Zoning Board of Appeals

Regular Meeting

Glen Ellyn, IL · December 9, 2025

Minutes

Minutes Village of Glen Ellyn Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting December 9, 2025 7:00PM Glen Ellyn Civic Center Galligan Board Room Board or Zoning Board of Appeals Date: December 9, 2025 Commission: Meeting: Regular Called to 7:00 p.m. Order: Quorum: Yes Adjourned: 8:01 p.m. MEMBER ATTENDANCE: Chip Miller Chairperson Present Todd Buckton Commissioner Present Matthew Jones Commissioner Absent Peter Kelly Commissioner Present Noureen Lakhani Commissioner Present Christine McKnight Commissioner Present Craig Pavlich Commissioner Present Also Present: Jordan Frahm Associate Planner Present Robert Duncan Trustee Liaison Present Public Present: A. CALL TO ORDER The December 9, 2025, regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order by Chairperson Miller at 7:00 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals 2 December 9, 2025 B. PUBLIC COMMENT – None C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM NOVEMBER 4, 2025, MEETING. MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETINGS OF 11/4/2025 with the modification and correction that Member Lakhani be marked as present, instead of absent. RESULT: Motion Unanimously Carried MOVER: McKnight SECONDER: Lakhani AYES: 6 D. OLD BUSINESS – 1. Continuation – Public Hearing, 189 East Road Trustee Duncan swears in Staff, Associate Planner Jordan Frahm; the petitioner, Chalet Vavrek; and Matt Haber of Western DuPage Landscaping, Inc. Motion to open the public meeting by Member Kelly, seconded by Member McKnight. Planner Frahm provided an update to the staff report of the project of 189 East Road, recalling the November 4 meeting where the Vavrek family had proposed a residential sport court with a setback of 7-feet. The required setback for a residential sport court on the 150-foot wide lot is 15-feet. The petitioners have updated their plans to include a more developed landscape plan and increased the proposed setback of the residential sport court to 9-feet. Planner Frahm adds that an additional piece of information to consider is that the neighboring property 188 N. Park Boulevard, the Johnson Family, has submitted a new letter of support to indicate they are in favor of the updated site plan. Previously the Johnsons had entered a letter of support and rescinded that support after the documents in the November 4 meeting agenda packet were published. At the time of the November 4 meeting, the Johnsons said they did not have a complete idea of the project. There were no questions for Staff from ZBA members. Chairperson Miller reminds the audience that the ZBA is looking for unique circumstances, particular hardships that are outlined in Village Code as powers of the ZBA to grant variance. Chalet Vavrek gives an overview of the proposed project as the petitioner. The home on Revere Road is a longstanding family property once owned by the petitioner’s great grandparents. The petitioners purchased the neighboring lot to remove the home to create a layout that best fits their family so they can live there “forever”. Part of that design is a basketball court, as the sport is important to their family. Mrs. Vavrek emphasizes the two changes to their proposal. 1. The petitioners expedited a full landscape design proposal that depicts the long-term vision of the property and 2. The family met with the Johnsons, including their daughter, to further describe the project so that the neighbors understand the zoning rules for private sport courts and reviewing the possible locations of the sport court that is considerate and aesthetically pleasing. Zoning Board of Appeals 3 December 9, 2025 The petitioner says they discussed sound, height, screening, fencing, and overall quality of the redevelopment of the site with the neighbors. The petitioner says that the 9-foot proposed setback of the sport court allows for privacy trees and green space as a buffer. The petitioner also states that the 9-foot setback would require less ground disturbance or stormwater engineering than the required 15-foot setback. Additionally, Mrs. Vavrek says that at a 15-foot setback, the height of a basketball hoop would also be higher due to the elevation change on the lot and therefore more visually disruptive. The petitioner states that when discussing the location with neighboring property owners, the proposed 9-foot setback would be favored as a 15-foot setback would require the sport court to be “in the open” and a lesser setback better conceals the residential sport court behind detached garages on the neighboring properties. Mrs. Vavrek thanks the ZBA for the opportunity to table the public hearing at the November meeting. The applicants appreciate the Board’s time and their consideration of their updated proposal. Chairperson Miller asks Mr. Haber if he plans to make an additional presentation. Mr. Haber says he is attending to answer questions from the Board, as the petitioner has covered the project at depth at the December and November meetings. Member Pavlich clarifies that the petitioner now has the support of all adjacent property owners. This is confirmed. Member McKnight asks about the proposal of additional hardscape. The petitioner says that the added patio in the rear-yard would meet all zoning requirements but was added to the plan so that the Board and neighboring property owners could get a better understanding of the Vavreks’ final plan for the property. Originally the petitioner had included only a simple site plan of the proposed sport court location. Member McKnight asks how much distance is between the proposed sport court and the patio as depicted in the site plan. Mr. Haber