DuPage Zoning Board hears neighbors’ objections to Axiom Home Investments’ ADU and occupancy increase request

The DuPage County Zoning Board of Appeals on April 9 heard testimony on a petition from Axiom Home Investments LLC (docket 25064) to convert a detached garage at 12 South 240 Lamont Road into an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and to obtain variances including allowing a 9.22-foot interior side setback where the R4 code requires 10 feet and raising the property’s occupant cap from five to eight.

Michael Roth, attorney for the petitioner, told the board the property is a 0.7-acre parcel with a one-story, three‑bedroom principal residence of 1,236 square feet and a 719‑square‑foot detached garage proposed for conversion. Roth offered exhibits including a plat of survey (PIN 10-17-302-002), aerial photos and sketches of the proposed build‑out and said the ADU would be limited to two occupants and include kitchen and bathroom facilities. “If the county health department does not sign off on the septic system, then there will be no occupancy at all on this property,” Roth said, responding to neighbor concerns about sewage and safety.

The petition seeks three forms of relief: conditional‑use approval to permit the detached accessory building to function as an ADU, a variance to allow the existing detached accessory building to remain 9.22 feet from the side property line (code requires 10 feet), and a variance to increase the total permitted occupants on the parcel from five to eight (allocated as six in the principal dwelling and two in the ADU). Roth cited Section 37-417-1 of the county code, which sets ADU standards including floor‑area limits, reconversion requirements and permit and plan submittal.

Neighbors who were sworn and testified opposed the petition. Ramiro Rivera, who said he lives next door, described visible slab cracks and questioned whether the garage foundation and any new plumbing would meet code. “It’s going to be a cash place, a money cash place,” Rivera said, arguing the site could be rented repeatedly rather than occupied by family. John Moore, another nearby resident, said he feared unknown tenants living near his young children and complained that heavy work began on the property without permits. Jean Weck, who lives directly behind the subject lot, submitted a photo and said the parcel has a longstanding septic and flooding problem that sometimes backs into her basement; she asked how adding occupants would be mitigated.

Board members and staff pressed the petitioner on several technical and legal points. Staff clarified that under the county’s ADU ordinance an ADU coupled with a principal unit is currently capped at five total occupants regardless of familial relationship; the petitioner is seeking to raise that cap to eight by variance. Members also queried whether the detached structure qualified under a 2025 text amendment and whether a variance should carry a reconversion or expiration condition if the conditional use is later revoked. Several board members noted the absence of scaled engineering drawings and indicated such plans and building permits would be needed before final approvals or occupancy.

Roth acknowledged that some work had been performed without permits and described that as a mistake the petitioner intends to remedy. He told the board the owner and the petitioner would bring the property into compliance and said the petitioner would accept conditions, including limiting occupancy, if the board deemed them appropriate.

The board closed the evidentiary record and scheduled deliberation and a recommendation vote for 5:30 p.m. on May 7, 2026; the ZBA’s recommendation will be transmitted to the county development committee and may move on to the full county board. No final vote on the variances or conditional use was taken on April 9. The hearing was then adjourned.

Next steps: the Zoning Board will deliberate on May 7; any final approval will require applicable building permits and health‑department signoff before occupancy is allowed.