Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Pud Extension topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Trustees discuss conditional extension for White Oaks lot; wetland study required

Village of Long Grove Board of Trustees · July 15, 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

The board heard a request to extend preliminary PUD approval for Lot 16 (4542 Kimberly Court). Staff said prior wetland studies and PJ D determinations have expired; the board asked staff to draft an ordinance to permit a one‑ or two‑year extension conditioned on an updated wetland/drainage study.

Village manager Schmarkman introduced a request to extend a preliminary major PUD amendment for Lot 16 (4542 Kimberly Court in White Oaks Estates), noting the two‑year deadline on the original ordinance is nearing.

David Meek, attorney for the property owner, said the owner elected not to build and is seeking to preserve the entitlement for a future buyer. Meek told trustees his client has spent substantial sums and is not asking to skip any review, only for more time to complete final engineering and permit work.

Staff and trustees focused on wetlands and drainage. Village staff explained that wetland delineations and county preliminary jurisdictional determinations (PJDs) have expired and would need updating; such studies are subject to county and federal review and are typically valid for three years. Trustee Tinucci and others said buildability and changed site conditions argue for restarting the review process rather than simply extending approvals.

Trustees discussed a compromise: drafting an ordinance that would extend the preliminary approval for a set period (one or two years) but make the extension expressly conditional on an updated wetland/drainage study and any necessary engineering review. Meek said requiring a final house design within a year would be prejudicial to a future buyer and preferred a two‑year extension; others said a one‑year conditional extension could be a compromise.

No final vote was taken; staff will draft a bracketed ordinance for the board to consider at a subsequent meeting, giving trustees time to decide between one or two years and to set explicit conditions tied to updated studies.

The board did not approve an extension tonight and emphasized that any final PUD must comply with updated wetland and engineering findings.