Planning & Zoning Commission
Regular MeetingWestmont, IL · June 25, 2025
Minutes
Village of Westmont
Planning & Zoning Commission
June 25, 2025 - Approved Minutes
TheVillageofWestmontPlanningandZoningCommissionheldaspecialmeetingonWednesday,June
25, 2025 at 6:00 p.m., at theWestmontVillageHalllocatedat31W.QuincyStreet,Westmont,Illinois
60559.
1. Call to Order
Chair Doug Carmichael called the meeting to orderat6:00 PM.
2. Roll Call
Present:6-ChairDougCarmichael,SecretaryJillPeterson,CommissionersConorDonoghue,
Michael Lynn, Thomas Sharp, John F. Simpson IV
Absent: 1 - Commissioner Craig Thomas
A QUORUM WAS PRESENT TO TRANSACT BUSINESS
Staff:Scott Williams (Senior Planner), Joseph Hennerfiend(Community Development Director),
John Zemenak (Village Attorney)
3. Pledge of Allegiance
4. Swearing-in of testifying attendees
5. Reminder to silence all electronic devices
6. Reminder to sign-in for any public testimony
7. Approval of the Minutes of the June 11, 2025 regular meeting.
MOTIONbySimpsonto approve the regular meeting minutesfrom June 11, 2025.
Seconded bySharp.
VOTING:
Ayes: 5 -Carmichael, Peterson, Lynn, Sharp,Simpson
Nays: 0
Abstain: 1-Donoghue
Absent: 1 -Thomas
Motion Passed
8. Review of Public Hearing Procedures
9. Old Business
PUBLIC HEARING PZC 001-2025
Requests from the Village of Westmont regarding Zoning Ordinance text amendments as follows:
1) Zoning Ordinance text amendments to repeal Appendix A – Zoning, of the Westmont Code of
Ordinances and to establish new Chapter 95 – Zoning, of the Westmont Code of Ordinance, with
comprehensive updates to the entire Zoning Ordinance, including amendments to the zoning
districts, development standards, planning processes, and other zoning regulations.
Article IX: Parking
Scott Williams, Senior Planner, gave a brief overview of the Article’s drafted language.
Secretary Peterson questioned if when the minimum parking requirement results in a fraction, whether
the number is rounded up or down. Williams answered that when the fraction results in 0.5 or more, the
requirement is rounded up. If it is less than 0.5, it gets rounded down.
Commissioner Lynn asked if it makes sense to change the warehousing parking requirement to be
derived from the floor area instead of the number of employees. Williams replied that many neighboring
communities regulate it based on the floor area, noting that it is hard to verify the number of employees.
Joseph Hennerfeind, Community Development Director, explained that the parking requirement is
dependent on the user of the building, which can vary widely from tenant to tenant, and that staff is
looking to refine the numbers to be simpler to calculate.
Commissioner Sharp clarified how the parking requirement changes when the use changes. Staff further
explained scenarios when the existing parking is scrutinized.
Peterson recommended increasing the minimum parking requirement for health and fitness services,
which Sharp agreed with.
Chair Carmichael expressed that a veterinarian should not have a higher parking requirement than a
service or retail use.
Commissioner Donoghue asked if parking in other businesses’ parking spaces was allowed. Peterson
replied that in multi-tenant centers, they can park anywhere in the parking lot.
Hennerfeind asked how the parking requirement is determined for a new multi-tenant center when the
future tenants are not known. Williams replied that he believes it is a flat rate determined by the center’s
floor area.
Carmichael questioned the parking requirement for video gaming cafes. Hennerfeind replied that new
video gaming cafes are not allowed. Williams added that accessory video gaming in restaurants uses the
restaurant parking requirement.
Commissioner Simpson asked why craft alcoholic beverage distributors have a parking requirement for
both the seating area and per employees. Williams said it is likely a carry-over from the existing
language.
Simpson recommended splitting the parking requirement for health and fitness services into gymnasiums
and studio classes, with studio classes having a higher minimum.
Hennerfeind explained the trend of removing parking minimums and letting the market decide how much
parking to provide, which the Village of Westmont is ill-prepared for.
Sharp asked for the parking requirement for medical offices.
Sharp found that one parking space per seven students is too low for colleges and business training
services.
Sharp questioned how the parking requirement for hotels changes if it has a conference center.
Hennerfeind replied that the hotel would need to provide spaces for the guest rooms and the conference
center.
Sharp pointed out that “other retail, outdoor” is missing a parking requirement.
Referencing public comment, Sharp advocated for removing the “per seat” calculation for religious uses.
Williams replied that the other option would be to regulate based on maximum occupancy, which Sharp
said would likely result in an excessive requirement.
Carmichael asked why financial services have different parking requirements. Williams explained that it
is due to carry-over from existing language and from what similar communities require.
Donoghue clarified that the parking requirements will be for the proposed smaller parking stall sizes.
Williams answered yes, and that the parking stall size is being lowered because of the many waiver
requests that are made and approved by the Village Board.
Simpson questioned if hotels should have a lower parking requirement for guest rooms, but explicitly say
that they need to provide parking for employees, banquet facilities, and other accessory uses.
Lynn asked how often the requirements are reviewed. Hennerfeind answered that text amendment can
be requested at any time, but staff usually waits until a trend shows that an amendment is warranted.
Simpson recommended having the parking requirement determined by the floor area dedicated to
serving the use and not including spaces like storage areas and requiring parking for all seating areas,
not just interior seating.
Hennerfeind expressed that parking minimums are designed to ensure enough parking is provided to
serve the users, but not so much that the requirement is excessive. Donoghue added that it is up to the
business owner to ensure they open a business in a space with enough parking.
Sharp said that building codes exempt spaces like stairwells and facility rooms for occupancy counts.
Referencing Sec. 9.04(A)(D), Sharp asked why existing multi-tenant centers are required to provide extra
parking if the building is expanded, especially if a center may already provide excess parking. Williams
answered that the section is carry-over, and can be cleaned up.
Sharp referenced a public comment recommending “collaborative parking”, asking how it is different from
“shared parking” in Sec. 9.04(D). John Zemenak, Village Attorney, replied that he is not aware of a
difference between the two terms.
Sharp asked staff to clarify the difference between multi-tenant center parking (Sec. 9.04(A)(2)) and
shared parking (Sec. 9.04(C)).
Simpson asked if the parking requirement is reduced if rideshare services are provided. Williams
explained the difference between shared parking agreements and shared-car parking.
Williams said that off-site parking in Sec. 9.05 would be allowed for nonresidential districts instead of
nonresidential uses.
Sharp expressed that it may be appropriate to reduce the aisle width for 90° parking spaces when it is a
one-way drive aisle.
Simpson said that tandem parking should be allowed for employees of a business, but not for patrons.
Zemenak added that it could be hard to enforce, but could work. Sharp disagreed allowing employees to
tandem park, but it would make sense for fleet vehicles. Peterson expressed that tandem parking is
common in the Downtown. Williams said that tandem parking for employees could be allowed in the
Downtown districts, which Simpson supported.
Simpson asked if car-share parking reduces the parking requirement for those taking rideshare services.
Williams clarified that car-share parking is when a car is provided on-site, like Zipcar, but it is not
applicable to rideshare.
Sharp found the minimum stacking requirements for car washes and drug stores to be too low. Williams
explained that this is a new regulation to the Village, and that staff and the consultant looked at other
communities to see what the best minimum is.
Article X:Tree Preservation and Landscaping
Williams explained that most of the language comes from the existing Chapter 80 of the Municipal Code,
as it fits better in the zoning ordinance. He explained that many of the provisions from Chapter 80 were
amended within the last few years.
Sharp confirmed that the tree measurement is based on the caliper size, not the diameter at breast
height (DBH). Sharp asked how it is determined that a property can accommodate replacement trees.
Williams responded that it is determined by the Village Forester and dependent on the size of the tree
being removed.
Sharp asked for the applicability of landscaping regulations in 10.07(C-D) be clarified as it relates to
multi-unit residential developments.
Lynn asked if there were restrictions on a property owner cutting down a tree on their property.
Hennerfeind explained regulations on removing heritage trees, which is outside of the zoning ordinance.
Sharp voiced concerns on regulating tree pruning in accordance with ANSI A300. Williams replied that
the regulation is applicable to properties with approved landscaping plans, not single-family detached
homes.
Article XI: Signs
Williams explained that there were not many changes to signage regulations, as a significant text
amendment updated the regulations a few years prior.
Sharp raised concerns with the prohibition on lighting around window borders and architectural elements.
Williams replied that the prohibition is to avoid directing light towards large sign elements, and gave an
example of an ice cream shop having a large ice cream cone with lights directed at it. Sharp requested it
be clarified to meet what the Village is attempting to prohibit. Simpson added that it should be clarified
that this regulation is applicable to commercial properties.
Carmichael asked if an inflatable rat would be considered a sign. Zemenak replied that if it has lettering
on it, directs attention to the business, and is permanently outside, it would likely be a sign.
Sharp found a grammar mistake in Sec. 11.03(E).
Staff explained that many of the regulations were amended to be content-neutral.
Sharp recommended allowing grand opening signs to be up before the business opens. Hennerfeind
replied that a new business can request a temporary banner before they open, but the grand opening
signage regulations were designed specifically for after a business begins operating.
Peterson asked for clarification on how the maximum sign area is determined for businesses that are
allowed wall signs on the front and back of the building. Williams explained that using only the front
facade is an existing regulation.
Carmichael and Lynn asked why not use both frontages to determine the maximum sign area.
Hennerfeind replied that it is to avoid having large signs directed to a residential district, and that the
previous sign text amendment allowed for more signage than neighboring communities.
Williams explained that the temporary sign fee would likely be removed in the revisions presented at a
future meeting.
Staff clarified how sign measurements are taken. Sharp said that “smallest rectangle” should be replaced
with “smallest polygon” in Sec. 11.11(A)(2).
Article XII: General Development Regulations
Williams explained that the outdoor lighting regulations are applicable to commercial properties so an
undue burden is not placed on residents. Hennerfeind further explained the changes in outdoor lighting
regulations, adding that these regulations will be applicable to new commercial development, not
existing.
