DuPage Zoning Board continues review of petition for four townhomes after drainage, publication concerns

A DuPage County Zoning Board of Appeals hearing on Feb. 12 reviewed a petition from Zanaab Properties LLC to create a planned development with four attached townhomes on about 1.26 acres at Dickens and Swift Road.

Chairman Robert Castle opened the public hearing and described the petition as a conditional-use planned development. Petitioner representatives presented site and engineering materials, including floor plans and renderings, and said the project "serves the missing middle" in county housing policy. "These units are about $400,000 per townhome," Dan Shapiro, a petitioner representative, told the board.

Engineer Michael Caldwell described the site plan and lot configuration: the property’s four existing lots would be reorganized so the eastern lots remain single-family and the western lots would host the four townhomes with a single access drive from Dickens Avenue. Caldwell said the site slopes roughly 10 feet across the property and drains east to west toward Swift Road, and that the proposed grading maintains that drainage pattern. "The septic area will be on the northern portion of the property," Caldwell said when asked where septic systems would be placed.

Stormwater review was a central focus. County engineering staff flagged that net new impervious area exceeds 2,500 square feet and that the application must address post-construction best management practices (PC BMPs) to meet water-quality requirements. Petitioners read an exchange of emails in which project staff told stormwater reviewers that a PC BMP basin is shown on the submitted plans; engineering staff’s initial review said no fatal flaws were observed but that formal final engineering review would be required when detailed site plans and calculations are submitted.

Neighbors who spoke at the hearing raised concerns about flooding and neighborhood character. Terry Solvat, who said he has lived on Dickens for decades, said the backyard of the existing house "floods periodically" and asked what the project would do to prevent additional water on adjacent properties. "I don't need any more water on my property," Solvat said. Madeline Benbrook, who said she has lived across the street for 40 years, said she was "absolutely against" the development because it would introduce denser housing into a block of single-family homes.

Chairman Castle also identified a publication discrepancy: county staff and the public notice had proceeded on the basis of four townhomes, but the current plan would retain the existing single-family house in addition to the attached dwellings. He said the petitioner must amend the filing and the case must be republished. "I'll continue this matter till March 12 at 6PM in this room," Castle said; the chair explained the March 12 public hearing will close the record and that the board would then deliberate at its recommendation meeting and forward a recommendation to the County Development Committee, with a likely county-board action in April.

No vote was taken at the Feb. 12 hearing. Petitioners provided staff with draft declarations, covenants and restrictions for a homeowners association and said they would submit additional technical documentation requested by stormwater staff. The board set the continued hearing to allow republication and to give staff time to confirm stormwater and other technical items.

The Zoning Board of Appeals will resume the public hearing on March 12 at 6 p.m.; the record is expected to close that night and the board’s recommendation to the County Development Committee will follow later.