answers approximately 5-feet. Member Buckton asks the petitioner about greenspace in the western portion of the lot and if that could be used for the proposed hardscape. Planner Frahm states that the sport court would not be allowed in the corner side yard, a terrace or patio may be allowed but no zoning analysis has been done on any part of the proposal other than the basketball court. The petitioner adds that the patio is intended to go in the proposed location as there is an indoor access point with a canopy that must be at that location due to zoning rules. Mr. Haber adds that window wells are being preserved and an existing egress would be preserved. Member Buckton asks if they were not granted the variation what would be the impact on the proposed hardscaping. The petitioner says that this would be unchanged, however, there are some engineering impacts. Mr. Haber confirms that water flow would be north-to-south in both cases, but a 9-foot setback provides greenspace on both sides of the proposed patio. Member Buckton asks if there would be hardscape modification of the proposed patio if the sport court was at the required 15-foot setback. Mr. Haber confirms that there would have to be a redesign. Chairperson Miller states the hardships are the elevation they would have to grade if moved forward, that the neighbors would be more visually impacted, and the flow of the water. Mrs. Vavrek adds that the proposed 9-foot setback adds screening. The petitioner Zoning Board of Appeals 4 December 9, 2025 clarifies that, yes, those three things – screening, soil, and water are the hardships for this location. Chairperson Miller asks Mr. Haber if they can change the course of the water. Mr. Haber confirms that they can. Chairperson Miller does not understand how the Johnson and Hoppe family would be more impacted if the natural flow of the water is unchanged. Mr. Haber says that the proposed setback allows them to manage the water in a more effective way. Member Buckton asks if the petitioner has plans for the west side of the property. Mrs. Vavrek says they intend to keep the space open and landscaped with trees. Mr. Haber adds that they are trying to maintain the existing grade in that area of the lot from the street. The highest point on the property is on the northwest corner, and that the landscape design of the proposal tries to incorporate the elevation and setting. Member Pavlich asks Staff how the lot dimensions are determined. Planner Frahm answers that on a 150-foot by 160-foot lot that the narrower portion of the lot would be the front yard (150-foot side) and clarifies that the lot is considered as a combined zoning lot. Member Pavlich clarifies that if the property at 189 East Road were to build a sport court in the current condition, that the sport court would be allowed a 7-foot setback. Mr. Floyd Johnson of 188 N. Park Boulevard is sworn in by Village Staff. Mr. Johnson says that he is concerned about the water flow due to the positioning of the adjacent streets. Chairperson Miller directs this question to Village Staff. Planner Frahm says that although he does not have an engineering background, there are a number of different water controls that can be made on a property and defers to Mr. Haber for how they plan to control water per the proposal at 189 East Road. Mr. Haber shows that the grading in the north is higher in the south and also indicates a retaining wall on the property that would also help to redirect water. Mr. Johnson asks if they have elevations and Mr. Haber responds that they are not at that stage of the development yet, but reiterates that the project would receive a stormwater review. Mr. Johnson details some water issues that he experiences on his property. Mrs. Vavrek testifies that they are trying to maintain or improve the drainage on their property. Planner Frahm ask Mr. Johnson if they have any experience of water moving from the Vavrek property to the Johnson property. Mr. Johnson says that this has not been an issue. Chairperson Miller asks Mr. Johnson if what he has learned today has changed his support of the project. Mr. Johnson says that he still questions the elevation. Mr. Haber reads into the record that the highpoint on the northwest corner is 784 and the low point to the south is 775 where the driveway meets the public walkway. This indicates a north to south waterflow to Revere Road before eventually heading east. Mr. Johnson states that he agrees. Member Pavlich reads the Finding of Facts into the record seeking a zoning variation for a residential sport court to be setback 9-feet as provided in the site plan at the December 9 meeting. The ZBA considered the following documents: application, plat of survey, location and zoning map, site plan and letters of support from all adjoining Zoning Board of Appeals 5 December 9, 2025 neighbors. Matt and Heidi Hoppe at 189 East Road, Patricia Spence at 192 East Road and an updated letter of support from the Johnsons. Member Pavlich asks if the Johnsons are still in support and this is confirmed. Member Pavlich also notes that if the lots had not been combined a 7-foot setback would be permitted for the sport court. Member Pavlich asks the members to vote on the adoption of the Findings of Fact, and the Findings are adopted by unanimous vote. Zoning Board of Appeals begins their deliberation. Member Kelly states that he is inclined to be a yes, and that they are not being asked to rule on hydraulics or engineering and knows that will be a requirement that will be reviewed. Member Kelly, in review of the topography of the lot, does understand the petitioner’s request. Member Pavlich also states he is inclined to vote yes, as the petitioners