Zemenak asked if there were outdoor lighting regulations on detached, semi-detached, and two-unit
houses. Williams replied there are not. Zemenak recommended adding a lumen limit, which he has seen
be an issue in other communities who do not have a limit. Simpson asked if it is better regulated as a
nuisance. Hennerfeind voiced concerns about code enforcement processes related to outdoor lighting
limits on residential properties.
Carmichael referenced a public comment on Sec. 12.01(F)(1) that recommended intermittent lighting not
be exempt from the regulations of the subsection. Simpson asked for the clarification of the scope of the
regulation. Williams explained that for new developments, all lighting except for intermittent lighting would
need to be shielded. Sharp found that it is a good lighting design to have it shielded.
Lynn and Simpson asked when an existing development would need to comply with the outdoor lighting
regulations. Williams replied that if it was a new lightpost in a new area, it would need to meet the
requirements, but not when a fixture is switched out. Hennerfeind recommended stating what the trigger
is in the section.
Lynn questioned light spillage over property lines along Ogden Avenue. Zemenak responded that the
standard has been to have zero footcandles at the property line, and that businesses can request a
variance to the limit. Williams added that light trespass at lot lines is limited by the abutting zoning
district.
Zemenak asked when measuring footcandles at the lot line, if it takes into account street lighting or
ambient lighting. Williams believed it is regulated in Article XVI Measurements.
Zemenak asked if lighting overhanging the right-of-way in the downtown exceeding the light trespass
limit is a concern. Hennerfeind replied yes, and that measurement tools would need to be acquired.
Simpson asked what types of businesses could have issues with outdoor lighting regulations. Williams
replied that banks have specific standards.
Lynn indicated that the lighting standards seem too restrictive. Donoghue found that there will be
complaints either way, but said that there should be standards. Zemenak added that the standards are
more relaxed than what the zoning ordinance currently allows.
Simpson found the regulations well-intended, but would be difficult to comply with.
Sharp expressed support for the options for lighting plans in Sec. 12.01(H).
Sharp asked where the 10 foot sight vision triangle for driveways is similar to other communities and if a
fence would be allowed there. Williams replied the consultant likely found this to be consistent with other
communities and that solid fences would not be allowed in the triangle.
Lynn referenced a project of his in the Village where a solid fence was installed to be outside of a sight
vision triangle at the intersection of an alley and a street, noting that the end result looked nice.
Article XIII: Nonconformities
Williams and Zemenak explained that most of the changes were clarifications, as there was a text
amendment in 2023 that amended many of the regulations.
Lynn asked if this article’s regulations would trigger the need for a fire sprinkler system in a residential
home that does not have one. Williams responded that the fire sprinkler system requirement is in the fire
or building codes, not the zoning ordinance.
Simpson asked if the decision of whether a nonconforming use can be expanded or not can be
appealed. Williams said that appeals to administrative decisions are allowed.
Lynn asked if nonconforming setbacks can be maintained for second floor additions. Williams replied that
there is an allowance for that scenario in Article II Residential Districts. Zemenak added that an addition
can be made as long as the nonconforming setback is not increased.
Article XIV: Review and Approval Procedures
Williams gave an overview of the changes to the review and approval procedures.
Lynn asked if civil drawings are required for site plans. Williams said he believes so, but it is not a zoning
requirement.
Simpson recommended showing when a pre-application meeting is needed in a table. Williams replied
that staff can look into the best way to display that information.
Lynn asked staff to clarify the ability to expand nonconforming setbacks vertically. Hennerfeind replied
that the intent is to allow it for street yards because the effect is not as intense as a nonconforming
interior side yard setback.
Sharp asked how commissioners can receive their packets sooner. Williams explained that the
publishing of meeting materials depends on the public noticing requirements.
Simpson voiced concerns about having the public hearing notice requirements be the applicant’s
responsibility. Williams responded that the language is vague to give staff the flexibility to do the notice
on applicants’ behalf for residents, but to require projects with large staff and legal teams to do their own
notice.
Hennerfeind explained the business-friendly features of administrative approvals.
Lynn asked a question about the permitting process. Williams explained that zoning does not control
permitting requirements, but added that zoning applications are rejected if they are incomplete.
Article XV: Administration and Enforcement
Sharp asked if withholding permits or other forms of authorization on other land owned by an owner with
a violation on a separate property is common. Zemenak explained that it is discretionary, but can curb
repeat offenders. Zemenak also explained that the Village has similar processes for withholding
non-zoning approvals.
Article XVI: Measurements
Williams explained that this is a new article to the zoning ordinance, and largely consolidates
measurement regulations into one article instead of being scattered across the zoning ordinance.
Peterson questioned the contextual setbacks, asking if nonconforming properties are included. Williams
replied yes.
Lynn and Sharp asked if a home can use the district’s minimum front setback or take advantage of the
contextual setbacks. Williams replied yes.
Simpson asked what the goal of the contextual setbacks is. Williams replied that this provision applies to
residential properties.
Peterson asked how contextual setbacks will affect homes in the R-3 district. Williams replied that
currently, a property can reduce the minimum front yard setback to as low as 25 feet, depending on the
location of the home on adjacent properties. Lynn asked if the 25 foot limit is being dropped. Williams
replied yes.
Lynn explained that contextual setbacks create a visual harmony to a neighborhood from the street.
Lynn asked if most of the R-3 zoned properties near the downtown use the 35 foot minimum front yard
setback or do they use the contextual setbacks. Williams said that it is more common for those homes to
be 25 feet or closer.
Lynn asked how homes that have a front yard setback larger than the minimum required play into the
calculation, noting that homes setback far from the front property line would skew the result. Staff replied
that in those scenarios, it can be added that the number used is the minimum required setback instead.
Sharp asked if the commission is comfortable with homes getting closer to the street over time. Peterson
did not like allowing contextual setbacks, but she liked the variety of front setbacks currently in the
Village. Williams explained that the contextual setbacks allow for more variety, as requiring homes to use
the minimum setback creates a more uniform look over time.
Zemenak explained that contextual setbacks would reduce the number of variance requests, when the
petitioner would point to their neighbor’s setback.
Sharp said contextual setbacks should be limited on how much they can reduce the setback. Lynn said
that 25 feet could be an appropriate limit. The commission generally supported a limit on the contextual
setbacks.
Lynn revisited vertical additions to properties with nonconforming interior side yard setbacks in estate-like
districts. Hennerfeind replied that the zoning ordinance would not allow that by-right, but the owner could
request a variance.
Sharp said in Sec. 16.13(B), that the section should apply to screen walls or parapets.
Article XVII: Definitions
Peterson asked why “bedrooms” was no longer defined. Staff replied that other codes that have
regulations on bedrooms are better suited to define the term.
Sharp questioned if “diameter at breast height” was supposed to be defined.
Sharp asked if donation drop boxes were to have a maximum area, if it would be in the definition or in the
accessory use article. Williams said it would be in the accessory use article.
Zemenak asked where the definition for “family community residence” and “group community residence”
is. Williams replied that it is likely defined in the principal use article.
Zemenak voiced issues with the definition of trailers.
Lynn found that the definition of “building height” references the incorrect section, and asked for
clarification on where the measurement is taken from.
Simpson asked if the revised definition for “fleet vehicles” will be presented at the next meeting. Williams
replied yes.
Sharp recommended clarifying the regulations applicable to boats, as a definition may address his
concerns.
Simpson expressed issues with the definition of a “trailer”.
Sharp asked if removing the definition for “open air and tent sales” means that these businesses will not
be allowed. Williams explained that other sections of the municipal code regulate these temporary uses.
Public Comment:
Carmichael reopened the public comment. No members of the public were present to provide comments.
MOTION 1
Motion by Simpson to continue the public hearing to a special meeting onJuly23,2025at6:00
p.m.
Seconded bySharp.
VOTING:
Ayes: 6 -Carmichael, Peterson, Donoghue, Lynn,Sharp, Simpson,
Nays: 0
Absent: 1 -Thomas
Motion Passed
10.New Business
None.
11.Open Forum
Nobody spoke during the Open Forum.
12.Miscellaneous Items
a. Next regular PZC on July 9, 2025 at 6:00 pm.
b. APA-IL Plan Commissioner Training
Carmichael informed the commission that the American Planners’ Association Illinois Chapter is
hosting a training for plan commissioners at their state conference in Chicago this October, and
encouraged them to attend. Williams added that it is a half day session, and more information is
coming.
c. Zemenak expressed his appreciation for the commissioners’ hard work throughout the update
process.
13.Adjourn
Motion bySharpto adjourn the meeting.
Second bySimpson.
The Motion Passed on a unanimous voice vote.
Meeting adjourned at 10:13 p.m.
Agenda
LEGAL NOTICE / PUBLIC NOTICE
VILLAGE OF WESTMONT
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING AGENDA
The Village of Westmont Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a special meeting
on Wednesday, June 25, 2025 at 6:00 PM, at the Village of Westmont, 31 W. Quincy
St., Westmont, IL 60559.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Pledge of Allegiance
4. Swearing-in of Testifying Attendees
5. Approval of Minutes
a. Approval of the Minutes of the June 11, 2025 Regular Meeting
6. Reminder to Silence All Electronic Devices
7. Reminder to Sign-In for Any Public Testimony
8. Review of Public Hearing Procedures
9. Old Business
a. PUBLIC HEARING PZC 001-2025
Requests from the Village of Westmont regarding Zoning Ordinance text
amendments as follows:
1. Zoning Ordinance text amendments to repeal Appendix A - Zoning, of the
Westmont Code of Ordinances and to establish a new Chapter 95 - Zoning,
of the Westmont Code of Ordinances, with comprehensive updates to the
entire Zoning Ordinance, including amendments to the zoning districts,
development standards, planning processes, and other zoning regulations.
A copy of the draft Zoning Ordinance text amendments is available for the
public on the Village's website at www.westmont.illinois.gov and in person at
Westmont Village Hall, 31 W. Quincy St., Westmont, Illinois 60559 during
normal operating hours.
