Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee defers final action on Hilltop Homes variance after split roll call; members question $400,000 affordability claim
Summary
A staff presentation and debate over two historic 33‑ft lots seeking variances for new homes prompted questions about floodplain constraints, village objections and whether $400,000 qualifies as 'missing middle' affordability. A roll call failed to carry the motion to sustain the hearing officer’s denial and the item will be revisited.
The Development Committee considered DC08‑26, a zoning case concerning two existing lots originally platted in the 1920s that are 33 feet wide. Staff explained the parcels contain floodplain and wetland on the rear of the property and that the zoning hearing officer recommended denial because financial hardship and similar arguments were not accepted as land‑use hardship.
Staff (Paul) said the petitioner presented plans showing two narrow houses could be built on the lots and described the homes as intended to be “essentially affordable houses, $400,000 or less.” One committee speaker contested that $400,000 does not meet the county’s concept of the missing middle and said first‑time buyers would not typically be able to afford $400,000 homes.
Adjacent municipalities and the village of Downers Grove (as recorded in the packet) objected on jurisdictional and proximity grounds, and staff noted statutory notification requirements that include nearby municipalities. Members also raised questions about missing maps in the online public packet; staff said full materials were emailed and IT is addressing accessibility/compatibility issues.
On a motion to sustain the zoning hearing officer’s recommendation to deny the variance, the roll call produced conflicting verbal responses and procedural confusion. The chair later announced the motion was not approved and that the item will be taken up again at a later meeting.
The committee did not adopt a final decision on the requested variance; the matter is deferred pending clarification of the roll‑call results, additional documentation and further committee consideration.
