Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Burr Ridge trustees deny Oak Creek Club request to park second snow-removal vehicle
Summary
Trustees denied a homeowner-association petition to allow a second snowcat to be stored on Oak Creek Club private roads, citing lack of demonstrated hardship and concerns about aesthetics and safety. The denial follows resident objections and a unanimous plan-commission recommendation to deny.
Trustees on the Village of Burr Ridge Board voted to deny a request from the Oak Creek Club homeowners association to store a second snow-removal vehicle on subdivision property, saying the petitioner had not demonstrated the legal "hardship" required for a variance.
Janine, planning staff, told the board that the plan commission held a public hearing on the application and unanimously recommended denial of variance V012025 to allow an additional snowcat on Oak Creek Club private roads. The petitioner, Ken Carell, identified himself as the HOA representative and described the subdivision as roughly 24 acres with 63 town homes, "predominantly occupied by a senior population." He said the HOA recently switched contractors and that his new vendor briefly parked a second snowcat to ensure timely service during heavy snow events.
"We decided to go with King Landscape Maintenance and Design," Carell said, describing the change as a response to dissatisfaction with prior providers. He told trustees the HOA paid about $30,000 for snow removal this year and an additional $8,000 for salting, and that the second machine was intended as operational "insurance" to maintain access for residents who rely on medical services.
Trustees and residents questioned that justification. Trustee Guy Francis and others pressed Carell on alternatives, asking why the vendor could not trailer a second machine in for heavy storms or use a different equipment mix. Trustee Francis noted similar needs in other village subdivisions and said Oak Creek Club had not shown it was uniquely burdened.
Resident Susan Sullivan, who said she has lived in Oak Creek Club since 1992, urged the board to uphold village code and the community's established standards. "The village code has been put into place for a reason and that's to protect the residents and preserve a standard in the village," she said, adding that visible heavy equipment could harm resale values.
Trustees also raised safety and nuisance concerns. One trustee said the equipment would be an "attractive nuisance" near homes; another suggested the landscaper might be seeking convenience and storage savings rather than serving a distinct resident need.
After discussion, a trustee moved to deny the variation and directed staff to prepare an ordinance reflecting that denial. The motion passed on a roll call showing four votes in favor and one trustee temporarily unavailable; the board recorded the variance as denied.
The decision follows the plan commission's unanimous recommendation to deny and leaves the HOA with the option to pursue alternatives such as trailering additional equipment when needed or adjusting contract arrangements with its service provider.
