Zoning Board of Appeals
Regular MeetingGlen Ellyn, IL · November 4, 2025
Minutes
MINUTES
Glen Ellyn Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting
Tuesday, November 4, 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, Todd Buckton, Matthew Jones, Christiane McKnight and Craig Pavlich.
Absent: Members Peter Kelly and Noureen Lakhani.
Also in attendance: Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Jordan Frahm, Associate Planner, Robert Duncan, Village Trustee and
Adriana Ohl Zamora, Recording Secretary.
B. Public Comment (non-agenda items)
None
C. Approval of Minutes
1. Review and Approval of the Minutes of October 7, 2025, Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting.
Member Buckton made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Member Jones seconded the motion. Motion passed by
voice vote (5) yes, (0) no.
All Petitioners and staff were unanimously sworn in.
D. New Business
1. Public Hearing- 445 Stagecoach Run
Member Pavlich moved to reopen the Public Hearing on 445 Stagecoach Run. Member McKnight seconded the motion
and passed by voice vote (6) yes, (0) no
Sworn in, Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn, reintroduced the following variation request for 445
Stagecoach Run
Amendment to Roll Call- Member Noureen Lakhani arrived.
Daniel reintroduced the zoning variation to the Board Members as follows:
The petitioner, Jamie Simoneit, representing Thomas and Ann Villanova, the owners of the property at 445 Stagecoach Run, has
applied for a zoning variation to accommodate the proposed interior remodel of the home attic which includes a new shed dormer
with a proposed eave height of twenty-eight feet and eight inches (28'-8") in lieu of the maximum allowed eave height of twenty-
five feet (25'-0"). Applicant is proposing an interior remodel and exterior alteration to convert the existing attic into a third story
for a home office and loft space. As part of this proposed conversion, the plans include a shed dormer located in the rear of the
home to provide natural light into the space and provide a more accessible point of egress. The eave height of the proposed shed
dormer is approximately 28'-8" in height, or 3'-8" higher than the maximum allowed eave height of 25'-0".
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 of a proposed dormer on the principal structure of twenty-eight feet, eight inches
(28’-8”) in lieu of the maximum allowed eave height of twenty-five feet (25’-0”).
The following attachments were provided and shown to Board Members:
• Aerial Map of 445 Stagecoach
• Zoning Map
• Plat of Survey
• Building Elevations
• Floor Plan
Member Questions:
Commissioner Pavlich- Maximum height section to R2 residential, there is a max height but there is a bonus for dormers. I object
to how this was written, in this case. Section 10-4-8 F 4 is the section of the code that I am speaking of
Daniel- when speaking with architect, we discussed bonuses and how they worked.
Pavlich- this house would need a variation anyway?
Daniel- The home was originally approved in 1989 with a lot coverage ratio of 29.9%. The proposed modification would not
need a variation as it is class one modification to the structure.
Petitioners: Tom Villanova & Ann Villanova Sworn In
Petitioner Tom- introduced himself and family (spouse & two children) how his life has changed over time and now needs the
space as he works from home. He did get signatures from many people who supported the variation. The change will be in the
back of the home and not visible from the street.
Signatures of neighbors provided to Chairperson Miller.
Daniel J. Simoneit, Architect- We are requesting a minor variation to code, the lot is pie shaped in nature and wider in the back.
The proposed modification is impossible to see from the street. Trying to give Mr. Villanova a quality space to live in, stand up
and walk around. The dormer looks due south and will bring light in. We are asking for a standard height for the windows.
Majority of homes on Stagecoach are developed as full 2-story homes. This will be small piece of bulk on back side and because
the property is tapered we could not utilize bonuses provided in the code.
Commissioner Pavlich- what percent is length of dormer as drawn here?
Daniel J Simoneit, Architect- Just under the 20%, I’m sorry I don’t know the numbers off my head.
Commissioner Pavlich- you are proposing one dormer here instead of multiple dormers that are under 8ft?
Daniel J Simonet, Architect- yes that is correct, the dog house dormers; we are easily 25ft back in from each side, I doubt you
will be able to see any of this walking around the yard when its complete.
Commissioner Jones- what is the hardship besides building code? What is hardship or unique circumstances?
Mrs. Anne Villanova- Tom works from home, I am a stay-at-home mom, we have two little kids. His office is off the living
room. We have tried to move his office to basement but was not good for his mental health with no sunlight and that is why he
moved back to the first floor and that leaves us to where we are now, trying to do something else.
Daniel J. Simoneit, Architect- Code is that limitation is limiting quality of life, use of space that is there.
Commissioner Jones- that is if you combine both the dormers that you can do, correct?
Daniel J. Simoneit, Architect- sorry I am not understanding the question.
Commissioner Jones- you can go 16ft if you have two different dormers, correct?
Daniel J. Simoneit, Architect- I am not worried about the width. If property was square, we would not be here. It’s a 2’-8”
variation that is 30 plus feet in the air.
Commissioner Buckton: Dormer will yield plus or minus 350 square feet of useable floor attic space, is that correct, an exact
number?
Daniel J. Simoneit- I actually brought a document with that information. Mr. Simoneit handed document to Commissioners.
It will yield plus or minus 372 sq ft., out of that without dormer, you end up with shaft down middle. Constructing the dormer up
creates floor area within the space.
Commissioner Buckton- Mr. Villanova, when I was in your yard it looks like the neighbor to the south would be most affected;
did you speak with that neighbor?
Petitioner Villanova-Yes, I did speak with both Jeff and Cathy on Stagecoach Court. Cathy said “Tell them I said yes”
Commissioner Miller- what is hardship with foot and a half? We are talking 8 inches on each side
Daniel Harper, Village Planning Manager- You cannot exceed 8-feet in width per dormer and then you would be limited to 16
and a half feet.
Commissioner Miller- ok, no questions then.
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 McKnight seconded the motion. Roll call was called and
the motion passed 6(yes) 0 (no).
Deliberation
Commissioner Buckton- I don’t see a problem with this variation, go for it and build.
Commissioner McKnight- I am inclined to vote in favor, you have a lot of support from neighbors.
Commissioner Jones- I am a no, the way the code is written, there isn’t a hardship in my opinion.
Commissioner Pavlich- I am inclined to be in favor, I agree that hardship is negligible, but that is why we have variations to
make those minor changes.
Commissioner Lakhani- I am inclined to be in favor.
Commissioner Miller- really dormer reflects what is behind the house too, its same height, I work from home as well, it’s
difficult to work without light, I understand, I think it fits with character of the neighborhood. I don’t have an issue with it.
Member Buckton made a motion to close Public Meeting; Member Lakhani seconded the motion. Motion passed
unanimously (6) yes., (0) no.
Commissioner Pavlich-Finding of Facts- 445 Stagecoach Drive. We heard property owners Tom and Ann Villanova and
Jaime Simoneit the architect. We discussed the various limitations in terms of code regarding dormers and dormer bonuses.
Proposed dormer is less than total width allowed but wider than a single dormer is allowed to be and doesn’t fit within the
allowed height. Petitioners provided 9 signatures from neighbors in support.
Motion to approve Findings of Fact by Commissioner Buckton, Seconded by Commissioner Lakhani. The motion passed with
a vote (6) yes, (0) no.
A Motion to approve variations from Section 10-10-10 of Glen Ellyn Code on property located on 445 Stagecoach, was made
by Member Pavlich and seconded by Member Lakhani. The motion passed with four (5) votes yes and
one (1) vote no. Member Jones in the dissent.
Commissioner Buckton made a motion to open public hearing for 654 Duane Street, Motion seconded by Commissioner
McKnight. Motion passed with unanimous vote (6) yes, (0) no
2. Public Hearing- 654 Duane Street
The petitioner, Studio 1 Architects, representing Grant and Danielle Terrell, the owners of the property at 654 Duane Street, has
applied for a zoning variation to accommodate a proposed addition to the side of the home with a proposed front yard setback of
thirty-five feet and one inch (35'-1") in lieu of the required front yard setback of thirty-eight feet (38'-0").
The home owners are seeking a variation from section 10-4-8 (D) 1.b. This is a reduction of the front yard setback from 37'-8" to
35'1" due to the orientation of the home on the lot. The owners are proposing a 2-story addition. Estimated date to begin new use
construction is 11/11/2025 which would consist in the addition of a new family room, stairs to the basement and a bedroom of
normal size on the second floor. Home was constructed on 2degree angle, that brings it closer to front property line.
The homeowners are seeking a variation from section 10-4-8 (D)(1)(b). This is a reduction of the front yard setback from 38'-0"
to 35'-1" due to the orientation of the home on the lot.
The existing, non-conforming condition of the home's front yard setback is the challenge to the addition. The house is currently
situated at an angle or skew relative to the front lot line, which causes a portion of the structure to already encroach upon the
required setback front yard setback. This orientation is a pre-existing condition and is not a result of the proposed addition.
Because of this pre-existing condition, the proposed addition, which is located to align with the current layout of the home,
cannot meet the full 38'-0" setback, determined by the western neighbor, 650 Duane Street, without causing design challenges.
The requested reduction of only 2'-11" is the minimum necessary to accommodate the new addition while respecting the home's
existing footprint and architectural integrity. 2nd story addition will be kept in line with current home; rear property windows are
for first story living room.
The following attachments were provided and shown to Board Members:
• Aerial Map of 654 Duane St.
• Zoning Map
• Plat of Survey
• Site Plan
• Floor & Elevation Plan
Member Questions:
Commissioner Jones- if this house was 3 feet further back, we would not be here.
Daniel Harper, Village Planning Manager- yes, that is correct.
Commissioner Pavlich- Referring to code, Section A; minimum set back is 30ft, but because neighbor is further back, they are
expected to be further back, because we consider the 2 adjacent houses, but they only have one then this is up for variation; I did
note that there are a lot of other houses that are closer.
Chairperson Miller- Daniel would you like to tell us what 634, 638 and 646 are?
Daniel Harper, Village Planning Manager all properties going due west on Duane Street. 634 Duane Street is setback 25.5 feet;
638 Duane Street is setback 24.5 feet, and 646 Duane Street is 32.9 feet from front property line.
Commissioner Pavlich- to be clear this meets all the normal standards for a normal lot, it’s similar to neighboring houses
Commissioner Lakhani- on zoning map this is shown as 2 parcels, is there a reason for that?
Daniel Harper Village Planning Manager- they are, those are two taxing parcels, they were two properties at one point. Because
they are common ownership, they are considered as one zoning lot, we treat the two parcels as if they were combined.
Petitioner- Grant Terrell Sworn in as he missed being sworn in.
Petitioner Grant Terrell- explained that he does work from home and needs the space, they have been residents of Glen Ellyn for
eight years. I tried working from home in basement, however, was very dark to work in.
Steve Pateracki, Studio 1 Architect- this property as Daniel previously stated is skewed on the lot, which is the main hardship, it
is 2% skewed, with our addition we are trying to create extra living space for at-home work. We thought it was important to at
least set back the addition to keep with the architecture of the home. We are essentially keeping skew intact as we move back in
property. New area encroachment is 25 square feet. Not trying to go into the side yard setback.
Petitioner- I did also communicate with neighbor to south, west and east. I have email from neighbor to south.
Deliberation:
Commissioner Buckton- this block has some variance with front yard setbacks; I look at this variation as a result of that variance
that we are seeing in other homes on the respective block. Addition will add to property and neighborhood. I will vote in favor of
it. I don’t think it will be a problem.
Commissioner McKnight- I also will be voting yes; there is a hardship here with the skew of the home on the lot.
Commissioner Jones- I am a yes.
Commissioner Pavlich- I am also a yes, significant hardship to the owner is the setbacks of current neighbors.
Commissioner Lakhani- I am in favor.
Chairperson Miller- I am in favor for the same reasons, if all other houses had not been that much forward, I may not have been
in favor.
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 Pavlich seconded the motion. Roll call was called and
the motion passed 6 (yes) 0 (no).
Commissioner Pavlich- Findings of Fact; regarding the application of Grant and Danielle Terrell for a variation request on
654 Duane Street, in regard to section 10-4-8 D.1.B to allow for the addition to be setback 35.1 feet in lieu of the 38 feet which
was driven by neighboring house which is in excess of normal front set back of 30 feet, we heard from petitioners and Zoning
expert Daniel of setback of adjacent properties which are 634 Duane Street at 25.6 feet; 638 Duane Street at 24.7 feet from
front yard, and 646 Duane Street that is 32.8 feet from front property line. The remainder of block has significantly lower set
back, proposed construction plans were seen.
Motion to approve Findings of Facts by Commissioner Jones, Seconded by Commissioner Buckton, roll was called
passed by a unanimous vote 6 (yes) 0 (no).
Member Pavlich made a motion to approve the variation request from Section 10-10-10 for the property located on 654 Duane
St., Member Buckton seconded the motion; roll was called passed by a unanimous vote 6 (yes) 0 (no).
Motion to open public hearing made by Commissioner Jones, Seconded by Commissioner Pavlich. Motion passed
unanimously with a (6) yes, (0) no vote.
3. Public Hearing- 189 East Road
Jordan Frahm, Associate Planner presented the following property:
The petitioner, Chalet Vavrek, the owner of the property at 189 East Road, has applied for a zoning variation to construct a
residential sport court at a setback of 7 feet from all lot lines in lieu of the required 15-foot setback.
In order to proceed with the project as proposed, the petitioner will need to be granted the following variation from the Zoning
Code:
1. Section 10-5-5(B)4(34) to allow for a residential sport court to be setback 7-feet from all property lines in lieu of the required
15-feet.
According to the narrative provided by the applicant, a 7-foot setback allows for the sport court to be placed in a favorable
location relative to adjacent properties. This is explained by the 7-foot setback allowing for the sport court to be positioned
behind detached garages located at 193 East Road and 188 N. Park Boulevard, creating a visual and audible buffer between the
two properties. At the required setback of 15 feet, this barrier is reduced or eliminated. Per the narrative of the application,
"granting this variance will improve the character of the neighborhood by allowing the court to be tucked behind existing garages
and blended into landscaping, rather than pushed into the center of the backyard. The 7' setback preserves open green space
where it is most visible, maintains privacy for neighbors, and ensures the design complements the historic home and surrounding
properties by allowing it to sit discreetly in the corner." Letters of support have been received from all neighbors except for one,
The Johnsons who were in support however today one letter asking questions about what type of sport court would go in, the
noise. Questions about landscaping did come up from neighbors, the landscaping plan was provided by DuPage Landscaping.
