Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Accessory Structures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Campton Hills commission tables proposed accessory-structure size amendment after extended discussion
Summary
The Planning and Zoning Commission discussed options to limit the maximum size of accessory structures on larger lots and voted to table a zoning text amendment indefinitely while staff prepares options for the new board.
Campton Hills — The Campton Hills Planning and Zoning Commission discussed a potential zoning text amendment to set maximum sizes for accessory structures and then voted to table the item indefinitely during the April 9 special meeting.
The item began with a staff or commissioner update that the Village Board had not reached consensus at its most recent meeting to refer the amendment back to the commission. A commissioner summarized the principal concern: without a ceiling for lots of 3, 4 or 5 acres the allowable accessory area could become “extremely large.” One commissioner said the current ordinance could allow accessory buildings “bigger than the Weiss barn up at [the] traffic circle.”
Staff presented alternatives the commission could recommend: reverting to earlier numeric limits (for example, the 2007 ordinance used 900 square feet with graduated increases), using a percentage-of-lot-area approach (1% of lot area, which on 10 acres would be 4,356 square feet), a fixed-feet-per-quarter-acre scale (adding roughly 100 feet per quarter acre), or an arbitrary cap (for example, stop at 3,000 square feet). Commissioners discussed whether limits should be framed as percentages or fixed square-foot caps, whether caps should apply only to smaller lots (e.g., under 5 acres), and whether septic-field setbacks or county health requirements effectively limit practical building size.
After discussion a commissioner moved to table the item to an indefinite date; another commissioner seconded. The commission took a voice vote and the motion to table carried.
Commissioners and staff said they will prepare materials and options for future review, noting the Village Board will seat newly elected members at its first meeting in May and that the board may want to direct the commission once the new board is in place. Staff said it could circulate the options discussed so the commission starts with a “running start” at a future meeting.
The commission did not adopt a text amendment or set a deadline for reconsideration; the motion was a tabling action, not an approval or rejection of any specific cap. Commissioners flagged issues staff should clarify if and when the text amendment is revisited: how septic capacity and county health rules constrain buildable area, whether to treat total area under roof (all accessory buildings combined) versus individual building size, and whether homeowners associations or covenants may supersede village limits in subdivisions.
No public comments on the item were recorded in the meeting transcript.
