Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kendall County denies platting exception for nonprofit's proposed 3‑acre split
Summary
Commissioners voted 3–2 to deny a request to divide a parcel into a 3‑acre and 22‑acre tract without platting; staff said the county's rules prohibit granting relief solely for financial hardship and the requested frontage and exemption did not meet development code criteria.
Kendall County commissioners voted down a request Tuesday to exclude a parcel division from platting requirements so a nonprofit could create a 3‑acre tract for its campus.
The applicant sought exceptions to the county’s platting rules — including the exemption that applies to lots larger than 10 acres — and a frontage variance (requesting about 191 feet where the code requires 250 feet). County planning staff explained that the proposed split (a 3‑acre tract plus a 22‑acre remainder) could comply if the applicant completed the formal platting process, but the request asked the court to grant an exception instead.
General counsel and staff told the court the development code’s relief criteria prohibit granting an exemption based solely on financial hardship. Staff also noted that without a plat the county has fewer recordable mechanisms to ensure future restrictions or to notify future buyers; appraisal‑district parcel IDs do not equal legal division under county platting rules.
The court rejected the request by a 3–2 vote (the judge and commissioners from precincts one and three opposed; commissioners from precincts two and four voted in favor). The denial leaves platting as the pathway for the proposed division — or the applicant may return with revised materials that meet the code’s criteria.
Why it mattered: County officials said floodplain, septic and frontage considerations are public‑safety issues and the rules exist to ensure predictable, safe development; staff recommended sticking to objective relief criteria rather than ad hoc, finance‑only waivers.
Procedural note: Staff and general counsel suggested that if the court prefers to consider fee waivers or financial‑need exceptions for qualifying nonprofit projects in the future, the court should adopt explicit criteria in the development code rather than decide ad hoc requests.
What happens next: The applicant may pursue formal platting, apply for a narrowly tailored variance that meets the code’s four relief criteria, or seek a code amendment that establishes procedures for fee waivers for qualifying nonprofits.