Additionally, the applicant notes topographical advantages in constructing the sport court nearer to the property lines. Per the
narrative of the application, "The further the court is sited into the northeast corner (achievable with the smaller setback) the
flatter the land becomes, which minimizes soil disturbance and should reduce changes to stormwater drainage. By contrast,
applying the combined lot’s 15' setback would increase soil disturbance and alter drainage".
The following Attachments were provided and shown to Commissioners:
• 189 East Road Aerial Map
• Zoning Map
• Plat of Survey
• Site Plan
• Letters of Support- as of tonight, Jordan noted that the Neighbors the Johnsons rescinded their support letter.
• Emerson Letter of Support
Member Questions:
Commissioner Jones- when home is demolished, is this being consolidated into one lot?
Daniel Harper, Village Planning Manager- yes, we would want them to. We have one nonconforming to north, and conforming to
south, if they were to demo and construct Tennis court, it would straddle existing two lots, accessory structure cannot be alone on
a parcel, so we would want them to be consolidated together.
Commissioner Jones- after lots are consolidated, they cannot be split, correct?
Daniel Harper, Village Planning Manager- yes that is correct.
Commissioner McKnight- the Johnsons rescinded their letter of support; is that immediately adjacent to one side of this property?
Jordan Frahm, Village Planning Associate- yes immediately to the east.
Commissioner McKnight- concerns about storm water run offs? Would those be reviewed?
Jordan Frahm, Village Planning Associate- this would have a storm water review, this is not in a flood plain, no storm water
concerns.
Commissioner Pavlich- aside from setbacks, no lot coverage issues?
Jordan Frahm, Associate Village Planner- correct.
Commissioner Pavlich- any limitations outside lot coverage?
Jordan Frahm, Associate Village Planner- lot coverage in Village of Glen Ellyn is roof structure coverage, only for impermeable
surface applies here in regards to code.
Commissioner Jones- if they put Sports Court where drive way was, we would not be here?
Jordan Frahm, Associate Village Planner- it has to be set back a min of 30feet, so it would not be allowed. Can’t have in corner
side yard.
Daniel Harper, Village Planning Manager - if you rotated it 90 degrees then yes you could put it there.
Chairperson Miller- is the garage on east road house staying or going?
Jordan Frahm, Associate Planning Manager- the garage is to be demolished.
Petitioner Chalet Vavrek: home designed by great grandparents in 1940. Deep meaning and family history, on a corner lot. We
have outgrown the property lot. Neighboring house at 189 East Road became available and we purchased it. 189 East Road lot is
70ft wide, demo house to combine lots, the required setbacks jump up and work against us.
We designed this layout with the intention of protecting neighbors, 7 feet setbacks keeps sports court tucked more behind the
garages, neighbor to East with 7 feet, half court and hoop would be screened by corner of garage. If it was 15 feet it would push it
in direct view of their home. Lots in our block are 50 to 70 ft wide, more open green space in most visible view of property,
matching setbacks of all neighboring properties.
Goal has been made to blend in naturally and not stand out, specific situation, corner lots in Glen Ellyn that are new construction
are very small. Variance is best for neighbors, environment and for us as a whole.
Commissioner Lakhani- are they aware of landscaping plan to help shield court from their view?
Petitioner Chalet Vavrek- no, I don’t think so. We will do privacy trees all around the house.
Commissioner Buckton- basketball- is that primary use?
Petitioner Chalet Vavrek- that is the primary use
Sworn in Member of Public, Marilyn Johnson- daughter of the Johnson’s my parents wanted to make certain rules were
appropriate and wanted to withdraw letter of support as mother saw the pictures today, sport court looked much bigger than they
anticipated.
Deliberation:
Commissioner Pavlich- I’m on fence on this one; sports courts in general are a large challenge. Considered an impervious issue
but its more than that, it’s about adding noise. My opinion is that I don’t love the plan for those reasons, but given that they are
allowed, I don’t have a problem with setbacks that you proposed. I will likely vote in favor.
Commissioner Jones- I am a no, years ago we had similar ordinance, as we know they are on the lot lines right on driveway. Both
houses are beautiful, this will be a forever home but a forever lot another reason why I am a no. With a bigger lot and being a
forever lot, I think it should meet the requirements for that lot and provide more buffer for the neighbors.
Commissioner McKnight- I am also a no, I don’t think a hardship is shown here; coming to meeting there was 4 letters of
support, and one has withdrawn now; there is no hardship.
Commissioner Buckton- I am also going to vote no, this is a 150 ft lot, code says it needs 15 feet set back; you will be dealing
with noise and similar concerns to my other commissioners, I don’t see the hardship here. I will be voting no.
Chairman Miller- I am also a no. I don’t see the hardship. If the neighbor behind were to come around to it, and everybody agrees
perhaps.
Commissioner Lakhani- I am a no.
Commissioner Jones- I am a no.
Commissioner Pavlich- We are allowed to have sport courts and have combined lots; this is really a question of whether the
neighbors agree to the location of the court or not.
DuPage Landscaping -The goal is to have a sport court; we will do an excellent job with landscape and with a fence; property
does have a slope which will have impact to property and useable space. We will be under lot coverage for impervious surface.
Commissioner Jones- looking at topographical survey, as you move south on that property, as you move west, the biggest slope is
in the southwest corner, and this is going in the northeast corner.
DuPage Landscaping- as you move to south you start to encounter more of a slope, and you get closer to primary house. The
further you get to the south, the more of a slope you have as proposed.
Commissioner Pavlich- no requirement that the sport court be oriented in any way?
Petitioner Chalet Vavrek- the reason that we didn’t do it the other direction was because it would affect the other neighbors, out
of respect for them we changed the orientation.
Commissioner Jones- Would you consider moving the court 15 feet to the West from the lot line?
Petitioner Chalet Vavek- that is a possibility, if the neighbors to the East would be ok with it. Half is covered by garage, the
basketball hoop would be in full view, sound wise, yes I agree it would be better, visually it would be more of an impact.
Commissioner Pavlich- maybe if there is a sound wall, if sound structure such as a fence, then this would be a time to propose
that. Might be an opportunity if you will be going back to neighbors.
Chairperson Miller- It seems that there is a possibility, if you can bring the neighbors, get them here and then come back. That
would be my suggestion, or we can close meeting and vote.
Neighbor Johnson (daughter)- parents are open to getting sport court, if more communication is provided.
Chairperson Miller- this is a tough one for us, in any case. It’s a difficult one for us. We are trying to help you.
Daniel Harper, Village Planning Manager- you have an option of voting for denial, then it goes to Village Board of Trustees, or
you can have a continuance and we have to set a specific date for that; continuance in this case would be on December 9th.
Commissioner Buckton- I am a hard no.
Chairperson Miller- I am a hard no as well. With your neighbors to come back and have them show up in person if possible. If
they cannot attend a written correspondence would be acceptable.
Member Jones made a motion to continue the public hearing of the variance on 189 East Road until December 9th. Member
McKnight seconded the motion. Roll call was called and the motion passed 6 (yes) 0 (no).
Member Jones made a motion to open the public hearing for 167 Forest Ave; motion was seconded by Member Pavlich.
4. Public Hearing-167 Forest Ave
The petitioner, Lance Rock, the owner of the property at 167 Forest Avenue, has applied for a construction necessitated zoning
variation to allow a deck that was built without a permit in 2024 to be setback 6 feet (6'-0") from the south property line in lieu of
the required 6-feet, 6-inches (6'-6").
The petitioners request approval of the following variation from the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code:
1. Section 10-5-5(B)4(8) to allow for a deck to encroach into the side-yard setback so that the deck is setback 6 feet from the
south property line in lieu of the required 6 feet, 6 inches
The property was the subject of an anonymous call to the Village of Glen Ellyn Community Development Department in August
2024. A Village Inspector visited the site and confirmed that work had been done without a permit. The property owner was
issued a citation and was required to submit a building permit for the structures. Note: Even if a setback variation is approved by
the Village Board, the property owner will still be obligated to obtain a building permit in compliance with the 2018 International
Residential Code (IRC).
Deck:
Since the deck was constructed without a permit and is essentially complete, and was found that the construction is not prescribed
by the 2018 IRC, an Illinois Licensed Structural Engineer was required to provide stamped, signed, and dated as-built drawings
of the deck including, but not limited to, footings, posts, flitch beams, beam splices, structural connections, etc. This has been
submitted and is still under village review. A new plat of survey for the property was also created as part of the building permit
application and indicated that the deck was located 6'-0" from the south property and encroached 0-6" into the required side yard
setback. The applicant has submitted a construction necessitated variation application in order to keep the deck in the existing
location.
Fireplace:
Regarding the fireplace feature, the property owner must provide as-built drawings produced by an Illinois Licensed Architect
including the foundations, height, etc. and certify that it is constructed in accordance with the 2018 IRC. This is not yet
completed. Property owner has submitted building permit.
The scope is not necessarily for fireplace, but that is not within our scope tonight for zoning. The deck is what we are discussing
tonight. Deck as constructed was shown, if zoning code was to be enforced,
The Following attachments were provided and shown to Commissioners:
• 167 Forest aerial map
• Zoning Map
• Plat of Survey
• Site Plan
Member Questions:
Commissioner Jones- does footing and foundation meet building code?
Daniel Harper, Village Planning Manager- The post-construction building plans are currently under review by our staff.
Commissioner Pavlich- are we able to make a zoning recommendation conditional on building code? If they have to move and
replace something can that modification also include modification?
Daniel Harper, Village Planning Manager- motion of approval based on conditions presented, building permits must be presented
by Village.
Petitioner Lance Rock- I built the deck, old deck had original steps that were deeper than they should be. We fell and ended up in
hospital; the old deck was in bad shape. Fountains on deck that had chlorine and eating away at deck. I should have pulled a
permit, absolutely. I put steel between beams, and the deck is 3 times stronger than normal. The old deck was not water proof and
was rotting away, you could step right through. I am in absolute violation because I should have pulled permit.
My hardship is, I used the same posts that are in the ground, zero movement on post. Deck itself is totally square as possible. I
have manufactured post and rails, all products are all A grade, I over build, to remove that. I would create an issue that I don’t
know how I would resolve. If I do that, it will loosen all the top boards, and re-screw screws. I am going to cause a problem to
the south where I have to remove the 6 inches, only 4inches, so my true encroachment is 4inches. I went with maximum, those
blinds to left are not mine, they are the neighbors. Only neighbor can see the deck, she has bushes and put blinds up. Regardless
of how this started, I should have pulled a permit. I made a mistake.
Commissioner Buckton- when was original deck built?
Petitioner Lance Rock- I don’t know, I have no idea.
Commissioner Buckton- original footings of original deck were 6 inches out?
Petitioner Lance Rock- no, I put two feet out to the South.
Buckton- Regarding the fireplace, did you build that as well, did you have architect design it?
Petitioner Lance Rock- the deck I knew how, the fireplace was done by a Mason, my wife wanted a firepit.
Commissioner Pavlich- we often get a confusion about what gets a hardship with zoning.
Commissioner Jones- if he was to remove deck 6 inches but leave supports, are supports technically deck?
Daniel Harper, Village Planning Manager- I am going to consider it part of deck right now.
Deliberation
Commissioner Lakhani- I am not in favor of this.
Commissioner Pavlich- I would hate to see you mess up your deck over 6-inches; it would be more appropriate that you plead
your case to the board. The Board can and has overruled a recommendation, they are the ultimate authority. I will be voting no at
this time.
Commissioner McKnight- I have to vote no as well, I don’t think hardship has been shown.
Commissioner Buckton- I am in an odd situation, the deck looks to be extremely well built; building permits will take place,
inspection of deck will take place. If results of building permit came back and said everything is fine, then I would vote yes. For
6 inches I will not stand in the way.
Daniel Harper, Village Planning Manager- building plans still under review, inspection has been made.
Commissioner Jones- Did you get a survey for your yard? Do they have footnotes of where the post are? I would recommend that
you take that info to explain where your posts are and eaves are; I am a no with where we are tonight.
Petitioner Lance Rock- yes. Understood.
Chairperson Miller- deck is beautiful, I am always a hard no on construction related variances. Wife fell off steps because they
were too high, that is why you get the permit to know how it should be built. That is purpose of it and very hard for me to say
yes. It’s a self-created hardship.
Findings of Fact:
Member McKnight, the Zoning Board of Appeals having fully heard and considered the testimony of Mr. Lance Rock the
homeowner and all those present at the Hearing who wished to testify and being fully advised in the premises makes the
following findings pursuant sections 10-10-12 of the Villages Zoning Code. The Applicant seeks a Zoning variation to allow
for a Deck that was constructed without a Permit to have the deck 6ft from the South property line in lieu of the required 6ft
6inches. The Zoning Board of Appeals considered the following evidence 167 Forest aerial map Zoning Map, Plat of Survey,
Site Plan.
Motion to Accept Findings of Fact by Member Jones, Member Buckton seconded the motion. Roll call was called and
the motion passed 6 (yes) 0 (no).
Amendment- Member McKnight adding the Petitioner did present document that a number of neighbors had no issue with the
deck. Adding to minutes to document. Voice vote taken, all Members in agreement.
Member McKnight made a motion to deny the variation request from Section 10-10-10 of Glen Ellyn Village Code, on
property located on 167 Forest Ave., I recommend that we deny requested zoning variation based on Findings of Fact.
Member Jones seconded the motion; motion passed by a vote 4 (yes) 2 (no).
E. Other Business- None
F. Chairman’s Statement:
Chairman Miller is working with Village Attorney to make Member voting much simpler and faster.
G. Trustee Liaison Report
Trustee Duncan stated that “it is a privilege to be here, and we are currently working through our budget.” He hoped to have more
to report during the next meeting.
H. Staff Report
Planning Manager Daniel Harper- Stated the following:
• 194 S. Ellen Detached Garage, ZBA voted approve 3 of 4 variations and deny eave height. Village Board chose to
approve eave height of 14 feet.
• 734 Merideth Place; Nonconforming structure- that was given approval by Village Board of Trustees as well.
• Downtown event park- demo completed; close to completing phase one building permit review.
• Next week 1184 Roosevelt- former home of House of Brides, rehabbing, reconstructing the parking lot, salon suites in
middle, fry the coop restaurant.
