LAGRANGE

Village of La Grange
53 S. La Grange Road, La Grange, IL 60525
lagrangeil.gov

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PUBLIC RECORDS

To : Patch.com
Attn : David Giuliani
david .giuliani@patch.com

On January 11. 2023 , the Village of La Grange received your written request for
in spection, copying, or certification of the following Village public record s:
See attached rider.

1. Decision on Request

Your request is approved in its entirety .

.JL Your request is approved in part and denied in part. Those record s for which your
request is denied are identified in Section 3 below.
Your request is hereby denied in its entirety. Those records for which your request is
denied are identified in Section 6 below.
2. Availability of Records

Subject to payment of any required fees or postage pursuant to Section 4 or 5 below, all of the
public records for which your request is approved will be made available as follows. (See
Section 6 for the public records for which your request is denied.)
Copies of the following public records will be:
Made available for your inspection at the Village Hall as indicated in Section 3 below.
Made available for pick up by you at the Village Hall as indicated in Section 3 below.
Mailed to you at the address you provided in your request .
.JL Sent to you via email at the email address you provided in your request.
3. Deni al of Request

Your request is denied as to the following records or redacted information contained in those
records:
FOIA response has been redacted as provided by the Illinois Freedom of Information Act .

A. Respon sible Official. The Village's FOIA Officer is the official responsible for this denial.

B. Notice of Right to Review by Illinoi s Attorney General. You have the right to file a
request for review of your request and this Notice of Denial by the Public Access
Counselor of the Office of the Illinois Attorney General. The Public Access Counselor
may be contacted at 500 South 2nd Street, Springfield, lllinois 62706, or by telephone at
(217) SSB-0486.
C. Notice of Right to Judicial Review . Under Section 11 of the Illinois Freedom of
Information Act, 5 ILCS 140/11, you have the right to seek judicial review of this denial.
The Village cannot advise or represent you in this matter. You should consult your own
legal coun sel.

D. Ju stification for Denial. Your request is being denied with respect to the specified
records becau se the specified records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to the
Illinois Freedom of Information Act for the following reason or rea son s (references are
to sections of the Act) :
...L The records are private information. § 2(c-5), §7{l)(b)

Applies to:._ _ _~U=n=ig~u=e~id~e~n~ti~fie='~'=co=n=t=•i~ne=d~w=ith=i~n~re~s~p=on=s=iv=e~d=o=cu=m~e=n=ts

=.

Dated : January 27 2023

Method of Service: email

Village of La Grange

Signed : ~~
FOIA Officer
Daisy Cabrera

From: David Giuliani <david .giuliani@patch .com>

Sent: Wednesday, January 11 , 2023 8:41 AM VED
To: FOIAGroup REC El
Subject: Public Records Request-Memo on Driveway Request
JAN 1 1 2023

Initial:-----
I[EXTERNAL EMAIL) Verify sender and use caution when opening attachments or clicking links

Hello,

This is a public records request under the Freedom of Information Act.

Village President Mark Kuchler referred to a memo during Monday's Village Board meeting about ways to address a
driveway request at 124 S. Waiola Ave. I would like to see that document.

If you have any questions about this request, please feel free to contact me.

Thanks,

David Giuliani
Reporter
Patch.com
505-426-5067
Covering Elmhurst, La Grange, Hinsdale, Darien, Western Springs, Burr Ridge, Clarendon Hills
Jack Knight

Subject: FW: 124 S. Waiola -- Garage Rebuild Permit

124 S. Waiola Ave. Garage – Earlier this week, the Board received an email from the homeowner at 124 S. Waiola Ave., 
who would like to demolish the existing detached garage on their property and building a new detached garage. The 
property currently has a building coverage of 37.66% (2,558.62 s.f.), more than 520 square feet over the maximum 
allowable for the lot. Additionally, the property’s lot coverage currently exceeds the maximum 45%. The homeowner’s 
proposed plan would reduce the lot coverage to comply with the Zoning Code maximum but would still exceed the 
maximum building coverage by 511 square feet. 
 
The homeowner notes that the current garage and driveway were constructed following a permit issued in 2014. This is 
true; the garage was built slightly larger than what was approved on the permit plans (22 s.f.), but the approved building 
and lot coverage per the permit exceeded the maximums allowable by code. Since the permit was improperly approved, 
the existing structures would not be considered nonconforming per the Zoning Code. However, even if they were 
considered nonconforming, by removing the existing garage and driveway the Zoning Code would still require 
compliance with current zoning standards for the new construction. 
 
The existing home on the property (roughly 100 years old) is 2,021 s.f.; the maximum allowable building coverage for the 
lot is 2,038 s.f. To be granted relief from the Zoning Code for the construction of a new garage, the homeowner would 
need to apply for a variation (the home leaves only 17 s.f. of allowable building coverage for accessory buildings) . 
However, the Zoning Code does not currently allow the Board to grant a variation for the amount of relief the 
homeowner would like to request. Per Zoning Code Section 14‐303E(c), a variation can only be granted to increase 
building coverage by not more than 20% of the maximum allowable building coverage. The maximum building coverage 
the Board may approve for this lot through a variation is 2,445.75 square feet. The homeowner is proposing a 22 ft. by 
24 ft. garage, resulting in a building coverage of 2,549.38 s.f. (comparable to the existing building coverage).  
 
