Community Development Committee

PUBLIC NOTICE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Thursday, July 24, 2025 - 4:30 PM Westmont Village Hall - 31 W. Quincy Street, Westmont, Illinois 60559 AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Pledge of Allegiance 4. Public Comment 5. Approval of Minutes A. Minutes of the April 17, 2025 regular committee meeting. 6. Unfinished Business A. Zoning Ordinance Update B. Comprehensive Plan C. New Home Construction - Cont'd Discussion 7. New Business A. None 8. Reports A. Committee Chair B. Department Director C. Division(s) Reports 1. Planning and Zoning 2. Permitting 3. Code Enforcement Page 1 of 34 9. Miscellaneous 10. Adjourn Note: Any person who has a disability requiring a reasonable accommodation to participate in the meeting should contact the ADA Compliance Officer, 9:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. Monday through Friday, Village of Westmont, Illinois, 60559; or telephone (630) 981-6210 voice, within a reasonable time before the meeting. Listen Everywhere, an assistive listening, mobile app, is now available to visitors attending Board and Commission Meetings held in the Village Hall Board Room. https://westmont.illinois.gov/581/ADA-Listen-Everywhere Page 2 of 34  Community Development Committee Meeting Thursday, April 17, 2025 at 4:30 PM Minutes - Draft 1.​ Trustee Scales Called to Order: At 4:30 P.M. 2.​ Community Development Committee Meeting Roll Call : PRESENT : Mayor Gunter P TRUSTEES: Scales (Chair) P Barry A Barker P Guzzo P Liddle P Nero P Staff Present : Director of Community Development Joseph Hennerfeind, Deputy Director of Community Development Jason Vitell, Senior Planner Scott Williams, Planner Adam Walsh, Village Manager Steve May, Assistant Village Manager Spencer Parker, Public Works Director Amy Ries, Deputy Police Chief Thompson , Fire Chief Riley, Finance Director Allen Altic, Director of Governmental Services Patti Mielcarski, Community Development Specialist Jaime Hofmann, and Economic Development Partnership Director Larry Forssberg 3.​ Pledge of Allegiance 4.​ Public Comment - None 5.​ Approval of Minutes: Trustee Liddle made a motion to approve the minutes from the January 23, 2025 Regular Meeting and Trustee Barker seconded the motion. Motion passed on a voice vote. 6.​ UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None 7.​ NEW BUSINESS A.​ New Home Construction - Community Development Director Joe Hennerfeind addressed the low number of new home starts in Westmont in the last year, noting that Westmont’s new home construction rate is significantly below other comparable communities. Hennerfeind led the discussion by highlighting Westmont’s unique development patterns and the age of its housing stock. 1 Page 3 of 34 A meeting was held the day prior to the committee, where builders were asked to voice their concerns and reluctance to build in Westmont. The builders cited several key factors including restrictive stormwater detention requirements, lengthy approval times, mandatory public improvements, and stringent bonding requirements. They also noted a perceived “culture of no” in the permitting process. Additional concerns included fire sprinkler requirements, excessive heritage tree requirements (including surveys), and overly restrictive green space, lot coverage and set back requirements. They suggested that Westmont’s policies are overly expensive and complex. The builder's comments highlighted Westmont's lesser-known status and resulting in a need for improved branding and marketing efforts. Economic Partnership Director Larry Forssberg noted that many potential home buyers are unaware of the high quality of Westmont schools, and that the Village needs to actively market its positive attributes, such as walkability. Assistant Village Manager Spencer Parker added that the Village actually does have money budgeted for branding in the current fiscal year. Trustee Guzzo asked if tear downs or additions were discussed during the builder meeting since green space is limited. Hennerfeind replied that they did not get to that level of detail in the discussion. The committee discussed the Village’s tree and fire suppression ordinances. They acknowledged that these regulations are important but questioned whether they are overly stringent compared to other communities. They asked staff to conduct research to compare Westmont’s ordinances with those of other communities. The committee and staff discussed various solutions to attract new construction such as waiving impact fees for 2 and 3 lot splits, permit fee discounts, and re-visiting the lot coverage calculations. The committee considered loosening the restrictive stormwater requirements to match that of the County, also exploring the idea of comparing the amount of stormwater runoff generated by both single family homes and larger developments, and to determine the current capacity of regional facilities to handle increased runoff if lot coverage limits were relaxed. Public Works Director Amy Ries added that Naperville did a similar research project, and that she would try to obtain the findings. Manager May agreed it was worth looking into since variables have changed since the stormwater ordinance was written. 2 Page 4 of 34 8.​ REPORTS A.​ Committee Chair - None B.​ Department Director - Hennerfeind provided an overview of the department's first quarter, highlighting the downtown incentive program. Hennerfeind noted only one application for a tier 2 grant had been received, and none for the $100,000 grant, despite available funding. They encouraged wider dissemination of information about the program to increase applications. C.​ Division(s) Reports 1.​ Permitting - Community Development Deputy Director Jason Vitell provided the committee with an online permitting status, and walked them through the steps of process on the portal. The committee mentioned it may be in the Village’s best interest to explore passing on the convenience/credit card fees to the applicants. Finance Director Allen Altic said he would do research to see if permit fees and water billing could be separated, so the convenience fee would only be applied to online permit payments. Trustee Liddle wanted to know what the current credit fees are amounting to at the Village’s expense, and if other communities are passing those fees on. 2.​ Code Enforcement - See Year End Report included in agenda packet. 3.​ Planning and Zoning - See Year End Report included in agenda packet. 9.