• Maplewood brewery- going into two hound red space- On Monday exterior appearance will be considered by Village
Board. Once sign approved, they want sign variations to be considered by the Plan Commission.
• Annexation proposal on Alstrand Road requires subdivision variations.
• Village board is considering text amendment to C4 office to allow restaurant use.
Commissioner Jones- the house that was given permit to approve garage, if they end up tearing down, they have to come
back to rebuild?
Daniel: Correct, new building permit, new zoning variation.
I. Adjournment
Member Lakhani made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Member Jones seconded the motion and passed by voice vote at
9:30PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Adriana Ohl Zamora
Agenda
Agenda
Village of Glen Ellyn
Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting
Tuesday, November 4, 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. Approval of the Minutes
1) Review and Approval of the October 7, 2025, Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting
Minutes.
D. New Business
1) Public Hearing — 445 Stagecoach Run
2) Public Hearing - 654 Duane Street
3) Public Hearing — 189 East Road
4) Public Hearing - 167 Forest Avenue
E. Other Business
F. Chairperson's Statement
G. Trustee Liaison's Report
H. Staff Report
I. Adjournment
Dear Petitioner(s) and Interested Citizens: Once a variation request has been heard by the
Zoning Board of Appeals, the Board may make a recommendation and minutes of the
hearing are prepared. The variation, along with the minutes, summary report and all related
material, is submitted for consideration by the Village Board at a regularly scheduled Village
Board meeting. To confirm exact times and dates for Village Board consideration of a
project, please call 630-547-5241.
Civility Pledge - In the interest of civility, I pledge to promote civility by listening, being respectful of others,
acknowledging that we are striving to support and improve our community, and understanding that we each may have
different ideas for achieving that objective.
Packet
Agenda
Village of Glen Ellyn
Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting
Tuesday, November 4, 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. Approval of the Minutes
1) Review and Approval of the October 7, 2025, Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting
Minutes.
D. New Business
1) Public Hearing — 445 Stagecoach Run
2) Public Hearing - 654 Duane Street
3) Public Hearing — 189 East Road
4) Public Hearing - 167 Forest Avenue
E. Other Business
F. Chairperson's Statement
G. Trustee Liaison's Report
H. Staff Report
I. Adjournment
Dear Petitioner(s) and Interested Citizens: Once a variation request has been heard by the
Zoning Board of Appeals, the Board may make a recommendation and minutes of the
hearing are prepared. The variation, along with the minutes, summary report and all related
material, is submitted for consideration by the Village Board at a regularly scheduled Village
Board meeting. To confirm exact times and dates for Village Board consideration of a
project, please call 630-547-5241.
Civility Pledge - In the interest of civility, I pledge to promote civility by listening, being respectful of others,
acknowledging that we are striving to support and improve our community, and understanding that we each may have Page 1 of 80
different ideas for achieving that objective.
Glen Ellyn Zoning Board of Meeting 11/4/2025 7:00 PM
Appeals Department: Community Development
535 Duane Street Department Head: Jennifer Henaghan
Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Category: Minutes
Prepared By: Daniel Harper
AGENDA ITEM (ID DOC ID: 2025-927
# 2025-927)
Review and Approval of the October 7, 2025, Zoning Board of
Appeals Meeting Minutes.
Statement of the Issue:
Review and Approval of the October 7, 2025, Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes.
Analysis:
Review and Approval of the October 7, 2025, Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes.
Budget Impact:
Contribution to Strategic Plan
Action Requested:
Review and Approval of the October 7, 2025, Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes.
Attachments:
1. Draft October 7, 2025, ZBA Minutes
Page 2 of 80
DRAFT MINUTES
Glen Ellyn Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting
Tuesday, October 7, 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 7:03 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, Peter Kelly, Noureen Lakhani, and Craig Pavlich
Absent: Christiane McKnight, Todd Buckton
Also in attendance: Daniel Harper, Planning Manager and Adriana Ohl Zamora, Recording Secretary.
B. Public Comment (non-agenda items)
None
C. Approval of Minutes
1. Review and Approval of the Minutes of September 2, 2025, Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting.
Member Pavlich made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Member Jones seconded the motion. Motion passed with
Members Kelly and Miller abstaining due to not attending the meeting.
2. Review and Approval of the Minutes of September 9, 2025, Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting.
Member Jones made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Member Kelly seconded the motion. Motion passed
unanimously.
D. Old Business
1. Public Hearing-194 S. Ellyn Avenue
Member Lakhani moved to reopen the Public Hearing on 194 S. Ellyn Ave. Member Jones seconded the motion and the
motion passed by voice vote.
Sworn in, Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn, reintroduced the following variation request for 194
S. Ellyn Avenue.
Daniel reintroduced the zoning variation to the Board Members as follows:
After considering the originally proposed variation to allow for an addition to the non-conforming garage at its September 9,
2025, meeting, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to continue the public hearing of this request to the October ZBA meeting to
allow for the applicant to bring new proposals showing reduced eave heights and reduced dormer sizes to reduce the overall
impact of the proposed massing of the addition to the existing accessory structure. The applicant has brought two new exhibits
(Exhibit A and Exhibit B) to be considered by the ZBA.
Exhibit A: This proposed addition shows an eave height of 12 feet with two 3'-6" wide dormers. The proposed eave height is
conforming per section 10-4-8(F) of the Village Code. The proposed dormer eave heights of approximately 17 feet would also be
permissible per Section 10-4-8(F)(1)(4) of the Village Code as the dormers are less than 8 feet in width and do not exceed 25
percent of the building's side. This proposed exhibit would eliminate the need for variation request number 1.
Exhibit B: This proposed addition shows an eave height of 14 feet with one 7-foot-wide dormer. This proposal reduces the
original eave height request by two feet (2'-0") while still maintaining the higher ceilings that are desired by the applicant. This
proposal shows one dormer on the west side of the addition and two skylights on the east side.
Page 3 of 80
Seeing no questions for staff, Chairperson Miller asked the petitioner to make their presentation.
Sworn in, Petitioner Dennis Sheehan
Mr. Sheehan presented a comparative eave height exhibit of the two options that was proposed to the ZBA. He stated that both
proposed options would be appropriate for the area. He requested that the 14 feet eave height be considered and claimed that the
reduced eave height would reduce approximately 500sqft of "usable space."
Member Questions
Member Pavlich- Do you know the eave height of the principal structure.
Petitioner Sheehan- About 12 feet.
Member Pavlich- My memory from the last meeting was that is around 16 feet in height.
Member Jones – Stated his support for variation requests 2, 3 and 4. He stated his support for both proposed exhibits and was
willing to listen to the deliberation of the board members.
Member Pavlich – Stated that he supported Exhibit A that showed the 12-foot eave height request as this is conforming to the
code.
Member Kelly – Stated that he supported the application for variations 2, 3 and 4 and supported the design shown in Exhibit A
has this elimination the need for the eave height variation.
Member Lakhani – Stated that she agreed with the sentiments of the statements from previous members.
Chairperson Miller – Stated that he would not support application’s requests for variations.
Petitioner Sheehan – Stated that the difference between 12 feet and 14 feet is not significant on the outside of the structure but is
significant to the interior of the structure as this allows much greater vertical space and allows for much more maneuverability
within the structure.
Member Jones – Asked for clarification on if the zoning for the property had changed at any point in the past.
Mr. Harper – I’m sure the details regulating accessory structures have changed but I do not know the timeline or have that
information available at this time.
Seeing no further questions from the Board, Chairperson Miller asked a motion to close the public hearing.
Member Kelly made a motion to close the public hearing Member Lakhani seconded the motion. Roll call was called and
the motion passed 5 (yes) 0 (no).
Member Jones made a motion to deny the variation request from Section 10-4-8(F) as this is not the minimum variation
necessary to make possible the reasonable use of the structure. Member Kelly seconded the motion; roll was called
passed by a unanimous vote 5 (yes) 0 (no).
A Motion to approve variations from Section 10-5-4(A)(2)(a), Section 10-5-4(A)(3), and Section 10-5-4(B)(2) on 194 S.
Ellyn Avenue was made by Member Kelly and seconded by Member Jones. The motion passed with four (4) votes yes and
one (1) vote no. Chairperson Miller in the dissent.
Findings of Fact- 194 S. Ellyn Avenue.
The Zoning Board of Appeals, having fully heard and considered the testimony of all those present at the hearing and being fully
advised of the premises makes the following findings pursuant to sections 10-10-12 of the Villages Zoning Code. The evidence
provided by the applicant and presented in the public hearing shows that three proposed zoning variations meet the above
standards because the proposed variation is necessary to construct a second story addition to a previously permitted non-
conforming garage as the garage was originally constructed in 1964. Two neighboring residents spoke in favor of the request.
The proposed ridge height would be in conforming to the zoning code. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances,
and the variation will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Page 4 of 80
Pursuant to the authority vested in it by the statues of the State of Illinois and the Zoning Code of the Village of Glen Ellyn, the
Zoning Board of Appeals, hereby recommends to the Village President and Board of Trustees pursuant to a vote of 4-1, that three
(3) of the requested zoning variations reflected in these findings be granted and that the Applicant’s request for those zoning
variations be approved and the zoning variation from 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”) be denied for the property located at 194
S. Ellyn Avenue, Glen Ellyn, Illinois.
Motion to accept Findings of Fact by Member Jones Seconded by Member Lakhani. Motion was approved unanimously.
E. New Business
1. Public Hearing - 445 Stagecoach Run
Chairperson Miller requested a motion to table the public hearing for the application to the November 4, 2025, ZBA Meeting.
A motion was made by Member Pavlich to table the public hearing for the application to the November 4, 2025, ZBA
Meeting. Seconded by Member Jones. Motion carried unanimously.
2. Public Hearing - 734 Meredith Place
Member Jones motioned to open the Public Hearing on 734 Meredith Place. Member Kelly seconded the motion and the
motion passed by voice vote.
Sworn in, Petitioner Dan Wilt, owner of 734 Meredith Place.
Mr. Wilt: Stated that he was proposing to rehabilitate the garage while raising the roof of the structure so as to be adequate for the
storage of modern-day cars. The garage is to maintain the same footprint and setbacks.
Sworn in, Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn, introduced the following variation request for 734
Meredith Place.
Mr. Harper explained that the property currently has a 500 square foot two-car garage that is located approximately one foot (1'-
0") from the eastern property line in lieu of the required twenty-foot (20’-0”) corner side-yard setback. The applicant is proposing
to raise the roof of the existing garage to allow for a garage door opening of eight feet (8'-0") in height. According to the
applicant, the current garage door opening is six feet (6'-0") tall and does not accommodate heights of contemporary cars. The
maximum ridge height of the proposed enlargement would be thirteen feet and eight inches (13'-8") and would be the allowed
height for a detached garage per village code. Mr. Harper explained that according to a building permit record dated 5/1/1969, a
variation was granted on 9/23/1968 to allow for the construction of the detached garage at its current location.
The alteration of the structure requires a zoning variation because a structural modification to a legally existing non-conforming
structure is not permissible per village code.
Member Questions
Member Lakhani- is this structure being used as a garage right now?
Mr. Harper – Yes.
Member Kelly – do paver patios count towards lot coverage in the code?
Mr. Harper – no, lot coverage counts towards roofed structures. Paver patios do count towards impervious surface coverage.
Member Pavlich, asked the applicant – the garage will maintain the same area and footprint, correct?
Mr. Wilt – Yes. Yes, we are performing repairs to the garage and raising the roof.
Member Pavlich – Will the existing foundation be replaced?
Mr. Wilt – It will depend on the condition of the foundation while when we begin the rehabilitation.
Member Pavlich – So you will try to rehabilitate the existing structure?
Page 5 of 80
Mr. Wilt – Yes. When we compared alternatives for a new garage, rehabilitating the existing structure was the preferred option.
Member Pavlich – stated that the property has a unique shape and topography.
Member Jones – stated that its proximity to Riford Road created challenges. He asked if the applicant would be willing to move
the garage to be 3 feet from the side and rear lot lines as this is the requirement for interior lots.
Mr. Wilt – That was not my intention and would create challenges in utilizing the existing foundation like we have planned.
Chairperson Miller – is the current condition of the garage a safety risk?
Mr. Wilt – Yes, the garage has to be repaired as the structure is potentially dangerous.
Member Jones made a motion to close the public hearing Member Kelly seconded the motion. Roll call was called and the
motion passed 6 (yes) 0 (no).
Deliberation
Member Kelly - This seems straight forward and that to require a new garage in a new location would be onerous to the property
owner. This appears to be a minimal request, and I support this request.
Member Lakhani - I also support this request.
Member Jones - Stated he would support a 3-foot side yard setback but would not support the 1-foot side yard request.
Member Pavlich - Because the new design would conform to village code and that this would not further increase the existing
encroachment, I support this request.
There was discussion on whether the variation would be applicable if new construction was proposed. Mr. Harper stated the
zoning request was specific to the proposed structural alteration. If the alteration permit is no longer in effect and a new permit is
submitted for new construction, then a new variation would need to be requested.
Chairperson Miller - Because this is an existing non-conforming structure and would not further increase the existing non-
conforming encroachment, I support this request.
Member Jones: Stated that 3 feet would be appropriate if the foundation was being replaced.
Member Pavlich made a motion to approve the request as presented. Member Lakhani seconded the motion. Roll call was
called and the motion passed 4 (yes) 1 (no). Member Jones in the dissent.
Findings of Fact – 734 Meredith Place
The Zoning Board of Appeals, having fully heard and considered the testimony of all those present at the hearing and being fully
advised of the premises makes the following findings pursuant to sections 10-10-12 of the Villages Zoning Code. The evidence
provided by the applicant and presented in the public hearing shows that the proposed zoning variation meets the required
standards because the proposed variation is necessary to rehabilitate the existing legal non-conforming garage that was permitted
and originally constructed in 1969. The proposed ridge height would be in conforming to the zoning code. The plight of the
owner is due to unique circumstances, and the variation will not alter the essential character of the locality. Pursuant to the
authority vested in it by the statues of the State of Illinois and the Zoning Code of the Village of Glen Ellyn, the Zoning Board of
Appeals, hereby recommends to the Village President and Board of Trustees pursuant to a vote of 4-1, that the Applicant’s
request for zoning variations be approved for the property located at 734 Meredith Place, Glen Ellyn, Illinois.
Motion to accept Findings of Fact by Member Jones. Seconded by Member Lakhani. Motion was approved unanimously.
