DuPage zoning board closes hearing on 3‑lot Indian Knoll subdivision; decision set for Oct. 2

The DuPage County Zoning Board of Appeals on Sept. 18, 2025 closed the public hearing on petition 25‑054, a conditional‑use request to subdivide a roughly 3.7‑acre property on Indian Knoll Road into three single‑family lots with variances reducing required lot area and width, and scheduled a decision for its Oct. 2 recommendation meeting. Chairman Bob Gartham said the board would make its decision on the record made that evening and convene again on Oct. 2 to vote.

The petitioner, represented by attorney John Stanek, asked for exceptions to the R‑district requirements described in the hearing record: a reduction of the stated 100,000‑square‑foot minimum lot size to smaller parcels (Stanek said proposed Lot 1 is about 74,567 square feet) and reduced lot widths (about 120 feet for Lot 1, roughly 119.97 feet for Lot 2 and about 139.97 feet for Lot 3). Stanek described the plan as a family compound: “My name is John Stanek. I'm representing Peter Zaykul and his wife, Agnes. They're the owners of the property in question,” and said the petitioners intend to build three single‑family homes, one for the son who already lives on the site and one each for the owners and their daughter.

The petition record, as stated at the hearing, includes a survey and a site plan with wetlands delineated (the board accepted the survey as exhibit 1 and the highlighted site plan as exhibit 2 during the hearing), an authorization for Stanek to act for the owners (exhibit 3) and other materials. The petitioner told the board the parcel is about 3.7 acres, is served by well and septic, and includes identified wetlands. Stormwater review submitted comments; Stanek said stormwater concerns would be addressed during building‑permit review and that required septic systems would be dictated at permit stage.

A neighbor who identified themself orally as Elisha (last name spelled aloud during testimony) said they bought a nearby house in March and expressed concern about additional traffic and known drainage problems at the rear of their yard. Asked whether they opposed the request, the neighbor said they would “like to hear more in there” and raised that their property already experiences water problems.

Board members also conducted routine business during the meeting: a motion to admit two members appearing remotely (Dennis Moran and Zander Man) passed (motion moved by Member Murphy and seconded by Member Schultz), after which the board proceeded with the hearing. No formal vote on petition 25‑054 was taken at the Sept. 18 hearing. The hearing record was closed and the board set a follow‑up meeting to vote on the petition on Oct. 2 at 5:30 p.m.

The petitioner said the daughter’s relocation from Milwaukee is likely a year or two away and that construction would not begin immediately; he also described the family’s earlier cleanup of the property after purchase. The petitioner asserted the proposed development would not increase flood risk if built in accordance with stormwater controls and that adding two new homes would not unduly affect traffic or public safety, statements the board noted but did not rule on at the hearing.

Because the board closed the record and postponed a decision to its Oct. 2 meeting, no permit or variance has been approved or denied. Further technical details — including final lot areas for Lots 2 and 3, the parcel’s formal zoning designation (the record included both a reference to the R‑1 single‑family residence district and a later statement by the petitioner that the parcel is zoned R‑2), and stormwater or septic permit conditions — will be resolved either in the board’s forthcoming decision or during subsequent permit reviews.