda
Village of Glen Ellyn
Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting
Tuesday, September 9, 2025
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. New Business
1) Public Hearing - 807 Hill Avenue, Lot Coverage Ratio Variation
2) Public Hearing - 194 S. Ellyn Avenue - Detached Garage Variations
D. Other Business
1) Review and Approval of Rules of Procedure for the Glen Ellyn Zoning Board of
Appeals
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.
Page 1 of 41
Glen Ellyn Zoning Board Meeting 9/9/2025 7:00 PM
of Appeals Department: Community Development
535 Duane Street Department Head: Jennifer Henaghan
Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Category: Public Hearing
Prepared By: Daniel Harper
AGENDA ITEM (ID DOC ID: 2025-745
# 2025-745)
Public Hearing - 807 Hill Avenue, Lot Coverage Ratio Variation
Statement of the Issue:
The petitioner is Patrick Bouchard, the owner of the property at 807 Hill Avenue. He has applied
for a zoning variation to allow the construction of an approximately 286 square foot addition to the
rear of a two-story single-family home that would be result in a lot coverage of approximately 1,890
square feet or 22% of the lot.
Analysis:
REQUEST: The petitioners request approval of the following variation from the Glen Ellyn
Zoning Code:
1. Section 10-4-8(E)1 – to allow the total lot coverage ratio of the property to be 22% in lieu of the
maximum allowed lot coverage ratio of 20% to allow the construction of a rear sunroom addition to
an existing single-family home.
ZONING/USE: The subject property is zoned R2 - Residential District and improved with a two-
story single-family home.
PUBLIC NOTICE: Notice of the public hearing was published in the August 22, 2025, edition of
the Daily Herald, mailed to property owners within 250 feet of the subject property, and a placard
was placed on the property.
ZONING HISTORY:
Year Ordinance No. Type
1992 3971-Z Zoning variation to allow
construction of home on a non-
conforming lot width.
PERMIT HISTORY:
Year Permit No. Type
2022 20222220 Replace Furnace and AC
Condenser
2019 20192391 Roof Replacement
2015 20150974 Driveway Expansion
Page 2 of 41
2012 20120542 Fence
1999 16375 Accessory Building - Shed
1993 14173 New Single-Family Home
PROPOSED: The applicant is proposing the construction of an approximately 286-square-foot
addition to the rear existing home on the property. The proposed addition is to be constructed on
the location of the existing deck (which will be removed) and consists of the construction of a
13'x22'x13' unconditioned sunroom on a concrete pier foundation with a 7'x13' deck per the
provided architectural drawings.
ANALYSIS: In order to proceed with the project as proposed, the petitioner will need to be
granted the following variations from the Zoning Code:
1. Section 10-4-8(E)1 – to allow the total lot coverage ratio of the property to be 22% in lieu of
the maximum allowed lot coverage ratio of 20% to allow the construction of a rear sun-room
addition to an existing single-family home.
The existing house was constructed in 1993. The existing lot coverage ratio of the property is
approximately 1,608.78 square feet or 18.2% of the area of the 8,780 square foot property. The
proposed 286 square foot addition would result in a total lot coverage area of 1,890 square feet or
22% of the property.
The applicant has stated that the property is currently nonconforming to the R2 district standard for
lot width, which causes a decrease in the buildable area for allowable lot coverage for this property.
The applicant has also stated that because the proposed addition will be located in the rear of the
home and will conform to all other regulations required in the R2 zoning district, the proposed
addition will not alter the essential character of the locality of the property by using similar materials
and styles to match the existing home, making it appear as if the addition has always been on the
property.
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. Aerial Map
2. Zoning Map
Page 3 of 41
3. Application - Zoning Variation
4. Plat of Survey
5. Building Plan
Page 4 of 41
807 Hill Avenue - Aerial Map
Legend
0 50 100 Print Date: 9/3/2025 Notes
ft
Disclaimer: The GIS Consortium and MGP Inc. are not liable for any use, misuse, modification or disclosure of any map provided under applicable law. This map is for general information purposes only. Although the information is believed to be generally accurate, errors may
exist and the user should independently confirm for accuracy. The map does not constitute a regulatory determination and is not a base for engineering design. A Registered Land Surveyor should be consulted to determine precise location boundaries on the ground.
Page 5 of 41
807 Hill Avenue - Zoning Map
Legend
Zoning and Development
Zoning
R2: Single Family Residential District
0 100 200 Print Date: 9/3/2025 Notes
ft
Disclaimer: The GIS Consortium and MGP Inc. are not liable for any use, misuse, modification or disclosure of any map provided under applicable law. This map is for general information purposes only. Although the information is believed to be generally accurate, errors may
exist and the user should independently confirm for accuracy. The map does not constitute a regulatory determination and is not a base for engineering design. A Registered Land Surveyor should be consulted to determine precise location boundaries on the ground.
Page 6 of 41
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 7 of 41
APPLICATION FOR ZONING VARIATION
Date Filed: 7/29/2025 Application No: 2025-0027
Name of Applicant: Patrick Bouchard
Address of Applicant: 807 Hill Avenue Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
Property Interest of Applicant: Owner
Name of Owner: Bouchard, Mr &Mrs Patrick
Address of Owner: 807 Hill Ave Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
Type Name Address Phone Email
807 Hill Avenue Glen Ellyn,
Petitioner Patrick Bouchard IL 60137
807 Hill Avenue Glen Ellyn,
Web Administrator Patrick Bouchard IL 60137
Bouchard, Mr &Mrs 807 Hill Ave Glen Ellyn, IL
Parcel Owner Patrick 60137
Property Address: 807 Hill Ave
Project Name: Web Project
Project Description: Removing the current rear deck and replacing it with sunroom to be used
throughout the year.
Legal Description of Property:
Lot 2 in block 1 in Arthur T. McIntosh and Company's May Avenue subdivision, being a
resubdivision of Lots 20, 21 and 22 of J.R. Smith's Addition to Glen Ellyn, Being a Subdivision
in sections 12 and 13, Township 39 North, Range 10, East of the third principal meridian,
according to the plat of said McIntosh and Company's May Avenue subdivision, recorded March
16, 1925 as Document 189690, in DuPage County, Illinois
Zoning: R2, Single Family Residential District
Lot Dimensions: 56 x 156.79
Lot Area: 8780
: 05131000020000
Present Use:
Residential.
