The zoning committee on Sept. 16 approved a series of variances to allow reduced setbacks and an accessory building higher than code in separate votes during the same meeting. The actions included reductions in rear-yard and corner-side setbacks and approval of an 18-foot detached accessory building after a stop-work order.

The approvals matter because they alter how property owners can use developed lots and set the immediate conditions for neighbors and nearby public land. Committee members cited screening, site constraints and the proximity of forest preserve land as reasons the variances would not harm neighbors.

The panel approved DCO 38-25 to reduce a rear-yard setback from 25 feet to about 19.2 feet for an existing detached garage. It also approved DCO 39-25 to reduce another rear-yard setback to about 11.35 feet, and DCO 40-25 to reduce a corner side-yard setback from 30 feet to approximately 14 feet to permit an in-ground pool. For the pool case, staff said the septic field “encumbers the entire backyard,” leaving the setback as the only feasible location for the pool; staff also noted a six-foot solid fence that screens the yard from the roadway.

The committee then considered DCO 42-25, a request to allow an attached accessory structure to reach about 18 feet where code permits 15 feet. Paul, a staff member who answered detailed questions from members, said a building permit that allowed construction to proceed to an 18-foot framed height was issued in error; when staff discovered the discrepancy they placed a stop-work order. Paul said about 90% of the building had been constructed when work was stopped and that the zoning hearing officer found a unique circumstance because the property backs onto forest preserve land: “The zoning hearing officer felt that there was a unique circumstance … there would be no impact in the immediate adjacent property which is the forest preserve,” Paul said. The board approved the variation.

A neighbor had submitted a letter opposing the height variance on precedent grounds, worried the approval would encourage taller accessory buildings across the neighborhood. Board members noted the zoning hearing officer’s statement that each case “stands on its own merit” and that the officer considered site-specific factors, including the sloped roof that meets 15 feet at the north property line and rises to 18 feet toward the south.

No ordinance or statute was cited as overriding the local code in these votes. All motions were made, seconded and approved by voice vote.

The approvals allow the structures and uses as described; in the height case the staff described two paths that would have been required if the variance had been denied: cut the roof to meet 15 feet or seek relief. The board did not attach additional conditions beyond the approvals.