The Zoning Code does not allow the proposed garage to be built pursuant to a variation. The code provides two options 
at this point, which staff has discussed with the homeowner: 
 
1. The homeowner can apply for a text amendment to modify Section 14‐303E(c) of the Zoning Code to increase 
the amount of relief that can be granted through a variation, or eliminate the Code’s limit on the amount of 
relief. If a text amendment were approved, the homeowner could then apply for a variation for the proposed 
garage. If the Board agrees with the homeowner that it is unfair for them to bear the cost of that text 
amendment, the Board could direct staff to waive some or all fees for the homeowner’s application, or direct 
staff to prepare an amendment as a Village‐initiated text amendment to modify Section 14‐303E(c). 
 
2. The homeowner can apply for a variation for a smaller 20 ft by 20 ft garage. No text amendment would be 
needed, because the resulting total building coverage would be within the limits provided by Section 14‐303E(c) 
of the Zoning Code. 
 
Please let us know if you have input on this matter. 
 

From:   
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 9:21 AM 
To: Mark Kuchler; Beth Augustine; Louis Gale; Michael Kotynek; Shawana McGee; Tim O'Brien; Peggy Peterson; Paul 
Saladino 
Cc:   
Subject: 124 S. Waiola ‐‐ Garage Rebuild Permit  
1
  

  

[EXTERNAL EMAIL]  Verify sender and use caution when opening attachments or clicking links  

Dear Neighbors,  
 
My name is  , I have been a resident of La Grange since 2013, first at  ., then moved to 
124 S. Waiola in 2016.  I apologize for contacting you all directly in this manner, but I wanted to raise an issue 
about my property that appears to have hit a dead end with the planning department, and I feel the result is 
unjust. 
 
For background, 124 S. Waiola had been a double lot for many years, until it was purchased by a developer 
around 2013‐2014, who then subdivided the lot and built a new home   on the south lot.  The 
garage for 124 S. Waiola had been located on the south lot prior to this.  In 2014, this developer submitted 
plans to the village where both the building coverage and the impervious coverage were wildly over the 
limit.  When we purchased the home from him in 2016, we understood that the back yard was undesirable, 
but expected that once things had settled, we would be able to re‐arrange and re‐build it to suit our needs.  I 
want to add that his 2014 redevelopment plan caused friction with the adjoining homeowners at the time, and 
has created an unusually bad situation where the lot at 124 S. Waiola is almost entirely paved over, leading to 
significant water runoff. 
 
Below is an image of my current plat of survey.  As you can see, my garage is located at the NW corner, 
creating a huge concrete turn‐around on the SW corner, in addition to the miscellaneous additional concrete 
in the yard. 
 

 
 
We are now finally in a position to be able to correct his mistakes, at significant expense.  We contacted a 
garage building contractor, and worked out plans with him that would have us re‐build the garage to the exact 
same footprint.  Below is the plan from Blue Sky Builders, that would have us relocate the garage, at the exact 
same footprint, to the SW corner and remove the extraneous concrete pads from throughout the yard. 
 

2
  
 
Unfortunately, this has hit a snag with the planning department.  This plan would reduce our impervious 
coverage to below the permitted limit of 45% after allowances, but we would still be significantly above the 
permitted building coverage limit.  The village claims to have no record of the prior owner applying for or 
being granted a variance when he applied for the permit for this project in 2014, although he claims to have 
received one and the work was fully permitted and inspected by the village.  And now if I want to apply for a 
variance, I have been told that the building code in La Grange would not even allow me to seek a variance to 
rebuild the garage at its current dimensions‐‐I'd have to downsize it significantly. 
 
Where things have been left off is that I've been told that I can first submit an application to amend the village 
building code to allow for an increase to the maximum permitted building coverage variance (at an expense of 
no less than $1500), and if that is approved, I can then submit a variance application (at another $1500) to ask 
for permission to go forward with the project.  I can be denied at either step of the process and would have 
spend several thousand dollars for nothing. 
 
It is my position that the current state of affairs is something between the village and the prior owner.  If the 
village improperly permitted the work, or lost the variance grant, that shouldn't fall to me.  And if the work 
wasn't approvable under the code, that should have been caught back in 2014, and I could have fairly 
considered the outcome of that when I bought the house.  My proposed project would not make anything 
worse (the garage would be the exact same dimensions, and would have a lower roof, reducing its visual 
impact), and would make other circumstances significantly better for not only myself, but my neighbors as 
well (the replacement of huge swaths of concrete with grass).  Nor is it fair to ask me to reduce the size of my 
garage by any significant amount; I purchased the home only a few years ago, and that was a factor in the 
price we paid, and the garage is hardly oversized as a very typical 2 car garage. 
 
I am asking that the village board consider this issue and help me find a solution.  I have proposed to the 
planning department that they waive the fee associated with the building code amendment application, which 
would go a long way for me as a show of good faith and helping reduce my financial burden on an expense 
that I don't think should be mine to bear in the first place.  I have not heard back on this yet.  A far more 
preferable solution is some sort of resolution from the board of trustees that would allow the planning 
department to approve my plan without the need to resort to seeking a new variance. 
 
I hope that you are able to help.  The whole situation is form over substance ‐‐ the planning department 
agrees that my project would be beneficial and should be done, but they do not have the power to approve it 
without my jumping through multiple, expensive hoops first.  This should not be necessary. 
3
 
Please feel free to contact me at any time, at this email or by phone at  .  I greatly appreciate 
your time and attention to this matter. 
 
Most respectfully, 
 
124 S. Waiola