Estimated Date to Begin New Use/Construction: 9/1/2025
Page 8 of 41
Narrative Statement:
We are requesting a variation for the allowable lot coverages required for the R-2 district according
to Chapter 4, section 10-4-8. - R2 Residential District sub section (E) Maximum lot coverage ration
part 1. Lot coverage ratio, more than one story: Lot coverage ratio, single-family dwellings, more
than one story, and accessory buildings: 20 percent of the lot. The variance request if for 2%
additional lot coverage for a sunroom addition changing the total lot coverage percentage from
20% to 22%
EVIDENCE RELATING TO ZONING CODE STANDARDS FOR A VARIATION:
1. Provide evidence that due to the characteristics of the property in question, there are
practical difficulties or particular hardship for the applicant/owner in carrying out the
strict letter of the Zoning Code:
The existing property has an angled front lot line, tapers in lot width from the front to the
back and is less than the current Glen Ellyn R-2 district standard for lot width.
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:
The property is currently non confirming to the R-2 district standard for lot width which
causes a decrease in the allowable lot coverage for this property. This is not a common
thing for the surrounding properties along with the shape of the existing lot.
3. Provide evidence that the requested variation(s), if granted, will not alter the essential
character of the locality of the property in question:
The proposed addition will not alter the essential character of the locality of the property
by using similar materials and styles to match the existing home making it appear as if the
addition has always been on the property.
4. Provide evidence that the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical
condition of the property in question would bring particular hardship upon the
applicant/owner as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the
Zoning Code were to be carried out:
The existing property front lot line is significantly angled and the lot narrows towards the
rear yard.
Page 9 of 41
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 existing lot is less than the current Glen Ellyn R2 standard for lot width of 66ft. and
3".
6. Provide evidence that the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire to
make more money out of the property in question:
The purpose of the proposed addition is not the desire to make money on the property but
to make a usable space in the backyard that can be enjoyed year-round.
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 current hardship has not been created by any person with interest in the
property but have been created by the current zoning codes/ordinances with the Village of
Glen Ellyn. Examples include the shape of the existing lot and the property not being in
the current standard for lot width.
8. Provide evidence that the granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the
property in question is located.
The addition is located in the backyard of the property inside of a fenced in yard, this will
not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in
the neighborhood.
9. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Impair an adequate supply of light
and air to adjacent property.
The addition is located off the rear of the property and will not be taller than the existing
home roof, this will not impair an adequate 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.
The proposed addition will be built to comply with the existing Village of Glen Ellyn codes
and will not increase the hazard from fire or other dangers 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 addition will be in the backyard and not viewable from the parkway,
it will also match the style and materials of the existing home. This will not impair the
public health, safety, comfort, morals or general welfare of the Village.
Page 10 of 41
12. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Diminish or impair property values
within the neighborhood.
The proposed addition will be built in place of an existing older deck and will match
the existing home; it will neither diminish nor impair property values within the
neighborhood.
13. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Unduly increase traffic congestion
in the public streets and highway.
The proposed addition cannot be seen from the parkway as it is located off the back of the
home, this will not increase traffic congestion in the public streets and highway.
14. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Create a nuisance.
The proposed addition will be located within the property lines and located off the back of
the existing home; this will cause no additional nuisances for the Village.
15. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Results in an increase in public
expenditures.
The proposed addition is for a residential property located within the lot lines, resulting in
no effect to 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.
The current 2% increase in lot coverage from 20% to 22% is the minimum variation
in order to make the proposed addition a usable space and to put the addition in the footprint
of the existing deck that will be removed.
17. Please add any comments which may assist the commission in reviewing this application.
Page 11 of 41
OWNERSHIP BY LAND TRUST
Date: 7/29/2025
Address: 807 Hill Ave
Legal Description:
Lot 2 in block 1 in Arthur T. McIntosh and Company's May Avenue subdivision, being a
resubdivision of Lots 20, 21 and 22 of J.R. Smith's Addition to Glen Ellyn, Being a Subdivision
in sections 12 and 13, Township 39 North, Range 10, East of the third principal meridian,
according to the plat of said McIntosh and Company's May Avenue subdivision, recorded March
16, 1925 as Document 189690, in DuPage County, Illinois
TRUSTEE: TRUST NO.:
Address:
LIST ALL BENEFICIARIES:
Page 12 of 41
OWNERSHIP BY A CORPORATION
Date: 7/29/2025
Address: 807 Hill Ave
Legal Description:
Lot 2 in block 1 in Arthur T. McIntosh and Company's May Avenue subdivision, being a
resubdivision of Lots 20, 21 and 22 of J.R. Smith's Addition to Glen Ellyn, Being a Subdivision
in sections 12 and 13, Township 39 North, Range 10, East of the third principal meridian,
according to the plat of said McIntosh and Company's May Avenue subdivision, recorded March
16, 1925 as Document 189690, in DuPage County, Illinois
LIST ALL SHAREHOLDERS AND OFFICERS/DIRECTORS (AND % OF INTEREST
OWNED IN EXCESS OF 5% OF STOCK):
Page 13 of 41
IMPERVIOUS AREA TABLE
EXISTING: LOT AREA = 1890 SQ. FT.