​ MISCELLANEOUS - None 10.​ADJOURN - Trustee Guzzo made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 5:45 PM, and Trustee Liddle seconded the motion. The motion to adjourn was approved by unanimous consent. 3 Page 5 of 34 TO:​ ​ Community Development Committee FROM:​ ​ Adam Walsh, Planner DATE:​ ​ July 24, 2025 RE:​ ​ 6 (B) Comprehensive Plan Preview I.​ Background on the Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan is the community’s vision for the Village’s future, as it analyzes the existing conditions of the Village, identifies goals and objectives, and contains recommendations on how to achieve them. Plans and recommendations are developed in a joint and open effort with Village staff, residents, businesses, and institutional organizations, and typically are designed to last 10 to 20 years. They are then implemented by Village staff, elected, and appointed officials to ensure that growth and redevelopment are consistent with the community’s vision. The current Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the Village Board in 2013, and served as an update to the 1998 plan. Comprehensive plans are similar to strategic plans (a separate ongoing Village project). The two plans work together to achieve the Village’s goals, especially ones related to growth and development (e.g. mixed-use development in the downtown, more owner-occupied housing, etc.). However, strategic plans are updated roughly every five years to remain relevant to changing conditions. They also focus on non-development aspects like staffing, employee benefits, and Village facilities and fleet, which a comprehensive plan would not discuss. II.​ Successes of the Current Comprehensive Plan The Village has accomplished and is still working towards many of the goals and objectives that were set in the 2013 plan. A few of the highlights are listed below: ●​ Recommended creating downtown design guidelines. Village staff and the consultant expanded on this and created “Commercial Design Guidelines”, which was adopted on June 11, 2015 (Ordinance 15-105) ●​ Increasing the scope of Downtown Incentive Program (DIP). Previously, this was more of a facade improvement program with a maximum award of $8,000. The program now can award up to $100,000 - depending on the scope of work. The program also was previously just for windows, signage, and architectural elements. Now it has been expanded to cover fire life safety costs, ADA entry, water lines, parking lot improvements, etc. ●​ Following through with the recommended review and update to the entire zoning ordinance (in adoption process)​ Page 6 of 34  III.​ Need for an Updated or New Comprehensive Plan The current plan has helped guide the Village to many successes. However, the world has changed greatly since 2013. Online shopping, COVID-19, and telecommuting have directly impacted land use by making retail and office spaces harder to fill. As such, some of the recommendations from the current plan may not be compatible with the Village’s current climate. Additionally, there are conflicts between the zoning map, future land use plan, and the subarea plans. Given the conflicts and outdated recommendations, staff is preparing for a new comprehensive plan to properly guide the Village into the future. Some of the questions staff would like the plan to answer include: ●​ What is the future of Class A office buildings in the O/R district? ●​ Which areas of the Village need a subarea plan the most? ●​ What is the most appropriate redevelopment scenario for large plots of land in the Village? ●​ Pending approval of the zoning ordinance update, are there properties abutting the downtown districts where a rezoning to the R-7 Downtown Residential district is appropriate? This is not an exhaustive list of questions, as more will come up as a result of discussions between staff, elected and appointed officials, and community members. IV.​ Conclusion Once the zoning ordinance update has been approved, Planning & Zoning staff will shift gears to their next major project, the comprehensive plan. The currently adopted plan helped the Village achieve many goals, but economic factors and conflicts within the plan have made implementing its recommendations difficult. A comprehensive plan update has been allocated for in the FY2025B budget. To better inform the request for proposals (RFP), staff is asking this committee to begin developing questions and goals they have for a new comprehensive plan. At future meetings, staff is planning to have more in-depth discussions with this committee on the new plan. Page 7 of 34 TO:​ ​ Community Development Committee FROM:​​ Joseph Hennerfeind, AICP, Community Development Director DATE:​ ​ July 24, 2025 RE:​ ​ 6 (C) DISCUSSION and FINDINGS: Impediments to New Home Construction INTRODUCTION First discussed at the April 17th meeting of the CDC, staff noted that the count of 5 new single-family home starts in 2024 was disappointing, and investigation had begun by having a listening session with some local builders. This memo takes a more in-depth look into some of the local impediments to construction, comparisons to adjacent communities, and general recommendations on how to make Westmont the smart choice when wanting to construct a new home. In the first two quarters of 2025, numbers have improved, with 6 applications in review and 4 permits issued to date. WESTMONT STATISTICS Staff performed a cursory review of some of the initial feedback. Attached you will find memos addressing: ●​ Methodologies used to quantify Westmont's new home starts to other communities; ●​ Lot coverage comparisons; ●​ Public Improvements related to construction and subdivision. FINDINGS ●​ Permit Fees: Permit fees for several municipalities were pulled through online research, phone and email communications, and FOIA requests. Ultimate fees paid on a new home are often difficult to total, as every community may have different processes or required permits, but generally, Westmont fees were found to be comparable to those Page 8 of 34  immediately adjacent. The range was from $11K to $29K, with Westmont falling in the middle at $18K. Note that the builders interviewed did not list permit fees as prohibitive. ●​ Setbacks and Zoning: Builders felt the corner lot setback provisions were restrictive. The new zoning ordinance proposes a greatly reduced side yard adjoining a street setback (from 35’ to 15’ with allowance for porches to encroach 8’, which equates to a 7’ setback), and interior side yards have been reduced from 