Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Villa Park Zoning Board recommends variance for homeowner's gazebo at 160 N. Villa Ave
Loading...
Summary
The Zoning Board of Appeals unanimously recommended approval on April 8 of a variance allowing a metal gazebo to remain 2.3 feet from a house at 160 North Villa Avenue, where the code requires a 5-foot setback. The homeowner said he did not realize a permit was required; the matter now goes to the Village Board.
The Village of Villa Park Zoning Board of Appeals voted unanimously on April 8 to recommend approval of a variance that would allow a gazebo to remain 2.3 feet from the primary residence at 160 North Villa Avenue, where code requires a 5-foot setback for freestanding accessory structures.
Staff told the board that the structure met size limits — the gazebo is 168 square feet — but was cited in March 2025 because it sits closer to the house than the zoning standard in Section 6.100.2 for residential accessory structures. Staff and the building inspector cited the setback as a fire‑safety measure in the building code.
Petitioner Edward Russell told the board he bought a metal gazebo online and installed it on an existing raised deck without realizing it required a separate permit. “I wasn’t thinking anything about codes or permits and I apologize for that,” Russell said. He said the gazebo is bolted to the deck and that the house siding is a concrete Hardy board, which influenced his decision not to attach the structure to the house.
Commissioners asked about materials and the purpose of the 5‑foot setback. Staff explained that the setback and attachment rules are intended to address fire‑rating and safe distances for accessory structures; staff noted that the gazebo could be approved as attached to the residence if constructed and permitted to meet applicable building‑code requirements. The petitioner said moving the gazebo or attaching it to the house was impractical because of the siding and the raised deck.
Commissioner Brenda Chang moved to recommend approval of ZBA 26‑02; the motion was seconded and carried by roll call with no recorded opposition (board acted by unanimous recommendation). The board instructed staff on next steps: the recommendation will be forwarded to the Village Board for final action and staff discussed potential Village Board dates (meeting dates were discussed in the hearing, including May 18 and May 21). Russell said he would coordinate with staff on the permit path going forward.
The board’s recommendation does not itself change the code; it forwards a favorable recommendation to the Village Board, which will consider the variance request and any conditions during its meeting.