1604 SQ. FT. (HOME)
745 SQ. FT. (DRIVEWAY/SIDEWALK)
PROPOSED:
286 (SUNROOM ADDITION)
TOTAL = 1890 SQ. FT. (22%)
= Tree's / Bushes
= Sunroom Downspouts
Page 14 of 41
EXISTING
EXISTING WINDOW
WINDOW
STEP
EXISTING FLASHING EXISTING
SIDING SIDING
12
6
5" ALUM. GUTTER &
3x4" DOWN SPOUT
EXISTING
1'-0" BRICK
WHT / WHT VINYL WHT / WHT VINYL WHT / WHT VINYL WHT / WHT VINYL
SINGLE SLIDE SINGLE SLIDE SINGLE SLIDE SINGLE SLIDE
LOW-E ARGON LOW-E ARGON LOW-E ARGON LOW-E ARGON
HEIGHT @ WALLS A & C
8'-0 3/4"
NEW 7' x 13'
EXISTING COMPOSITE DECK
WINDOW w/ ALUM. RAILING
TEC TRIM
WHT / WHT VINYL WHT / WHT VINYL WHT / WHT VINYL WHT / WHT VINYL
PICTURE FRAME PICTURE FRAME PICTURE FRAME PICTURE FRAME
LOW-E ARGON LOW-E ARGON LOW-E ARGON LOW-E ARGON
TEMPERED TEMPERED TEMPERED TEMPERED
1X4 TRIM
CEDAR LAP SIDING
COMPOSITE FASCIA
3'-9 1/2"
AC2 POST
TO REMAIN
NATURAL
(Typ.) OPEN OPEN OPEN OPEN
GRADE
18" RND. 12" RND. 22" RND. 12" RND. 22" RND. 15" RND. 8" RND. 8" RND.
CONC PIER CONC PIER CONC PIER CONC PIER CONC PIER CONC PIER CONC PIER CONC PIER
42" BELOW 42" BELOW 42" BELOW 42" BELOW 42" BELOW 42" BELOW 42" BELOW 42" BELOW
FIN. GRADE FIN. GRADE FIN. GRADE FIN. GRADE FIN. GRADE FIN. GRADE FIN. GRADE FIN. GRADE
NOTES: PROJECT: BOUCHARD
IRC. 2018
IECC. 2021
IPC. 2014
Front Elevation DATE: 7-25-2025
NEC. 2017
ROOM IS A UNCONDITIONED SPACE CUSTOMER PAGE #: 1
ASSUMED WIND LOAD
= 115 MPH ULTIMATE Patrick & Allison Bouchard REVISION: A
ASSUMED SNOW LOAD
= 30 PSF 807 Hill Ave. DRAWING SCALE: 1/4" = 1'0"
ALL FASTENERS & CONNECTORS
TO BE HOT DIPPED GALVANIZED Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 DRAWN BY: JGS ARCHITECT SEAL
Page 15 of 41
NOTES:
EXISTING
HOME
CONTINUOUS RIDGE VENT
PROJECT: BOUCHARD
DATE: 7-25-2025
PAGE #: 2
235# ASPHALT SINGLES
TO MATCH EXISTING
REVISION: A
2ND STORY HOUSE
CANTILEVER
DRAWING SCALE: 1/4" = 1'0"
5" ALUM. GUTTER &
3x4" DOWN SPOUT
DRAWN BY: JGS
Patrick & Allison Bouchard
Left Elevation
WHT / WHT VINYL WHT / WHT VINYL
SINGLE SLIDE SINGLE SLIDE
LOW-E ARGON LOW-E ARGON
HEIGHT @ WALLS A & C
8'-0 3/4"
807 Hill Ave.
EXISTING
HOME
TEC TRIM
CUSTOMER
CAULK
Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
CONNECTION
1X4 TRIM
TEC TRIM CEDAR LAP SIDING
3'-4 1/2"
OPEN OPEN 3'-9 1/2"
GRADE
18" RND.
18" RND.
CONC PIER
CONC PIER
42" BELOW
42" BELOW
FIN. GRADE
FIN. GRADE
ARCHITECT SEAL
Left Elevation
SCALE 1/4" = 1' - 0"
Page 16 of 41
NOTES:
EXISTING
HOME
CONTINUOUS RIDGE VENT
PROJECT: BOUCHARD
DATE: 7-25-2025
PAGE #: 3
235# ASPHALT SINGLES
TO MATCH EXISTING REVISION: A
2ND STORY HOUSE
CANTILEVER DRAWING SCALE: 1/4" = 1'0"
5" ALUM. GUTTER &
3x4" DOWN SPOUT
DRAWN BY: JGS
Right Elevation
Patrick & Allison
WHT / WHT VINYL WHT / WHT VINYL
SINGLE SLIDE LOW-E ARGON
LOW-E ARGON PATIO DOOR
HEIGHT @ WALLS A & C
TEMPERED
Bouchard
8'-0 3/4"
EXISTING
HOME
TEC TRIM
807 Hill Ave.
CUSTOMER
CAULK
CONNECTION
NEW 7' x 13'
COMPOSITE DECK
TEC TRIM
Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
w/ ALUM. RAILING
COMPOSITE FASCIA
3'-4 1/2"
3'-9 1/2" OPEN
GRADE 12" RND.
22" RND. CONC PIER
42"x 48"x4"D 8" RND.
CONC PIER 42" BELOW
CONC. PAD CONC PIER
42" BELOW FIN. GRADE
42" BELOW
FIN. GRADE FIN. GRADE
ARCHITECT SEAL
Right Elevation
SCALE 1/4" = 1' - 0"
Page 17 of 41
SIMPSON HUC210-2 HOUSE SIMPSON HUC210-2
DOUBLE 2x10"
2X10 AC2 LEDGER BOARD
W/ 5/16" X 4 1/2"
SIMPSON DTT1Z LATERAL LOAD
CONNECTORS SPACED WITHIN
DOUBLE 2x10" 24" FROM ENDS OF DECK W/ 2 CONNECTORS
CONCEALED FACE
MOUNT JOIST HANGER
BASEMENT CONCEALED FACE
MOUNT JOIST HANGER
SPAX STAGGERED @ 12" O.C.
JOISTS SET ON GALV. HANGERS
EVENLY SPACED ALONG LEDGER
EXISTING HOUSE
FOUNDATION
2X10 AC2 LEDGER BOARD
W/ 5/16" X 4 1/2"
@ 16" O.C.
SPAX STAGGERED @ 12" O.C.
JOISTS SET ON GALV. HANGERS
2x10 AC2 FL. JSTS
(2) 2X10 AC2
(2) 2X10 AC2
2" GRAVEL FILL
SOLID BLOCKING @ MIDSPAN
6'-6" 6'-6"
3'-2 1/2"
OVER LANDSCAPE FABRIC
WITHIN FOOTPRINT
OF SUNROOM D D
N N
"R "R
JOIST TO SET ON GALV. HANGERS
12 12
6'-0"
"A" WALL 13'-0"
D D D 18
6'-8"
N D (2) 2X10 AC2
"R N N N "R
18 "R "R "R N
12 12
12'-9 1/4" 12'-9 1/4"
12 D
@ 16" O.C.