6’ to 5’. Other improvements include relaxed setbacks for fences and accessory buildings. ●​ Subdivisions: Previously discussed at another committee, opportunities exist to reduce stormwater standards to County requirements. These may be considered in the near future. The stormwater requirements are often triggered by subdivisions, even two lot subdivisions. Some communities have developed exemptions that can be explored. Subdivision often also creates requirements for other public improvements. Similar to stormwater, other communities can exempt the small lot subdivisions. This would require an analysis of Appendix B (Land Development Ordinance), including streamlining approval or administrative approval processes. ●​ Fire Suppression: Immediately adjacent to Westmont, it appears that only Oak Brook and Clarendon Hills have similar requirements for residential sprinkler systems. ●​ Tree Replacement, Fees and Heritage Trees: While it does appear that some communities regulate trees and tree removals to promote retention, the fee structure in Westmont was stated as overly penalizing. The tree ordinance was reduced in scope in 2024, and the full effects of the code changes are being assessed, but the revisions are still viewed as development friendly when compared with the former code. ●​ Lot Coverage: As found in the research, Westmont is fairly restrictive. Some communities allow upwards of 50% coverage. The 35% allowed by Westmont should be reassessed, and a return to the previous allowance of 40% would make lots more desirable. PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS ●​ Zoning Ordinance Update: Already underway. Look for approvals in August. ●​ Appendix B (Subdivision) Update: It is anticipated that Appendix B will be reviewed and discussed in fall/winter. ●​ DuPage County Stormwater Requirements: Staff is analyzing the effects of amending code to match DuPage County, or if there is a reasonable compromise of codes. Discussion should begin soon. With this evaluation, new lot coverage maximums may be considered. ●​ Building and Permitting: Online permitting is anticipated for new home permits in the near future, although the Village will accept electronically now. Electronic staff reviews are only waiting on programs and training. ●​ Community Image: A marketing strategy should be considered and promoted. ●​ Code Enforcement: Always a tool that the Village could use, enforcement could be more focused on those homes in poor condition to encourage investment or sale. A more proactive approach is needed. Page 9 of 34 Page 10 of 34 TO:​ ​ Community Development Committee FROM:​ ​ Adam Walsh, Planner DATE:​ ​ July 24, 2025 RE:​ ​ 6(C) Memo 1 Impediments to New Home Construction: Single-Family Home Starts 0. Purpose of the Research In 2024, the Village of Westmont saw only five starts for new single-family homes. Given the age of the housing stock, high performances of the school districts serving the Village, its convenient location to local and regional amenities and transportation, five housing starts appears to be a low number. To understand if five is low or average, staff reached out to neighboring and comparable communities to see how many housing starts they saw in 2023 and 2024. It is important to note that directly comparing the number of starts is not a good indicator, as there are many factors that affect the number. For example, some communities have large undeveloped lots that can be subdivided into dozens of smaller residential lots. In Westmont, most subdivisions are lot splits, which usually creates two lots. To normalize the data, staff compared the number of housing starts across the communities per 1,000 residents, per square mile, and per 1,000 dwelling units. I.​ Average Number of Housing Starts Taking the average new housing starts in 2023 and 2024 reveals that Westmont (shown in dark red) is in second to last place and well below average. Table I Page 11 of 34  II.​ Number of Housing Starts per 1,000 Residents Table II shows that four communities see about one or more starts per 1,000 residents, while most (including Westmont) do not see more than 0.5 starts per 1,000 residents. Table II III.​ Number of Housing Starts per Square Mile Though still third to last, Westmont appears to perform better in terms of housing starts per square mile. Excluding communities that saw 3+ starts per square mile, Westmont is closer to the average. Table III Page 12 of 34  IV.​ Number of Housing Starts per 1,000 Dwelling Units The final measure, number of starts per 1,000 dwelling units, tells a similar story to the other measures. It is important to note that the number of dwelling units include single-family attached, multiple-family units, etc. Table IV V.​ Conclusion By the numbers, Westmont is not seeing as many new single-family home starts as comparable communities. Although there are a few communities who have similar numbers to Westmont, there are even more who are seeing a significant number of new single-family home starts in a year. Of course, there are many factors that affect these numbers like location, land available for large subdivisions, the quality of the housing stock, and of course, Village regulations. Staff should review the regulations builders cited as issues when constructing a new home to determine if amendments are appropriate. Page 13 of 34 TO:​ ​ Community Development Committee FROM:​ ​ Adam Walsh, Planner DATE:​ ​ July 24, 2025 RE:​ ​ 6(C) Memo 2 Impediments to New Home Construction: Lot Coverage Comparison I.​ Purpose of the Research In April, Village staff met with home builders and realtors to understand the impediments to building a new single-family detached home in the Village of Westmont. When asked about zoning regulations, they unsurprisingly stated that lot coverage was too restrictive. Following that discussion and the April 17th Community Development Committee meeting, staff has taken a deeper dive into how the Village and our neighbors regulate lot coverage. Whether it be different percentages, calculation methods, or district-based approaches, staff found that no two municipalities regulate it the same way. This memorandum explores the many lot coverage regulations in the surrounding area. II.