Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wetlands topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Large wetlands and setback variances at 153 Egypt Lane kept open amid FEMA and environmental concerns
Summary
Applicants for 153 Egypt Lane requested multiple wetlands and setback variances to reconstruct a residence; village staff and the board discussed nitrogen‑reducing septic systems, revegetation buffers, and whether proposed work constitutes reconstruction triggering full code/FEMA compliance. The board left the hearing open for revised plans and additional details.
Get email alerts on the Wetlands topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
A complex application to reconstruct a residence at 153 Egypt Lane drew extended review on May 8 as village staff pressed for stronger environmental mitigation and questioned whether the scope rises to reconstruction subject to full code conformity.
Attorney Trevor Fleming described plans that require multiple wetlands and yard‑setback variances — including requests to legalize alterations that placed structures as near as roughly 30–59 feet to wetlands where much larger setbacks are typically required. Fleming said the applicants have submitted a septic plan calling for a nitrogen‑reducing system and proposed revegetation buffers where lawn currently exists. He asked for additional time to provide revised, clearer maps responding to the village memo.
Village official Billy Hajek told the board the 44,000 sq ft property is technically in a one‑acre zone but is highly nonconforming because wetlands wrap around much of the lot and the site sits in FEMA flood zone AE. Hajek and other staff said the board should consider whether the scale of proposed work constitutes reconstruction (the board discussed a 50 percent valuation test) that could require compliance with modern code and FEMA standards. Staff also asked for a dewatering plan for septic installation, monitoring and maintenance plans for revegetation buffers, and clarified that some proposed retaining walls would be minor (10 inches or less). The board left the record open and asked the applicants to submit revised plans addressing those points.