2x10 AC2 DECK JSTS
13'-0" "C" WALL 10'-8 1/2"
1 2 11 3 4
D D
SOLID BLOCKING @ MIDSPAN
(2) 2X10 AC2 DROP BEAM N N
R R
8" 8"
.
EF
") R
(2) 2X10 AC2
5/8
(2) 2X10 AC2 JOIST TO SET ON GALV. HANGERS
'-6
(25
D D
D N N 15
N N
D " R N
D " R "R 42"x 48"x4"D
"R
18
"R 22 "R 22 ND CONC. PAD
12 12
(2) 2X10 AC2 (2) 2X10 AC2 (2) 2X10 AC2 (2) 2X10 AC2 (2) 2X10 AC2
5 6 7 8 9 10
PERIMETER LINE OF
5'-4 5/8" DECK AND STAIRS
10'-9 1/4" 6'-11 1/4"
16'-1 7/8" 7'-4 3/4"
21'-6 1/2" 10'-5 1/4"
22'-0"
"B" WALL
NOTES: PROJECT: BOUCHARD
NO BASEMENT EXITS OR
ESCAPE WINDOWS WILL
Foundation Plan DATE: 7-25-2025
BE REMOVED OR
BLOCKED BY THIS ADDITION CUSTOMER PAGE #: 4
ASSUMED SOIL BEARING PRESSURE REVISION: A
= 1500 PSF Patrick & Allison Bouchard
807 Hill Ave. DRAWING SCALE: 1/4" = 1'0"
Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 DRAWN BY: JGS ARCHITECT SEAL
Page 18 of 41
EXISTING HOUSE
WALL FRAMING HOUSE REMOVE EXISTING BUMPOUT
EXISTING WINDOW BUILD NEW BUMPOUT & INSTALL EXISTING WINDOW
NEW 10'W - 4 PANEL PATIO DOOR
EXISTING
7" FIREPLACE
2'-2" 2'-0"
2'-7"
2ND STORY HOUSE
CANTILEVER
(2) 1 3/4" X 14" LVL
BLOCK SOLID FROM RIDGE
5'-7 3/4"
BEAM w/ (2) 2x4's DOWN TO NEW
(2) 1 3/4" X 14" LVL 7' x 13' COMPOSITE DECK
3'-6"
LVL TO SIT ON TOP LVL TO SIT ON TOP
w/ ALUM. RAILING
OF (2) 2X12 SPF HEADER OF (2) 2X12 SPF HEADER
(2) 2x12 CONTINUOUS HEADER
(2) 1 3/4" X 11 7/8" LVL RIDGE BM.
"A" WALL 5'-11 1/4" 13'-0"
6 1/2"
STEP DOWN 13'-0"
13'-0" "C" WALL
6"
2 X 8 SPF RAFTERS 2 X 8 SPF RAFTERS
@ 16" O.C. @ 16" O.C.
7'-6"
5'-7 3/4" 6 1/2"
3'-4 1/4"
7" 7"
LINE OF 6" 4'-10 1/8" 4'-10 1/8" 4'-10 1/8" 4'-10 1/8" 6" 7'-0" 3'-6"
ROOF OVERHANG
6 1/2" 6 1/2" 6 1/2"
22'-0"
"B" WALL
IF THERE IS EXISTING EXPOSED COMBUSTIBLE LIGHTWEIGHT ALL EXISTING EXPOSED MEMBERS WHICH MAY BE CUT, NOTCHED,
FRAMING MEMBERS IN THE HOUSE THEY MUST BE OVERED WITH A OR DAMAGED SHALL BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED AT TIME OF
MINIMUM 5/8" TYPE-X GYPSUM BOARD SECTION R 302.15 AS INSPECTION
AMENDED
NOTES: PROJECT: BOUCHARD
IRC. 2018
IECC. 2021
NEC. 2017
First Floor Plan DATE: 7-25-2025
IPC. 2014
NOTES: CUSTOMER PAGE #: 5
ASSUMED WIND LOAD
= 115 MPH ULTIMATE Patrick & Allison Bouchard REVISION: A
ASSUMED SNOW LOAD
= 30 PSF 807 Hill Ave. DRAWING SCALE: 1/4" = 1'0"
ALL FASTENERS & CONNECTORS
TO BE HOT DIPPED GALVANIZED Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 DRAWN BY: JGS ARCHITECT SEAL
Page 19 of 41
TO CIRCUIT
PANEL
EXISTING HOUSE
WALL FRAMING HOUSE
EXISTING WINDOW
EXG.
OUTLET
ELECTRICAL SYMBOL LIST 3
CEILING SURFACE LIGHT
WALL MOUNTED FIXTURE
"A" WALL "C" WALL
SPOTLIGHT
TRACK LIGHT ASSEMBLY STEP DOWN
6"
SWITCH NOTE: FAN
BOX TO BE
FAN RATED
THREE-WAY SWITCH
3
DIMMER SWITCH
DM 3
SINGLE
RECEPTACLE OUTLET
DUPLEX
WR / TR
RECEPTACLE OUTLET
QUADRUPLEX
RECEPTACLE OUTLET
DUPLEX RECEPTABLE
OUTLET-SPLIT WIRED
DEDICATED 240 V / 20A
OUTLET SPOTLIGHT
WEATHERPROOF DUPLEX
WR / TR OUTLET
LINE OF
GROUND FAULT ROOF OVERHANG
GFI
PROTECTED RECEPTACLE
FLOOR DUPLEX
"B" WALL
RECEPTACLE OUTLET
ALL NEW PERMANENTLY INSTALLED INTERIOR LIGHTING FIXTURES, HOME SHALL FOLLOW THE 2018 IRC. CODE FOR SMOKE DETECTORS
EXCEPT THOSE IN BATHROOMS OR HALLWAYS, SHALL BE / CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTORS
CONTROLLED BY EITHER A DIMMER SWITCH OR OCCUPANCY
SENSOR. ALL ELECTRICAL TO FOLLOW THE 2017 NEC.