​ Village of Westmont’s Lot Coverage Regulations Currently, the Village allows for a maximum lot coverage of 35% in the R-1, R-1(A), R-2, and R-3 districts. The zoning ordinance defines lot coverage as: “The percentage of a zoning lot’s area covered by any and all buildings, structures, and permanent hardscape improvements.” This definition means that the full footprint of a house, patio, deck, shed, driveway, walkway, etc., are included in the calculation regardless of whether it is a permeable material or not. The Village has amended how lot coverage is regulated over the years. A summary of the amendments are below: ➢​ Ord. 98-02: Created the lot coverage regulation, set the maximum at 40%, applicable to the home only ➢​ Ord. 01-118: Added that decks, driveways, walks and pools counted towards coverage ➢​ Ord. 07-160: Changed the calculation method to count only 50% of a deck’s footprint ➢​ Ord. 10-182: Lowered the maximum coverage from 40% to 35% ➢​ Ord. 11-152: Allowed for administrative approval of a lot coverage up to 40% for properties not located within a building moratorium, know drainage problem, or identifiable sub basin areas ➢​ Ord. 13-109: Changed the calculation method to discount 50% of the footprint of permeable pavers ➢​ Ord. 2021-027: Removed the 50% discounts for decks and permeable materials The amendments were crafted to preserve open space and mitigate drainage/flooding issues, while allowing home owners to reasonably enjoy their property. The most recent amendment, in 2021, was proposed to separate the engineering aspects of lot coverage from the zoning ordinance. The intended result was to have the zoning ordinance measure land use intensity and let engineers measure Page 14 of 34 stormwater separately. Though the amendment was successful in removing the stormwater aspects out of the zoning ordinance, lot coverage is inherently intertwined between the two disciplines. III.​ Lot Coverage Regulations in Neighboring & Comparable Communities Lot coverage is not uniformly regulated in surrounding communities. In fact, some communities regulate both building coverage and lot coverage. In communities that have both, building coverage is generally defined as the percentage of a lot covered by principal and accessory buildings, while lot coverage is the percentage of a lot covered by all buildings and structures. In neighboring municipalities, building coverage is often limited to 30-35%, while lot coverage is able to go as high as 55%, as shown below. Figure 1 - Comparison of Lot Coverages Some communities use the terms impervious surface coverage or ratio instead of lot coverage. To avoid confusion between the two terms, lot coverage will be used. Furthermore, the Village of Downers Grove only regulates building coverage. This will be directly compared to the lot coverage regulations of the other municipalities. The City of Darien has an identical definition of lot coverage (see the appendix to this memo). It counts the full footprint of buildings and structures, with no mention of a discount for using permeable Page 15 of 34 materials. However, Darien allows for properties to cover up to 50% of their lot. This is 15% higher than what Westmont allows. This is likely due to the fact that Darien developed much later than Westmont, and the subdivisions are typically large developments with engineered detention. The Village of Willowbrook’s lot coverage is similar in calculation to both Westmont and Darien. However, Willowbrook differs from the two, as they exclude driveways, walkways, stoops, and streets from the calculation. Like Darien, Willowbrook developed later with large subdivisions and detention ponds. They may be able to exclude driveways from the coverage since most of the homes feature attached front-loading garages. This results in a smaller driveway footprint than in Westmont, where many garages are detached, located in the far corner of the lot, and take access from the street instead of the alley. It is also worth pointing out that Willowbrook increases the maximum coverage with the intensity of the district. R-1, their least intense district, has a 30% maximum. The R-3, their most intense single-family district, has a 45% maximum. The Village of Clarendon Hills allows for up to 0.55 of a lot to be covered and discounts 50% of the area of a permeable surface. The layout of Clarendon Hills is similar to Westmont, as few subdivisions have engineered detention and the lots are laid out in a grid style without alleys. In their R-1 district, properties can get a 0.3 bonus for the area of their lot over 9,000 square feet. Clarendon Hills regulates lot coverage in a similar manner to how Westmont regulated it prior to our 2021 text amendment. The Village of Downers Grove regulates building coverage, setting the maximum at 32%. In their calculation, the lot area covered by principal and accessory buildings, plus any accessory structure over 18 inches tall and 4 square feet in area (e.g. pergolas, pools, etc) is included. Their definition also exempts 500 square foot detached accessory buildings on lots that are 60 feet or less in width (with a few caveats). Many of the lots in Downers Grove are between 50 and 60 feet wide, so this exemption is applicable to a lot of properties. IV.​ Conclusion Lot coverage is often cited as the most inhibiting zoning regulation when designing a new home. In comparison to our neighbors, the Village of Westmont is the most restrictive when it comes to lot coverage. This is largely due to the subdivision layout, as the grid style from the 1920s did not take into account detention. Limiting lot coverage was created to offset the lack of regional detention. Though some of our neighbors allow 50% or more of a lot to be covered, that high of a percentage may not be feasible in Westmont. Increasing the lot coverage maximum back to 40% could be feasible, but it is pertinent that stormwater study be completed first. The last study was completed in 2009, and the Village has acquired some land to provide regional detention (which was recommended by the study). The results of a new study will reveal whether or not the Village is prepared for increased coverage in terms of land use intensity and stormwater management. Page 16 of 34  Appendix Lot Coverage Definitions Village of Westmont: Lot Coverage: “The percentage of a zoning lot's area covered by any and all buildings, structures and permanent hardscape improvements” (App. A, Article 14) Village of Clarendon Hills: Building Coverage: “That portion of the lot that is covered by principal buildings and accessory structures” (20.2.4:D) Impervious Surface Coverage Ratio: The "impervious surface ratio" of any zoning lot is the total area of impervious surface located upon a zoning lot, minus one-half (1/2) the total