have secured letters of support from adjacent properties and feels that the combination of the lot does present a unique situation and that he is in favor of the proposal. Member McKnight states that she is not in favor of recommending approval. Member McKnight says that the standard in the Code to grant variation for a practical difficulty or hardship is not met. Member Lakhani states she is in favor of the project and reiterates that the petitioner has down well to build the support of the neighbors. Member Buckton states that he will be voting no. Member Buckton says the petitioners have done a great job talking with the neighbors and have a talented landscape architect but for the same reasons as Member McKnight had said 15-feet is what the Code calls for. Chairperson Miller also acknowledges that the petitioners have done a great job in working with the neighbors, but he is not in favor. Chairperson Miller does not see a hardship or practical difficulty that would make him vote yes. In deliberation Chairperson Miller says that with split support in anticipating a 3-3 vote that the ZBA should make a motion to recommend approval. Member Buckton asks if there is precedent for the Vote. Chairperson Miller says that this has been practiced in the past. The Board agrees to proceed in this manner. Member McKnight makes a motion to recommend approval of the variation for the residential sport at 189 East Road subject to the conditions that the project is constructed in substantial conformance to the plans presented at the November 4 and December 9 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Seconded by Member Pavlich. Voting Ayes Nays Abstain Absent Miller X Buckton X Jones X Kelly X Lakhani X McKnight X Pavlich X Zoning Board of Appeals 6 December 9, 2025 Recommendation to approve voted three (3) yes, three (3) no. Chairperson Miller reminds the petitioners that the Village Board has ultimate approval, that the ZBA is only making a recommendation to the Village Board, and that the Village Board may be convinced of their practical difficulty or hardship. E. OTHER BUSINESS – None F. CHAIRPERSON STATEMENT – Chairperson Miller reports that the Village Board voted to approve a construction necessitated variation 167 Forest. Chairperson Miller expressed his concern with this approval and says that he had a discussion with the Village President this morning about the vote. Chairperson Miller says that the Village has a reputation in the community of approving the construction necessitated variations. Chairperson Miller asks why a resident will properly get permitted if they know they can break rules and construct a project the way they want and come in later for variation. Chairperson Miller says that this ruling only makes it easier for the next person and he has expressed his disappointment to the President. Chairperson Miller mentions conflicted votes both at the Village Board and at the ZBA level. Member Buckton asks what the ZBA vote was – Member Pavlich and Chairperson Miller respond that it was a recommendation to not approve 4-2, but both note that the two members that voted nay (to support approval of the project) still had concerns. Chairperson Miller voices that he wanted this displeasure on the record and that he believes this does not set a precedent that adheres to the Code. Chairperson Miller asks other ZBA members to speak up if they would like to voice their opinion on the ruling of the Village Board. Member Pavlich says that he is supportive of the ZBA taking a negative view towards those that do not permit first – although he says that he cannot recall during his membership where the ZBA voted to recommend the approval of a Construction Necessitated Variation. Member Pavlich states that hardship is not the only factor when considering variation but that the language also includes impact by rules regulating the district impacting the property owner and whether a project will alter the essential character of the locality. Member Pavlich says that when the Board begins to discuss hardline rules in the Code there also exists gray area. G. VILLAGE BOARD TRUSTEE REPORT – Trustee Duncan says that he was present at the Village Board meeting and that he made the amendment to approve the variation. Trustee Duncan says that he agrees with Member Pavlich with the standards and that the variation being sought per the testimony provided to the Village Board was de minimis. Trustee Duncan says that he considered the recollections of similar projects with Village Staff and believes that the petitioner was contrite and understanding. Trustee Duncan says that it was a close call but in totality of all the presented evidence he believes that he and the other trustees voted to approve the variation with an empathetic perspective. Conversation is made in the room on whether the encroachment into the required setback of the deck in question was 4-inches or 6-inches. Trustee Duncan states that the difference in this encroachment would not affect his vote to approve the variation. Zoning Board of Appeals 7 December 9, 2025 H. STAFF REPORT – Planner Frahm notes that the Community Development Department is planning to reach out to finalize a contract with a consultancy for the Zoning Code rewrite in 2026. Planner Frahm also adds that the Village Board also voted to approve a Historic Preservation Incentive Program which includes a preservation matching grant and may have zoning effects – although none are currently proposed. I. ADJOURNMENT – Member Buckton motions to adjourn the meeting; Member Lakhani seconds the motion. Meeting adjourned at 8:01 p.m. Submitted by Jordan Frahm, Associate Planner Reviewed by Daniel Harper, Planning Manager

