Zoning board votes 6-0 to deny planned group‑home request after debate over ADU rules

Robert Cartall, chair of the DuPage County Zoning Board of Appeals, called the July 9, 2026 recommendation meeting to order and introduced zoning petition 26007 from MGHC, Inc., a request to establish a planned development for a licensed group home.

Lynn Nelson, a property owner at 25 West 351 Plank Road in Naperville, testified during public comment in support of the petition. "This is our daughter's future," Nelson said, identifying her 23‑year‑old daughter Elena and asking the board to approve the conditional use for a planned development and each of the nine requested zoning variations (ten requests in total) so the home could be licensed and operate in the neighborhood.

A committee member moved to deny the petition, saying the proposal conflicts with DuPage County rules on accessory dwelling units and expressing concern that because the property lacks an existing dwelling unit "this is just gonna open up the floodgates." The motion was seconded by "Mister Gerrod," according to the record. In discussion, Chair Robert Cartall urged the board to apply the zoning ordinance as written rather than decide based on the merits of the proposed use, saying the number of variations effectively "stood [the zoning ordinance] on its head." Another member noted the petition did not demonstrate the hardship or conditions typically required for the types of variations requested.

The board held a roll‑call vote on the motion to deny. Members were recorded as voting "Aye" on the motion; the denial passed by a 6‑0 vote. The chair said the board would forward the denial to the county committee for further action. There was no additional board business, and the meeting was adjourned.

The petition concerned a 1.14‑acre property and sought a conditional use for a planned development plus nine zoning variations to permit a licensed group home for adult women with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Nelson said the proposal was not speculative, that she and her husband had invested financially and personally in the property, and that their daughter had completed local school and transition programs and was ready for a home of her own.

Outcome and next steps: The board's denial of petition 26007 will be forwarded to the appropriate county committee for follow‑up. The transcript records the vote as six in favor of denial and none opposed; no amendments or alternative motions were adopted during the meeting.