Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Utilities Variation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board majority backs ComEd pedestal variance for Stone Garden development; matter goes to council

Village of Palatine Zoning Board of Appeals · August 2, 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 ZBA recommended approval by majority of a variation allowing Commonwealth Edison pedestals in front/corner yards at 215–229 N. Brockway after the utility installed screened boxes under an earlier permit; staff said the zoning restriction dates to 2008 and the board was divided on burden and precedent. Council consideration is expected June 18.

The Palatine Zoning Board of Appeals on June 12 voted to recommend, by majority, a variation to allow above-ground Commonwealth Edison pedestals to remain in corner/front yard locations for homes in the Stone Garden subdivision at 215–229 North Brockway. The board's recommendation was not unanimous; at least one member voted no, so the matter will go to Village Council on June 18 for final action.

Gary Rocowitz, appearing for the petitioner, said ComEd submitted and the village approved a service plan and that the pedestals were installed roughly 17 months ago. "Commonwealth Edison submitted a plan showing these 2 locations. The village of Palatine issued a permit, and they were installed," he said, stressing the pedestals have been screened with fencing and plantings. Staff explained the portion of the zoning code restricting above-ground utility appurtenances in front/corner yards was adopted in 2008 and that the utility permit had been reviewed by the village engineer; staff took a neutral position and recommended the board exercise discretion on the variation request.

Board members discussed whether relocation was physically or financially feasible and whether the burden was on the permit applicant to request a variation. Board members who approved cited the dense five-home parcel and limited alternatives; one member said Palatine should have told the utility a variation was required. The board recorded a majority recommendation with the condition that the variation conform to the submitted site plan; staff noted final landscaping and screening will be reviewed by the village arborist.