Public hearing on 16‑bed shared housing at 5 N. Route 31 elicits strong neighborhood opposition; commission continues hearing to May 5

The Plan Commission opened a public hearing on a special‑use permit requested by Troy Horbach (Wilby Properties LLC) to operate a 16‑bed shared housing establishment (an Illinois 'shared housing establishment' treated as a group home under city zoning) at 5 North Route 31.

Staff summarized the submittal as a site plan for an approximately 11,000‑square‑foot single‑story house with a 19‑stall parking court and a circular drive, situated on a 2.5‑acre lot on the north side of St. Charles. Horbach described the proposal as a family‑run, high‑touch care home intended for seniors with higher assistance needs (memory‑care/assisted living style services but operating under a shared‑housing license). He said the model emphasizes a residential character, 24/7 staffing, a full‑time cook, higher staff‑to‑resident ratios and a non‑institutional scale compared with larger assisted‑living facilities.

Commissioners and staff focused on several information gaps: the specific parameters of the IDPH shared‑housing license that would govern resident eligibility and operational limits; written architectural elevations and conceptual floor plans to demonstrate how a single large building would be scaled to a residential neighborhood; landscape buffering and fence parameters; parking layout and whether parking and service areas could be moved away from adjacent yards; and site engineering items (water main extension costs and known drainage/flooding areas). City staff and an on‑record city engineering speaker said water is not currently available to the site without an extension of a city water main, which can be costly; sanitary connection appeared less challenging but remains to be engineered.

Neighbors who spoke in opposition repeatedly cited existing flooding and standing water on the property and worried how raising the site or adding detention would affect adjacent backyards. Several speakers recounted prior failed development proposals, pointed to the city’s backup well near the detention area and urged the commission to consider preserving the land as open space or to require the proposal be located in a commercial area more suitable for a high‑service facility. Other concerns included emergency vehicle frequency, visitor traffic, potential operational drift (what happens if ownership or operational control changes), noise, and the prospect of a large 11,000‑square‑foot building in a low‑density neighborhood.

Commissioners were divided on how to proceed. Some said the application as submitted satisfied the procedural completeness for a special use and that the council could impose conditions; others said the commission lacked enough detail to find all six required findings of fact in the affirmative (public convenience, sufficient infrastructure, orderly development, etc.). The applicant signaled willingness to provide additional materials but was hesitant to commit to expensive civil engineering before knowing whether the commission would support the use.

The commission voted to continue the public hearing to May 5 to allow the applicant time to provide a targeted list of materials (conceptual architectural elevations and floor plans, a conceptual landscape/buffer plan, clarification of IDPH licensing parameters and operational staffing details). Roll‑call on the continuance recorded: Collin Dizon — Yes; Zack Ewell — Yes; Jeff Fung — Yes; John Fitzgerald — No; Corey Jones — No; Rita Paitliner — No; Chair — Yes. The public hearing remains open and the commission invited the applicant to return with the requested materials.