DuPage County development committee remands two zoning cases after public-comment lapse

The DuPage County Development Committee voted May 19 to send two zoning petitions back to the Zoning Board of Appeals for further proceedings after finding a procedural flaw prevented public comment at the ZBA recommendation meeting.

Acting Chair presided in Chair Tornatore’s absence and moved to remand DCO-16-26 because the ZBA’s recommendation meeting lacked the public-comment opportunity required by the process. Staff said the remand will allow the petitioner to submit additional information, request an amended public hearing if new evidence is presented, and be directly notified of the new date. The committee approved the remand.

The committee then considered DCO-17-26. Members questioned whether the ZBA record had established the “hardship” or “practical difficulty” element required under the county zoning code and state statute for a variation. Counsel advised the committee not to pre-judge the merits and noted decisions must be based on testimony from hearings or amended hearings. At the petitioner’s request, the committee voted to remand DCO-17-26 to a full ZBA hearing rather than only a recommendation meeting; staff said petitioners may seek an amended public hearing or return on the ZBA recommendation calendar (the next recommendation meeting was noted as June 4).

Public commenters at the meeting urged the committee to keep the broader public record in mind. Dave Nelson, who identified himself as representing NGHC, described a proposed group home tied to "zoning case 26" at an address he cited as 25 W 351 Plainfield Road and said the proposal would house six young adults with disabilities. Nelson said the project would include a greenhouse and an accessory dwelling to provide stable income and nearby family support, and he urged approval, saying "we're not asking for a subsidy" and describing a longer-term need: "some of the more than 19,000 ... Illinois adults on the CILA group home waiting list," with average waits he said run 10 to 15 years.

Sanjeev, who identified himself as an owner involved in DC-O-0016-26 and was introduced as "from Axium," apologized for earlier permitting misunderstandings and said the owners had since "worked cooperatively with the county staff, obtained all permits, complied with inspections, and addressed each correction that's been requested by the county." He said the proposal is a conversion of an existing garage to living space with no increase to building footprint and framed it as consistent with the county's support for accessory dwelling units.

The committee’s action remands were procedural: DCO-16-26 was remanded to allow the public-comment opportunity missing from the ZBA recommendation meeting; DCO-17-26 was remanded to a full ZBA hearing at the petitioner’s request. Staff explained that if petitioners present new testimony or evidence, an amended public hearing will be required with re-notification of nearby property owners and municipalities and that public hearings are conducted under oath while recommendation meetings are not.

The committee did not render a decision on the merits of either petition; both matters will return to the Zoning Board of Appeals for further proceedings.