10. New Business - None
11. Open Forum
The public comment rules and procedures are set forth in Chapter 2, Section 2-66
of the Westmont Code of Ordinances. Public comment is allowed for matters of
public concern that are not on the agenda. Public comment is limited to 3 minutes
per speaker.
12. Miscellaneous
a. General Updates
1. Next Regular PZC on July 9, 2025
2. American Planning Association (APA) State Conference
13. 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
Packet
LEGAL NOTICE / PUBLIC NOTICE
VILLAGE OF WESTMONT
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING AGENDA
The Village of Westmont Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a special meeting
on Wednesday, June 25, 2025 at 6:00 PM, at the Village of Westmont, 31 W. Quincy
St., Westmont, IL 60559.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Pledge of Allegiance
4. Swearing-in of Testifying Attendees
5. Approval of Minutes
a. Approval of the Minutes of the June 11, 2025 Regular Meeting
6. Reminder to Silence All Electronic Devices
7. Reminder to Sign-In for Any Public Testimony
8. Review of Public Hearing Procedures
9. Old Business
a. PUBLIC HEARING PZC 001-2025
Requests from the Village of Westmont regarding Zoning Ordinance text
amendments as follows:
1. Zoning Ordinance text amendments to repeal Appendix A - Zoning, of the
Westmont Code of Ordinances and to establish a new Chapter 95 - Zoning,
of the Westmont Code of Ordinances, with comprehensive updates to the
entire Zoning Ordinance, including amendments to the zoning districts,
development standards, planning processes, and other zoning regulations.
A copy of the draft Zoning Ordinance text amendments is available for the
public on the Village's website at www.westmont.illinois.gov and in person at
Westmont Village Hall, 31 W. Quincy St., Westmont, Illinois 60559 during
normal operating hours.
10. New Business - None
Page 1 of 333
11. Open Forum
The public comment rules and procedures are set forth in Chapter 2, Section 2-66
of the Westmont Code of Ordinances. Public comment is allowed for matters of
public concern that are not on the agenda. Public comment is limited to 3 minutes
per speaker.
12. Miscellaneous
a. General Updates
1. Next Regular PZC on July 9, 2025
2. American Planning Association (APA) State Conference
13. 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 333
Village of Westmont
Planning & Zoning Commission
June 11, 2025 - Draft Minutes
The Village of Westmont Planning and Zoning Commission held its regular meeting on Wednesday,
June 11, 2025 at 6:00 p.m., at the Westmont Village Hall located at 31 W. Quincy Street, Westmont,
Illinois 60559.
1. Call to Order
Chair Doug Carmichael called the meeting to order at 5:59 PM.
2. Roll Call
Present: 6 - Chair Doug Carmichael, Secretary Jill Peterson, Commissioners Michael Lynn,
Thomas Sharp, John F. Simpson IV, Craig Thomas
Absent: 1 - Commissioner Conor Donoghue
A QUORUM WAS PRESENT TO TRANSACT BUSINESS
Staff: Scott Williams (Senior Planner), Joseph Hennerfiend (Community Development Director),
Adam Walsh (Planner), John Zemenak (Village Attorney)
3. Pledge of Allegiance
4. Swearing-in of testifying attendees
5. Reminder to silence all electronic devices
6. Reminder to sign-in for any public testimony
7. Approval of the Minutes of the May 14, 2025 regular meeting.
MOTION by Sharp to approve the regular meeting minutes from May 14, 2025.
Seconded by Simpson.
VOTING:
Ayes: 6 - Carmichael, Peterson, Lynn, Sharp, Simpson, Thomas
Nays: 0
Absent: 1 - Donoghue
Motion Passed
8. Review of Public Hearing Procedures
9. New Business
PZC 002-2025
Request from RYAN COMPANIES US, INC., for the property at 701 Oakmont Lane, Westmont, Illinois,
60559, for the following:
Page 3 of 333
1) Preliminary Plat of Subdivision to subdivide one (1) lot into two (2) lots in the O/R Office/Research
District
2) Site and Landscaping Plan
Presentation:
Eric Nordeen, Zach Thor, and Betsy Gates-Alford, representing the petitioner, gave an overview of the
request.
Staff Comment:
Scott Williams, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Williams explained the history of previous
approvals from 2018, highlighting a parking agreement between this property and the tenants at 700 and
750 Oakmont Lane to the north.
John Zemenak, Village Attorney, asked if the easement granting the Village access to the water tower to
the south of the subject property will be retained in the subdivision. Gates-Alford replied that the 24 foot
easement will remain. Williams noted that the easement was reconfirmed and is ready to be recorded
with DuPage County.
Public Comment:
None.
Commissioner Comments:
Sharp: Commissioner Sharp asked if the commission needs to be aware of shared parking agreements
when reviewing applications. Joseph Hennerfeind, Community Development Director, replied there is not
shared parking on the subject property. The petitioner is offering it for future development of the
newly-created lot. Hennerfeind and Gates-Alford added that there is a parking agreement from a
previous development that is between private entities that the Village is not involved with.
Sharp asked why Lot 1 provides landscaping but Lot 2 does not. Williams replied that the requested site
and landscaping plan is only for Lot 1 and that Lot 2 would request its own plan when a development is
proposed. He added that Lot 2 is not different from the approvals from 2018.
Thomas: Commissioner Thomas had no comments or questions.
Peterson: Secretary Peterson had no comments.
Lynn: Commissioner Lynn asked if parking lots require two access points. Williams replied no and
clarified that the eastern lot will be sold to be redeveloped. Lynn asked for the reasoning behind the
private agreement to provide 265 parking spaces on Lot 1. Williams and Hennerfeind answered that it
comes from a lease agreement, not the parking minimum from the zoning ordinance.
Lynn asked how the stormwater will be kept on the separate lots. Thor explained the proposed
stormwater management.
Page 4 of 333
Lynn asked for the purpose of the screening requirements. Williams replied that the zoning ordinance
does not take into account lots that provide cross-access, but does allow for alternate screening
arrangements to meet the intent of the requirement.
Simpson: Commissioner Simpson asked if there were expiration dates related to the unimproved
section of the parking lot from the 2018 approval. Williams answered there is not an expiration date.
Hennerfeind said it was likely not improved because it was planned to be redeveloped.
Simpson asked what the goal for the subdivision is. Nordeen answered that the goal is to sell it to a
developer, as the lot does not meet their own redevelopment goals.
Carmichael: Chair Carmichael had no comments.
MOTION 1
Motion by Simpson to recommend to the Village Board of Trustees to approve a request by RYAN
COMPANIES US, INC., for the property at 701 Oakmont Lane, Westmont, Illinois, 60559, for a
Preliminary Plat of Subdivision to subdivide one (1) lot into two (2) lots in the O/R Office/Research
District.
Seconded by Thomas.
VOTING:
Ayes: 6 - Carmichael, Peterson, Donoghue, Sharp, Simpson, Thomas
Nays: 0
Absent: 1 - Donoghue
Motion Passed
MOTION 2
Motion by Thomas to recommend to the Village Board of Trustees to approve a request by RYAN
COMPANIES US, INC., for the property at 701 Oakmont Lane, Westmont, Illinois, 60559, for a Site and
Landscape Plan.
Seconded by Simpson.
VOTING:
Ayes: 6 - Carmichael, Peterson, Donoghue, Sharp, Simpson, Thomas
Nays: 0
Absent: 1 - Donoghue
Motion Passed
Page 5 of 333
PZC 004-2025
Request from HTW, L.L.C., for the property at 801 North Cass Avenue, Westmont, Illinois, 60559, for the
following:
1) Site and Landscaping Plan
Presentation:
John Benoit and Gary Moad, representing the petitioner, gave an overview of the request.
Staff Comment:
Scott Williams, Senior Planner, presented the staff report.
Public Comment:
None.
Commissioner Comments:
Lynn: Lynn did not see issues with the request, finding it could be reviewed through the permitting
process.
Simpson: Simpson had no comments or questions.
Sharp: Sharp agreed with Lynn about the process. Sharp questioned the height of the generator. Moad
explained that the generator will be screened by a 6 foot 8 inch fence, which is taller than the generator.
Thomas: Thomas had no questions.
Peterson: Peterson had no questions or comments.
Carmichael: Chair Carmichael asked why the generator was being requested. Benoit answered that
there is currently a generator in the basement of the building which is not as effective as the proposed
outdoor generator.
MOTION 1
Motion by Thomas to recommend to the Village Board of Trustees to approve a request by HTW L.L.C.,
for the property at 801 North Cass Avenue, Westmont, Illinois, 60559, for a Site and Landscape Plan.
Seconded by Sharp.
VOTING:
Ayes: 6 - Carmichael, Peterson, Donoghue, Sharp, Simpson, Thomas
Nays: 0
Absent: 1 - Donoghue
Motion Passed
Page 6 of 333
10. Old Business
PUBLIC HEARING PZC 006-2025
Request from ZzeNails, Inc., d/b/a ZzeNails (Petitioner), and Richmond Station, LLC (Owner), for the
property at 42 South Cass Avenue, Westmont, Illinois, 60559, for the following:
1) Special Use Permit to operate a beauty parlor, located on the ground floor, in the B-1 Limited
Business District.
Carmichael reminded the commission that this public hearing was continued from the May 14, 2025
meeting due to the petitioner not being present. Adam Walsh, Planner, confirmed that staff has not been
able to contact the petitioner since the last meeting.
MOTION 1
Motion by Sharp to close the public hearing, remove the request from the agenda, and consider
the request withdrawn.
Seconded by Thomas.
DISCUSSION:
Simpson asked if there is anything that would prevent the petitioner from reapplying for a special use
permit for the same property. Zemenak responded that the petitioner is free to reapply.
VOTING:
Ayes: 6 - Carmichael, Peterson, Donoghue, Sharp, Simpson, Thomas
Nays: 0
Absent: 1 - Donoghue
Motion Passed
PUBLIC HEARING PZC 001-2025
Requests from the Village of Westmont regarding Zoning Ordinance text amendments as follows:
1) Zoning Ordinance text amendments to repeal Appendix A – Zoning, of the Westmont Code of
Ordinances and to establish new Chapter 95 – Zoning, of the Westmont Code of Ordinance, with
comprehensive updates to the entire Zoning Ordinance, including amendments to the zoning
districts, development standards, planning processes, and other zoning regulations.