NOTES: PROJECT: BOUCHARD
NEC. 2017
ROOM CIRCUIT IS AFCI/GFCI PROTECTED
Electric Plan DATE: 7-25-2025
ALL EXTERIOR RECEPTACLE ARE TYPE
WR / TR CUSTOMER PAGE #: 6
ALL INTERIOR RECEPTACLES ARE TYPE
WR / TR Patrick & Allison Bouchard REVISION: A
EMT CONDUIT 807 Hill Ave. DRAWING SCALE: 1/4" = 1'0"
Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 DRAWN BY: JGS ARCHITECT SEAL
Page 20 of 41
ROOF CONSTRUCTION:
CONTINUOUS 235# ASPHALT SHINGLES
RIDGE VENT (TO MATCH HOUSE)
SIMPSON LSTA-12 ICE & WATER SHIELD
TIE APPLIED OVER OVER ENTIRE ROOF DECK
TOP OF RAFTER PAIRS
A 1/2" OSB SHEATHING
2 X 8 SPF RAFTERS
@ 16" OC W/
12 STRONG DRIVE 6" TRUSS SCREWS
6 ANCHORED TO HEADER BEAM
NOTES:
A PRO-VENT BETWEEN
RAFTERS 1" AIR SPACE
R-19 INSULATION
(2) 1 3/4" x 11 7/8" LVL
EAVE DETAIL:
5" ALUM. GUTTER
CEILING FINISH w/
6" T&G CEDAR - S 3x4" DOWNSPOUT
ALUM. FASCIA &
VENTED SOFFIT
B B
2x6 SPF SUB
FASCIA
3" 11 1/4"
DRAWN BY: JGS
DRAWING SCALE: 3/4" = 1'0"
REVISION: A
PAGE #: 7
DATE: 7-25-2025
PROJECT: BOUCHARD
C
1'-0"
3/4"
CEILING: C (2)-2X12 CONTINUOUS
6" T&G CEDAR - SMOOTH HEADER ALONG
(PERPENDICULAR TO RIDGE BEAM) A&C WALLS
WALL CONSTRUCTION:
BEAM WRAP: CEDAR SIDING
96 3/4"
CEDAR
TEC TRIM
56 1/4"
INTERIOR TRIM:
PRIMED PINE TYPAR WRAP OR EQUAL
INTERIOR WALL SPACE:
HEIGHT OF WALLS A&C
1/2" OSB SHEATHING
DRYWALL (PRIMED)
2 x 4 STUDS @ 16" OC
HOUSE WALL: A&C WALL w/ SOLID
4 1/2"
DRYWALL (PRIMED) KNEE WALLS
2 x 6 STUDS @ 16" OC
CUSTOMER
Typical Wall Section
B WALL w/ GLASS
3/4" T&G OSB PLYWOOD ON KNEE WALLS
Patrick & Allison Bouchard
2x10 AC2 JOISTS @ 16" OC
18" SHOULDER CUT 6X6
R-19 INSULATION TREATED POST W/
BETWEEN JOIST 3" 1/2"X7" CARRIAGE BOLT
THROUGH BEAMS
807 Hill Ave.
1/2" TREATED PLYWOOD
3'-9 1/2"
w/ 2X2 AC2 FIRRING
STRIPS
6X6 AC2 POST
W/ SIMPSONABE66Z MTL. BASE
Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
2" WASHED w/ 1/2"X7" REDHEAD ANCHOR
GRAVEL BASE ON
LANDSCAPE FABRIC
GRADE
12" RND. CONC. PIER
42" BELOW FIN. GRADE
22" RND. CONC. PIER 22" RND. CONC. PIER
42" BELOW FIN. GRADE
3'-6"
42" BELOW FIN. GRADE
ARCHITECT SEAL
Page 21 of 41
NOTES:
235# ASPHALT SHINGLES PRO-VENT BETWEEN
(TO MATCH HOUSE) RAFTERS 1" AIR SPACE
ON ICE & WATER SHIELD
R-19 FACED BATT
STEP FLASHING ALONG
1/2" OSB SHEATHING INSULATION
HOUSE WALL & UNDER
2 X 8 SPF RAFTERS @ 16" O.C. EXISTING SIDING
HOUSE WALL
1'-0"
PROJECT: BOUCHARD
ALUM. FASCIA
VENTED SOFFIT
CEILING: DATE: 7-25-2025
6" T&G CEDAR - S LVL RIDGE BEAM
(2) - 1 3/4" X 11 7/8"
EXISTING PAGE #: 8
HOUSE REVISION: A
BLOCK SOLID
INTERIOR TRIM: BELOW BEAM
DRAWING SCALE: 3/4" = 1'0"
PRIMED PINE TO (2) 1 3/4" x 14" LVL
w/ (2) 2x4 SPF
EXISTING 2ND STORY
DRAWN BY: JGS
BEAM WRAP: CANTILEVER
House Connection
CEDAR HOUSE WALL: FLR. JOISTS (NTS)
DRYWALL (PRIMED)
Patrick & Allison
(2) 2x4 SUNROOM
Bouchard
TOP PLATE
SECTION A-A
GABLE EAVE
807 Hill Ave.
Detail CUSTOMER
(2) H2.5 AZ SIMPSON
Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
(2) 2X12 CONTINUOUS CONNECTORS
HEADER A&C WALL EACH SIDE FROM HEADER
TO HOUSE TOP PLATES
6 1/2"
1X6 TRIM 5 1/2" HOUSE WALL
5 1/2"
STARTER
5 1/4" 4 1/2" MULLION
BLOCK SOLID
1X8 TRIM
BELOW HEADERS
TO EXISTING FOUNDATION
w/ (2) 2x4 SPF
SECTION B-B SECTION C-C
ARCHITECT SEAL
House Connection Detail
SCALE 3/4" = 1' - 0"
Page 22 of 41
CODE FOR STAIRS
R311.7.5.1 Risers.