F. Other Business
1. Review and approval of Rules of Procedure for the Glen Ellyn Zoning Board of Appeals
Motion to approve and adopt the Rules of Procedure for the Glen Ellyn Zoning Board of Appeals by Member Kelly,
Member Jones second all in favor. Motion passed unanimously.
Page 6 of 80
E. Chairperson’s Statement
Chairperson Miller asked the Board regarding procedural order on whether the findings of fact should come before or after the
motion for the application. The Board concluded that findings of fact should come before the motion for approval or denial of the
application.
Chairperson Miller made note that the newly appointed Trustee Duncan will be the trustee liaison to the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
F. Trustee Liaison Report
No Trustee Liaison Report
G. Staff Report
Planning Manager Daniel Harper- Stated the following:
- 807 Hill Avenue Variation was approved by the Village Board.
- 236 Sunset Avenue Variation was approved by the Village Board.
- 365 Kenilworth Variation was approved by the Village Board.
- 799 Riford is being considered for a Historic Landmark Designation.
- The Plan Commission will consider a text amendment to allow for restaurant use in the C4 Office District.
- We have four ZBA items coming for the November meeting date.
- Exterior Appearance Review for Maplewood Brewery on October 28.
- Proposed annexation on Ahlstrand Road.
- Legacy Shops of Glen Ellyn variations coming to November Plan Commission.
H. Adjournment
Member Lakhani made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Member Pavlich seconded the motion and passed by voice vote
at 8:40 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Daniel Harper
Page 7 of 80
Glen Ellyn Zoning Board Meeting 11/4/2025 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: 2025-922
# 2025-922)
Public Hearing — 445 Stagecoach Run
Statement of the Issue:
The petitioner, Jamie Simoneit, representing Thomas and Ann Villanova, the owners of the property
at 445 Stagecoach Run, has applied for a zoning variation to accommodate the proposed interior
remodel of the home attic which includes a new shed dormer with a proposed eave height of
twenty-eight feet and eight inches (28'-8") in lieu of the maximum allowed eave height of twenty-five
feet (25'-0").
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 of a proposed dormer on the principal structure of
twenty-eight feet, eight inches (28’-8”) in lieu of the maximum allowed eave height of twenty-five
feet (25’-0”).
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 September 19, 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: The property was included in a zoning variation petitioned by the Stacy
Woods Homeowners Association to allow for the construction of a 6'-6" solid wood fence to be
constructed along the southern property lines of 443, 445, 447, and 451 Stagecoach Run and 465,
569 and 473 Stagecoach Court in lieu of the minimum 4-foot tall, 50% open fence permitted. The
approving ordinance of the variation is Ordinance No. 5688.
PERMIT HISTORY:
Year Permit No. Type
2019 20191429 Patio & Walkway
2018 20180827 Roof, Gutters,
Downspouts
Page 8 of 80
2010 20101900 Fence
1995 B15252 Finish Basement
1990 B11490 Deck
1989 B11278 New Single-Family Home
ANALYSIS: In order to proceed with the project as proposed, the petitioner will need to be
granted the following variation from the Zoning Code:
1. Section 10-4-8(F) to allow an eave height of a proposed dormer on the principal structure of
twenty-eight feet, eight inches (28’-8”) in lieu of the maximum allowed eave height of twenty-five
feet (25’-0”).
The applicant is proposing an interior remodel and exterior alteration to convert the existing attic
into a third story for a home office and loft space. As part of this proposed conversion, the plans
include a shed dormer located in the rear of the home to provide natural light into the space and
provide a more accessible point of egress. The eave height of the proposed shed dormer is
approximately 28'-8" in height, or 3'-8" higher than the maximum allowed eave height of 25'-0".
The Zoning Code has a bonus provision that allows dormers to be exempted from the maximum
allowable eave height, but that is limited to dormers that do not exceed eight feet (8') in width
individually and, in the case of this home, no more than 16.5' in total. The proposed dormer exceeds
18' in width, so it does not qualify for the dormer height bonus.
There is also a bonus provision that allows the maximum eave height to be increased on homes that
are set back a greater distance than the minimum required by the Code. In this case, to qualify for a
bonus that would allow for an eave height of 28’-8”, the side yard setbacks would need to be no less
than 12.7' on each side. The existing side yard setbacks of 9.47' (west) and 9.6' (east) are less than
one (1) foot greater than the minimum required and below what would be necessary to qualify for a
four-foot eave height bonus.
NOTE: The existing home has a lot area coverage ratio of approximately 25.9%, which does not
conform to the maximum 20% lot coverage ratio that is permitted for homes more than one story in
height. However, the home was lawfully constructed as there was no lot coverage ratio in place at
the time the home was permitted in 1989. The proposed Class I alteration to a nonconforming
structure is permitted by Section 10-8-6(B)(3) of the Zoning Code.
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.
Page 9 of 80
The ZBA may choose to make a recommendation to the Village Board for the approval, approval
with conditions, or denial of the request per Section 10-10-12 of the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code.
Attachments:
1. Application - Zoning Variation
2. Aerial Map 445 Stagecoach
3. Zoning Map 445 Stagecoach
4. Plat of Survey
5. Building Elevations
6. Floor Plan
Page 10 of 80
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 11 of 80
Page 12 of 80
APPLICATION FOR ZONING VARIATION
Date Filed: 9/5/2025 Application No: 2025-0036
Name of Applicant: Daniel J Simoneit
Address of Applicant: 864 Woodland Avenue Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
Property Interest of Applicant: Owner Representative - Architect
Name of Owner: Thomas & Ann Villanova
Address of Owner: 445 Stagecoach Run Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
Phone:
Email:
Contacts:
Type Name Address Phone Email
864 Woodland Avenue Glen
Petitioner Daniel J Simoneit Ellyn, IL 60137
864 Woodland Avenue Glen
Web Administrator Daniel J Simoneit Ellyn, IL 60137
Thomas & Ann 445 Stagecoach Run Glen
Parcel Owner Villanova Ellyn, IL 60137
Property Address: 445 Stagecoach Run
Project Name: Web Project
Project Description: Interior remodel w/ a new shed dormer at the existing third floor attic to
provide natural light and egress for a proposed "work from home" office
Legal Description of Property:
OF LOT 34 IN STACY WOODS RESUBDIVISION
UNIT 3,
BEING A SUBDIVISION OP PART OF THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 2,
TOWNSHIP 39 NORTH,
Page 13 of 80
RANGE 10 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT
THEREOF RECORDED MAY 12, 1989 AS DOCUMENT R89-055876 IN DU PAGE
COUNTY, ILLINOIS.
Freestanding Single Family Private Residence w/ a (2) car attached garage
Estimated Date to Begin New Use/Construction: 11/1/2025
Present Use: Zoning: R2, Single Family Residential District
Lot Dimensions: irregular: N: arc 60.55' x E: 117.49 x S: 71.25 x 137.16
Lot Area: 10224
: 05023240120000
Narrative Statement:
Zoning Variation to: 10-4-8: R2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (F) MAXIMUM HEIGHT -
MAXIMUM EAVE, Lot Width 66' to 90' (25'). We are seeking a 28'8" (+ 3'8") eave height for a
proposed shed dormer located on the south/backside of an existing 2-story single family private
residence.
EVIDENCE RELATING TO ZONING CODE STANDARDS FOR A VARIATION:
1. Provide evidence that due to the characteristics of the property in question, there are
practical difficulties or particular hardship for the applicant/owner in carrying out the
strict letter of the Zoning Code:
1. The home was constructed in 1989, (13) years prior to the adoption of the current code
2. The property is irregular in shape on a curving street w/ side yards that taper to the
rear - thus a reduced/smaller rear and interior side yard widths 3. The maximum eave
height forces egress window egress sills down onto the the floor creating a hazardous
condition 4. the maximum eave height reduces the amount of natural light and
ventilation to the proposed office
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 home is built in a very unique Neo-eclectic French Cottage style w/ a soaring roof line
that masks the second + third floors behind what appears to be 1.5 story home. The
elevated ridge line and four-sided hipped roof yields +/- 350 sf of usable floor are at the
third floor/attic that is currently unused/unfinished
Page 14 of 80
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 shed dormer faces the south back yard and will not be able to be viewed from
the street.
4. Provide evidence that the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical
condition of the property in question would bring particular hardship upon the
applicant/owner as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the
Zoning Code were to be carried out:
The property is irregularly shaped on a curved street w/ side yards that taper from a wide
front to a narrower back thus creating smaller side yards. If the lot was not tapered this
variation request would not be necessary because the home would qualify for a 30'+
Maximum Eave Bonus
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:
Forty homes face Stagecoach Run. Thirty six of them present themselves as traditional 2-
story homes. The Villanova residence is one offer that present as 1.5 story.
6. Provide evidence that the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire to
make more money out of the property in question:
The purpose of the variation is to create a usable work from home office w/ adequate (per
code) natural light and ventilation in existing usable third floor square footage in lieu of a
more expensive addition.
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 home was built in 1989 - (13) years before the current code was adopted. The
Villanova's purchased the home in 2018
8. Provide evidence that the granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the
property in question is located.
None expected at this time. We are seeking a variation to increase an eave that is to be
located in the rear yard by (.102% ) from 25' to 28'8"
9. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Impair an adequate supply of light
and air to adjacent property.
None expected at this time. The proposed dormer is on the south side and below the homes
ridge line - thus the homes existing shadow line will not be changed - thus the proposed
dormer will have zero impact on both the supply of light and air to neighboring/adjacent
properties.
10. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Substantially increase the hazard
from fire or other dangers to the property in question or adjacent property.
Page 15 of 80
None expected at this time. The existing home is outfitted with smoke detectors per code,
as will the proposed attic office. The distance between the adjacent homes will remain
unchanged.
11. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Otherwise impair the public health,
safety, comfort, morals or general welfare of the inhabitants of the Village. None expected
at this time. We believe that upon completion of this project that we will be greatly
improving the property and thus the welfare of the neighborhood and the Village of Glen
Ellyn.
12. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Diminish or impair property values
within the neighborhood.
None expected at this time. We believe that upon completion of this project that we will
be greatly improving the home and it's value - thus improving property values with in Stagecoach
Run and the Village of Glen Ellyn.
13. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Unduly increase traffic congestion
in the public streets and highway.
None expected at this time. Construction debris dumpsters and material delivery will be
staged on the property in the driveway.
14. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Create a nuisance.
None expected at this time. The General Contractor shall be respectful of all codes +
ordinances regarding construction with in the Village.
15. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Results in an increase in public
expenditures.
None expected at this time. This project is on private property and is to be fully funded
privately.
16. Provide evidence that the variation is the minimum variation that will make possible the
reasonable use of the land, building or structure.
The requested increase of 3'8" will allow for the windows to be lifted up off the floor and
allow them to be set at typical head height of 6'8"
17. Please add any comments which may assist the commission in reviewing this application.
The Villanova's have lived in the home for a little over over 7 years and are now re-
investing in the house to update its original 36 year old finishes in the effort to make this
their forever home. Tom works from home putting in over forty hours a week and spends
the majority of that time on the phone - converting the unused and unfinished attic space
to a usable work office creates the amenity that will keep him and his family of four in 445
Stagecoach Run for many years to come. Thank you for your valuable time and your
consideration in the matter.
Page 16 of 80
Aerial Map - 445 Stagecoach Run
0 150 300 Print Date: 9/15/2025 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 17 of 80
Zoning Map - 445 Stagecoach Run
Legend
Zoning and Development
Zoning
R1: Single Family Residential District
R2: Single Family Residential District
0 300 600 Print Date: 9/15/2025 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 18 of 80
Villanova Residence 445 Stagecoach Run
Page 19 of 80
ISSUE DATES
DESCRIPTION DATE
00 PROPOSAL MTG. 11.07.24
2X01 2X02 2X03 2X04 2X05 00 CONTRACT / RETAINER 12.06.24
00 DOCUMENT EXISTING 01.16.25
00 INPUT EXISTING 03.20.25
01 PROGRAM + SD.01 04.18.25
02 SD.02 + DD.01 05.02.25
RIDGE 03 SD.03 + DD.01 05.16.25
04 SD.04 + DD.02 06.19.25
05 SD.05 + DD.03 05.18.25
3'6"
05 PRELIMINARY PRICING 05.18.25
EAVE
11'4.25"
03
VILLANOVA RESIDENCE
1'3.25" 9.25"
9'0" TOFF. FL.02 TO TOP FIN. FL.03
32'2" AVE. GRADE TO HIGHEST RIDGE
28'8" 6'8" H.HT.
445 STAGECOACH RUN
02
1'0"
2'4"
6'8" H.HT. 9'0" TOFF. FL.01 TO TOP FIN. FL.02
GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 60137
01
1'0"
8'8.5" TOS. FL.00 TO TOP FIN. FL.01
7'8.5"
00
1X01 1N01 1X02 1X03 GN01
architecture + interiors
504 hillside avenue
glen ellyn,illinois 60137
p 630.858.5888
f 630.858.5828
zplusoai@astound.net
EXTERIOR ELEVATION: FRONT / NORTH 1/4" = 1'0" 02 zpluso.com
01010101010101010101
STATE OF ILLINOIS
DESIGN FIRM
REGISTRATION
NUMBER
184007431-0001
EXPIRES: 2026-11.30
DRAWING TITLE
EXTERIOR ELEVATION
FRONT / NORTH FACADE
PROJECT NO.: 24.016
SHEET NUMBER
WINDOW SCHEDULE: 1/4" = 1'0" 01 A4.00
Page 20 of 80
3’8”
ISSUE DATES
DESCRIPTION DATE
00 PROPOSAL MTG. 11.07.24
2X06 2X07 2X08 2N01 00 CONTRACT / RETAINER 12.06.24
00 DOCUMENT EXISTING 01.16.25
00 INPUT EXISTING 03.20.25
proposed dormer 01 PROGRAM + SD.01 04.18.25
02 SD.02 + DD.01 05.02.25
03 SD.03 + DD.01 05.16.25
existing roof
RIDGE
04 SD.04 + DD.02 06.19.25
05 SD.05 + DD.03 05.18.25
Proposed 28'-8" Eave Height
3'6"
05 PRELIMINARY PRICING 05.18.25
EAVE
11'4.25"
3'-8" Difference in Proposed and Allowed Eave Heights
03
VILLANOVA RESIDENCE
1'3.25" 9.25"
9'0" TOFF. FL.02 TO TOP FIN. FL.03
32'2" AVE. GRADE TO HIGHEST RIDGE
6'8" H.HT.