Carmichael reminded the commission that at the previous public hearing, the commission began
discussing Article VII: Accessory & Temporary Uses. Williams added that the goal is to finish
commissioner comments on the remaining articles. Staff will be revising language, which will be provided
to the commission and the public at a later date for both to comment on.
Page 7 of 333
Commissioner Comments:
Article VII: Accessory & Temporary Uses
Hennerfeind recommended adding “structures” to the title of Article.
Sharp recommended increasing the maximum area for the exempt small buildings of Sec. 7.02 from 12
square feet to 50 square feet, which Peterson agreed with. Williams and Hennerfeind countered that due
to the number of zoning regulations the small buildings are drafted to be exempt from, that staff may not
be comfortable with exempting that large of a building. Sharp also recommended reducing the setbacks
for the exempt small buildings. Hennerfeind added that many of the regulations applicable to residential
accessory buildings are being relaxed, which would allow for two 50 square foot sheds.
Simpson suggested that one small building up to 50 square feet in area could be exempted. Williams
added that a property owner could still have a shed over 12 square feet, but it would count towards the
two accessory building maximum and need to comply with the applicable zoning regulations.
Thomas asked how large chicken coops can be before requiring a permit. Williams said that all chicken
coops require a permit. Walsh replied that there is a maximum area, but is regulated by the municipal
code and not the zoning ordinance.
Sharp recommended that 7.03(C)(2) should be separated to have one line on accessory buildings and
another line on accessory structures.
In section 7.04, Sharp did find the setback requirements for clotheslines to be necessary and asked why
firewood stacks have regulations. Zemenak responded that it was designed to avoid concerns with
aesthetics. Williams and Hennerfeind explained that it is also to avoid stacking firewood to circumvent
fence regulations.
Lynn asked if a bay window could project 3 feet into a 5 foot setback, which could be inappropriate.
Williams replied that staff has discussed further revising bay window regulations.
Lynn asked for clarification on the window well regulations. Williams replied that the 5 foot setback is to
prevent window wells from being in easements. Walsh added that the regulations did not change from
the current ordinance. Lynn expressed that a 3 foot setback could be appropriate, regardless of an
easement.
Moving on to accessory dwelling units (ADUs), Lynn found that the drafted bulk regulations would result
in unappealing construction. Williams answered that the proposed regulations were designed to be
similar to the few communities in the Greater Chicago area that allow ADUs. Hennerfeind clarified that
Page 8 of 333
the height restrictions are for calculating the maximum floor area of an ADU, not a floor-to-ceiling height
for the ADU itself.
Williams asked if the commission would like to see the maximum floor area of an ADU be increased,
explaining that it would affect the maximum accessory building footprint of 1,250 square feet. Sharp
suggested increasing the 1,250 square foot limit to allow residential properties to have both a detached
garage and detached ADU.
Hennerfeind explained the direction staff was given by the Community Development Committee (CDC)
regarding ADUs, saying that the direction was to make ADUs allowable, even if only the deeper lots in
town would be able to support a detached ADU.
Simpson voiced concerns about allowing ADUs as it relates to code enforcement issues and not having
regulations on short-term rentals. Hennerfeind replied that staff discussed the Village’s abilities as a
non-home rule community and explained code enforcement processes. Williams gave a summary of the
CDC discussions on ADUs.
Peterson said that she does not foresee a rush of permits for ADUs if allowed, and would like to see
them allowed. Hennerfeind added that the regulations for attached and internal ADUs appear to be more
accommodating than for detached ADUs.
Zemenak asked if ADUs could be removed from the draft language and saved for a future text
amendment. Williams replied yes, and noted that many members of the public have spoken and
submitted written comments supporting ADUs. Hennerfeind brought up allowing only attached or internal
ADUs or allowing detached ADUs as a special use permit. Williams and Zemenak responded that a
special use permit could be an arbitrary approval.
Lynn asked if staff could provide models of ADUs based on the proposed bulk regulations.
Simpson voiced concerns about allowing ADUs to increase single-family districts to two-unit districts, and
the future of an ADU after the original owner or tenant vacates the space.
Sharp recommended allowing ADUs to have entrances facing the side property line, as it could be a
limiting factor.
Carmichael asked how chickens are allowed if they are not listed in 7.07. Zemenak replied that the
municipal code will retain regulations on them.
Sharp requested that the height regulations and measurement be consistent with other roof-mounted
accessory structures.
Page 9 of 333
Peterson asked if donation boxes have a time limit. Williams and Zemenak replied that there is not a time
limit, and the regulations were drafted to be clear and consistent with other communities.
The commission and staff discussed regulating donation boxes through a permit, license, or registration,
with Sharp noting a typo in 7.09(E).
Sharp asked where free libraries are allowed on residential properties. Williams replied that staff can
work on making it clearer.
Lynn questioned how the fence regulations have changed for corner lots. Walsh explained that 6 foot
fences can encroach 10 feet further into the required street side yard than currently allowed. Williams
added that these fences would still have to meet the sight vision triangle requirements.
Lynn asked if properties along busier roads should be allowed to exceed 6 feet in height. Williams replied
that staff can look into it, but staff does not get many inquiries on residential fences over 6 feet.
Sharp suggested relaxing the regulations for fireplaces, grills, and outdoor kitchens.
Williams said that staff will be heavily revising Section 7.14 Fleet Vehicle Storage, so the discussion on
the section should be saved for after staff finishes the revisions.
Sharp asked about noise impacts for generators. Hennerfeind replied that generators likely do not violate
the performance standards because it is intermittent noise.
Peterson asked why the 25% floor area limit on home occupations was removed. Staff responded that
calculating the limit is difficult, can be overregulating, and that other home occupation standards can
mitigate impacts.
Sharp questioned the prohibited home occupations and if vehicles used for off-site businesses can be
parked on residential properties or if it is prohibited by the home occupation rules. Staff answered that
there are other municipal code regulations on commercial vehicles parked on residential properties.
Sharp added that he is comfortable with vehicles like a limousine being parked on a property, but not a
full limousine business operating out of a home.
Sharp questioned prohibiting animal services as home occupations. Simpson said that it could be
impactful in a residential district.
Williams explained that staff will be revisiting outdoor dining regulations.
Page 10 of 333
Sharp recommended allowing residential properties to have both a boat and a trailer. Simpson said that
allowing both could cause aesthetic issues. Zemenak explained the parking restrictions for boats and
trailers. Lynn clarified that either could be parked inside of a building.
Simpson asked for clarification on the proposed solar energy system regulations. Williams explained the
difference in regulations for solar systems on building facades versus roofs of buildings.
Based on previous discussions, Williams informed the commission that staff is working on clarifying
which regulations are applicable to hot tubs, in-ground pools, and above-ground pools.
Zemenak and Williams clarified the tent regulations.
Zemenak explained the wind energy conversion system (WECSs) regulations, noting that they are
drafted to address safety concerns in the event of a collapse. Sharp recommended exempting smaller
WECSs from these regulations, as they likely would not have the same impact as a taller system.
Staff and the commission discussed allowing increased WECSs height through a special use permit
versus a variance.
Article VIII: Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
Zemenak said that the regulations in this article were largely unchanged, as it is from a text amendment
only a few years old.
Carmichael asked what microcell networks. Hennerfeind explained that they are small networks added to
the top of tall structures like light poles, which have many federal regulations on them.
Public Comment:
Carmichael reopened public comment for those in attendance.
Mark Daniel, attorney, recommended revisiting the allowance for 6 foot fences in street side yards, better
defining accessory dwelling units, setting height caps and noise limits for WECSs, clarifying vehicles
parked in residential districts unrelated to home occupations, and relaxing firewood stack requirements.
Christa Stanulis, resident and member of the Environmental Improvement Committee, spoke in support
of having the outdoor lighting regulations be more applicable, as it is drafted to allow for bright and/or
intermittent lights, which can be very impactful.
Brian Scheuring, resident, advocated for lowering minimum parking requirements for restaurants and
video gaming uses, allowing curbside spaces to reduce the required parking, and requiring parking
garages when the minimum required parking would have a larger footprint than the building it serves.
Page 11 of 333
MOTION 1
Motion by Simpson to continue the public hearing to a special meeting on June 25, 2025 at 6:00
p.m.
Seconded by Lynn.
VOTING:
Ayes: 6 - Carmichael, Peterson, Donoghue, Sharp, Simpson, Thomas
Nays: 0
Absent: 1 - Donoghue
Motion Passed
11.Open Forum
Nobody spoke during the Open Forum.
12.Miscellaneous Items
a. Next regular Planning & Zoning Commission meeting on July 9, 2025 at 6:00 pm.
Williams said that there are many cases on the agenda for this meeting and that the zoning ordinance
update will not be discussed.
Simpson asked if there will be revised language presented at the next special meeting on the zoning
ordinance update, to which Williams replied that it will be saved for after the commission finishes
discussing the remaining articles.
13.Adjourn
Motion by Simpson to adjourn the meeting.
Second by Lynn.
The motion carried on a unanimous vote by observation.
Meeting adjourned at 9:52 p.m.
Page 12 of 333
TO: Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Adam Walsh, Planner
DATE: April 23, 2025
RE: Summary of the Zoning Ordinance Update Discussions
Over the course of the last 15 months, Planning & Zoning staff have taken many discussion topics to the
Community Development Committee (CDC) and Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC). The purpose of
these discussions was to receive direction from elected and appointed officials on how to draft new
zoning regulations. Below is a summary of the discussion topics and direction staff received. The staff
reports, minutes and/or recordings of the meetings can be found on the Village’s Agenda Center. This
memorandum serves as a crash course for this commission and a refresher on various topics in advance
of the public hearing.
I. Community Development Committee Discussions
The CDC had four discussions on a wide variety of topics, including lot widths, short-term rentals, the B-1
Development permit, and more.