area of impervious surface that is classified as "permeable paving", divided by the area of such zoning lot” (20.2.4:H.1) City of Darien: Building Coverage: “Not more than thirty five percent (35%) of the net site area shall be covered by principal buildings and structures” (5A-7-1-7) Lot Coverage: “The part or percent of the lot occupied by buildings, structures, or any impervious surface, including accessory buildings or structures” (5A-13-1) Village of Downers Grove: Building Coverage: “Building coverage is measured as the area of the lot that is occupied by principal and accessory buildings and by structures with a surface area of more than four (4) square feet and a height of eighteen inches (18") or more, including pergolas and pools. All areas beneath a roof are counted for purposes of measuring building coverage, except on FT or R-zoned lots with a lot width of sixty feet (60') or less, detached garages, Extended Family Accessory Housing or Home Occupation units in the rear yard and rear-loading attached garages with a building footprint of five hundred (500) square feet or less are not counted towards overall building coverage provided that the detached garage, Extended Family Accessory Housing or Home Occupation units in the rear yard or the rear-loading attached garage is the only garage or unit on the subject property” (Sec. 28.14.080) Village of Willowbrook: Impervious Surface Coverage: “The area of a lot or parcel which is covered by buildings and/or other structures, but excluding any and all streets, drives, parking, walkways and stoops” (9-11-11) Page 17 of 34  Comparison of Lot Coverages to Neighboring and/or Comparable Communities Lot Building Municipality Difference Notes Coverage Coverage Westmont 35%-40% n/a n/a Everything counts at the full footprint Addison None None GREATER Bensenville 50% n/a GREATER Maximum impervious coverage Lot coverage depends on the district and appears Bolingbrook 25-35% n/a LOWER/SAME to include all structures at full footprint. Has a minimum of 50% open space for all R districts Does not include driveways, and allows for pools Carol Stream 30-35% n/a LOWER/SAME and decks that allow for water to penetrate the ground to go up to 35% Lot coverage is an impervious surface ratio, gets Clarendon Hills 55% 30% GREATER 0.3 bonus for area of a lot over 9,000 sf Lot coverage is for buildings/structures and paved Darien 50% 35% GREATER impervious areas. Building coverage is for principal buildings and structures Principal and accessory buildings, and structures Downers Grove n/a 32% LOWER over 4 sq ft and 18 in tall. Some exceptions for lots 60 ft wide or less Elmhurst 30% n/a LOWER All structures count Structures and impervious surfaces, excludes Lisle 34% n/a LOWER pools, decks, & permeable materials. Also excludes the area of a green roof on a building Requires minimum open space, which could allow Lombard n/a n/a GREATER/SAME for 50% coverage in the R districts Oak Brook 37.5% 20% GREATER Lot coverage is all improvements to the lot Excludes conforming parts of driveways within Roselle 40% n/a GREATER required street yards The full footprint of buildings and structures "where Villa Park 50-60% n/a GREATER such buildings and structures meet the ground" Increases with the intensity of the district, excludes Willowbrook 35-45% n/a GREATER/SAME drives, walkways, and stoops Terms seem to be used interchangeably, increases Woodridge 35-50% GREATER/SAME with the intensity of the district - includes principal buildings and accessory structures under a roof Page 18 of 34 TO:​ ​ Community Development Committee FROM:​ ​ Adam Walsh, Planner DATE:​ ​ July 24, 2025 RE:​ ​ 6(C) Memo 3 Impediments to New Home Construction: Public Improvements Comparison I.​ Purpose of the Research In April, Village staff met with home builders and realtors to understand the impediments to building a new single-family detached home in the Village of Westmont. Many public improvement requirements were cited as issues, such as tree preservation and sidewalks. Following that discussion and the previous Community Development Committee meeting, staff has taken a deeper dive into how the Village and our neighbors regulate the many public improvements associated with building a new home. It is important to note that many of these requirements are triggered by a subdivision of land not by constructing a new single-family home on an existing lot. These regulations are being examined because a good amount of new single-family homes are tied to subdivisions. It should be assumed that the regulations discussed in this memo are from subdivisions, unless explicitly stated otherwise. II.​ Village of Westmont’s Public Improvement Requirements When constructing a new single-family home, the right-of-way must be improved with a sidewalk from lot line to lot line. New sidewalks are only required when one is not in front of the property (this is most common in the Highview Estates subdivision on the southeast side of the Village). Similar right-of-way improvements such as curbs, gutters, and streetlights are typically not required, but may require a fee-in-lieu. Regarding trees, the Village requires a fee-in-lieu for parkway trees to be planted, which is determined by the linear feet of parkway in front of the property and the diameter of the tree. Generally, one or two trees is required for a new single-family home, and the fee is $190 per inch of the trees’ diameter. The Village also has requirements for protecting heritage trees. If a tree is identified as a heritage tree, then it must either be replaced or a fee-in-lieu can be paid. For example, if a 12” diameter heritage tree is to be removed, then 12” of tree replacements are needed, or a fee of $2,280 must be paid ($190 per diameter inch). Trees that are not mature enough to be a heritage tree or trees that are considered nuisance vegetation do not play a factor in determining these fees. Though not necessarily a public improvement, builders also voiced frustrations with the stormwater regulations. The Village has many low depressional areas (LDAs). If a property is in an LDA, it may be required that they elevate the home, which can be costly. If it is not in LDA, best management practices (BMPs) are required when the net new impervious area is 2,500 square feet or greater. Stormwater detention is not required when a single-family home is torn down and replaced with a new one. It is required when a lot is subdivided into two or more lots. A lot split (one into two or three lots) is the most common residential subdivision in the Village, as there is not a lot of open land available for large planned subdivisions. Constructing stormwater detention is very costly, especially on lot splits. Spreading the cost among two to three lots does not lower it very much, which impacts profits and hinders development. Currently, the Village’s stormwater detention requirements exceed what DuPage Page 19 of 34 County requires, and it is possible that this could be modified to match the County. Builders also expressed that requiring easements when a new home is built is burdensome. Public utility and drainage easements are typically 5 feet on the sides and 10 feet at the rear of the property. Not many structures are allowed to encroach into easements, which can further restrict the buildable width of a lot. III.