Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fox River Grove board delays decision on variances for 206 N. River Rd. after neighbors object
Summary
Petitioner James Allen asked to expand his 800 sq. ft. home into a two‑story, five‑bedroom house and requested variances for lot width, front yard depth, side‑yard setbacks and an interior side‑yard porch. The Board asked for renderings, a site plan and additional stormwater information and continued the item to a future meeting.
Village President Marc McLaughlin and the Fox River Grove Board of Trustees heard public comment and discussed Zoning Case 2025‑03 concerning 206 N. River Road during a special meeting on April 22, 2025.
Assistant Administrator Bechler told the Board petitioner James Allen seeks variances to allow a lot width of less than 65 feet, a front yard of less than 30 feet, side yards of less than eight feet and a covered porch in an interior side yard so the family can expand an existing 800‑square‑foot house into a two‑story, five‑bedroom home. Bechler said the petitioner understands that approvals beyond the Board’s zoning decision — including stormwater review and Army Corps approval — would still be required if variances are granted.
During public comment, John Martin (514 Asbury Ct.) opposed the variances, citing the small lot and what he described as additions to the garage done without a permit. "I do not support the variation requests for zoning case 2025‑03 at 206 N River Rd.," Martin said. Neighbor Ron Rutkowski (204 N. River Rd.) also urged denial, citing drainage issues, construction noise, dust and debris and concerns about side‑yard setbacks. In contrast, neighbor Dave Kopeny (208 N. River Rd.) described the Allen property as "always impeccable," said he supports residents investing in their properties and asked the Board to find a fair path forward.
Trustee Andrew Migdal summarized the Planning & Zoning Commission's April 3 discussion, noting P&Z considered flooding and drainage concerns and denied recommending the requested variances, suggesting the petitioner could build further back on the lot rather than seek side‑yard relief. The Board discussed alternative scenarios and whether the petitioner could alter plans to comply with existing code.
Trustee Devin Hester moved to place Zoning Case 2025‑03 on a future agenda to give the petitioner time to provide architectural renderings, a formal site plan and evidence that code requirements produce a hardship that cannot be addressed through alternatives; Trustee Melissa Schladt seconded. A voice vote was taken and the motion to continue carried unanimously.
The Board did not take a final vote on the variances. The petitioner was told to supply the requested materials, address stormwater and drainage concerns and may need additional approvals such as from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers before the Board can act.