25'-0"
28'8"
445 STAGECOACH RUN
02
1'0"
Maximum Allowed Eave Height
2'4"
6'8" H.HT. 9'0" TOFF. FL.01 TO TOP FIN. FL.02
GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 60137
01
1'0"
8'8.5" TOS. FL.00 TO TOP FIN. FL.01
7'8.5"
00
1X04 1X02 1X05 1X06
architecture + interiors
504 hillside avenue
glen ellyn,illinois 60137
p 630.858.5888
f 630.858.5828
zplusoai@astound.net
EXTERIOR ELEVATION: RH / WEST FACADES 1/4" = 1'0" 02 zpluso.com
01010101010101010101
STATE OF ILLINOIS
DESIGN FIRM
REGISTRATION
NUMBER
184007431-0001
EXPIRES: 2026-11.30
DRAWING TITLE
EXTERIOR ELEVATION
RH / WEST FACADE
PROJECT NO.: 24.016
SHEET NUMBER
DOOR SCHEDULE: EXTERIOR 1/4" = 1'0" 10 01 A4.01
Page 21 of 80
3’-8”
ISSUE DATES
DESCRIPTION DATE
00 PROPOSAL MTG. 11.07.24
3N01 3N02 3N03 proposed dormer 00 CONTRACT / RETAINER 12.06.24
00 DOCUMENT EXISTING 01.16.25
00 INPUT EXISTING 03.20.25
existing roof 01 PROGRAM + SD.01 04.18.25
02 SD.02 + DD.01 05.02.25
RIDGE 03 SD.03 + DD.01 05.16.25
04 SD.04 + DD.02 06.19.25
Proposed 28'-8" Eave Height 05 SD.05 + DD.03 05.18.25
3'6"
05 PRELIMINARY PRICING 05.18.25
EAVE
11'4.25"
3'-8" Difference in Proposed and Allowed Eave Height
03
VILLANOVA RESIDENCE
1'3.25" 9.25"
9'0" TOFF. FL.02 TO TOP FIN. FL.03
32'2" AVE. GRADE TO HIGHEST RIDGE
Maximum Allowed 25'-0" Eave Height
28'8" 6'8" H.HT.
445 STAGECOACH RUN
25'-0" 02
1'0"
2'4"
6'8" H.HT. 9'0" TOFF. FL.01 TO TOP FIN. FL.02
GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 60137
01
1'0"
8'8.5" TOS. FL.00 TO TOP FIN. FL.01
7'8.5"
00
2X09 2X10 2X11
1X08 1X10 1X11 1X12
architecture + interiors
504 hillside avenue
glen ellyn,illinois 60137
p 630.858.5888
f 630.858.5828
zplusoai@astound.net
EXTERIOR ELEVATION: BACK / SOUTH FACADE 1/4" = 1'0" 02 zpluso.com
01010101010101010101
STATE OF ILLINOIS
DESIGN FIRM
REGISTRATION
NUMBER
184007431-0001
EXPIRES: 2026-11.30
DRAWING TITLE
EXTERIOR ELEVATION
BACK / SOUTH FACADE
PROJECT NO.: 24.016
SHEET NUMBER
LIGHT + VENTILATION SCHEDULE 10 01 A4.02
Page 22 of 80
3’-8”
ISSUE DATES
DESCRIPTION DATE
proposed dormer 00 PROPOSAL MTG. 11.07.24
2N02 00 CONTRACT / RETAINER 12.06.24
00 DOCUMENT EXISTING 01.16.25
existing roof 00 INPUT EXISTING
01 PROGRAM + SD.01
03.20.25
04.18.25
02 SD.02 + DD.01 05.02.25
RIDGE 03 SD.03 + DD.01 05.16.25
04 SD.04 + DD.02 06.19.25
Proposed 28'-8" Eave Height 05 SD.05 + DD.03 05.18.25
3'6"
05 PRELIMINARY PRICING 05.18.25
EAVE
3'-8" Difference in Proposed and Allowed Eave Height 11'4.25"
03
VILLANOVA RESIDENCE
1'3.25" 9.25"
9'0" TOFF. FL.02 TO TOP FIN. FL.03
32'2" AVE. GRADE TO HIGHEST RIDGE
Maximum Allowed Eave Height
28'8" 6'8" H.HT.
445 STAGECOACH RUN
25'-0" 02
1'0"
2'4"
6'8" H.HT. 9'0" TOFF. FL.01 TO TOP FIN. FL.02
GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 60137
01
1'0"
8'8.5" TOS. FL.00 TO TOP FIN. FL.01
7'8.5"
00
1X04 1X13 1X14 1X15
architecture + interiors
504 hillside avenue
glen ellyn,illinois 60137
p 630.858.5888
f 630.858.5828
zplusoai@astound.net
EXTERIOR ELEVATION: LH / EAST FACADE 1/4" = 1'0" 02 zpluso.com
01010101010101010101
STATE OF ILLINOIS
DESIGN FIRM
REGISTRATION
NUMBER
184007431-0001
EXPIRES: 2026-11.30
DRAWING TITLE
EXTERIOR ELEVATION
LH / EAST FACADE
PROJECT NO.: 24.016
SHEET NUMBER
EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE 13 MILLWORK SCHEDULE 07 PLUMBING FIXTURE SCHEDULE 01 A4.03
Page 23 of 80
ISSUE DATES
DESCRIPTION DATE
00 PROPOSAL MTG. 11.07.24
00 CONTRACT / RETAINER 12.06.24
00 DOCUMENT EXISTING 01.16.25
00 INPUT EXISTING 03.20.25
01 PROGRAM + SD.01 04.18.25
02 SD.02 + DD.01 05.02.25
03 SD.03 + DD.01 05.16.25
04 SD.04 + DD.02 06.19.25
05 SD.05 + DD.03 05.18.25
05 PRELIMINARY PRICING 05.18.25
VILLANOVA RESIDENCE
445 STAGECOACH RUN
PROJECT LIMITS - NEW SHED DORMER
GENERAL NOTES: 03
GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 60137
architecture + interiors
504 hillside avenue
glen ellyn,illinois 60137
p 630.858.5888
f 630.858.5828
zplusoai@astound.net
SYMBOLS: 02 zpluso.com
01010101010101010101
STATE OF ILLINOIS
DESIGN FIRM
REGISTRATION
NUMBER
184007431-0001
PROJECT LIMITS - GARAGE EXTENSION
MTG.05: 2025-07.18
ROOF
EXPIRES: 2026-11.30
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DRAWING TITLE
N
PRELIMINARY DEMOLITION
BUDGET PRICING ROOF
PROJECT NO.: 24.016
SHEET NUMBER
DEMOLITION: ROOF 1/4" = 1'0" 04 KEY NOTES: 01 A1.03
Page 24 of 80
ISSUE DATES
DESCRIPTION DATE
00 PROPOSAL MTG. 11.07.24
00 CONTRACT / RETAINER 12.06.24
00 DOCUMENT EXISTING 01.16.25
00 INPUT EXISTING 03.20.25
01 PROGRAM + SD.01 04.18.25
02 SD.02 + DD.01 05.02.25
03 SD.03 + DD.01 05.16.25
04 SD.04 + DD.02 06.19.25
05 SD.05 + DD.03 05.18.25
3N03 3N02 3N01
05 PRELIMINARY PRICING 05.18.25
482.43 gsf
VILLANOVA RESIDENCE
445 STAGECOACH RUN
GENERAL NOTES: 03
section
GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 60137
DN
48
loft office
architecture + interiors
504 hillside avenue
glen ellyn,illinois 60137
p 630.858.5888
f 630.858.5828
zplusoai@astound.net
SYMBOLS: 02 zpluso.com
01010101010101010101
STATE OF ILLINOIS
DESIGN FIRM
REGISTRATION
NUMBER
section
184007431-0001
MTG.05: 2025-07.18
ROOF
EXPIRES: 2026-11.30
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DRAWING TITLE
N
PRELIMINARY NEW CONSTRUCTION
BUDGET PRICING THIRD FLOOR
PROJECT NO.: 24.016
SHEET NUMBER
NEW CONSTRUCTION: THIRD FLOOR 1/4" = 1'0" KEY NOTES: 01 A2.03
Page 25 of 80
Glen Ellyn Zoning Board Meeting 11/4/2025 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: 2025-923
# 2025-923)
Public Hearing - 654 Duane Street
Statement of the Issue:
The petitioner, Studio 1 Architects, representing Grant and Danielle Terrell, the owners of the
property at 654 Duane Street, has applied for a zoning variation to accommodate a proposed
addition to the side of the home with a proposed front yard setback of thirty-five feet and one inch
(35'-1") in lieu of the required front yard setback of thirty-eight feet (38'-0").
Analysis:
REQUEST: The petitioners request approval of the following variation from the Glen Ellyn
Zoning Code:
1. Section 10-4-8(D)1(b) to allow for the addition to be setback 35-feet, 1-inch from the front
property line in lieu of the required 38-feet.
ZONING/USE: The subject property is zoned R2 - Residential District and improved with an
existing two-story single-family home.
PUBLIC NOTICE: Notice of the public hearing was published in the October 16, 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 associated with the property.
PERMIT HISTORY:
Year Permit No. Type
2016 20161981 Roof
2014 20141609 Bath and Kitchen Remodel
2010 20100919 Basement Remodel
2008 20080963 New Detached Garage
2008 20080703 Sump Pump
1997 B17012 Basement and 2-Story Addition
1970 B5596 Detached Garage
1951 2918 New Single-Family Residance
Page 26 of 80
ANALYSIS: In order to proceed with the project as proposed, the petitioner will need to be
granted the following variation from the Zoning Code:
1. Section 10-4-8(D)1(b) to allow for the addition to be setback 35-feet, 1-inch from the front
property line in lieu of the required 38-feet.
The applicant is proposing an approximately 1,043 square foot addition to the east and north of the
home. The proposed addition consists of an addition of an office, stairway and new family room
located on the first floor and a new bedroom with a full bathroom on the second floor. The
basement will also be expanded and match the footprint of the addition.
Section 10-4-8(D)(1)(b) of the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code requires additions to principal structures to
be no closer than the principal structure on either adjacent lot on the same block and same side of
the street. The adjacent property in question is the property located to the west of the property at
650 Duane Street. Using the plat of survey information available to the Village, it was determined
that 650 Duane Street is set back from the front property line of approximately thirty-eight feet (38'-
0"), requiring that the proposed addition be a setback at thirty-eight feet (38'-0") as well.
The existing home was constructed at an angle of approximately 2-degrees inward to the front
property line. This angle of orientation is not parallel to the front property line and culminates in an
existing front yard setback of thirty-six feet (36'-0"). The proposed addition is designed with a front
setback of thirty-five feet and one inch (35'-1") from the front property line and is set back from the
existing front wall by 1’-6” instead of the 4’-5” setback that would be required by the Zoning Code.
The proposed addition is designed at the same angle as the existing home in order to maintain the
home's existing orientation of the outer front wall alignment. The applicant has reported in their
application that "The requested reduction is the minimum necessary to accommodate the new
addition while respecting the home's existing footprint and architectural integrity."
The proposed addition meets all other Village zoning requirements with regard to lot coverage,
building heights and setbacks. The eastern chimney of the addition utilizes an allowance per section
10-5-5(B)(4)(7) of the code and projects one foot (1'-0") into the corner side yard setback.
Budget Impact:
Contribution to Strategic Plan
Action Requested:
The ZBA should consider the testimony presented during the public hearing and review the written
evidence presented as part of the petitioners’ application packet. The ZBA should make findings of
fact and determine if practical difficulty or a particular hardship exists for the requested variation
and if the essential character of the neighborhood is maintained.
The ZBA may choose to make a recommendation to the Village Board for the approval, approval
with conditions, or denial of the request per Section 10-10-12 of the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code.
Page 27 of 80
Attachments:
1. Application - Zoning Variation
2. 654 Duane Street - Aerial Map
3. 654 Duane Street - Zoning Map
4. Site Plan
5. Floor and Elevation Plan
Page 28 of 80
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 80
APPLICATION FOR ZONING VARIATION
Date Filed: 9/11/2025 Application No: 2025-0039
Name of Applicant: Studio 1 Architects
Address of Applicant: 1105 Burlington Ave Western Springs, IL 60558
Property Interest of Applicant: Owner Representative
Name of Owner: Grant & Danielle Terrell
Address of Owner: 654 Duane St Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
Phone:
Email:
Contacts:
Type Name Address Phone Email
1105 Burlington Ave
Petitioner Studio 1 Architects Western Springs, IL 60558
1105 Burlington Ave
Web Administrator Studio 1 Architects Western Springs, IL 60558
Grant & Danielle 654 Duane St Glen Ellyn, IL
Parcel Owner Terrell 60137
Property Address: 654 Duane St
Project Name: Web Project
Project Description: The home owners are seeking a variation from section 10-4-8 (D) 1.b.. This
is a reduction of the front yard setback from 37'-8" to 35'1" due to the orientation of the home on
the lot. The owners are proposing a 2-story addition.
Legal Description of Property:
LOTS 7 AND 8 IN THE HIGHLANDS, A SUBDIVISION OF PARTS OF BLOCKS 2
AND 3 IN PHILLIPS FOURTH ADDITION AND ALL OF LOT 19 IN COUNTY
CLERK'S THIRD ASSESSMENT DIVISION, BEING PART OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF
SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 39 NORTH,
RANGE 10, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT
OF THE HIGHLANDS RECORDED JUNE 18, 1910 AS DOCUMENT 100991, IN DUPAGE
COUNTY, ILLINOIS.
Page 30 of 80
Zoning: R2, Single Family Residential District
Lot Dimensions: varies see plat of survey attached
Lot Area: 16200
: 05114130170000
Present Use:
Single family residential
Estimated Date to Begin New Use/Construction: 11/11/2025
Name(s), Address(es) and Phone No(s). of Experts (architects, engineers, etc.):
<featid:44:326 <featid:44:291 <featid:44:292 <featid:44:293 <featid:44:294 <featid:44:295
> > > > > >
Narrative Statement:
The home owners would like to add an addition on to their home that would consist of a new
family room, stairs to the basement and a bedroom of normal size on the second floor. The existing
residence was built in 1911 and is a 2-story sided home. No major additions have been built onto
the home.
