DuPage County hearing: owners seek rezoning and variances to subdivide Indian Knoll property into three lots

John Stanek, attorney for the petitioners, told DuPage County commissioners that his clients, Peter and Agnes Zacchio, asked to rezone a single-family parcel from R-1 to R-2 to allow a three‑lot subdivision (case 20502). "We're looking at 3 homes on a little over 3 acres, almost 3 and a half acres," Stanek said, and requested exceptions to reduce the required lot width from 25 feet to approximately 20 feet for two of the proposed lots.

The petition, which the hearing officer said had been published in the Daily Herald on 02/05/2025, proposes that Lot 1 remain substantially larger (about 1.71 acres), while Lots 2 and 3 would be narrower and require the width variances. Stanek said his clients had cleared the site of vagrants and inoperable vehicles since acquiring it and that the work had increased nearby property values. "This is not going to substantially increase traffic by any way, shape, or form," he said.

The applicant described the existing services as private: the property is served by a well and septic systems. Neighbor Sharon Diamond, who identified her address as 28 W. 355 Hardy Court across Indian Knoll, asked whether the new lots would use septic and whether additional septic systems could increase runoff into a nearby pond. "We just didn't want runoff with 2 extra houses from the size of them into the ponds. So, how would that the septic system?" Diamond asked.

Stanek responded that soil testing and stormwater controls are required before building permits are issued. "If I could, before building permits are issued, soil testing is required, and the owners or developers would have to comply with the results of the soil test regarding water runoff as well as well and septic, the type of system," he said. The petitioner indicated the proposal would not connect to public water or sewer unless utilities later became available and the property was annexed into a nearby municipality, which Stanek said would likely be Winfield.

Commissioners questioned site access and emergency response given the flag/"keyhole" lot configuration and the narrow driveway to the rear lots. One commissioner asked about the 20‑foot driveway width and whether that would allow fire equipment to reach the lots. The petitioners said the existing Lot 1 would remain occupied by their son and that development would follow applicable county requirements for setbacks, utilities, and stormwater.

The hearing record was closed at the end of the meeting. The board scheduled its recommendation meeting for March 6 at 5:30 p.m.; after that, the recommendation will go to the county development committee and then to the full county board for a final decision. The record-closure means no additional evidence from the petitioner ordinarily will be accepted before the board's recommendation meeting.

What happens next: the board will deliberate at the March 6 recommendation meeting and issue a recommendation to the county development committee and county board, which will make the final decision on the rezoning and the requested variances.