The riser height shall be not more than 7 3/4 inches (196 mm). The riser shall be measured vertically between leading edges of the adjacent treads. The greatest riser height
within any flight of stairs shall not exceed the smallest by more than 3/8 inch (9.5 mm). Risers shall be vertical or sloped from the underside of the nosing of the tread above at an
angle not more 30 degrees (0.51 rad) from the vertical. At open risers, openings located more than 30 inches (762 mm), as measured vertically, to the floor or grade below shall
not permit the passage of a 4-inch-diameter (102 mm) sphere.
R311.7.5.2 Treads.
The tread depth shall be not less than 10 inches (254 mm). The tread depth shall be measured horizontally between the vertical planes of the foremost projection of adjacent
treads and at a right angle to the tread's leading edge. The greatest tread depth within any flight of stairs shall not exceed the smallest by more than 3/8 inch (9.5mm).
R311.7.8 Handrails.
Handrails shall be provided on not less than one side of each flight of stairs with four or more risers.
R311.7.8.1 Height.
Handrail height, measured vertically from the sloped plane adjoining the tread nosing, or finish surface of ramp slope, shall be not less than 34 inches (864 mm) and not more
than 38 inches (965 mm)
R311.7.8.4 Continuity.
Handrails shall be continuous for the full length of the flight, from a point directly above the top riser of the flight to a point directly above the lowest riser of the flight. Handrail
ends shall be returned or shall terminate in newel posts or safety terminals.
NOTES: PROJECT: BOUCHARD
Detail & Code Ref. DATE: 7-25-2025
CUSTOMER PAGE #: 9
Patrick & Allison Bouchard REVISION: A
807 Hill Ave. DRAWING SCALE: 1" = 1'-0"
Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 DRAWN BY: JGS ARCHITECT SEAL
Page 23 of 41
Glen Ellyn Zoning Board Meeting 9/9/2025 7:00 PM
of Appeals Department: Community Development
535 Duane Street Department Head: Jennifer Henaghan
Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Category: Public Hearing
Prepared By: Daniel Harper
AGENDA ITEM (ID DOC ID: 2025-746
# 2025-746)
Public Hearing - 194 S. Ellyn Avenue - Detached Garage Variations
Statement of the Issue:
The petitioner is Dennis Sheehan, the owner of the property at 194 S. Ellyn Avenue. He has applied
for zoning variations to accommodate the construction a proposed addition to an existing detached
garage.
Analysis:
REQUEST: The petitioners request approval of the following variation from the Glen Ellyn
Zoning Code:
1. Section 10-4-8(F) to allow an eave height for a detached garage to be twenty feet (20’-0”) in
lieu of the maximum allowed eave height of twelve feet (12’-0”).
2. Section 10-5-4(A)(2)(a) to allow an addition to an existing non-conforming detached garage
on a property which has a total square footage for accessory structures of 1,006 square feet
in lieu of the maximum allowed total square footage for accessory structures of 1,000 square
feet.
3. Section 10-8-6(B)(2) – to allow an enlargement to an existing non-conforming six hundred
and ninety square foot (690 sqft) detached garage which exceeds the maximum allowed
square footage of six hundred and sixty square feet (660 sqft) for a detached garage.
4. Section 10-5-4(A)3 to allow for two accessory structures of the same type.
ZONING/USE: The subject property is zoned R2 - Residential District and improved with a two-
story single-family home.
PUBLIC NOTICE: Notice of the public hearing was published in the August 22, 2025, edition of
the Daily Herald, mailed to property owners within 250 feet of the subject property, and a placard
was placed on the property.
ZONING HISTORY: There is no zoning history for the property.
Page 24 of 41
PERMIT HISTORY:
Year Permit No. Type
2021 20211490 Driveway
2008 20080535 Fence
1990 11394 Garage
1964 194 Garage
1959 7011 New Single-Family Home
ANALYSIS: In order to proceed with the project as proposed, the petitioner will need to be
granted the following variations from the Zoning Code:
1. Section 10-4-8(F) to allow an eave height for a detached garage to be twenty feet (20’-0”) in lieu of
the maximum allowed eave height of twelve feet (12’-0”).
The property currently has a 690 square foot two-car garage that is approximately 12 feet in height
to the top of the ridge. Based on the historical building permit records, the garage appears to have
been permitted about five years after the construction of the primary structure. The applicant is
proposing to raid the roof of the existing garage to allow for a second story storage area. The
maximum ridge height of the proposed enlargement would be 22 feet and would be the maximum
allowed height for a garage per village code. In order to maximize the total usable area of the
proposed second story, the property owner is proposing an elevated eave height of 20 feet for the
expansion to allow for greater overhead space for storage.
2. Section 10-5-4(A)(2)(a) to allow an addition to an existing non-conforming detached garage on a
property which has a total square footage for accessory structures of 1,006 square feet in lieu of the
maximum allowed total square footage for accessory structures of 1,000 square feet.
The proposed enlargement would be to an existing nonconforming property with accessory
structures with a combined area of 1,006 square feet. Village code. Ord. 4673 was adopted in 1998,
which created the restriction of limited accessory structures to a maximum total area of 1,000 square
feet.
3. Section 10-8-6(B)(2) – to allow an enlargement to an existing nonconforming six hundred and
ninety square foot (690 sqft) detached garage which exceeds the maximum allowed square footage
of six hundred and sixty square feet (660 sqft) for a detached garage.
The proposed enlargement would be to an existing nonconforming garage with a total area of 690
square feet. The maximum allowed area for a detached garage is 660 square feet. The 660 square
foot maximum allowed area requirement appears to have been adopted by the Village between 2002
and 2005.
4. Section 10-5-4(A)3 to allow for two accessory structures of the same type.
The property currently has two detached garages on the property. The proposed enlargement would
be an enlargement to an existing non-conforming use of an accessory structure. Ord. 5035 was
adopted in 2002, which created the requirement that no more than one of each type of accessory
Page 25 of 41
structure shall be allowed on a zoning lot unless authorized by a Special Use Permit.