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 homeowners are seeking a variation from section 10-4-8 (D)(1)(b). This is a
reduction of the front yard setback from 38'-0" to 35'-1" due to the orientation of the
home on the lot
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 existing, non-conforming condition of the home's front yard setback is the challenge
to the addition. The house is currently situated at an angle or skew relative to the front lot
line, which causes a portion of the structure to already encroach upon the required setback
front yard setback. This orientation is a pre-existing condition and is not a result of the
proposed addition.
Page 31 of 80
Because of this pre-existing condition, the proposed addition, which is located to
align with the current layout of the home, cannot meet the full 38'-0" setback, determined
by the western neighbor, 650 Duane Street, without causing design challenges. The
requested reduction of only 2'-11" is the minimum necessary to accommodate the new
addition while respecting the home's existing footprint and architectural integrity.
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 property is slightly irregular shaped, is a corner lot and the home was built skewed to
the front lot line. This skew creates the hardship to add an addition that would line up with
the front of the home. We feel that although lining the addition up with the front of the
existing home would give a good extra amount of space we want to respect the architectural
style of the home. Providing an offset maintains the main homes presence and the addition
compliments it by utilizing the same style and detailing.
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 essential character of the neighborhood will be maintained. The design of the home
is meant to complement the existing architectural style.
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 skew of the home on the lot creates the hardship. The lot is relatively flat but
the shape is slightly irregular and it is a corner lot that meets the required setback. With
the home being so close to the corner side yard setback the limitation to create good space
to the east is limited so the desire of the homeowners is to build to the south. This maintains
that corner side yard setback and maintains the green space and openness.
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 clients are committed to living in the home. They are primarily concerned with making
the home more livable for their everyday lives.
7. Provide evidence that the alleged difficulty or particular hardship has not been created by
any person presently having an interest in the property in question or by the applicant.
Page 32 of 80
The owners purchased the home as is and have not added any square footage to the home.
The home has always been skewed to the front yard setback.
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 project is minimal in footprint and meets the required corner side yard requirement.
There is additional square footage to make the footprint bigger but the owners have
determined that this footprint leaves lots of green space which is important to them. No
detriment is foreseen in the design of the proposed addition.
9. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Impair an adequate supply of light
and air to adjacent property.
Based on the home being on a wider lot and on a corner there is plenty of light and air for
the neighbors.
10. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Substantially increase the hazard
from fire or other dangers to the property in question or adjacent property.
No increase in fire or other dangers would be increased.
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. No impairment
to any of the above.
12. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Diminish or impair property values
within the neighborhood.
It will not.
13. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Unduly increase traffic congestion
in the public streets and highway.
No added congestion is foreseen
14. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Create a nuisance.
It will not.
15. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Results in an increase in public
expenditures.
No additional expenditures are foreseen.
16. Provide evidence that the variation is the minimum variation that will make possible the
reasonable use of the land, building or structure.
This is not foreseen.
17. Please add any comments which may assist the commission in reviewing this application.
This is a minimal encroachment, requesting only a 2'-11" reduction, which is the least
amount necessary to accommodate the new construction in a way that makes sense with
the existing home's layout and architectural style. The requested variance is the direct
result of a peculiar condition of the property itself, not a self-created hardship, and it
Page 33 of 80
represents the minimum necessary change to allow for a reasonable use of the property.
Granting this variation will allow for a beneficial home improvement project without
negatively impacting the public good or the character of the neighborhood.
OWNERSHIP BY LAND TRUST
Date: 9/11/2025
Address: 654 Duane St
Legal Description:
LOTS 7 AND 8 IN THE HIGHLANDS, A SUBDIVISION OF PARTS OF BLOCKS 2
AND 3 IN PHILLIPS FOURTH ADDITION AND ALL OF LOT 19 IN COUNTY
CLERK'S THIRD ASSESSMENT DIVISION, BEING PART OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF
SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 39 NORTH,
RANGE 10, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT
OF THE HIGHLANDS RECORDED JUNE 18, 1910 AS DOCUMENT 100991, IN DUPAGE
COUNTY, ILLINOIS.
TRUSTEE: TRUST NO.:
Address:
LIST ALL BENEFICIARIES:
Page 34 of 80
OWNERSHIP BY A CORPORATION
Date: 9/11/2025
Address: 654 Duane St
Legal Description:
LOTS 7 AND 8 IN THE HIGHLANDS, A SUBDIVISION OF PARTS OF BLOCKS 2
AND 3 IN PHILLIPS FOURTH ADDITION AND ALL OF LOT 19 IN COUNTY
CLERK'S THIRD ASSESSMENT DIVISION, BEING PART OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF
SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 39 NORTH,
RANGE 10, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT
OF THE HIGHLANDS RECORDED JUNE 18, 1910 AS DOCUMENT 100991, IN DUPAGE
COUNTY, ILLINOIS.
LIST ALL SHAREHOLDERS AND OFFICERS/DIRECTORS (AND % OF INTEREST
OWNED IN EXCESS OF 5% OF STOCK):
Page 35 of 80
654 Duane Street - Aerial Map
0 500 1000 Print Date: 10/13/2025 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 36 of 80
654 Duane Street - Zoning Map
Legend
Zoning and Development
Zoning
CR: Conservation/Recreation
District
R2: Single Family Residential District
R4: Multi-Family Residential District
0 150 300 Print Date: 10/13/2025 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 37 of 80
1105 Burlington Avenue
Western Springs, IL
708.783.1124
studio1architects.com
A1.1
Page 38 of 80
1105 Burlington Avenue
Western Springs, IL
708.783.1124
studio1architects.com
A1.3
Page 39 of 80
1105 Burlington Avenue
Western Springs, IL
708.783.1124
studio1architects.com
A1.4
Page 40 of 80
1105 Burlington Avenue
Western Springs, IL
708.783.1124
studio1architects.com
A1.5
Page 41 of 80
1105 Burlington Avenue
Western Springs, IL
708.783.1124
studio1architects.com
A2.1
Page 42 of 80
1105 Burlington Avenue
Western Springs, IL
708.783.1124
studio1architects.com
A2.2
Page 43 of 80
Glen Ellyn Zoning Board Meeting 11/4/2025 7:00 PM
of Appeals Department: Community Development
535 Duane Street Department Head: Jennifer Henaghan
Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Category: Public Hearing
Prepared By: Jordan Frahm
AGENDA ITEM (ID DOC ID: 2025-924
# 2025-924)
Public Hearing — 189 East Road
Statement of the Issue:
The petitioner, Chalet Vavrek, the owner of the property at 189 East Road, has applied for a zoning
variation to construct a residential sport court at a minimum setback of 7 feet from all lot lines in
lieu of the required 15-foot setback.
Analysis:
REQUEST: The petitioners request approval of the following variation from the Glen Ellyn
Zoning Code:
1. Section 10-5-5(B)4(34) to allow for a residential sport court to be setback 7 feet from all
property lines in lieu of the required 15 feet.
ZONING/USE: The subject property is zoned R2 - Residential District and improved with a two-
story single-family home. The existing home at 189 East Road is to be demolished, as the property is
in common ownership with the home at 612 Revere Road. The properties are in common
ownership and are considered a single zoning lot.
PUBLIC NOTICE: Notice of the public hearing was published in the October 16, 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 associated with the property.
PERMIT HISTORY:
Year Address Permit No. Type
2021 189 East Road 20212251 Impervious Surface
1998 189 East Road B18136 Fence
1985 189 East Road B8520 Sewer
1961 189 East Road B9860 Garage
1928 189 East Road B1246 Two-Story Residence
2019 612 Revere Road 20190640 Irrigation/Lawn Sprinkler
Page 44 of 80
2017 612 Revere Road 20171919 Water Hook-Up/Service
1978 612 Revere Road B3319 Electrical Service
1956 612 Revere Road B5723 Air Conditioner
1941 612 Revere Road B1137 Two-Story Residence
ANALYSIS: In order to proceed with the project as proposed, the petitioner will need to be
granted the following variation from the Zoning Code:
1. Section 10-5-5(B)4(34) to allow for a residential sport court to be setback 7-feet from all
property lines in lieu of the required 15-feet.
According to the narrative provided by the applicant, a 7-foot setback allows for the sport court to
be placed in a favorable location relative to adjacent properties. This is explained by the 7-foot
setback allowing for the sport court to be positioned behind detached garages located at 193 East
Road and 188 N. Park Boulevard, creating a visual and audible buffer between the two properties.
At the required setback of 15 feet, this barrier is reduced or eliminated. Per the narrative of the
application, "granting this variance will improve the character of the neighborhood by allowing the
court to be tucked behind existing garages and blended into landscaping, rather than pushed into the
center of the backyard. The 7' setback preserves open green space where it is most visible, maintains
privacy for neighbors, and ensures the design complements the historic home and surrounding
properties by allowing it to sit discreetly in the corner."
Additionally, the applicant notes topographical advantages in constructing the sport court nearer to
the property lines. Per the narrative of the application, "The further the court is sited into the
northeast corner (achievable with the smaller setback) the flatter the land becomes, which minimizes
soil disturbance and should reduce changes to stormwater drainage. By contrast, applying the
combined lot’s 15' setback would increase soil disturbance and alter drainage".
Budget Impact:
Contribution to Strategic Plan
Action Requested:
The ZBA should consider the testimony presented during the public hearing and review the written
evidence presented as part of the petitioners’ application packet. The ZBA should make findings of
fact and determine if practical difficulty or a particular hardship exists for the requested variation
and if the essential character of the neighborhood is maintained.
The ZBA may choose to make a recommendation to the Village Board for the approval, approval
with conditions, or denial of the request per Section 10-10-12 of the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code.
Attachments:
1. Application - Zoning Variation 189 East
2. 189 East Road Aerial Map
3. 189 East Road Zoning Map
4. Plat of Survey
Page 45 of 80
5. Site Plan
6. Letters of Support
7. Emerson Letter of Support
Page 46 of 80
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 47 of 80
APPLICATION FOR ZONING VARIATION
Date Filed: 9/30/2025 Application No: 2025-0041
Name of Applicant: Chalet Vavrek
Address of Applicant: 612 Revere Road Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
Property Interest of Applicant: Owner
Name of Owner: James Vavrek
Address of Owner: 189 East Rd Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
Phone:
Email:
Contacts:
Type Name Address Phone Email
612 Revere Road Glen
Petitioner Chalet Vavrek Ellyn, IL 60137
612 Revere Road Glen
Web Administrator Chalet Vavrek Ellyn, IL 60137
189 East Rd Glen Ellyn, IL
Parcel Owner James Vavrek 60137
Property Address: 189 East Rd
Project Name: Web Project
Project Description: Demo, lot consolidation and sport court
Legal Description of Property:
PARCEL 2 (189 East where the sport court is going)
LOT 13 AND THE NORTH 20 FEET OF LOT 12 IN BLOCK 1 IN SOUTH CREST, BEING A
RESUBDIVISION OF PART OF LOTS 7 TO 10 INCLUSIVE IN COUNTY CLERK'S SIXTH
ASSESSMENT DIVISION IN SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 39 NORTH, RANGE 10, EAST OF
THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT
OF SAID SOUTH CREST RECORDED DECEMBER 29, 1922 AS DOCUMENT NO. 161694
AND AMENDMENT RECORDED MAY 12, 1923 AS DOCUMENT NO. 165582, IN
DUPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS.
Page 48 of 80
Zoning: R2, Single Family Residential District
Lot Dimensions: 70x150
Lot Area: 10500
: 05142200240000
Present Use:
Single-family residential (vacant dwelling, pending demolition)
Estimated Date to Begin New Use/Construction: 3/1/2026
Name(s), Address(es) and Phone No(s). of Experts (architects, engineers, etc.):
<featid:44:326 <featid:44:291 <featid:44:292 <featid:44:293 <featid:44:294 <featid:44:295
> > > > > >
Narrative Statement:
We are requesting a variance from Section 10-5-5 #34 Accessory structures-Residential sport court
of the GE Zoning Code to allow construction of a sport court at a 7' setback (10% of 70' current
lot width), consistent with the original lot requirement, rather than the 15' setback required once
the lots are combined (10% of 150' lot width).
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 hardship is in conforming to the greater 15' setback that is required once the lots are
combined. This pushes the court farther into the lot, closer to our northern neighbor’s
primary living space and in more direct view of our eastern neighbor’s patio. It also
places the court in a more uneven area of the lot, requiring greater soil disturbance and
drainage changes. By contrast, retaining the original 7' setback of the lot even after the
lots are combined keeps the court more tucked behind our neighbors’ garages, where it
reduces impact for them, can be more easily screened by landscaping, and minimizes site
disruption. The 7' setback also fits the character and visual balance of the surrounding
neighborhood, where most lots are 50'–70' wide with similar setbacks.
2. Provide evidence that the property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted
to be used under the conditions allowed by the Zoning Code (i.e., without one or more
Page 49 of 80
variations) OR Provide evidence that the plight of the applicant/owner is due to unique
circumstances relating to the property in question:
The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. On the original 70' lot, a 7' setback
would apply, which is the most logical placement for the sport court, making it least
intrusive for neighbors. The setback, by rule, increases to 15' when the lots are combined,
creating an artificially larger requirement that is out of character with the neighborhood
setbacks and pushes the court closer to neighbors’ primary living spaces instead of tucked
behind their garage, which we believe does not preserve the intent of the code.
3. Provide evidence that the requested variation(s), if granted, will not alter the essential
character of the locality of the property in question:
As a home originally built by my great-grandparents, preserving its historic and traditional
character is central to our approach. Granting this variance will improve the character of
the neighborhood by allowing the court to be tucked behind garages and blended into
landscaping, rather than pushed into the open center of the lot. The 7' setback preserves
open green space where it is most visible, maintains privacy for neighbors, and ensures the
design complements the historic home and surrounding properties by allowing it to sit
discreetly in the corner.
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 further the court is sited into the northeast corner (achievable with the smaller setback)
the flatter the land becomes, which minimizes soil disturbance and should reduce changes
to stormwater drainage. By contrast, applying the combined lot’s 15' setback would
increase soil disturbance and alter drainage more, while also forcing the court into a
position that increases noise and visual impact on both north and east neighbors. The 7'
setback avoids this by allowing the court to sit in the most logical and least intrusive
location.