Agenda

Packet

Agenda Village of Glen Ellyn Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Tuesday, December 9, 2025 7:00 PM Civic Center, Galligan Room Individuals with disabilities who plan to attend the hearing and who require certain accommodations in order to allow them to observe and participate, or who have questions regarding the accessibility of the meeting or facilities, are requested to contact the Village at least 24 hours before the meeting. A. Call to Order B. Public Comment C. Approval of Minutes 1) Review and Approval of the November 4, 2025, Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes D. Old Business 1) Continuation — Public Hearing, 189 East Road. 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 37 different ideas for achieving that objective. Glen Ellyn Zoning Board of Meeting 12/9/2025 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: 2025-1017 # 2025-1017) Review and Approval of the November 4, 2025, Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Statement of the Issue: Review and Approval of the November 4, 2025, Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Analysis: Review and Approval of the November 4, 2025, Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Budget Impact: Contribution to Strategic Plan Action Requested: Review and Approval of the November 4, 2025, Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Attachments: 1. DRAFT 11-4-25 ZBA Minutes Page 2 of 37 DRAFT 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 Page 3 of 37 • 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? Page 4 of 37 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. Page 5 of 37 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. Page 6 of 37 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? Page 7 of 37 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. Page 8 of 37 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. Page 9 of 37 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. Page 10 of 37 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. Page 11 of 37 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 Page 12 of 37 Page 13 of 37 Page 14 of 37 Glen Ellyn Zoning Board Meeting 12/9/2025 7:00 PM of Appeals Department: Community Development 535 Duane Street Department Head: Jennifer Henaghan Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Category: Public Hearing Prepared By: Jordan Frahm AGENDA ITEM (ID DOC ID: 2025-1018 # 2025-1018) Continuation — 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: UPDATE: The petitioners and contractor Western DuPage Landscaping have developed a full landscape plan and shared the updated site plan with the adjacent neighbors. As the landscape plan calls for a retaining wall at the required 5-percent of the lot width setback of 7.5-feet, the Vavrek family has revised the proposed plans to request a minimum 9-foot setback for the residential sport court in lieu of the required 15-foot setback. Previously, the requested zoning relief was for a 7-foot setback from all property lines. After reviewing the landscape plan proposal, Floyd and Beverly Johnson of 188 N. Park have submitted a letter in support in favor of the position of the sport court as it appears in the landscape architect's plan. Previously, the Johnson family had asked to have a letter of support rescinded as they wanted further clarification regarding the anticipated activities of the sport court and screening. The new letter of support provided by the Johnson family of 188 N. Park states that they are supportive of the new proposed plan with a 9-foot setback for the sport court. 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 Page 15 of 37 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 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 Page 16 of 37 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 -189 East 2. 189 East Road Aerial Map 3. 189 East Road Zoning Map 4. Plat of Survey 5. Site Plan 6. Emerson Letter 7. Letters of Support 8. Updated Johnson support letter 11-30-25 9. Updated Site Plan Page 17 of 37 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 18 of 37 Page 19 of 37 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 Phone: (630) 337-7009 Email: chalet.vavrek@gmail.com 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 20 of 37 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 21 of 37 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 22 of 37 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 23 of 37 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. OWNERSHIP BY LAND TRUST Date: 9/30/2025 Address: 189 East Rd Legal Description: PARCEL 2 (189 East where the sport court is going) Page 24 of 37 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 25 of 37 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 26 of 37 189 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 27 of 37 189 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 28 of 37 Page 29 of 37 Page 30 of 37 7'-0" 26'x52' Sport Court 7'-0" Page 31 of 37 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 32 of 37 Page 33 of 37 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 34 of 37 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 35 of 37 November 30, 2025 To Whom This May Concern, My wife, Beverly Johnson, and myself, Floyd Johnson of 188 N Park Blvd, are asked to comment on the development of a sports court on the Vavrek property at 612 Revere Rd. Initially we were concerned the sports court once built would be too close to our western property line. Upon reviewing the landscape architectural design of the sports court and its location on the Vavrek property, we now better understand the Vavrek project. As a result of our new understanding, we are in favor of the Vavrek sports court project as it appears on the landscape architect’s blue print. We are not in favor of the 15 foot setback currently required by the Village of Glen Ellyn. Sincerely Yours, Floyd & Beverly Johnson Page 36 of 37 Page 37 of 37