Westmont holds public hearing on comprehensive zoning rewrite; hearing continued to May 7

The Village of Westmont Planning and Zoning Commission opened a public hearing April 23 on a comprehensive zoning text amendment that would repeal Appendix A of the Westmont Code of Ordinances and establish a new Chapter 95 covering zoning districts, development standards and review procedures.

Kirk Bishop, the consultant from Duncan Associates, told the commission the rewrite is a comprehensive reorganization and update. “It’s been approximately 45 years since the last comprehensive overhaul of the village zoning ordinance,” Bishop said, and the draft is intended to modernize the document, improve usability, and supply new zoning tools for downtown and other areas.

Scott Williams, Westmont senior planner, summarized staff work and community outreach and said the update is intended to make rules clearer for residents and developers. “The zoning ordinance itself is a blueprint for how community should develop and grow,” Williams said, and he emphasized the draft continues existing residential district designations while changing certain dimensional standards and administrative procedures.

Key proposed changes described in the hearing packet and by staff include: reduced minimum detached-lot widths in several residential zones from 60 feet to 50 feet (R‑3, R‑4, R‑5); a new minimum lot depth standard drawn from Appendix B; a reduction of an interior side setback from 6 feet to 5 feet in some districts; elimination of the floor‑area ratio (FAR) maximum in many districts; increased allowed height for accessory buildings from 15 to 18 feet and a maximum combined accessory building footprint of 1,250 square feet (one detached garage plus up to two additional buildings); and a new explicit allowance for two small backyard sheds (12 square feet each) that are exempt from the accessory‑building total.

Downtown-specific regulations would create three new downtown districts (B1A, B1 and R7) and reorganize downtown rules by three building types—storefront, general, and row buildings—with different height and placement controls. Bishop noted the downtown core B1A height would move from a 40‑foot cap to a five‑story standard to provide flexibility for floor‑to‑floor heights common to storefront buildings; the B1/downtown edge would be set at roughly three to three‑and‑a‑half stories depending on building type.

Other substantive changes include a new Planned Unit Development (PUD) procedure to replace the legacy PD overlay, relocation of many landscaping and tree requirements into the zoning text (Article 10), updated parking and parking‑lot design standards (including a minimum stall size change from 10x20 feet to 9x18 feet and new stacking requirements for drive‑throughs), and clarified rules for outdoor uses (display, seating/dining, and storage) plus express allowances for electric‑vehicle charging, backup generators, and alternative energy equipment. The draft also proposes consolidating review procedures into “major” and “minor” site‑plan tracks, with 10,000 square feet of new or added gross floor area as the major‑site‑plan threshold.

The commission heard about the draft from about a dozen public speakers. Resident Tapan Biswas said he supports accessory dwelling units (ADUs) as a way to keep families together: “I support this,” he said, describing how a detached ADU could allow multigenerational living on his large lot. Several residents expressed concerns about the proposed 50‑foot lot width, saying narrower lots can feel overcrowded and increase pressure for large tear‑down redevelopment. Brian Shuring, a resident, urged the commission to consider pre‑approved ADU designs and to align minimum lot‑area numbers with the new dimensional table so infill is predictable.

Business owners and property representatives raised concerns about proposed treatment of industrial and M‑district uses. Commercial property owner Tim McHale said he and tenants received little notice and that the draft would make many uses subject to special‑use review, creating uncertainty for leasing. “It provides no clarity,” McHale said. David Meek, who said he represents Transport Properties, asked the commission to consider permitting certain outdoor storage when objective site‑development standards are met rather than requiring special‑use approval in every case; he also called the draft’s fleet‑vehicle rules (a two‑vehicle default) overly restrictive for many contractors and light‑industrial tenants.

Land‑use attorney Mark Daniel urged clearer and more precise definitions, expressed concern about new limits on nonconforming accessory‑use rights and recommended allowing routine contractor uses and outdoor storage under measured standards rather than sweeping special‑use controls. Other speakers suggested tweaks to sign rules, facade‑material review, data‑center guidance where office/research abuts housing, and a public process that preserves opportunities for additional public comment on a continued hearing date.

After public comment the commission voted to continue the hearing to May 7, 2025, at 6 p.m. The motion to continue was made by Commissioner Simpson and seconded by Commissioner Thomas. A roll call recorded unanimous support: Commissioner Peterson — yes; Commissioner Sharp — yes; Commissioner Donahue — yes; Commissioner Simpson — yes; Commissioner Lynn — yes; Commissioner Thomas — yes; Chairperson Carmichael — yes. Staff and the consultant said they expect to return with refinements and that the public will have additional opportunity to comment at the continued hearing.

What happens next: the public hearing remains open; staff and the consultant will revise draft language in response to commission and public input and return for the May 7 continuation, with additional meetings possible afterward. Several commenters and commissioners asked staff to consider narrower, objective standards for contractor‑type outdoor storage, clearer notification to property owners and tenants, and ways to fast‑track straightforward administrative approvals for small site changes.

Votes at a glance: the only recorded formal action in this session was a continuance of the public hearing to May 7, 2025, 6 p.m.; the motion passed unanimously by roll call.