Itasca trustees remand Surrey Lane pool, driveway and lot‑coverage plan to staff after neighbors raise drainage, character concerns

The Itasca Village Board on Aug. 5 heard a contested zoning variance request for 1150 Surrey Lane that would raise allowable lot coverage in the R‑1 residential district from 40% to 46.3% to permit an in‑ground pool, pool deck, walkways and driveway replacement.

Why it matters: The Plan Commission voted 6‑0 on July 16 to recommend the variance with conditions, but neighbors told staff they worried increased lot coverage and new hardscape could aggravate drainage problems and alter neighborhood character. The board asked staff to work with the petitioner and return with design alternatives and with additional study of whether permeable pavers could merit a stormwater credit.

What was proposed and what the Plan Commission recommended: The petitioner seeks a pool and associated walkways and replacement of an existing asphalt driveway with permeable pavers. The staff report said the existing and proposed work would bring lot coverage to 46.3%. The plan commission recommended approval subject to conditions that include: construction to conform to plans and Robinson Engineering review comments provided as exhibits; permitting within one year or the approval lapses; use of permeable pavers for the walkways and driveway; reduction of driveway width to comply with the 24‑foot maximum at the lot line; recording the ordinance with the DuPage County recorder; and a requirement that if permeable pavers are later replaced with impervious material the lot coverage must be returned to 40%.

Petitioner and hardship claim: The petitioner (identified in the record as Harry) told trustees the primary hardship is disability and accessibility needs. "The hardship is it's mainly for handicap reasons," Harry said, explaining he had a degenerative back disorder and needs an accessible route to the backyard for physical therapy. He also said family members use wheelchairs and that the proposed walkways are intended to provide access without moving through the house.

Board concerns and staff direction: Several trustees expressed concern about preserving large‑lot character and potential runoff. Trustee Leahy said she bought her home for the large lots and was unwilling to set precedent that would "compromise" the neighborhood. Staff and trustees discussed rotating or reducing the pool size, moving the pool farther from the house, and whether permeable pavers could count toward a stormwater credit; staff advised that permeable pavers do not currently count as green space under village code and any credit would require establishing a clear standard and maintenance expectations. The board did not grant the variance that evening; instead the board remanded the application to staff to seek revised designs and to evaluate credits for permeable paving and other measures to reduce lot coverage.

Context and next steps: The transcript records that staff will work with the petitioner, the petitioner’s landscaper and pool contractor, and Robinson Engineering to seek a design that reduces lot coverage or documents an appropriate stormwater mitigation credit. If the petitioner pursues permits in a way that conforms to the village code, staff will report back to the board with a recommendation.