The DuPage County Zoning Hearing Officer took testimony March 5 on case 24-087, a request by petitioner Chateau Jarrett for conditional use to convert an existing detached garage into an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) in an R-4 zoning district and for a variation to allow neither occupant of the principal dwelling nor the ADU to be the legal or beneficial owner of the property. The officer said the record and two exhibits submitted by the petitioner would be taken under advisement and that a written recommendation would be emailed before the March 19 hearing.

The petitioner, Chateau Jarrett, told the hearing officer she does not live in either the principal dwelling or the proposed ADU and said she wants the option to rent both units. “I don't live in either of the units. And I wanna be allowed to rent to people both in the house and in the garage, the ADU,” Jarrett said. Jarrett also testified that the ADU conversion could be needed to accommodate an aging parent but that the situation is uncertain and she did not want to spend about $50,000 on the conversion only to have it sit unused if circumstances changed.

The petitioner submitted two exhibits described at the hearing as a plan of survey and a site plan. The Zoning Hearing Officer noted that the county building department filed an objection in its circulated comments. The officer explained the standards the petitioner must address under the county code provision cited in the petition (identified in the hearing record as section 37-4-172, subsections h and i) and asked Jarrett to show how the request met factors the code requires, including whether a practical difficulty, hardship or unique circumstance exists.

Jarrett said she had discussed the proposal with county staff and Stormwater personnel and that others in the neighborhood have multifamily or multiple dwelling units on nearby properties. She described the neighborhood as a mix of single- and multi-family uses and said the ADU would not be out of character.

The officer described the decision process: the hearing record and exhibits would be used to prepare a recommendation to the County Development Committee; that committee would review and make a recommendation to the full County Board, which makes the final administrative determination. The officer said the petitioner would receive the written decision by email before the March 19 meeting and that no further testimony would be taken at that meeting. “I will render a decision that you'll have access to by email by March 19,” the Zoning Hearing Officer told Jarrett.

No formal vote was taken; the officer took the record under advisement and left the matter pending administrative review. The officer advised the petitioner that any appeal of an administrative determination would proceed through the courts if pursued.

The record for case 24-087 will be considered by county staff and committees before any final County Board action; Jarrett and other interested parties will be notified of the officer's recommendation and the next administrative steps.