Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Arlington Heights board approves 1920 N. Chestnut subdivision over neighbor objections

Village Board of Arlington Heights · May 4, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After extensive public comment, the Village Board approved a final plat to subdivide 1920 N. Chestnut into three residential lots and a detention outlot; approval follows a December preliminary plat and prior zoning variations and passed on a roll-call vote.

The Arlington Heights Village Board approved a final plat of subdivision for 1920 N. Chestnut on May 4, authorizing three new single‑family lots and a detention outlot despite neighborhood objections about front‑yard setbacks and streetscape compatibility. The resolution carried on a roll‑call vote after hours of public comment.

Emily Rodman, the village planning director, told the board the final plat “substantially conforms to the preliminary plat” the board approved in December, and that required public improvements — curb, gutter and sidewalk along Chestnut and Walnut and dedication of right‑of‑way — are part of the project. She said remaining conditions include payment of park‑district and library cash contributions at the time of building permits.

Neighbors told the board the 25‑foot front‑yard setback the developer sought would be “out of place” amid long‑setback legacy homes. “This house will 100 percent detract from the visual character and functionality of our neighborhood,” said Kathy Mulak, who lives at 2000 N. Chestnut. Jim Bannon, who lives across the street, urged the board to follow existing codes rather than approve a layout he said would “stick out like a sore thumb.”

Applicant counsel Bruce Lifnik said the arguments were considered at earlier hearings, that the plan complies with the preliminary approval, and that the petitioner invested in engineering based on the board's prior direction. “If the preliminary plat is substantially complied with, the final plat shall be approved,” Lifnik said, citing the subdivision code language relied on in staff reports.

Trustees debated the consequences of reversing prior preliminary approvals and the implications for the village's comprehensive plan. Several trustees said the comprehensive plan anticipates redevelopment and that denying a final plat that conforms to a previously approved preliminary plat would create uncertainty for future development. Trustee La Bedz moved to approve; Trustee Dunnington seconded. The roll call showed one no vote (Trustee Bertucci) and the remaining members in favor; Mayor Tinaglia declared the motion carried.

The resolution grants final plat approval; remaining engineering and escrow conditions will be addressed before building permits. The developer may proceed toward permitting under the final plat as approved.

Vote tally: Yes — Trustee La Bedz, Trustee Manganaro, Trustee Dunnington, Trustee Santa Maria, Trustee Gilbert, Trustee Zyck, Mayor Tinaglia. No — Trustee Bertucci. Outcome: approved.