​ Public Improvement Requirements in Neighboring & Comparable Communities Public improvements and stormwater requirements in surrounding communities are often similar to Westmont’s, but have some notable differences. Staff looked at the Villages of Clarendon Hills, Downers Grove, Lisle, and Willowbrook to see which regulations could be relaxed. Minor/Administrative Subdivisions Clarendon Hills offers a minor subdivision process, which is when a lot of less than one acre is divided into no more than four lots and that a new street does not need to be installed or expanded. Willowbrook also allows for minor subdivisions. To be processed as one, the property must be 10 acres or less and be subdivided into no more than five lots or consolidating two lots into one. In both cases, these requests must be reviewed by both the Planning & Zoning Commission and Village Board. Downers offers administrative approvals for both lot consolidations and reconfigurations if the proposal meets certain criteria. Generally, these criteria are that the new lot meets all the minimum zoning requirements, shares a common lot line for at least 50% of the whole lot line, and does not exacerbate existing or create new nonconformities. Right-of-Way Improvements Subdivisions in neighboring communities often come with requirements to the public right-of-way (sidewalks, streetlights, curbs/gutters, etc). Downers has approved exceptions to these kinds of requirements in cases where adjacent properties do not provide them or when the Public Works Department does not have a plan to upgrade the street. When an exception is approved, a fee-in-lieu is typically paid. In Clarendon Hills, public improvements are often waived in minor subdivisions. Willowbrook has also waived these requirements in areas called rural crossings, where it would be inconsistent in the neighborhoods’ context to have one property have a sidewalk, curb, and gutter when no one else on the street has one. Sidewalks often have more specific regulations than other improvements. As mentioned above, the trigger for sidewalks to be installed in Westmont is both subdivision and the construction of a new home (as is the case in the Village of Lisle). Though Willowbrook has waived sidewalks in past subdivisions, a 2023 text amendment appears to have made the installation of sidewalks be triggered when a new home is built. Their code requires sidewalks when the redevelopment of a property equates to 50% or more the property’s assessed value (or a fee-in-lieu be paid). Stormwater Detention/Mitigation Westmont’s LDA regulations are not typically seen in other communities, whereas requirements for post construction BMPs are more common. In Downers, the trigger for BMPs is 700 square feet of net new impervious area, while Clarendon Hills requires them when 300 square feet of impervious surface is proposed, but can be waived administratively if the new net area is less than 800 square feet. If a similar Page 20 of 34 trigger was implemented in Westmont, it would result in stormwater detention being required for more developments. In Willowbrook, stormwater detention is required, but a 2015 subdivision was exempt from the requirement since the lot was below two acres. Tree Preservation Lisle approved a text amendment last fall that made the subdivision regulations stricter, but they do exempt two lot splits from tree preservation requirements. In the other communities researched, the tree preservation requirements are largely the same. IV.​ Conclusion Though costly, public improvements are required for a reason. Improvements to the right-of-way help provide safe and comfortable means of transportation for both pedestrians and vehicles, while also resulting in an attractive tree-lined street. Similarly, requiring easements and detention can help mitigate water issues. But as this memo discussed, requiring these improvements can be burdensome and incompatible with the surrounding properties. Though easements and tree preservation were pointed out as issues, Westmont’s regulations are not that different from neighboring towns. This indicates that amendments to these regulations should not be prioritized, or at the very least, the trigger and/or fees should be reevaluated. The Village should further investigate minor subdivision processes, which could exempt lot splits from strict adherence to the required public improvements and stormwater detention. Creating this process in the Village could result in more subdivisions, which could in turn increase the number of single-family home permits issued each year. Page 21 of 34  Community Development Department 2025 2nd Quarter Report Table of Contents Section One: Department Overview for 2025 2nd Quarter​ Page 2 ●​ Joseph Hennefeind, Community Development Director Section Two: Planning & Zoning Division Report​ Page 3 ●​ Scott Williams, Senior Planner Section Three: Permitting Division Report​ Page 4-10 ●​ Jason Vitell, Deputy Director of Community Development - Building Commissioner Section Four: Code Enforcement Division Report​ Page 11-13 ●​ Jason Vitell, Deputy Director of Community Development - Building Commissioner Page 22 of 34  Section One Community Development Department 2025 2nd Quarter Overview Second Quarter Highlights Building and Code Enforcement ●​ Additional online permit types have become available; ●​ Code enforcement continues to focus on commercial and manufacturing properties on the south side of the Village. New efforts will be made on vacant commercial and residential alleyways. Downtown Incentive Program (DIP) ●​ DIP program applications for Tiers 1, 2 and 3 continue to be accepted: ○​ All applications will be forwarded as received once