A homeowner applied at a continued DuPage County zoning hearing for two variances to reduce rear-yard setbacks: from the required 25 feet to about 8 feet for a new addition, and from the required 3 feet to about 1.5 feet for a new patio. The hearing officer accepted a new exhibit from the applicant, adopted the record and exhibits from a Jan. 15 hearing, and said the matter would be taken under advisement and recommended to the county development committee and then the full county board for final action.

The case was described at the start of the hearing as a continued matter that had been published on 12/31/2024. The applicant testified that the lot shape and the location of the house — set back further on the lot and located on a cul-de-sac — create a hardship tied to the land, not to the owner. The applicant told the hearing officer they reviewed the applicable zoning standards and that the requested change aligns with the existing placement of doors and the planned renovation.

The applicant said the homeowners association supports the request and submitted a letter (marked as Exhibit 5) from "David B.," identified in the hearing as the homeowners association president. The applicant also said the letter was notarized through an online notary service because of work schedules. The hearing officer accepted the document into the record.

On the substance of the zoning tests, the applicant summarized that the hardship arises from lot configuration, that the proposal would not decrease neighboring property values or affect lighting, flooding or traffic, and that leaving existing French and sliding doors in place made the proposed direction of the addition practical. The applicant also said denial would cause "somewhat of a financial hardship." In the hearing, the applicant stated: "The hardship is not personal in nature. The hardship is with the land, due to the shape of the lot and the location of our house being set back further on the lot." (Applicant, homeowner)

The hearing officer said the record established at the earlier hearing and the new exhibit gave the panel what it needed to proceed and stated, "I will take this under advisement, and, give a decision on... My recommendation will go to the county development committee, and the development committee will consider the matter later in February." (Hearing officer)

Scheduling mentioned in the hearing: a recommendation hearing was scheduled for Feb. 19 (time listed during the hearing), the DuPage County development committee was expected to consider the case on March 4, and the full county board on March 11. The hearing officer told the applicant they did not need to attend the recommendation hearing but could if they wished by Zoom. The applicant said construction would start "as soon as it is warm enough to do concrete." (Applicant, homeowner)

No public comments were offered at the hearing. The hearing was continued and then adjourned without a final vote; the hearing officer indicated a likely recommendation for approval but did not issue a final decision at this session.

Votes at this hearing: none — no formal motion or vote was taken at this continued hearing. The hearing officer adopted the prior hearing record and admitted the new exhibit into evidence; the officer will forward a recommendation to the development committee for its consideration.