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. Aerial Map
2. Zoning Map
3. Application - Zoning Variation
4. Plat of Survey
5. Elevations and Floor Plan
Page 26 of 41
194 S. Ellyn Avenue - Aerial Map
Legend
0 50 100 Print Date: 9/3/2025 Notes
ft
Disclaimer: The GIS Consortium and MGP Inc. are not liable for any use, misuse, modification or disclosure of any map provided under applicable law. This map is for general information purposes only. Although the information is believed to be generally accurate, errors may
exist and the user should independently confirm for accuracy. The map does not constitute a regulatory determination and is not a base for engineering design. A Registered Land Surveyor should be consulted to determine precise location boundaries on the ground.
Page 27 of 41
194 S. Ellyn Avenue - Zoning Map
Legend
Zoning and Development
Zoning
R2: Single Family Residential District
0 100 200 Print Date: 9/3/2025 Notes
ft
Disclaimer: The GIS Consortium and MGP Inc. are not liable for any use, misuse, modification or disclosure of any map provided under applicable law. This map is for general information purposes only. Although the information is believed to be generally accurate, errors may
exist and the user should independently confirm for accuracy. The map does not constitute a regulatory determination and is not a base for engineering design. A Registered Land Surveyor should be consulted to determine precise location boundaries on the ground.
Page 28 of 41
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 29 of 41
APPLICATION FOR ZONING VARIATION
Date Filed: 7/31/2025 Application No: 2025-0025
Name of Applicant: Dennis Sheehan Jr
Address of Applicant: 194 S ELLYN AVE GLEN ELLYN, AL 60137
Property Interest of Applicant: Owner
Name of Owner: Dennis Sheehan
Address of Owner: 194 S Ellyn Ave Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
Type Name Address Phone Email
194 S ELLYN AVE GLEN
Petitioner Dennis Sheehan Jr ELLYN, AL 60137
194 S ELLYN AVE GLEN
Web Administrator Dennis Sheehan Jr ELLYN, AL 60137
194 S Ellyn Ave Glen Ellyn,
Parcel Owner Dennis Sheehan IL 60137
Property Address: 194 S Ellyn Ave
Project Name: Web Project
Project Description: detached garage raising the roof to add additional storage
Legal Description of Property:
lot 13 in block 3 in glen acres sub. ,being a sub. of part of section 23, township 39 north 10 east
of the thed principal meridian according to the plat thereof recorded october 8, 1995 as document
201017 in dupage county il.
Zoning: R2, Single Family Residential District
Lot Dimensions: 200x82 by 180x 62
Lot Area: 16500
: 05232200430000
Present Use:
residential
Estimated Date to Begin New Use/Construction: 9/1/2025
Page 30 of 41
Name(s), Address(es) and Phone No(s). of Experts (architects, engineers, etc.):
Narrative Statement:
footprint and eve hight
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:
unable to change existing footprint
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:
these building were built be for i took ownership
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 just razing the roof of said structure
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:
we are willing to work with the city but we also are looking to make this look as nice as
possible
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:
this is a pre existing structure
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:
this will be use for personal use only
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 situation has been a cause of a change of city code
Page 31 of 41
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.
there is no substantial change other than the roof hight
9. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Impair an adequate supply of light
and air to adjacent property.
the ne Hight will not affect any Nabers do to the distance and location form the structure
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.
this is an preexisting building
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.
as stated above this is a preexisting building
12. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Diminish or impair property values
within the neighborhood.
this will most likely increased value
13. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Unduly increase traffic congestion
in the public streets and highway.
this is for personal use
14. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Create a nuisance.
this will be built to be as unintrusive as possible
15. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Results in an increase in public
expenditures.
there is no public use
16. Provide evidence that the variation is the minimum variation that will make possible the
reasonable use of the land, building or structure.
as stated above its per existing building and the changes are for storage only
17. Please add any comments which may assist the commission in reviewing this application.
the issues we are having are due to the city out building code changes in which i was not
living here and cannot rebuild original structure
Page 32 of 41
OWNERSHIP BY LAND TRUST
Date: 7/31/2025
Address: 194 S Ellyn Ave
Legal Description:
lot 13 in block 3 in glen acres sub. ,being a sub. of part of section 23, township 39 north 10 east
of the thed principal meridian according to the plat thereof recorded october 8, 1995 as document
201017 in dupage county il.
TRUSTEE: TRUST NO.:
Address:
LIST ALL BENEFICIARIES:
Page 33 of 41
OWNERSHIP BY A CORPORATION
Date: 7/31/2025
Address: 194 S Ellyn Ave
Legal Description:
lot 13 in block 3 in glen acres sub. ,being a sub. of part of section 23, township 39 north 10 east
of the thed principal meridian according to the plat thereof recorded october 8, 1995 as document
201017 in dupage county il.
LIST ALL SHAREHOLDERS AND OFFICERS/DIRECTORS (AND % OF INTEREST
OWNED IN EXCESS OF 5% OF STOCK):
Page 34 of 41
Page 35 of 41
Page 36 of 41
Glen Ellyn Zoning Board of Meeting 9/9/2025 7:00 PM
Appeals Department: Community Development
535 Duane Street Department Head: Jennifer Henaghan
Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Category: Policy
Prepared By: Daniel Harper
AGENDA ITEM (ID DOC ID: 2025-752
# 2025-752)
Review and Approval of Rules of Procedure for the Glen Ellyn
Zoning Board of Appeals
Statement of the Issue:
The Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”) does not currently have a document that formalizes rules
and procedures for how the Board should govern its meetings and public hearings. Village Attorney
Paul Stephanides has drafted a document outlining rules and procedures for the ZBA to adopt and
implement for its future business.
Analysis:
The ZBA was presented with the draft Rules of Procedure of the Glen Ellyn Zoning Board of
Appeals at its July 8 meeting. The Rules of Procedure to be considered and adopted by the ZBA
shall govern the ZBA’s meetings and public hearings.
Budget Impact:
Contribution to Strategic Plan
Action Requested:
Review and Approval of Rules of Procedure for the Glen Ellyn Zoning Board of Appeals.
Attachments:
1. ZBA Draft Rules
Page 37 of 41
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
OF THE VILLAGE OF GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS
RULES OF PROCEDURE
ADOPTED ON _______________, 2025
Page 38 of 41
1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
1.1. The Rules of Procedure adopted herein (“Rules”) by the Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”)
shall govern the ZBA’s meetings and public hearings. In the event any Rule herein conflicts with
a requirement of state law, the Glen Ellyn Village Code or Glen Ellyn Zoning Code (collectively
referred to as “other requirement”), the other requirement shall govern and control.