❖ February 8, 2024 Meeting
Topic #1: Reducing the minimum lot width in the R-3 district from 60 ft to 50 ft
In the R-3 district, the minimum required lot width is 60 ft. Generally, most properties meet this
minimum. The reason to lower the minimum lot width to 50 ft is to make lot splits (subdivision from
one to two lots) easier and to accommodate future annexations from the Liberty Park neighborhood.
North of Naperville Road, there are many lots that are 350 ft deep, but are 100-119 ft wide. As such,
they would have to request a variance to lot width to subdivide. The reduced lot width would mean
they would not need to get a variance to split into two lots. The Liberty Park neighborhood (currently
unincorporated in DuPage County) is largely made of 50 ft x 150 ft lots. The reduction means that
these lots will meet all minimum requirements for the R-3 district upon annexation, which means
they will not be considered nonconforming.
Direction received: Concerns regarding stormwater, overbuilding, and the character of
neighborhoods were brought up. After subsequent discussions at the May 2 and May 30, 2024
meetings, the committee showed general support for the change.
Topic #2: Short-term rentals in the Downtown
Short-term rentals are not allowed or prohibited in any of the zoning districts, nor do they have a
definition in the current zoning ordinance. Staff proposed short-term rentals be allowed as a
permitted use under the “lodging” use category.
Page 13 of 333
Direction received: The committee had concerns about inspections, so staff was directed to
investigate this further. At the May 30, 2024 meeting, the committee felt that short-term rentals
should not be allowed in the downtown due to inspection concerns, but remained open to revisit in
the future.
❖ May 2, 2024 Meeting
Topic #1: Creation of a Public & Institutional District
This new district, currently drafted as the Public & Institutional (P/I) district, was designed to avoid
the problems inherent in treating institutional uses and buildings in residential and commercial
districts. The Village, religious institutions, Westmont Park District, the school districts, etc, could
elect to rezone to this district, which allows for a more streamlined process and has bulk regulations
that better reflect these kinds of uses.
Direction received: At this and the May 30, 2024 meetings, committee members had questions
about the process and how existing institutions would be affected, but did not direct staff to make
substantive changes.
Topic #2: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
There are three types of ADUs: internal (basement/attic conversion), attached (addition to existing
home), or detached (separate structure on the same lot). About a dozen communities in the Greater
Chicago area allow ADUs as a permitted or special use, some with restrictions on who can live there
(the Village of Westmont likely would not be able to place those restrictions).
Direction received: This discussion was continued to the May 30, 2024 meeting. The CDC had
interest in learning more about ADUs, and directed staff to take the topic to the public hearing as a
part of the update.
Topic #3: Removing the B-1 Development Permit
Any time a new business wants to open in the B-1 district (downtown), they need to obtain a B-1
Development permit, regardless of whether they are a permitted or special use, or the same as the
previous user. This adds on time and uncertainty to opening a business in the downtown, which can
deter businesses from wanting to take the risk. If removed, special use permits and licensing
requirements can ensure appropriate businesses open in the B-1 district.
Direction received: The CDC had no objections to retiring the B-1 Development permit.
Topic #4: Creation of New Downtown Zoning Districts
The idea to split the B-1 district into two was initially called for in the 2013 Comprehensive Plan. The
Page 14 of 333
new districts include the B-1(A) Downtown Core, B-1 Downtown Edge, and R-7 Downtown
Residential. The properties initially anticipated to be rezoned to these districts match the
Comprehensive Plan’s recommendation. The regulations were drafted to create a walkable,
mixed-use environment with clear and objective design standards.
Direction received: This was continued to the May 30, 2024 meeting. Following the discussion, the
committee expressed support in creating these districts, and recommended expanding the B-1(A)
one block north to Norfolk Street.
❖ May 30, 2024 Meeting
Discussions at this meeting were a continuation of the May 2, 2024 meeting, as the committee wanted
to schedule a special meeting on this date to further discuss the topics.
❖ August 8, 2024 Meeting
Topic #1: Short-term rentals in residential zoning districts
At previous meetings, the CDC felt that short-term rentals were not appropriate for the downtown
area. Staff returned to discuss allowing them in residential districts so staff can provide clear
guidance to those who inquire.
Direction received: The committee debated several options on how to regulate short-term rentals.
Ultimately, they decided to table the topic, adding that it can be discussed during the public hearing.
❖ January 23, 2025 Meeting
Topic #1: First full draft of the zoning ordinance language
At this meeting, staff had received the first full draft language for the update (at the time pending
legal review). Based on internal timelines and the impression that only minor changes would need to
be made, staff presented the draft to the committee.
Direction received: After a presentation on highlights of the proposed changes, the CDC gave staff
the greenlight to take the draft to a public hearing, once ready.
II. Planning & Zoning Commission Discussions
At four PZC meetings, there were discussions on a wide variety of topics, including regulations for
accessory structures, bicycle parking, approval procedures, expanding allowed uses in the office districts,
ADUs, and creating new zoning districts.
Page 15 of 333
❖ June 12, 2024 Meeting
Topic #1: Accessory structure regulations
Staff reviews hundreds of permits for accessory structures annually. To inform the update process,
staff asked the commission for direction on changes to accessory structure regulations. The
structures discussed include detached garages, sheds, lawn buildings, pergolas, gazebos, and fences.
Direction received: The commission supported relaxing regulations on accessory structures. General
comments related to increasing the height limit, removing individual area limits and replacing it with
one aggregate area, and allowing for an additional accessory building.
❖ July 10, 2024 Meeting
Topic #1: Requiring bicycle parking
Many neighboring and comparable communities have begun to require bicycle parking. The
consultant drafted parking requirements and allowed for vehicle spaces to be reduced if bicycle
parking was required.
Direction received: Although supportive of bicycling, the commission did not feel that there should
be a requirement for every business. They wanted to allow businesses to decide how much to
provide to serve their clientele instead of adding on another requirement. Staff removed the
requirements from the draft language.
❖ August 14, 2024 Meeting
Topic #1: Approval procedures
In the draft language, many changes are largely staying the same. However, site plans are split into
two types: major and administrative. Planned development requests will be planned unit
developments (PUDs) going forwards. PUDs require a multi-step process.
Direction received: The commission did not raise concerns with the procedures.
Topic #2: Creation of a Public & Institutional District (P/I)
Continuing the discussion from May CDC meetings, staff asked the commission to discuss bulk
regulations and the allowed uses proposed for the P/I district.
Direction received: The PZC was in favor of creating this new district, as it would likely streamline the
approvals process for institutional uses. No suggestions to the allowed uses or bulk regulations were
given.
Page 16 of 333
Topic #3: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
This discussion built on previous CDC discussions on the topic. The PZC reviewed suggested
regulations from staff on bulk, design, and location.
Direction received: The commissioners expressed support for allowing ADUs with regulations that
made it easier to build.
❖ October 9, 2024 Meeting
Topic #1: Allowed uses in the office districts (O/R & O/R-1)
Currently, the office districts are very limited in terms of the allowed uses. Staff often gets inquiries
from non-office businesses looking to open these districts, which they are not allowed in. The zoning
ordinance update gave an opportunity to add compatible non-office uses to these districts. The uses
proposed to be allowed were broadcasting facilities, data centers, financial institutions, fitness
facilities, commercial schools, and veterinary offices.
Direction received: The commission showed general support for allowing compatible non-office uses
into the O/R and O/R-1 districts.
Topic #2: Creation of new downtown districts
Similar to the May CDC discussions, staff took the drafted regulations for a new B-1(A) Downtown
Core, B-1 Downtown Edge, and R-7 Downtown Residential districts for review by the PZC.
Substantive changes to the regulations were not made between the CDC & PZC discussions.
Direction received: The commissioners were supportive of the proposed changes.
Page 17 of 333
Village of Westmont
Zoning Ordinance Update
Planning and Zoning Commission
Public Hearing April 2025
Page 18 of 333
WHY THE UPDATE?
• Last complete overhaul: 1979
• Update called for in Comprehensive Plan
Village of Westmont Zoning Ordinance Update
Request for Proposals
ISSUED: November 21, 2022
RFP SUBMITTAL DEADLINE: January 13, 2023 at 4:00 p.m. CST
CONTACT INFORMATION
Village of Westmont
31 West Quincy Street
Westmont, Illinois 60559
630‐981‐6267
Attention: Bruce Sylvester
Director of Community Development
Bsylvester@westmont.il.gov
2. Review and Update the Zoning Ordinance…
2 WESTMONT Zoning Ordinance Update
Page 19 of 333
GENERAL OBJECTIVES IMPLEMENT MODERNIZE SIMPLIFY
IMPLEMENT MODERNIZE SIMPLIFY
1. Aligned with plans and policies IMPLEMENT MODERNIZE SIMPLIFY
2. Modern, well-organized, easy to use/understand
3. Resident- and business-friendly—supportive of
investment and economic development
4. Consistent with other village code provisions and law
3 WESTMONT Zoning Ordinance Update
Page 20 of 333
PROCESS
2019 | 2020 2020 | 2021
August September October November December January February March August September October November December January February March
Listening/Learning Initial Ordinance Draft April May June July Revised Draft(s) Hearings & Adoption
S/S 2023
* *We are here
PUBLIC INPUT
KICK-OFF & PUBLICINPUT WORKGROUP+ COMMUNITY
• KICK-OFF MEETING CONSULTANT CONSULTANT/ PUBLIC ADOPTION
ADOPTION
LISTENING MEETING BRIEFINGS OPENHOUSES
STAFF HEARING(S)
HEARINGS
• SESSIONS
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN MEETINGS
• LISTENING SESSIONS
Assessment and Project Direction |
•GOAL:
DIRECTION REPORT
Understandthegoalsandobjectives GOAL:Diveinanddevelopfirstdraftsofthe GOAL:Gaincommunityunder- GOAL:Adoptionofthenew
tobeachievedbythenewzoningordi- newzoningcodearticlesandnewzoningmap. standingandinputonthenew zoningordinanceandmap.