passing internal reviews. None have been received since the program began on January 1. ●​ The first Tier 3 award was made to 98 E Naperville for $105,000; ●​ Currently, there is still the $145,000 budgeted and available. Planning and Zoning Commission ●​ A fifth public hearing for the Zoning Ordinance Update occurred on July 23, and it is anticipated to go to the Board in August; ●​ A vacancy in the PZC will likely occur after the zoning ordinance adoption. ___________________________________________________________________________ 2025 2nd Quarter Report - Community Development Department​ Page 2 Page 23 of 34  Section Two Planning & Zoning Division 2025 (Q2) Activity Report ●​ Special Project Updates ○​ The Zoning Ordinance Update is in the public hearing process. A final hearing will be held on July 23, and staff will update the CDC on a potential recommendation. It is anticipated to be on a Village Board Agenda in August, 2025 for a final vote. ○​ Preparation for the Comprehensive Plan Update has begun. Staff is currently having internal discussions on goals/issues and is drafting the request for proposals (RFP). ●​ Approved Planning & Zoning Cases ○​ 98 E Naperville Rd - Primrose Daycare (Site Plan and variance) ○​ 98 E Naperville Rd - Salt Creek Ballet Company (SUP and variance) ○​ 701 Oakmont Ln - Subdivision (1 lot into 2) and Site Plan ○​ 801 N Cass Ave - Site Plan ●​ Planning & Zoning Cases Pending Village Board Approval ○​ 212 E Chicago Ave - That Golf Place (SUP and variance) ○​ 232 E Des Moines St - Lot Coverage Variance ○​ 102 W Naperville Rd - Lot Coverage Variance ○​ 639 Blackhawk Dr - Advocate Outpatient Center Directional Sign Variance ○​ 600 Oakmont Ln, Ste 600 - Chicago Lightworks Accessory Warehousing SUP ●​ Upcoming Planning & Zoning Cases ○​ Zoning Ordinance Update - Text Amendment ○​ 1 North Cass Avenue - Mixed-Use Development ○​ 55th St & Wilmette - Town Homes (PD) ○​ 401 Plaza Dr - Magnet-Shultz Parking Lot Expansion (Site plan) ○​ 1147-1149 Fairview Ave - Indoor Playground (SUP and variance) ○​ 500 Revere Ave - Lot Coverage Variance ○​ 306 S Cass Ave - Apartments (Site plan, variances, subdivision) ●​ Withdrawn Planning & Zoning Cases ○​ 42 S Cass Ave - ZzeNails (SUP) ●​ Approved B-1 Development Permits ○​ 8 W Burlington Ave - Tax Office ●​ Other/Misc Updates ○​ At the April 23, 2025 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting, Conor Donoghue was sworn in to begin a full five-year term (expiring April 2030). Thomas Sharp was also sworn in to fulfill a vacant term set to expire in March of 2029. ___________________________________________________________________________ 2025 2nd Quarter Report - Community Development Department​ Page 3 Page 24 of 34  Section Three Permitting Division - 2025 (Q2) Building Division Highlights ●​ Please see expanded monthly, annual, and comparative annual building, permitting, and fee related statistics or data. ●​ Status of Online Permit Submissions: ○​ A bulk of the required permitting is currently available online. This includes all flat fee and express style permits from re-roofs, window replacement, hot water heaters and HVAC appliance replacement to flatwork and fences. Staff is condensing permit guides and workflows to create a better experience for applicants, residents, and stakeholders. ○​ Based upon historical permit application numbers, our focus is to make online permitting available for permit types and work classes that facilitate Accessory Structures and Buildings, Interior Remodel, Signage, Water Service Upgrades, and Solar. ○​ In the interim, we are accepting the above items via email and staff is entering the data. ■​ Q2 UPDATE: ●​ Accessory Structures and Buildings and Solar permit types are currently available. ●​ At time of the Q2 CDC meeting, Interior Remodel, Signage and Water Service Upgrade permit types should also be available. ●​ CD staff is currently working with IT staff to facilitate online review software implementation and use. (PW and Fire review staff must familiarize themselves with the products and processes to be able to facilitate their own reviews.) ●​ CD and Finance staff have worked together to address outstanding bond processes that had been an obstacle to online permitting. Recent Large Projects Update ●​ 750 Pasquinelli - Expressions Dance Studio ○​ Tenant build out permit issued in Q2. ●​ 1010 Executive Drive - Illinois Bone and Joint ○​ Tenant build out permit issued in Q2. ●​ 123 S. Cass Ave. - Holy Trinity Parish Center ○​ Revisions to approved plans are expected while the applicant team attempts to meet their deadline for occupancy - likely in or around Q3. ■​ Q2 UPDATE: This project is on target for a Q3 temporary occupancy with a modified scope to be submitted for approval and total project completion likely to be in Q2 2026 if the applicant can cope with the approval requirements. ●​ 639 Blackhawk Dr. - Advocate Outpatient Center ○​ Substantial completion of structural framework; building is starting to be dried-in and prefabricated surgical suites will begin to be installed. ■​ Q2 UPDATE: This project is on target for late Q3/early Q4 construction completion with possible temporary occupancy. ●​ 520 N. Cass Ave. - BAMtheatre ■​ Q2 UPDATE: This project is completed with full occupancy. ___________________________________________________________________________ 2025 2nd Quarter Report - Community Development Department​ Page 4 Page 25 of 34  RESIDENTIAL PERMITTING OVERVIEW # OF PERMITS RESIDENTIAL ESTIMATED RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL (ALL PERMIT RESIDENTIAL TYPES) FEES CONSTRUCTION VALUE April (Q2) 115 $28,247.11 $1,235,140 May (Q2) 111 $27,782.00 $1,394,600 June (Q2) 102 $69,444.33 $2,184,945 TOTALS: 328 $125,473 $4,814,685 NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES - 2025 ISSUED ADDRESS EST. PERMIT FEES CONSTRUCTION VALUE 1 1/10/2025 404 N. Park Street $1,418,000 $43,425 2 3/17/2025 212 65th St. (Willowbrook) $629,093 $28,662.36 3 3/17/2025 529 64th St. (Willowbrook) $610,000 $38,177.74 4 6/20/2025 548 65th St. (Willowbrook) $400,000 $23,769.00 YTD TOTAL $3,057,093 $134,034.10 *Permit Fees include reviews, inspections, building and engineering cash bonds (which are refundable), as well as public works fees (tree removal/planting and water services) 4 TOTAL new construction permits Issued this year. There are 4 permits issued last year (2024) that are still under construction, and may be finished later this year. 6 TOTAL new construction permits submitted and under