Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Burr Ridge trustees deny Oak Creek Club request to park second snow-removal machine
Summary
Trustees voted to deny a variance request from the Oak Creek Club homeowners association to store a second snow-removal "snowcat." The Plan Commission had unanimously recommended denial and trustees cited lack of demonstrated hardship and neighborhood impacts; vote recorded 4-0 (one trustee temporarily not voting).
The Burr Ridge Board of Trustees on April 14 denied a request from the Oak Creek Club homeowners association to amend a prior variance that would have allowed a second snow-removal machine (described in the record as a snowcat or Bobcat) to be parked in the gated subdivision.
Planning staff said the Plan Commission had unanimously recommended denial, concluding the petition did not demonstrate a land-based hardship and that approval could establish a broadly applicable precedent for other private gated communities. Petitioner Ken Carell, representing the Oak Creek Club HOA, said the gated subdivision comprises about 63 primarily senior-occupied townhomes and that a second machine was sought as an "insurance policy" to ensure timely winter service; he said the HOA moved to a new contractor, King Landscape Maintenance and Design, and that the new contract cost roughly $10,000 more than prior service.
Trustees pressed the petitioner on why one machine would not suffice, whether the contractor could trailer an extra machine in for heavy snow events, and whether allowing two machines on site would represent an undue visual or resale impact for neighboring homes. Trustee comments included concerns that storing two machines on private roads would be convenient for the contractor but burdensome to neighbors and could be an "attractive nuisance." Resident Susan Sullivan, who said she has lived in Oak Creek Club for more than 30 years, urged trustees to uphold the code and opposed the additional machine, saying prior winters were handled without on-site second equipment and that visibility of the machines could harm resale value.
A motion directing staff to prepare an ordinance denying the variation (V012025) was moved, seconded and approved; the chair recorded the outcome as 4-0 with one trustee temporarily unable to vote due to technical difficulties. The variation is denied and staff will prepare the formal denying ordinance for the record.
What the decision changes: The subdivision will remain subject to the existing condition limiting on-site storage to the single previously approved machine; the contractor may still bring additional equipment in by trailer on an as-needed basis but may not store two machines on site under the village's current code.
Next steps: Staff will draft an ordinance denying the requested amendment as directed by the board vote.