•nance
PRESENTATION
throughreviewoftherecentcom- Asteeringcommitteeofcommunitymembers zoning ordinance and map
prehensiveplanandotherdocuements, willassistintheinitialreviewandstaffwill throughcommunityopenhouses
listeningsessionswiththecommunity,and takesectionsofthenewmapanddistrictsout and group meetings.
surveyingthephysicalcharacteristicsof toneighborhoods forinformalreviews.
Village of Westmont
the community. Zoning Ordinance Update
Assessment and Project Direction
June 2023
PRODUCT:Developmentofashortdiag- PRODUCT:Ready-for-public-reviewcomplete PRODUCT:Reviseddraftordinance PRODUCT:Newzoningor-
nosticmemoidentifyingthekeyattributes DRAFT zoning ordinance and map.
Village of Westmont Zoning Ordinance Update | Page i
andmapwithsolidcommunity dinanceandmap,adopted
andoutliningthestructureofofthenew understandingandbacking, into law.
zoning code. readyforpublichearingsandthe
adoption process.
4 WESTMONT Zoning Ordinance Update
Page 21 of 333
DRAFT ORDINANCE
Organization
General Contents
districts
Article I Introductory Provisions ........................................................................................ I-1
Article II Residential Districts............................................................................................ II-1
Article III Business and Employment Districts ................................................................... III-1
Article IV Downtown Zoning Districts ............................................................................... IV-1
uses
Article V Special Purpose Zoning ...................................................................................... V-1
Article VI Principal Uses .................................................................................................. VI-1
Article VII Accessory and Temporary Uses ....................................................................... VII-1
generally applicable regulations
Article VIII Wireless Telecommunications Facilities ......................................................... VIII-1
Article IX Parking ............................................................................................................ IX-1
Article X Tree Preservation and Landscaping ..................................................................... X-1
Article XI Signs ............................................................................................................... XI-1
administration
Article XII General Development Regulations .................................................................. XII-1
Article XIII Nonconformities .......................................................................................... XIII-1
Article XIV Review and Approval Procedures .................................................................. XIV-1
interpretation
Article XV Administration and Enforcement..................................................................... XV-1
Article XVI Measurements ............................................................................................. XVI-1
Article XVII Definitions ................................................................................................. XVII-1
Appendix A ...................................................................................................................... A-1
Village of Westmont Zoning Ordinance Update: April 2025 Draft
Page i
5 WESTMONT Zoning Ordinance Update
Page 22 of 333
GENERAL IMPROVEMENTS
• Complete reorganization User Friendly Features
• New tables and Illustrations • Focused articles
• Short sentences, sections
• Updated page layout/format • Tables, charts
• Illustrations/graphics
• Strategic revisions to address known issues • Detailed table of contents
• Accurate cross-references
• Web-ready and hyper-linked
• Legally defensible, plain language
6 WESTMONT Zoning Ordinance Update
Page 23 of 333
ART. I INTRODUCTORY PROVISIONS
Article I Introductory Provisions
Sec. 1.01 Title ............................................................................................................................................................................I-1
Sec. 1.02 Authority.....................................................................................................................................................................I-1
Sec. 1.03 Effective Date............................................................................................................................................................. I-1
Sec. 1.04 Applicability and Jurisdiction .....................................................................................................................................I-1
Sec. 1.05 Exempt Utilities .......................................................................................................................................................... I-1
Sec. 1.06 Purposes ....................................................................................................................................................................I-1
Sec. 1.07 Minimum Requirements ............................................................................................................................................ I-2
Sec. 1.08 Compliance Required ............................................................................................................................................... I-2
Sec. 1.09 Conflicting Provisions ............................................................................................................................................... I-2
Sec. 1.10 Rules of Language and Construction........................................................................................................................ I-2
Sec. 1.11 One Principal Building per Lot .................................................................................................................................. I-4
Sec. 1.12 Zoning Map ............................................................................................................................................................... I-4
Sec. 1.13 Transitional Provisions .............................................................................................................................................. I-5
Sec. 1.14 Severability ............................................................................................................................................................... I-6
• Largely
Title “boilerplate”
Sec. 1.01
This Chapter (Chapter 95 of the Village of Westmont Code of Ordinances)1 is officially known and may be
• Transitional provisions
cited as the “Village of Westmont Zoning Ordinance.” For convenience, it is referred to herein as the
“zoning ordinance.”
S e c . 1 . 0 2 Au t h o r i t y
• Update does not affect projects in pipeline; applicant’s option
This zoning ordinance is adopted pursuant to the powers granted and limitations imposed by Illinois law.
Sec. 1.to
03 have
Effectiveprojects
Date reviewed under “old” or “new” code
The provisions of this zoning ordinance become effective on EFFECTIVE DATE TO BE INSERTED, except as
otherwise expressly stated.
Sec. 1.04 Applicability and Jurisdiction
The provisions of this zoning ordinance apply to all public and private use and development of properties
within the corporate limits of the Village of Westmont, except as provided by state or federal law or as
otherwise expressly stated in this zoning ordinance. 7 WESTMONT Zoning Ordinance Update Page 24 of 333
ART. II RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Article II Residential Districts
Sec. 2.01 Districts Established.................................................................................................................................................. II-1
Sec. 2.02 Purposes ................................................................................................................................................................... II-1
Sec. 2.03 Uses .......................................................................................................................................................................... II-1
Sec. 2.04 Residential Building Types ........................................................................................................................................ II-1
Sec. 2.05 Lot and Building Regulations .................................................................................................................................... II-1
Sec. 2.06 Other Relevant Regulations ..................................................................................................................................... II-3
•SeExisting “R” districts retained
c. 2.01 Districts Established
The zoning ordinance’s residential zoning districts are listed in Table II-1. When this zoning ordinance refers
• Minor adjustments to lot and building (bulk) regulations:
to “residential” zoning districts or “R” districts, it is referring to the districts in Table II-1. The districts are
presented in order of ascending intensity, from R-1 (least intensive) to R-6 (most intensive).
• NewMapmin. lot depth
Symbol District Name
standardIntensity [125’]—”transferred” from LDC
Table II-1: Residential Zoning Districts
R-1 Single-Unit Residential Least intensive
• Reduced min. lot width for detached
R-1(A)
R-2 ↓ houses in R-3, R-4, R-5 [6050’]
Single-Unit Residential
Single-Unit Residential
R-3 Single-Unit Residential
• Reduced min. side setback for detached houses in R-3 [65’]
R-4
R-5
General Residential
General Residential
R-6 Special Residential Most intensive
• Eliminated max. floor area ratio (FAR)
Sec. 2.02 Purposes
• Increased max. accessory building height [1518’]
The village’s residential zoning districts are primarily intended to create, maintain, and promote a variety of
housing opportunities for individual households and to maintain and promote the desired physical
character of residential neighborhoods in accordance with the comprehensive plan. While the R districts
primarily accommodate residential uses, some nonresidential uses are also allowed. The R-1 through R-5
districts are primarily differentiated on the basis of allowed building types and lot and building regulations.
The R-6 district is primarily intended to accommodate assisted living communities and may be applied to
small areas throughout the village.
Sec. 2.03 Uses
Uses are allowed in R districts in accordance with the use regulations of Sec. 6.01.
8 WESTMONT Zoning Ordinance Update
Page 25 of 333
Sec. 2.04 Residential Building Types
ART. III BUSINESS & EMPLOYMENT DISTRICTS
Article III Business and Employment Districts
Sec. 3.01 Districts Established................................................................................................................................................. III-1
Sec. 3.02 Purposes .................................................................................................................................................................. III-1
Sec. 3.03 Uses ......................................................................................................................................................................... III-1
Sec. 3.04 Lot and Building Regulations ................................................................................................................................... III-1
Sec. 3.05 Other Relevant Regulations .................................................................................................................................... III-2
• B-1 district
Sec. 3.01
regulations moved to “Downtown” article
Districts Established
The zoning ordinance’s business and employment zoning districts are listed in Table III-1. When this zoning
ordinance refers to “business and employment” zoning districts, it is referring to the districts in Table III-1.
• Minor adjustments to lot and building (bulk) regulations:
The districts are presented in order of ascending intensity, from O/R-1 (least intensive) to M (most intensive).
Table III-1: Business and Employment Zoning Districts
• Increased min. street setback in B-2 and C-1 [1020’]
Map Symbol District Name
B-1 Limited Business
Intensity
Least Intensive
↓ (FAR)
O/R-1 Limited Office/Research
• Eliminated max. floor area ratio
O/R
B-2
Office/Research
General Business
C-1 Commercial
• Eliminated “supplemental” street setbacks (e.g., 55th, Ogden...)
M-1
M
Limited Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Most Intensive
Sec. 3.02 Purposes
(A) The B-2 district is intended for those portions of the village where highway-oriented
retail business establishments are appropriate as well as general business activity.
(B) The C-1 district is intended for application in the South Westmont Business District and
is created to encourage retail and sales tax generating commercial uses. All business
establishments in the various business districts are intended to be retail trade or
service establishments dealing directly with consumers. The production of goods on
the premises is intended to be limited to those sold on the premises, or clearly
incidental and accessory to the principal retail trade or service.
(C) The O/R-1 and O/R districts are intended to provide for the establishment of a wide
range of office and low-impact commercial activities9 and to govern their operations in a
WESTMONT Zoning Ordinance Update
Page 26 of 333
manner that will not have a deleterious effect on residential and business areas.
.................................................................................................................................................................IV-1
.................................................................................................................................................................IV-1
ART. IV DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS
ypes ..........................................................................................................................................................
Article IV Downtown Zoning Districts
ilding Regulations .................................................................................................................................. IV-2
IV-1
Sec. 4.01 Districts Established.................................................................................................................................................IV-1
Applicable Regulations ........................................................................................................................... IV-2
Sec. 4.02 Purposes ..................................................................................................................................................................IV-1
vant Sec.
Regulations ....................................................................................................................................
4.03 Uses IV-3
.........................................................................................................................................................................IV-1
BuildingsSec. 4.04 Building Types ..........................................................................................................................................................IV-1
................................................................................................................................................ IV-5
Sec. 4.05 Lot and Building Regulations .................................................................................................................................. IV-2
uildings.................................................................................................................................................... IV-8
Sec. 4.06 Generally Applicable Regulations ........................................................................................................................... IV-2
ngs ........................................................................................................................................................
