Clearway PUD approved after 21‑year community‑lot history; developer to build townhomes

The Zoning Board considered ZPA‑25‑003/DBA‑2025‑004, a proposed planned unit development (PUD) and replat for a parcel in the Clearway/Clearwind subdivision that had earlier been designated as a community lot. Staff and the applicant presented a revised plan for 23 attached townhome‑style units in a configuration the village’s planning staff recommended after a layover to research historical platting records.

Attorney Jeff Lincoln, representing the applicant, summarized the parcel’s history: the original tentative plat and minutes from the early 2000s referenced the lot as a community center or community lot. Lincoln said the lot remained in private ownership and that, over two decades, ownership of surrounding parcels fragmented into at least a dozen owners “with no mechanism” established to build or maintain a community facility. He and staff told the board they reviewed minutes from 2004 and subsequent files and found no owners’ association or funding mechanism to deliver the community center as once contemplated.

Planning staff said the documentation showed the lot had been reserved for a community function at the time of original platting but that, in practice, it has remained undeveloped and overgrown. Staff and the applicant explored alternatives—donation of land to the village, a park, or public ownership—but reported the village had limited appetite to assume ownership and ongoing maintenance of an in‑fill parcel. The applicant offered a PUD plan that retained open areas, met density requirements and included landscape revisions negotiated with village staff.

The PUD request requires flexibility on two landscaping provisions: transition area landscaping along the perimeter and parking‑lot perimeter landscaping standards. Planning staff and the applicant described revisions to the original submittal to increase plantings and to align landscaping character with the neighborhood; the applicant confirmed the project had village engineer sign‑offs on drainage and permits for water and sanitary work.

Board members asked about notice to adjacent owners; staff said public notice procedures for plats and PUDs were followed and that staff had received limited public comment on the revised plan. Several board members said the parcel’s long period of private ownership and the lack of an active association made the community‑center outcome unlikely; they cited maintenance and funding as barriers to village takeover.

Following discussion, a motion to approve the PUD, the replat and the requested landscaping flexibilities passed on roll call. The board’s approval included the conditions in staff’s recommendation and references to the drainage and landscaping revisions the applicant had made.

Votes at a glance: the board voted to approve the replat and PUD; roll call in the transcript records affirmative votes on the motion.

The applicant will follow the village’s PUD and building permit processes and the approvals will carry conditions listed in the staff recommendation. Any future changes to the PUD or additional deviations would require further village review and public notice.