1.2. These Rules are adopted as a supplement to the applicable provisions of the Illinois
Compiled Statutes, the Glen Ellyn Village Code (“Village Code”), the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code
(“Zoning Code”), and any ordinances, resolutions, or rules adopted by the Village Board as they
relate to the ZBA.
1.3. These Rules are adopted pursuant to the authority granted by Section 2-14-4
(“Meetings”) of the Village Code.
2. MEMBERS AND DUTIES
2.1. The ZBA Chair is appointed by the Village President with the advice and consent of the
Board of Trustees. The Chair shall preside at all meetings and hearings of the ZBA, shall
administer oaths to witnesses or authorize the administration of oaths, and shall decide all points
of order or procedure.
2.2. In case of the absence or disability of the Chair, an Acting Chair shall be nominated by the
ZBA and a motion shall be adopted to appoint the Acting Chair. The Acting Chair shall perform
all the duties and exercise all the powers of the Chair.
2.3. A quorum for a meeting of the ZBA shall be four (4) members who are physically present
for a meeting. Electronic attendance at a meeting shall be governed by the Village Code.
2.4. Any ZBA member who has a proprietary interest, or other conflict of interest, in any
matter before the ZBA shall not vote thereon and shall remove themself from any meeting or
hearing at which said matter is under consideration. If more than three (3) ZBA members
remove themselves from a hearing, the Board shall refer the matter to the Village President and
Board of Trustees for direction.
2.5. Any person appearing before the ZBA is prohibited from communicating with the ZBA’s
members about matters before the ZBA outside of ZBA meetings. If a member receives such an
ex parte communication, it must be made part of the public record by the member who received
the communication. Failure to adhere to this Rule by any person appearing before the ZBA may
result in the member who received the ex parte communication having to recuse themselves
from a hearing or result in the dismissal of an application.
2
Page 39 of 41
3. MEETINGS
3.1. Regular ZBA meetings shall be held on the second Monday of every month at 7:00 P.M.,
or such other days and/or times as determined by the ZBA, in the Galligan Board Room of the
Civic Center or other noticed place, unless such day shall be a recognized holiday. Any regular
meeting may be cancelled by the ZBA if any case or matter is not ready to proceed, or if a quorum
of the ZBA is not available for a regular meeting.
3.2. A quorum shall consist of four members of the seven (7) member ZBA.
3.4. All ZBA meetings shall comply with the Open Meetings Act. All ZBA meetings shall be open
to the public, and no official action shall be taken except during a public meeting.
3.5. The latest edition of Robert’s Rules of Order shall govern the ZBA’s meetings except when
in conflict with the Village Code or any applicable Village ordinances, rules adopted by the Village
Board, these Rules, or State law.
3.6. The order of agenda items may be modified by the Chair with the consent of the ZBA.
3.7. The Rules for Public Comment adopted by the Village President and Board of Trustees
on _________________, 2025 (“Rules for Public Comment”), as amended, shall govern the ZBA.
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
4.1. Notice of public hearings shall be given in accordance with the Village Zoning Code and
State law.
4.2. The Chair shall request a motion to open a public hearing which shall be voted upon by a
voice vote.
4.3. Continuances: If a public hearing is to be continued, a motion to continue the hearing to
a date certain shall be made which shall be voted upon by a voice vote. All continuances shall be
to a date certain and no further notice shall be required. One continuance will be granted to a
petitioner, if requested. Further continuances will be at the ZBA’s discretion. If after the
presentation of the petitioner’s application, other interested parties wish to have the hearing
continued so that they might prepare evidence or testimony of their own concerning or in
response to the petitioner’s application, the ZBA may grant a continuance.
4.4. At the conclusion of a public hearing, a motion to close the public hearing shall be made
which shall be voted upon by a voice vote.
4.5. A record of a public hearing must be maintained in the form of minutes.
3
Page 40 of 41
4.6. The petitioner, or the petitioner’s authorized representative, must be present at the
public hearing. Whenever a petitioner or the petitioner’s representative fails to appear, the ZBA
may choose to dismiss the application. Dismissal for a failure to appear is not a determination
on the merits and shall not bar the filing of a new application.
4.7. Each person speaking at a public hearing shall be sworn in as a witness and shall identify
themselves and provide their address. A speaker may choose to decline to provide their address.
4.8. Petitioners or objectors may present witnesses for direct questions. The ZBA may limit the
number of witnesses whose testimony is cumulative or not relevant to a matter before the ZBA.
4.9. Cross-examination of witnesses shall be permitted, provided that the Chair may limit
redundant questions and make other limitations based on relevancy. The examination of a
witness shall not be used by a questioner to offer testimony or evidence of the questioner.
4.10. The Chair may require a preliminary statement of the nature of the evidence proposed to
be elicited from a witness.
4.11. All questions or statements from the floor must be directed to the Chair.
4.12. Public comment and testimony shall take place in accordance with the Village’s Rules for
Public Comment.
4.13. Upon the close of a public hearing, the ZBA shall deliberate on an application and shall
vote to either recommend to the Village Board than an application be approved or denied by a
majority vote of those members in attendance. The ZBA must conduct its deliberations and vote in
a public session.
4.14. Upon the adoption of a motion to either recommend approval or denial of an application,
the ZBA shall adopt written findings of fact and a recommendation based upon the ZBA’s adopted
motion by a majority vote of those members in attendance.
4.15. ZBA members who are absent for one or more hearing sessions as applicable may vote on
the ZBA’s recommendation and the adoption of written findings of fact and recommendation if they
affirm that they have either listened to the audio of the proceedings and reviewed the evidentiary
materials or read the draft meeting minutes and reviewed the evidentiary materials.
4.16. If a petitioner wishes a court reporter to be present at a hearing, the petitioner must engage
the court reporter at the petitioner’s cost. The Village shall audio record hearings.
5. AMENDMENT TO RULES
5.1. These Rules may be amended by a vote of four (4) members of the ZBA at any regular
meeting of the ZBA.
4
Page 41 of 41