Sec. 4.07 Other Relevant Regulations IV-11
.................................................................................................................................... IV-3
Sec. 4.08 Storefront Buildings ................................................................................................................................................ IV-5
Houses................................................................................................................................................... IV-14
Sec. 4.09 General Buildings.................................................................................................................................................... IV-8
esign .....................................................................................................................................................
Sec. 4.10 IV-15
Row Buildings ........................................................................................................................................................ IV-11
Sec. 4.11 Detached Houses...................................................................................................................................................IV-14
Sec. 4.12 Building Design ..................................................................................................................................................... IV-15
cts Established DRAFT
Lincoln St. Linden Ave.
Existing
ce’s downtown
Se zoning
c. 4.01 Di districts
stricts Es are
tablish ed listed in Table IV-1. When this zoning ordinance
” zoning • Three downtown-specific districts...
Thedistricts, it is referring
zoning ordinance’s downtown tozoning
the districts
districts areinlisted
Table IV-1.IV-1. When this zoning ordinance
in Table
refers to “downtown” zoning districts, it is referring to the districts in Table IV-1.
Table IV-1: DowntownTable
Zoning DistrictsZoning Districts
IV-1: Downtown
Map Symbol District Map
Name Symbol District Name B-1
Norfolk St
B-1(A)
B-1(A) DowntownB-1
Core Downtown Core
Downtown Edge
B-1 DowntownR-7 Edge Downtown Residential
R-7
Sec. 4.02 Purposes
Downtown Residential R-5
ses The village’s downtown zoning districts are intended to support and enhance the compact, vibrant,
walkable character of the village’s downtown area. R-5 B-1
own zoning districts are intended to support and enhance the compact, vibrant, Richmond St.
(A) The B-1(A) district is intended to maintain and enhance vibrant, main-street, storefront
of the village’s downtown area. pattern within the central business district.
development
Dallas St.
(B) The B-1 district is intended to be more flexible, allowing a wider mix of supporting uses
The B-1(A) district is intended to maintain and enhance vibrant, main-street, storefront
in the downtown area, while still maintaining a high level of walkability.
Note: The new zones will be transferred
to the zoning map upon adoption and this
figure will be removed.
development pattern within the central business district. 10
Figure (1) Proposed Downtown Zoning Map
WESTMONT Zoning Ordinance Update DRAFT ZONING UPDATE | April 15, 2025 1
(C) The R-7 district is primarily intended to accommodate residential uses in a variety of
Page 27 of 333
ART. IV DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS
New/Revised Districts; Available for Future Rezoning
CHAPTER 2 WESTMONT DESIGN GUIDELINES
2
CHAPTER DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES
Downtown is the heart of the Westmont community. Built around the Burlington
Northern train station, it includes several buildings that are more than a century old.
The pattern of development and design of buildings create a pedestrian-oriented
environment that is distinctly different than other parts of the Village. More recently,
new investment in Village Hall, housing, and commercial uses has strengthened
the role of the Downtown. As the Downtown area transforms according to the
vision expressed in the Comprehensive Plan and other adopted policies, future
investment should aim to reinforce positive characteristics of the area, and mitigate
the impacts of development that is out of character with the community’s vision.
CONCEPT
Generally, the guidelines will apply to all areas of the Downtown. However, some
guidelines are applicable to a more specific geographic area. For the purposes of these
Design Guidelines, the Downtown area is divided into two distinct areas. Where noted,
standards will be applied based on the location of development within one of these areas.
only
DOWNTOWN CORE Norfolk St
The Downtown Core includes Cass Grant St Lincoln St Cass Ave Linden Ave Warwick Ave
Avenue from Irving Street to Richmond
Irving St
Street, as well as small segments of
Burlington Avenue and Quincy Street.
This is the most intact traditional
Burlington Ave
portion of the Village center, and
Burlington Ave
development in this area should strive
to restore and/or support the unique
historic character of the community.
Richmond St
DOWNTOWN EDGE
Cass Ave
Grant St Lincoln St Linden St
The Downtown Edge includes
development extending beyond the Dallas St
Downtown Core on Cass Avenue,
Burlington Avenue, and Quincy Street. In Downtown Core
these areas, development may transition
Downtown Edge
to and reflect the character of adjacent
residential areas, while remaining
compatible with the Downtown Core.
Village of Westmont 7
11 WESTMONT Zoning Ordinance Update
Page 28 of 333
ART. IV DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS
• Build on positive characteristics Existing Design “Guidelines”
• Reinforce and enhance walkable, “Adequate relationship” between
structures and land uses
mixed-use development pattern “Adequate space, light, air, use and
bulk limitations”
• Eliminate “development permit” Avoidance of “substantial injury to the
requirement value of other property”
Protection of “aesthetics and function of
• Replace vague guidelines with clear, the natural environment”
objective building design standards
• Building materials
• Entrances Flexibility/alternative compliance
• Roof form allowed at time of site plan review
• Windows
• Mechanical equipment
12 WESTMONT Zoning Ordinance Update
Page 29 of 333
the rear of the building. Buildings vary in height depending on the district, with allowed
half stories located within a pitched roof or in a visible basement.
(B) Images
The images shown in Figure IV-4 are intended to illustrate the general character of the
ART. IV DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS
building type; the buildings and sites in each image may not fulfill all of the building
type regulations.
(C) Building Regulations
(1) General Regulations
Article IV Downtown Zoning Districts | Sec. 4.08 Storefront Buildings
See Sec. 4.06 for regulations applicable to all building types.
(2) Regulations Specific to General Buildings
S e c . 4 . 0 8 St o r e f r o n t B u i l d i n g s The following tables and illustrations establish regulations specific to General
General Buildings
Buildings.
(A) Description
The Storefront Building is a mixed-use building intended for shopping and dining Figure IV-4: General Building Examples
districts. Oriented to the street with narrow or no side setbacks, storefront building
streetwalls help define the public space of the street, and ground-story storefront glass
and entrances along the sidewalk make these buildings interesting and inviting to
pedestrians. Parking is located in the rear and accessed from the alley.
*
(B) Images
The images shown in Figure IV-1 are intended to illustrate the general character of the Article IV Downtown Zoning Districts | Sec. 4.10 Row Buildings
building type; the buildings and sites in each image may not fulfill all of the building
type regulations.
(C) Building Regulations Sec. 4.10 Row Buildings
(1) General Regulations (A) Description
See Sec. 4.06 for regulations applicable to all building types. The Row Building is comprised of multiple vertical units with shared side walls. Each
unit is typically oriented to the street with an entrance off the public sidewalk. Parking is
(2) Regulations Specific to Storefront Buildings
located in the rear yard with either detached garages or attached garages entered from
The following tables and illustrations establish regulations specific to Storefront
the rear of the building.
Storefront Buildings
Buildings.
Figure IV-1: Storefront Building Examples
(B) Images
The images shown in Figure IV-7 are intended to illustrate the general character of the
building type; the buildings and sites in each image may not fulfill all of the building
type regulations.
(C) Building Regulations
(1) General Regulations
See Sec. 4.06 for regulations applicable to all building types.
(2) Regulations Specific to Row Buildings
The following tables and illustrations establish regulations specific to Row
Village of Westmont Zoning Ordinance Update: April 2025 Draft
Row Buildings
Buildings. Page IV-8
Figure IV-7: Row Building Examples
Village of Westmont Zoning Ordinance Update: April 2025 Draft
Page IV-5
*R-5 regulations apply to detached houses 13 WESTMONT Zoning Ordinance Update
Page 30 of 333
ART. IV DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS
1 Focus on physical form
Article IV Downtown Zoning Districts | Sec. 4.08 Storefront Buildings
S e c . 4 . 0 8 St o r e f r o n t B u i l d i n g s
(A) Description
The Storefront Building is a mixed-use building intended for shopping and dining
districts. Oriented to the street with narrow or no side setbacks, storefront building
streetwalls help define the public space of the street, and ground-story storefront glass
and entrances along the sidewalk make these buildings interesting and inviting to
2
Article IV Downtown Zoning Districts | Sec. 4.08 Storefront Buildings
Figure IV-2: Storefront Building Siting
3
Article IV Downtown Zoning Districts | Sec. 4.08 Storefront Buildings
Figure IV-3: Storefront Building Height and Street Facade
pedestrians. Parking is located in the rear and accessed from the alley.
(B) Images
The images shown in Figure IV-1 are intended to illustrate the general character of the
building type; the buildings and sites in each image may not fulfill all of the building
type regulations.
(C) Building Regulations
(1) General Regulations
See Sec. 4.06 for regulations applicable to all building types.
(2) Regulations Specific to Storefront Buildings
The following tables and illustrations establish regulations specific to Storefront
Buildings.
Districts Districts
Figure IV-1: Storefront Building Examples
B-1(A) B-1 Additional/References B-1(A) B-1
Building Siting. See Figure IV-2 Roofs. See Figure IV-3
q Minimum Front Streetwall (%) 90 80 See Sec. 16.10(C) for additional
1) Allowed Roof Types Flat, parapet; tower Flat, parapet, pitched; See Sec. 4.12(D) for additional
information on courtyards allowed tower allowed information on roof design.
abutting the build-to zone.
Street Facades. See Figure IV-3 Modifications to these street façade regulations may be approved at the time of site plan
w Front Street Build-to Zone (ft.), 0 to 5 0 to 5 approval, provided that the authorized decision-making body (i.e., zoning administrator or board of trustees) determines that the
minimum to maximum proposed design is in keeping with the Storefront building description of Sec. 4.08(A).
e Minimum Side-Street Setback (ft.) 0 0
1! Minimum Transparency: Ground 70 60 See Sec. 16.11 for transparency
Story on Front Facades (%) measurement.
No bays, 15 ft. wide sections, or any rectangular
r Minimum Side Setback (ft.) abutting R district: 5
areas greater than 30% of a story’s front facade may
abutting non-R district: 0 or 5
be without transparency
t Minimum Rear Setback (ft.) 20
Ground-story transparency must extend min. 30 ft.