review. ___________________________________________________________________________ 2025 2nd Quarter Report - Community Development Department​ Page 5 Page 26 of 34 ___________________________________________________________________________ 2025 2nd Quarter Report - Community Development Department​ Page 6 Page 27 of 34  COMMERCIAL PERMITTING OVERVIEW # OF PERMITS RESIDENTIAL ESTIMATED COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL (ALL PERMIT RESIDENTIAL TYPES) FEES CONSTRUCTION VALUE April (Q2) 28 $24,421.12 $766,327 May (Q2) 34 $40,137.93 $1,198,851 June (Q2) 48 $152,654.30 $6,387,258 TOTALS: 110 $217,213.35 $8,352,436 New Commercial Building Permits Issued in 2025 - None 3 Active permits for Commercial New Construction (Issued last year) (no change from Q1) ●​ 6320 S. Cass Avenue (Urgent Care) ●​ 123 S. Cass Avenue (Holy Trinity) ●​ 639 Blackhawk Drive (Advocate) COMMERCIAL INTERIOR ALTERATIONS 2025 HIGHLIGHTS ESTIMATED DATE ADDRESS CONSTR. VALUE 1/16/2025 33 W. Naperville Rd. $242,989.00 1/27/2025 822 E. Ogden Ave. - Animal Grooming Shop $218,030.00 3/28/2025 113 N. Cass Ave. - Bldg shell improvements $155,297.22 6/10/2025 750 Pasquinelli Dr. Suite 216 - Expression Dance Studio $933,634.80 6/26/2025 1010 Executive Ct. Suite 230 - Illinois Bone & Joint Institute $3,441,999.00 ___________________________________________________________________________ 2025 2nd Quarter Report - Community Development Department​ Page 7 Page 28 of 34 ___________________________________________________________________________ 2025 2nd Quarter Report - Community Development Department​ Page 8 Page 29 of 34  COMPARISON OF YEARLY PERMIT FEES (Commercial and Residential Combined) 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 April $52,668.23 $128,202.29 $126,817.56 $177,805.36 $152,392.45 $255,418.93 May $67,919.93 $187,806.20 $192,381.40 $344,676.38 $115,030.48 $145,047.32 June $222,098.63 $135,052.16 $124,248.10 $55,461.99 $135,749.88 $775,708.88 Quarterly TOTALS $ 342,686.79 $ 451,060.65 $ 443,447.06 $ 577,943.73 $ 403,172.81 $ 1,176,175.13 ___________________________________________________________________________ 2025 2nd Quarter Report - Community Development Department​ Page 9 Page 30 of 34 ___________________________________________________________________________ 2025 2nd Quarter Report - Community Development Department​ Page 10 Page 31 of 34  Section Four Code Enforcement Division 2ND Quarter 04/01/25-06/30/25 Q2 2025 Code Stats 311 reported concerns received/investigated (reactive) 113 (29.3%) Total 386 Staff cases (proactive) 273 (70.7%) Total Cases Closed 366 NOV Letters 61 Citations Issued 15 Administrative Adjudication Cases Heard 11 ___________________________________________________________________________ 2025 2nd Quarter Report - Community Development Department​ Page 11 Page 32 of 34  Q2 2025 Code Cases by Patrol Zone South Patrol Zone 153 (39.8%) North Patrol Zone 203 (52.9%) Central Business 28 (7.3%) District Patrol Zone CODE ENFORCEMENT Division Statistics/Highlights: ●​ From time to time, and after analysis, new statistical code data metrics may be added or removed from the formal YTD Code Stats matrix and corresponding charts. When adding new data points, the raw information may sometimes be misleading, laborious to quantify, or difficult to display in pie or bar form which is why it may be broken out and “tested” here. After a reasonable amount of sample data is collected and analysis is performed, you may see this information incorporated into the YTD Code Stats. As an example, see the below introduction of a new data point, measurement, or general statistic and what goes into its evaluation. ○​ NEW DATA POINT, MEASUREMENT, or STATISTIC: Measuring “Progress” of all open cases. ○​ Measuring “Progress” is difficult to do and there are many ways to interpret the data in the matrix below as the raw data simply reflects all active (“In Progress”) cases taken from July 1, 2025 going backwards. (AKA Historical Open Cases) ○​ This information does not provide or specify the case type, status of the condition or whether compliance has been achieved, any reasonable accounting of hardships or approved extensions, formal processes involving hearings (local administrative adjudication) or county court, or (if applicable) outstanding fines and liens - all of these elements affect the length of time a case remains active or “in progress”. ​ ​ ​ ​ Days a Code Case has been Active (“In Progress”) Number of Cases Less than 30 Days 60 30-59 Days 15 60-89 Days 3 90+ Days 35 ___________________________________________________________________________ 2025 2nd Quarter Report - Community Development Department​ Page 12 Page 33 of 34  ●​ Code Enforcement is working in a coordinated effort with Westmont’s Protect Our Pollinators Program to facilitate the program goals and support participation. ○​ Q2 UPDATE: The preliminary work done by Communications Director Larry McIntyre was extremely helpful to code staff. This includes providing the addresses of participating properties so code staff was informed as to program participants versus property owners who simply let their properties go. ■​ NOTE: The weeklong grace period given after the program end date (Mother’s Day) did not make sense to some complainants who were clearly frustrated by it. ●​ Preliminary conversations with several stakeholders in manufacturing, commercial, and business districts have taken place in Q1 to set up compliance in Q2 and beyond for long-term success involving historical or systemic problems as well as large scale exterior property maintenance issues. This includes properties on Vandustrial, 61st Street, and South Cass regarding improper exterior storage of products, materials, or processes along with maintenance or repair of walking, driving, and parking surfaces. ○​ Q2 UPDATE: Of the properties identified for compliance, several came into full compliance for some issues while others were allowed to build into their budgets future full replacements in favor of some short term maintenance fixes that moved the properties into a status deemed to be in compliance with property maintenance minimum standards resulting in many closed code cases. There are also some ongoing issues that involve multiple phases for compliance or extended timelines that will be satisfied via the construction permitting process. ___________________________________________________________________________ 2025 2nd Quarter Report - Community Development Department​ Page 13 Page 34 of 34