Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning And Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DuPage County committee sustains zoning denial for vintage Airstream parked in front yard
Summary
The DuPage County Development Committee declined to overturn a zoning hearing officer’s recommendation and sustained a denial of a variance that would have allowed a vintage Airstream recreational vehicle to remain parked in front of a house, citing code, sight-line and operability concerns.
The DuPage County Development Committee on Nov. 18 declined a motion to overturn a zoning hearing officer’s recommendation and denied a request to allow a vintage Airstream recreational vehicle to remain parked in front of the front wall of a house.
County staff told the committee the citation resulted from an anonymous complaint and that inspectors who went to the property for another violation identified the Airstream, which appears dormant and lacked license and tags. Staff said the county code requires recreational vehicles to be stored behind the front wall of the house because large, long-stored RVs can create sight-line issues and be an eyesore for adjacent property owners. “It creates a bit of a blight, creates a bit of an eyesore for adjacent property owners,” a county staff member said during the hearing.
Several members and a public commenter described the financial and logistical hardship of moving or storing an RV if the variance were denied, and noted neighbors had not raised objections at the public hearing. Staff responded that the county typically reacts to complaints and inspects the whole property when responding to another violation, which is how the basketball or RV installation came to light. Members questioned how long the RV had been parked and whether the vehicle was operable; staff said the RV appeared dormant and lacked tires, tags or clear evidence of regular movement.
A motion to overturn the hearing officer’s recommendation and approve the variance was seconded, discussed and put to a roll-call vote; the committee sustained the hearing officer’s denial and the motion failed. The committee did not adopt conditions to permit the RV in front of the house and sustained enforcement under county code.
Next steps: the committee moved on to other agenda items; the denial remains in the record and, if the property owner pursues further appeals or compliance steps, those would be handled through the county’s adjudication process.