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 condition is not general to other properties in the zoning district. It arises only from
the unique circumstance of combining two lots. The requested variance maintains the code
setback of the original 70' lot; it does not reduce the zoning requirement that would
otherwise apply to that property.
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 request is not financially motivated. The sport court is for recreational use of family
and friends. As our forever home, our only motivation is to maintain its historic character
and ensure any improvements enhance both the property and the neighborhood.
Page 50 of 80
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 plight of the owner was not self-created. Combining lots is permitted under the zoning
code, and we pursued it to adapt this historic family home for long-term use. The increased
15' setback requirement is a technical outcome of the code’s formula for combined width,
not the result of any change in how the property will be used or any additional impact on
neighbors.
8. Provide evidence that the granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the
property in question is located.
Granting this variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
surrounding properties; in fact, it will improve them. At the 7' setback, the court is placed
in the least intrusive location -- tucked behind garages, farther from primary living spaces,
and more easily screened with landscaping.
9. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Impair an adequate supply of light
and air to adjacent property.
Having the court at a 7' setback will not impair light or air to adjacent properties, as the
court is flat and open regardless of location.
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 court is a hard, non-combustible surface, so having it at a 7' setback does not increase
fire risk or other hazards.
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. Having the
court at a 7' setback will not impair public health, safety, or welfare. To the contrary, it
reduces impact by keeping the court tucked behind garages rather than closer to neighbors’
primary living spaces.
12. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Diminish or impair property values
within the neighborhood.
Having the court at a 7' setback will not diminish property values, it will enhance them by
minimizing impact on neighbors and providing a more aesthetically pleasing, discreet placement.
13. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Unduly increase traffic congestion
in the public streets and highway.
The variance will not increase traffic on public streets. By placing the court on the flatter
part of the lot, less soil will need to be disturbed, which reduces construction time,
construction traffic, and overall disruption.
14. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Create a nuisance.
A 7' setback will not create a nuisance; on the contrary, it will lessen any potential nuisance.
Its location behind garages makes it less visible and reduces noise impact, while also
minimizing soil disturbance and drainage changes compared to the 15' placement.
15. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Results in an increase in public
expenditures.
Page 51 of 80
Variance would not affect public expenditures.
16. Provide evidence that the variation is the minimum variation that will make possible the
reasonable use of the land, building or structure.
The 7' setback is the minimum variation necessary. We are not asking for anything less or
different than what is currently required for the original 70' lot; we are only seeking to preserve
that standard after the lots are combined. This placement allows for reasonable use of the property
while minimizing impact on neighbors and maintaining neighborhood character.
17. Please add any comments which may assist the commission in reviewing this application.
This property is our forever home. It was designed and built by my great-grandparents in
1940, and we were fortunate enough to bring it back into our family 12 years ago. Rather
than move when outgrowing our space, we chose to pursue combining the lots so we could
adapt this home and remain here long-term. Our goal is to preserve its history while making
it functional for future generations, in a way that best respects our neighbors and the
neighborhood. Granting this variance allows us to make thoughtful improvements that
maintain the beauty and balance of both the property and the neighborhood.
Page 52 of 80
OWNERSHIP BY LAND TRUST
Date: 9/30/2025
Address: 189 East Rd
Legal Description:
PARCEL 2 (189 East where the sport court is going)
LOT 13 AND THE NORTH 20 FEET OF LOT 12 IN BLOCK 1 IN SOUTH CREST, BEING A
RESUBDIVISION OF PART OF LOTS 7 TO 10 INCLUSIVE IN COUNTY CLERK'S SIXTH
ASSESSMENT DIVISION IN SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 39 NORTH, RANGE 10, EAST OF
THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT
OF SAID SOUTH CREST RECORDED DECEMBER 29, 1922 AS DOCUMENT NO. 161694
AND AMENDMENT RECORDED MAY 12, 1923 AS DOCUMENT NO. 165582, IN
DUPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS.
TRUSTEE: TRUST NO.:
Address:
LIST ALL BENEFICIARIES:
Page 53 of 80
OWNERSHIP BY A CORPORATION
Date: 9/30/2025
Address: 189 East Rd
Legal Description:
PARCEL 2 (189 East where the sport court is going)
LOT 13 AND THE NORTH 20 FEET OF LOT 12 IN BLOCK 1 IN SOUTH CREST, BEING A
RESUBDIVISION OF PART OF LOTS 7 TO 10 INCLUSIVE IN COUNTY CLERK'S SIXTH
ASSESSMENT DIVISION IN SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 39 NORTH, RANGE 10, EAST OF
THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT
OF SAID SOUTH CREST RECORDED DECEMBER 29, 1922 AS DOCUMENT NO. 161694
AND AMENDMENT RECORDED MAY 12, 1923 AS DOCUMENT NO. 165582, IN
DUPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS.
LIST ALL SHAREHOLDERS AND OFFICERS/DIRECTORS (AND % OF INTEREST
OWNED IN EXCESS OF 5% OF STOCK):
Page 54 of 80
189 East Road - Aerial Map
0 500 1000 Print Date: 10/13/2025 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 55 of 80
189 East Road - Zoning Map
Legend
Zoning and Development
Zoning
R2: Single Family Residential District
0 300 600 Print Date: 10/13/2025 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 56 of 80
Page 57 of 80
Page 58 of 80
7'-0"
26'x52' Sport Court
7'-0"
Page 59 of 80
Page 60 of 80
Daniel Harper
From: Beverly Johnson <bevandfloyd@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2025 8:41 PM
To: Daniel Harper; Jordan Frahm
Subject: Re: Vavrek variance
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 8:31 PM Beverly Johnson <bevandfloyd@gmail.com> wrote:
We are writing this letter in support of the variance of 612 Revere /189 East. We are neighbors at
188 Park Blvd(directly behind 189 East Road. We feel the variance to 7 feet will be a better location and
situate it partially behind our garage. With landscaping it will be less noticable.
We have been in our home almost 60 years and happy to see the improvement.
Thank you.
Floyd and Bev Johnson
188 North Park Blvd
630 240 3100
630 469 5625
1
Page 61 of 80
Outlook
Public Hearing re: 189 East Road
From Patricia Spence <pspence101@aol.com>
Date Thu 10/23/2025 3:13 PM
To Jordan Frahm <jfrahm@glenellyn.org>
Cc Chalet Vavrek <chalet.vavrek@gmail.com>
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Hi Jordan,
Thank you for listening to me patiently about my concerns re: the proposed sport court at 189
East Road. Petitioner and neighbor, Chalet Vavrek, thoroughly answered my questions. I have
no objections to the project; I have written the same to Mr. Harper.
I will not attend the hearing. I am glad, though, that the Village offers such opportunities.
Paticia Spence
192 East Road
972-754-6998
Page 62 of 80
Outlook
Vavrek Family project at 612 Revere Road/189 East Road
From Shaun Emerson <shaunemerson@hey.com>
Date Tue 10/14/2025 8:03 AM
To Jordan Frahm <jfrahm@glenellyn.org>; Daniel Harper <dharper@glenellyn.org>
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Good morning,
It has come to our attention that our neighbors, the Vavrek family, have made a variance request for a
reduced setback for their proposed sport court.
As residents of 184 N Park Blvd, we are supportive of this request.
Thank you for your consideration.
Shaun and Lisa Emerson
Page 63 of 80
Glen Ellyn Zoning Board Meeting 11/4/2025 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: 2025-925
# 2025-925)
Public Hearing - 167 Forest Avenue
Statement of the Issue:
The petitioner, Lance Rock, the owner of the property at 167 Forest Avenue, has applied for a
construction necessitated zoning variation to allow a deck that was built without a permit to be
setback 6 feet (6'-0") from the south property line in lieu of the required 6-feet, 6-inches (6'-6").
Analysis:
REQUEST: The petitioners request approval of the following variation from the Glen Ellyn
Zoning Code:
1. Section 10-5-5(B)4(8) to allow for a deck to encroach into the side-yard setback so that the deck is
setback 6 feet from the south property line in lieu of the required 6 feet, 6 inches.
ZONING/USE: The subject property is zoned R2 - Residential District and improved with an
existing two-story single-family home.
PUBLIC NOTICE: Notice of the public hearing was published in the October 16, 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 associated with the property.
PERMIT HISTORY:
Year Permit No. Type
2024 20241547 Lead Service Line Replacement
2016 20160099 Water Service Repair
2004 B23718 New Detached Garage
2004 B23742 Irrigation System
2002 B22242 Shed
PRJOECT HISTORY:
The property was the subject of an anonymous call to the Village of Glen Ellyn Community
Development Department in August 2024. A Village Inspector visited the site and confirmed that
work had been done without a permit. The property owner was issued a citation and was required to
Page 64 of 80
submit a building permit for the structures. Note: Even if a setback variation is approved by the Village
Board, the property owner will still be obligated to obtain a building permit in compliance with the 2018 International
Residential Code (IRC).
Deck:
Since the deck was constructed without a permit and is essentially complete, and was found that the
construction is not prescribed by the 2018 IRC, an Illinois Licensed Structural Engineer was
required to provide stamped, signed, and dated as-built drawings of the deck including, but not
limited to, footings, posts, flitch beams, beam splices, structural connections, etc. This has been
submitted and is still under village review. A new plat of survey for the property was also created as
part of the building permit application and indicated that the deck was located 6'-0" from the south
property and encroached 0-6" into the required side yard setback. The applicant has submitted a
construction necessitated variation application in order to keep the deck in the existing location.
Fireplace:
Regarding the fireplace feature, the property owner must provide as-built drawings produced by an
Illinois Licensed Architect including the foundations, height, etc. and certify that it is constructed in
accordance with the 2018 IRC. This is not yet completed.
Budget Impact:
Contribution to Strategic Plan
Action Requested:
The ZBA should consider the testimony presented during the public hearing and review the written
evidence presented as part of the petitioners’ application packet. The ZBA should make findings of
fact and determine if practical difficulty or a particular hardship exists for the requested variation
and if the essential character of the neighborhood is maintained.
The ZBA may choose to make a recommendation to the Village Board for the approval, approval
with conditions, or denial of the request per Section 10-10-12 of the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code.
Attachments:
1. Application - Construction Nec Variance
2. 167 Forest Aerial Map
3. 167 Forest Zoning Map
4. Plat of Survey
5. Site Plan
Page 65 of 80
VILLAGE OF GLEN ELLYN
Construction Necessitated Variation
Application Packet
Community Development Department
535 Duane Street – Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 – Telephone 630.547.5250 – Fax 630.547.5370
Page 66 of 80
APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION NECESSITATED VARIATION
Date Filed: 9/19/2025 Application No: 2025-0022
Name of Applicant: Lance Rock
Address of Applicant: 167 Forest Avenue Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
Property Interest of Applicant: Owner
Name of Owner: Lance A Rock
Address of Owner: 167 Forest Ave Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
Phone:
Email:
Contacts:
Type Name Address Phone Email
167 Forest Avenue Glen
Petitioner Lance Rock Ellyn, IL 60137
167 Forest Avenue Glen
Web Administrator Lance Rock Ellyn, IL 60137
167 Forest Ave Glen Ellyn,
Parcel Owner Lance A Rock IL 60137
Property Address: 167 Forest Ave
Project Name: Web Project
Project Description: Replacement of a deteriorated over-30-year-old elevated deck on a 1929
home. The new deck is built entirely on the property and encroaches 6 inches into the required
south side-yard setback. This request seeks a minimal variation to legitimize the completed deck,
which remains screened and has no impact on neighbors or public welfare.
Legal Description of Property:
Lot 16 in Block 6 in South Crest, being a resubdivision of part of Lots 7 and 10, Inclusive in
County Clerk's 6th Assessment Division in Section 14, Township 39 North, Range 10, East of
the Third Principal Meridian, according to the plat of said South Crest recorded December 29,
1922 as document number 161694 and amendment recorded May 12, 1923 as document 165582
in DuPage County, Illinois.
Page 67 of 80
Zoning: R2
Lot Dimensions: 185.82' x 50.02
Lot Area: 9295
: 05143030030000
Present Use: Single-family residential home used for full-time owner-occupied living.
Name(s), Address(es) and Phone No(s). of Experts (architects, engineers, etc.):
Narrative Statement:
Request for Variation under Village Code Table 10-5-5(B)4.8
I am requesting a construction-necessitated variation from Village Code Table 10-5-5(B)4.8,
which requires a minimum side-yard setback of 6.5 feet for my lot in Glen Ellyn. During the
replacement of my 96-year-old deck, an essential and long-standing component of my 1929-built
home, it was discovered that the newly constructed deck encroaches into the setback by 6 inches,
measuring 6.0 feet from the south property line instead of the
EVIDENCE RELATING TO ZONING CODE STANDARDS FOR A VARIATION:
1. Provide evidence that due to the characteristics of the property in question, there are
practical difficulties or particular hardship for the applicant/owner in carrying out the
strict letter of the Zoning Code:
1. Practical Difficulties or Hardship
Practical Difficulties or Hardship
My home has a plaque from Glen Ellyn and was built in 1929; it requires a deck to safely
access the rear yard. Stepping out without it would result in a hazardous 42-inch drop.
The prior deck served this purpose for an unknown length of time, exceeding at least 30.0
years, and rotting. The new deck, intended to replace it in-kind, was constructed with
Grade A materials and construction practices, with one additional board.
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:
Unique Circumstances
This hardship is explicitly tied to the home’s original architecture and raised rear door threshold,
not financial constraints. Without the deck, rear egress becomes unsafe and impractical, a
unique feature of homes of this era and construction style.
3. Provide evidence that the requested variation(s), if granted, will not alter the essential
character of the locality of the property in question:
No Alteration to Neighborhood Character
Page 68 of 80
The encroachment is fully screened by thick bushes and trellises owned and maintained by
the neighbor. It is practically invisible from both the public and adjacent yards. The deck
remains a low-profile residential feature in harmony with surrounding properties.
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:
Hardship from Physical Conditions, Not Inconvenience
The deck’s position is dictated by the need for safe, direct access from the back door. Reducing
the deck size to meet the setback would create a material and labor hardship rather than a
mere inconvenience.
5. Provide evidence that the conditions upon which the petition for variation is based would
not be applicable generally to other property within the same zoning district:
Not Generally Applicable to Others
Most homes in the zoning district are newer and do not face the same architectural limitations
imposed by a 1929 structure. The home’s height, rear access, and deck requirement create
a distinct condition not applicable to neighboring properties.
