Hearing continued on accessory-building size increase; petitioner told to submit detailed survey and plans

The DuPage County Zoning Hearing Officer continued testimony March 5 in case 25-005, a petition seeking conditional use to increase the total permitted area of a detached accessory building from 1,000 square feet to approximately 1,381 square feet for an existing detached garage and shed. The officer set the continued hearing for March 19 at 2:30 p.m. and instructed the petitioner to submit more detailed documentation before that date.

The petitioner told the hearing officer that the property is serviced by well and septic, that a shipping container existed on the lot when the petitioner bought the house in October 2020, and that the county has issued a violation requiring the shipping container be converted to a shed. The petitioner said a permit application for the shed had been submitted to the building department but was rejected for insufficient information. The petitioner presented a stamped 2020 survey as the only available survey and acknowledged it was five years old.

The Zoning Hearing Officer said the county ordinarily requires a survey no more than one year old and a site plan showing precise placement and dimensions but indicated he had not insisted on a new survey to avoid additional expense. The officer nevertheless required the petitioner to provide a site plan showing where the structure will sit relative to side and rear yards, exact dimensions and documentation of how the shipping container will be converted. He also asked for photographs and specific construction details the building department would need to process permit applications.

A neighbor, Mr. Johnson, testified the shipping container is visible only from a limited vantage point behind adjacent garages and said it appeared to have been on the lot for a long time. “It's certainly not something that has recently been moved in,” Mr. Johnson said. The hearing officer noted the Village of Lombard supplied an advisory letter in the circulated comments and described that letter as informational.

The officer continued the case to March 19 at 2:30 p.m. and instructed the petitioner that if the required materials are submitted by that hearing the officer would review them then; the officer said the continuation would not require republishing or additional expense. The officer also told the petitioner he would ask follow-up questions at the next hearing about base/foundation and other construction details.

No formal vote was taken; the hearing was continued pending submission of the requested survey, site plan, dimensions and conversion details.