Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges council to reject window‑well ordinance as written, calls for clearer maps and enforcement
Summary
During the public forum a resident urged the council not to adopt a proposed addition (section 24.24) to the Elmhurst building code concerning window wells in flood inundation areas, arguing the draft is confusing, could render many recent houses noncompliant and reflects inconsistent enforcement.
A resident, Tom Altergot of 144 South Rex, used his allotted public‑forum time on Feb. 18 to urge the Elmhurst City Council to reject a proposed change to chapter 24 of the city building code, an ordinance listed on the consent agenda as item 6.20 that would add section 24.24 entitled “Window Wells in a Flood Inundation Area.”
Altergot said he commends staff for addressing window‑well regulation but criticized the draft’s wording and placement. He noted the section’s first sentence requires all window wells to be within 6 inches of grade “when not located in a flood inundation area” and asked why that requirement appears in a section labeled for flood areas. "Why would I look here if I am not building in the flood zone?" he asked.
He also said the city should publish the flood‑zone map used to determine applicability so potential builders and homeowners can know ahead of time whether the provision applies; he warned the proposed language could render many houses built in the last 20 years outside of the flood zone noncompliant. Altergot further raised enforcement concerns, saying residents have been told repeatedly that the ordinance is silent on window wells even though he believes the code is not silent and that inconsistent enforcement has allowed window wells inside side‑yard setbacks.
Altergot characterized permitting of egress wells in side‑yard setbacks as motivated by builders’ interests and noted practical problems he associates with concrete window wells in side yards, including drainage and soil‑collapse risks. He closed by asking the council not to pass the amendment as it is written.
The item remained on the consent agenda and no council action on the draft text occurred during the public comment time; council staff later noted the ordinance is listed on the consent agenda and would be available in the meeting materials. The transcript does not record a formal staff response to the specific technical points raised by the speaker.