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:
No Financial Motivation
This request does not aim to increase property value, rental potential, or resale appeal. Its purpose
was solely to replace an essential but degrading functional element for safe, seasonal home
use.
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.
Not Self-Created
The original deck predates zoning enforcement. The 6-inch encroachment was caused by a
miscalculation of a single board width, not an intentional code violation. There was no
knowledge at the time of construction that the deck extended past the limit.
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.
No Harm to Public Welfare or Neighbors
The deck is screened by evergreen landscaping and trellises, and it does not approach or
interfere with any neighboring structures or use. It is non-intrusive, safe, and poses no risk
to the public or adjacent property owners.
9. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Impair an adequate supply of light
and air to adjacent property.
No Impairment of Light or Air
Page 69 of 80
Given the elevation of only 42 inches and the deck’s open-air design, it does not block
sunlight or restrict airflow. The adjacent home sits over 16.5 feet away from the property
line, and the deck does not impact its natural light.
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.
No Increased Fire Hazard
The deck complies with all applicable building and fire codes. Materials used are standard
and safe. No combustibles or obstructions have been introduced. This property is in the
process of considering a conversion to a vented natural gas fireplace; the intent is to replace
a traditional wood-burning unit, significantly reducing fire risk compared to typical
residential open-flame systems. Architect pending.
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. No Impairment
to Public Health, Safety, or Comfort
12. The deck enhances household safety by providing proper rear access. It introduces no
health risks, nuisances, or discomforts to the public or neighborhood residents.
13.
14. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Diminish or impair property values
within the neighborhood.
No Reduction in Property Values
The deck is well-designed, consistent with neighborhood aesthetics, and fully within my yard. It
is highly unlikely to diminish nearby home values and may support neighborhood quality through
upkeep and continued investment.
15. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Unduly increase traffic congestion
in the public streets and highway.
No Impact on Traffic
The deck is for private, seasonal use and has no relationship to vehicular or pedestrian
traffic. It will not create congestion of any kind.
16. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Create a nuisance.
No Nuisance Creation
There is no noise, odor, visual obstruction, or behavioral impact caused by the deck.
Privacy screening already exists, and the deck does not alter the use or atmosphere of
neighboring spaces.
17. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Results in an increase in public
expenditures.
No Increased Public Expenditures
There is no impact to public utilities, right-of-way, drainage, or infrastructure. The deck is
100% on private land and does not involve village service or spending.
18. Provide evidence that the variation is the minimum variation that will make possible the
reasonable use of the land, building or structure.
Minimum Variation Required
Page 70 of 80
The request is for only 6 inches, the precise width of one deck board. This is the smallest variation
possible to enable functional use. Any further reduction would compromise safety and negate the
deck’s purpose.
19. Please add any comments which may assist the commission in reviewing this application.
Final Comment
This request seeks a minor 6-inch variation for a required deck on a 1929 home. The
structure is entirely on my property, screened year-round, and ensures safe rear access. The
encroachment was unintentional and has no effect on neighbors or the community.
I respectfully ask the Commission to consider the home's age, safety needs, property
boundaries, and existing screening and approve this minimal variation to maintain
functional use without affecting zoning intent.
Page 71 of 80
OWNERSHIP BY LAND TRUST
Date: 9/19/2025
Address: 167 Forest Ave
Legal Description:
Lot 16 in Block 6 in South Crest, being a resubdivision of part of Lots 7 and 10, Inclusive in
County Clerk's 6th Assessment Division in Section 14, Township 39 North, Range 10, East of
the Third Principal Meridian, according to the plat of said South Crest recorded December 29,
1922 as document number 161694 and amendment recorded May 12, 1923 as document 165582
in DuPage County, Illinois.
TRUSTEE: TRUST NO.:
Address:
LIST ALL BENEFICIARIES:
Page 72 of 80
OWNERSHIP BY A CORPORATION
Date: 9/19/2025
Address: 167 Forest Ave
Legal Description:
Lot 16 in Block 6 in South Crest, being a resubdivision of part of Lots 7 and 10, Inclusive in
County Clerk's 6th Assessment Division in Section 14, Township 39 North, Range 10, East of
the Third Principal Meridian, according to the plat of said South Crest recorded December 29,
1922 as document number 161694 and amendment recorded May 12, 1923 as document 165582
in DuPage County, Illinois.
LIST ALL SHAREHOLDERS AND OFFICERS/DIRECTORS (AND % OF INTEREST
OWNED IN EXCESS OF 5% OF STOCK):
Page 73 of 80
167 Forest Avenue - Aerial Map
0 250 500 Print Date: 10/13/2025 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 74 of 80
167 Forest - Zoning Map
Legend
Zoning and Development
Zoning
R2: Single Family Residential District
0 150 300 Print Date: 10/13/2025 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 75 of 80
LEGEND
A=ASSUMED NW=NORTHWEST
C=CALCULATED P.O.B.=POINTOFBEGINNING
CH=CHORD P.O.C.=POINTOFCOMMENCEMENT
CL=CENTERLINE R=RECORD
D=DEED RAD=RADIUS
E=EAST R.O.W.=RIGHTOFWAY
F.I.P.=FOUNDIRONPIPE S=SOUTH LOT 16 IN BLOCK 6 IN SOUTH CREST, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF PART OF LOTS 7 AND 10, INCLUSIVE, IN COUNTY
F.I.R.=FOUNDIRONROD S.I.P.=SETIRONPIPE CLERK'S 6TH ASSESSMENT DIVISION IN SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 39 NORTH, RANGE 10, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL
FT.=FEET/FOOT S.I.R.=SETIRONROD MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF SAID SOUTH CREST RECORDED DECEMBER 29, 1922 AS DOCUMENT NUMBER 161694
L=ARCLENGTH SE=SOUTHEAST
M=MEASURED SW=SOUTHWEST AND AMENDMENT RECORDED MAY 12, 1923 AS DOCUMENT 165582, IN DUPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS.
N=NORTH W=WEST
NE=NORTHEAST
= CHAIN LINK FENCE
AREA OF SURVEY:
= WOOD FENCE 20' 10' 0 20'
= METAL FENCE "CONTAINING _________ SQ. FT. OR 0.21
9,273 _______ ACRES MORE OR LESS"
= VINYL FENCE BASIS OF BEARING:
= EASEMENT LINE EAST LINE OF FOREST AVENUE AS FOUND
= SETBACK LINE MONUMENTED AND OCCUPIED
= INTERIOR LOT LINE
N 01°22'42" E (A)
SOUTH LINE OF REVERE ROAD
7 2
CENTER OF VINYL T1 L O T
LO
105.20' (R)
FENCE 1.1' N
FOREST AVENUE
2.86' 3.10' 2.91' 2.97'
S 89°58'36" E (M)
EDGE OF CONCRETE
S.I.P.1/2'' F.I.R.1/2''
0.02' S & 0.07' W
CONCRETE DRIVE 0.2' S 185.82' (M) 0.33' N & 0.26' E
EDGE OF CONCRETE 2.95'
12.09' 13.17'
0.1' W CONCRETE DRIVE 30.2' 10.3'
CONCRETE 50.00' (R/M) WALK
12.3'
CENTER OF WOOD
12.3' FENCE 0.6' E
36.48'
CONCRETE CURB
FRAME
22.2' 22.2'
8.4'1.4'
8.0' 1.4' 10.3'
N 01°22'42" E (A)
27.1' GARAGE
(66' R.O.W.)
2.58'
0.4' 1.1'
CONCRETE FRAME
S 02°05'09" W (M)
WALK 1.4' 2.0'
50.02' (M)
ST SHED
ON 30.2'
2 STORY E
17.39'
3
35 FT BUILDING LINE
28.8'
BRICK FRAME
BUILDING
16 T
19.0' 6 LO
1.1' 1.1'
WOOD DECK
L OT O CK
40.56' 8.2' 5.9' 20.6' BL
CENTER OF WOOD
EDGE OF CONCRETE 8.12' FENCE 0.8' N & 0.7' E
0.5' W
S.I.P.1/2'' EDGE OF WALL 185.20' (M) CENTER OF WOOD F.I.P.1/2''
EDGE OF CONCRETE CENTER OF WOOD
0.03' S & 0.05' W 1.1' S FENCE 0.4' S & 0.3' W 0.15' N & 0.03' E
1.7' S N 89°58'36" W (M) FENCE 0.3' S
1 5 T 4
T LO
LO
STATE OF ILLINOIS
}SS
COUNTY OF DUPAGE
I, THE UNDERSIGNED, AN ILLINOIS PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR, DO HEREBY
CERTIFY THAT "THIS PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CONFORMS TO THE CURRENT L EE MOR
ILLINOIS MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR A BOUNDARY SURVEY," AND THAT THE PLAT
JAME
RE HEREON DRAWN IS A CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF SAID SURVEY. 2317 R
ASTRUCTU !
I SON
INFR NVIRONMENTS LI F E PROFESSIONAL
S
TER BETTER E 12TH
DATED, THIS_______DAY AUGUST
OF____________, A.D., 2024, NOTE:
BET BETTE R
AT LISLE, ILLINOIS. LAND 1. ALL TIES SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY ARE MEASURED TO THE
ADDRESS COMMONLY KNOWN AS 167 FOREST AVENUE
____________________________________
SURVEYOR BUILDING'S SIDING (BRICK, FRAME, STUCCO, METAL, ETC.)
Morris Engineering, Inc. AND NOT TO THE FOUNDATION, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. GLEN ELLYN, IL 60137
____________________________________
STATE OF
515 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532 2. ROOF LINES AND OVERHANGS ARE TYPICALLY NOT SHOWN HEREON.
______________________________________________ ILLINOIS CLIENT LANCE ROCK
_______________________________________________________
Phone: (630) 271-0770 LIS S
I 3. COMPARE ALL DISTANCES AND POINTS IN FIELD AND REPORT
FAX: (630) 271-0774 ILLINOIS PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR NO. 035-2317
LICENSE EXPIRATION DATE NOVEMBER 30, 2024
LE , IL L I N0 ANY DISCREPANCIES TO SURVEYOR AT ONCE.
4. NO DIMENSIONS SHALL BE ASSUMED BY SCALING.
8/7-8/2024 (MM/DA)
FIELDWORK DATE (CREW)_________________________________________
WEBSITE: WWW.ECIVIL.COM ILLINOIS BUSINESS REGISTRATION NO. 184-001245 RJ
DRAWN BY:_______ REVISED:__________ 24-06-0307
________ JOB NO. ___________________
Page 76 of 80
Engineering, Inc.
ILLINOIS LICENSE NO. 184-001442
Larson
1488 Bond Street , Suite 100
Naperville, Illinois 60563-6503
630.357.0540 Fax: 630.357.0164
www.larsonengr.com
167 FOREST AVE.
LANCE ROCK
GLEN ELLYN, IL 60137
CLIENT:
ROCK RESIDENCE
167 FOREST AVE. GLEN ELLYN, IL 60137
WOOD DECK
SEAL
Digitally signed by Matthew J.
Kan
Date: 2025.06.24
13:22:20-05'00'
06/24/2025
EXP 11/30/2026
Illinois Design Firm No: 184-001442
No. Date Description
1 6/4/25 Progress Set
2 6/6/25 Owner Review
3 6/24/25 Issued For Permit
Project#: 21250507.000
Drawn by: MBB
Checked by: MJB
Sheet Title:
GENERAL NOTES
S0.0
Structural Sheet: 1 of 4
© 2025 Larson Engineering, Inc. All rights reserved.
Page 77 of 80
Engineering, Inc.
ILLINOIS LICENSE NO. 184-001442
Larson
1488 Bond Street , Suite 100
Naperville, Illinois 60563-6503
630.357.0540 Fax: 630.357.0164
www.larsonengr.com
167 FOREST AVE.
LANCE ROCK
GLEN ELLYN, IL 60137
CLIENT:
ROCK RESIDENCE
167 FOREST AVE. GLEN ELLYN, IL 60137
WOOD DECK
SEAL
06/24/2025
EXP 11/30/2026
Illinois Design Firm No: 184-001442
No. Date Description
1 6/4/25 Progress Set
2 6/6/25 Owner Review
3 6/24/25 Issued For Permit
Project#: 21250507.000
Drawn by: MBB
Checked by: MJB
Sheet Title:
FOUNDATION PLAN
S1.0
Structural Sheet: 2 of 4
© 2025 Larson Engineering, Inc. All rights reserved.
Page 78 of 80
Engineering, Inc.
ILLINOIS LICENSE NO. 184-001442
Larson
1488 Bond Street , Suite 100
Naperville, Illinois 60563-6503
630.357.0540 Fax: 630.357.0164
www.larsonengr.com
167 FOREST AVE.
LANCE ROCK
GLEN ELLYN, IL 60137
CLIENT:
ROCK RESIDENCE
167 FOREST AVE. GLEN ELLYN, IL 60137
WOOD DECK
SEAL
06/24/2025
EXP 11/30/2026
Illinois Design Firm No: 184-001442
No. Date Description
1 6/4/25 Progress Set
2 6/6/25 Owner Review
3 6/24/25 Issued For Permit
Project#: 21250507.000
Drawn by: MBB
Checked by: MJB
Sheet Title:
FRAMING PLAN
S1.1
Structural Sheet: 3 of 4
© 2025 Larson Engineering, Inc. All rights reserved.
Page 79 of 80
Engineering, Inc.
ILLINOIS LICENSE NO. 184-001442
Larson
1488 Bond Street , Suite 100
Naperville, Illinois 60563-6503
630.357.0540 Fax: 630.357.0164
www.larsonengr.com
167 FOREST AVE.
LANCE ROCK
GLEN ELLYN, IL 60137
CLIENT:
ROCK RESIDENCE
167 FOREST AVE. GLEN ELLYN, IL 60137
WOOD DECK
SEAL
06/24/2025
EXP 11/30/2026
Illinois Design Firm No: 184-001442
No. Date Description
1 6/4/25 Progress Set
2 6/6/25 Owner Review
3 6/24/25 Issued For Permit
Project#: 21250507.000
Drawn by: MBB
Checked by: MJB
Sheet Title:
FOUNDATION &
FRAMING DETAILS
S2.0
Structural Sheet: 4 of 4
© 2025 Larson Engineering, Inc. All rights reserved.
Page 80 of 80