Westmont planning commission backs comprehensive rewrite of zoning code, forwards recommendation to village board

The Village of Westmont Planning and Zoning Commission voted on July 23 to recommend adoption of a comprehensive rewrite of the village’s zoning ordinance and to forward the revised text to the Village Board for final action.

The rewrite, described at the meeting by Scott Williams, the village’s senior planner, “So today marks the fifth public hearing” on the zoning update, consolidates the entire zoning ordinance into a new Chapter 95 and includes changes to zoning districts, development standards, planning procedures and other zoning regulations, officials said. The commission voted to recommend the revised text after a line-by-line review and edits discussed at the meeting.

Why it matters: the update is the most sweeping zoning rewrite Westmont has undertaken in decades and will change rules that affect residential lot setbacks, downtown building types, parking calculations, accessory uses such as accessory dwelling units (ADUs), vehicle/fleet rules and outdoor lighting standards. Staff and the commission said the revisions aim to reflect current building practices, close loopholes, speed permit review and better align regulations with downtown redevelopment goals.

What the commission approved Scott Williams said the draft incorporates public and commissioner comments gathered over four earlier hearings (April 23, May 7, June 11 and June 25) and subsequent staff-and-consultant revisions. Key changes summarized by staff include: - Residential districts: Clarified introductory provisions, transitional rules and exemptions; retained an aggregate interior-side setback concept and shortened certain minimum street setbacks (example: reduced minimum street setback to 15 feet for a 40-foot buildable width on some corner lots). - Business/downtown districts: In some business districts staff reduced front-yard setbacks to 10 feet where foundation landscaping is met; downtown building-type assignments clarified so the zoning administrator may determine applicable classifications; storefront upper-story heights were increased from an 11-foot maximum to 15 feet in some tables; the downtown edge (B-1) district removes “row” building type as allowed. - Special-purpose/PUDs: Public institutional (PI) district standards were refocused toward governmental and park uses and lot width/area requirements were removed to allow varied institutional parcels; the PUD purpose statement was broadened to recognize economic or infrastructure hurdles as justification for PUD treatment. - Accessory uses: Small building exemptions were revised to allow an aggregate 50 square feet exempted; accessory dwelling unit setbacks and heights were clarified though commissioners noted ADUs remain a policy question for future consideration. - Parking: Minimum motor-vehicle parking tables were consolidated and some subcategories revised; multi-tenant centers would use 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet for new or expanded centers; tandem parking is allowed in downtown districts to serve residents and employees. - Vehicles and industrial uses: Staff and commissioners discussed recategorizing fueling stations and vehicle repair (including fleet fueling) as special uses in the M and M-1 (manufacturing) districts because many manufacturing parcels are adjacent to residences; the commission elected to treat fueling centers and certain repair/maintenance uses as special uses in those districts. - Outdoor lighting: Article 12 adds modern outdoor-lighting standards (including a 3,000-K maximum color temperature in certain triggers and downcast/non-nuisance requirements) and limits the ordinance’s immediate application to nonresidential or new site-plan projects; staff said a nuisance-lighting provision will be added to other municipal codes before extending residential regulation.

Public comment and key technical concerns Several residents and outside experts addressed the commission. Wayne Newton, a longtime property owner near the police station, asked how the revised nonconforming-structure rules would affect his ability to add a garage or expand vertically from a nonconforming front setback; staff clarified the ordinance allows vertical expansion that matches an existing footprint but prevents increasing the nonconformity by widening within the front-yard encroachment and said any expansion must be for a use permitted in the R-3 district.

Architect and resident Steve Mahalik commended the update and urged the commission to note that most commercial pools and large aquatic projects are regulated by the Illinois Department of Public Health and that applicants should be advised about that concurrent permitting requirement when submitting plans.

Krista Stenulis, a Westmont resident and member of the Westmont Environmental Improvement Committee, urged adoption of the proposed outdoor-lighting rules and explained environmental and health rationales: “the most pressing effects for the environment of irresponsible outdoor lighting have to do with the health of wildlife and humans,” she said, and cited local examples and neighboring communities (Downers Grove, Clarendon Hills, Lisle, Naperville and Wheaton) that already include lighting regulations.

Commissioner questions and edits Commissioners probed many details article-by-article. Highlights of commissioner discussion and staff commitments: - Definitions and diagrams: Commissioners asked for clearer diagram keynotes (ground story vs. upper-story heights) and for consistent labeling of downtown section figures. - Nonconformities and ADUs: Commissioners directed staff to keep ADU language in the draft but noted ADU allowance remains a policy matter the Village Board may further consider. - Manufacturing uses and fueling/repair: Commissioners agreed to treat public fueling stations and certain vehicle-repair/maintenance uses as special uses in the M and M-1 districts, citing proximity to residential property and potential noise, lighting and traffic impacts. The commission also discussed data centers and, noting significant utility and environmental effects of large data centers, agreed they should be treated as special uses where allowed. - Screening of rooftop equipment: Commissioners asked that rooftop penthouses and mechanical structures be screened; staff said the new text derives from current rules but commissioners asked staff to clarify screening expectations and stressed the zoning administrator retains discretion for implementation. - Parking for schools: Commissioners questioned the minimum standard of one parking space per seven high-school students and asked staff to allow an alternative path (section 9.03.g) by which a school may submit a parking study to the zoning administrator to establish an appropriate ratio.

Formal action The commission took a single recorded motion on the main item: a motion to approve the zoning ordinance update with the revisions discussed at the meeting. Commissioner John Thomas moved the recommendation; Commissioner Sharp seconded. The roll call as recorded in the transcript shows recorded “yes” votes from Commissioner Thomas, Commissioner Sharp, Commissioner Donahue, Commissioner Simpson and Chairperson Carmichael. The chair declared the motion approved and the commission directed staff to forward the recommended ordinance to the Village Board for consideration.

Where it goes next After the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation, the draft ordinance and requested technical cleanups will proceed to the Village Board. Staff said additional municipal-code edits outside the zoning chapter (for example, nuisance-lighting language and other administrative changes) will be coordinated before final adoption; staff also warned that adopters should expect follow-up “maintenance” amendments to correct minor drafting issues discovered during early implementation.

Context and timeline Staff said the July 23 session was the fifth public hearing on the rewrite. The series of hearings documented nearly 14 hours of public deliberation prior to this action. Williams told the commission the draft was intended to be a practical code reflecting “best practices” recommended by the consultant and internal staff review and that not every public comment could be incorporated if it conflicted with feasibility or other code sections.

Ending note Commissioners and staff thanked each other and the public for the extended process; staff noted the change is substantial—roughly expanding the ordinance from an older, shorter code into a much larger, reorganized Chapter 95—and that regular follow-up amendments are likely as the village and applicants work in the new code.