Minimum Outdoor Open Space 50 sq. ft. per residential unit Private patio or balcony and/or around the corner down any street-side facades
common space for residents.
See also Sec. 16.06. 1@ Minimum Transparency: Upper 20 Measured per story, includes
Stories on Front Facades and any half stories, visible
Height. See Figure IV-3 All Stories on Side-Street Facades No bays or 15 ft. wide sections or any rectangular basement, or towers with full
(%) areas greater than 30% of a story’s facade on a front height stories. See Sec. 16.11 for
y Overall Height (stories) Min 2 1 Stories measured floor to floor.
facade may be without transparency transparency measurements.
Max 5 3 See also Sec. 16.13(A)(2) for
height measurements.
u Ground-Story Height (ft.) Min 12 1# Building Entrance (Min) One per every 60 feet of front facade See Sec. 16.12 for
Max 16 Total overall building height measurements.
may not exceed 70 feet.
i Upper-Story Height (ft.) Min 8.5 1$ Entrance Type Storefront See Sec. 4.12(C) for entrance
Max 11 types.
h Ground-Story Elevation Within feet of abutting public sidewalk elevation
o Top Story Set-Back Additional 7 feet from the façade immediately below Applies only to buildings over 3
stories in height
Village of Westmont Zoning Ordinance Update: April 2025 Draft Village of Westmont Zoning Ordinance Update: April 2025 Draft Village of Westmont Zoning Ordinance Update: April 2025 Draft
Page IV-5 Page IV-6 Page IV-7
Existing Proposed
• Increased max. building height =
B-1(A) 40 ft. 5 stories
reduced need for variances B-1 40 ft. 3/3.5 stories
14 WESTMONT Zoning Ordinance Update
Page 31 of 333
ART. V SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS
Article V Special Purpose Zoning
Sec. 5.01 B-3, Resort District ................................................................................................................................................... V-1
Sec. 5.02 P/I, Public and Institutional District .......................................................................................................................... V-2
Sec. 5.03 PD, Planned Development Overlay (Obsolete District)............................................................................................ V-3
Sec. 5.04 PUD, Planned Unit Developments ........................................................................................................................... V-4
• New “P/I” (Public & Institutional) district
Sec. 5.01 B-3, Resort District
Tailored for schools, religious institutions, parks, gov’t uses
(A) Purpose
The B-3 district is primarily intended to accommodate lodging, office, research, and
recreational uses in a unified development setting, as well as secondary retail,
• New “PUD” (Planned Unit Development) district
residential and service uses to serve the overall development. The district is also
intended to encourage innovations and variety in type, design and arrangement of uses
Multi-step “special use” approval process
and buildings. Because of the intensity of development permitted in the B-3 district, it is
generally intended to be applied only on sites abutting one or more arterial streets.
More (1) flexible than existing PD overlay
(B) Uses
Principal uses are allowed in the B-3 district in accordance with the use
• PD, (2)
Planned Development Overlay (Legacy District)
regulations of Sec. 6.01.
In addition to those principal uses allowed, the following uses (as defined in Sec.
6.02) are expressly permitted as secondary uses in the B-3 district provided they
Approved PDs continue; no new PDs approved
do not exceed 20% of the gross floor area of the building in which they are
located and are accessed only by arterial roads or interior roadways within the
• Existing B-3 district retained
development:
(a) Catering Service;
Future B-3 amendments approved as PUDs
(b) Community Assembly;
(c) Consumer Service;
(d) Day Care Center;
(e) Eating and Drinking Place;
(f) Entertainment, Participant (Indoor);
(g) Entertainment, Spectator; 15 WESTMONT Zoning Ordinance Update
Page 32 of 333
ART. VI PRINCIPAL USES
Article VI Principal Uses
Sec. 6.01 Allowed Uses .......................................................................................................................................................... VI-1
Sec. 6.02 Use Classification System .......................................................................................................................................VI-6
Sec. 6.03 Residential Use Group ............................................................................................................................................ VI-7
Sec. 6.04 Commercial Use Group ........................................................................................................................................... VI-8
Sec. 6.05 Warehouse & Distribution ..................................................................................................................................... VI-18
Sec. 6.06 Manufacturing and Industry Use Group................................................................................................................ VI-19
Sec. 6.07 Public and Institutional Use Group ....................................................................................................................... VI-21
Sec. 6.08 Other Use Group ...................................................................................................................................................VI-23
• New use classification system and simplified use table
Sec. 6.01 Allowed Uses
(A) Table of Allowed Uses
Article VI Principal Uses | Sec. 6.01 Allowed Uses Article VI Principal Uses | Sec. 6.01 Allowed Uses
Uses are allowed in accordance with Table VI-1.
Table VI-1: Table of Allowed Uses Uses Districts
Uses Districts
USE GROUP Supplemental
USE GROUP Supplemental Category
Regulations
• Maintains existing use
Category Subcategory
R-1(A) B-1(A)
(B) Interpreting the Use Table
O/R-1
Regulations
Subcategory R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-6 R-7 B-1 B-2 B-3 C-1 O/R M-1
R-1(A) B-1(A)
P/I
O/R-1
M
R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-6 R-7 B-1 B-2 B-3 C-1 O/R M-1 P/I
P = Permitted Use | S = Special Use Approval Required | – = Prohibited Use
M
P = Permitted Use | S = Special Use Approval Required | – = Prohibited Use Alternative Financial Service Est. – – – – – – – – S S S – – – – – – –
permissions
RESI DENTI AL Funeral and Mortuary Service – – – – – – – – – S S – – – – – – –
Household Living
Detached House
Semi-detached House
P P P P P P – S
– – – – P P – – – – –
(1) Use Classification System
– – – S
S
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Sec. 6.03(A)(2) Lodging
Office
Business or Professional Office
– – – – – – – –
– – – – – – –
S P
– S [10]
P
P
P
P
P
P
–
S P
S
P
–
P
–
P
–
–
Uses are listed in the first column of Table VI-1. This zoning ordinance classifies
Attached House – – – – P P – P – S – S – – – – – – Medical Office – – – – – – – – P P P P P P P – – –
Two-unit House – – – – P P – – – – – S – – – – – – Research Service – – – – – – – – – – P P S P P P P –
Mixed-Use Residential – – – – – – – – P [2] P – S – – – – – –
• New broad categories
Parking, Non-Accessory – – – – – – – S – S S – S – – S P –
uses into groups, categories, and subcategories, which are defined in this article.
Multi-Unit Building – – – – P P – P – P – S – – – – – – Parking, Off-site Nonresidential S S S S S S – S S S – – – – – – – S Sec. 6.04(L)
Assisted Living Residence – – – – – – P – – – – – – – – – – – Parking, Off-site Auto Dealer – – – – – – – – – – – – – – S – – – Sec. 6.04(N)
Group Living Retail Sales
Community Residence, Family P [1] P [1] P [1] P [1] P [1] P [1] P [1] – – – – – – – – – – – Indoor – – – – – – – – P P P – P – – P S –
(“buckets”) replace
Community Residence, Group S [1] S [1] S [1] S [1] S [1] S [1] S [1] – – – – – – – – – – – Outdoor – – – – – – – – – – S – S – – S S –
(2) Pe r m i t t e d U s e s
Nursing Home – – – – S [3] S [3] S [3] – – – – – – – – – – – Firearms Sales – – – – – – – – – – P [11] – P [11] – – – S – Sec. 6.04(O)(3)
Other Group Living S S S S S S S S – – – S S – – S S S Tobacco and Vape Product Sales – – – – – – – – – – S [8] – – – – – – –
COMMERCI AL Used Goods Sales – – – – – – – – S S P – P – – S S –
outdated, overly detailed
Animal Service Self-service Storage Facility – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – S S –
Boarding or Shelter
Grooming Service
Veterinary
– – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – – S [5] S [5] S [4] –
Uses identified with a “P” are permitted as-of-right in the subject zoning district,
–
S
– S [4] S
S P –
S
S
S
–
–
S
–
–
–
S
–
–
P
–
–
–
–
–
Sexually Oriented Business
Vehicle Sales and Service
Fueling Station
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
– –
S S [4]
–
–
–
S [4]
–
–
–
–
–
–
S
P
–
–
Sec. 6.04(Q)(3)
subject to compliance with all applicable supplemental use regulations (see Sec.
use types
Other Animal Service – – – – – – – – – – S S S – – P P – Minor Repair and Maintenance – – – – – – – – – S S – S – – P P –
Consumer Service Sales or Rentals – – – – – – – – – – S – – – – – S [12] –
Business Support Service – – – – – – – – P P P – P – – – P – Body and Paint Shop – – – – – – – – – – S [13] – S – – – S –
6.01(B)(5)).
Maintenance and Repair Service – – – – – – – – S P P – P – – – P – WAREHOUSE & DI STRI BUTI ON
Personal Improvement Service – – – – – – – – S [10] P P P P – – – P – Warehouse/Logistics – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – P P –
Health and Fitness Service – – – – – – – – P P P – P S S S P – Data Center – – – – – – – – – – – – – – S S P –
• Technical changes, as
Instructional Service – – – – – – – – S P P – – S S – S – MANUFACTURI NG & I NDUSTRY
Business Training – – – – – – – – – – S S – S S P P – Building Service – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – S P –
Tattoo or Body Piercing Service – – – – – – – –
(3) Special Uses
– – – – – – – – S – Catering Service – – – – – – – – – – – – P – S S P –
Sec. 6.04(B)(3)
Other Consumer Service – – – – – – – – S S S S S – – – P Craft Alcoholic Beverage Producer – – – – – – – – – – S – S – – S [7] S [7] –
Day Care Center
highlighted in text
– – – – – – – – S P P – P P P – P – Sec. 6.04(C)(2) Crematorium – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – S –
Uses identified with an “S” may be allowed if approved in accordance with the
Day Care Home P [6] P [6] P [6] P [6] P [6] P [6] P [6] P [6] P [6] P [6] – – – – – – – – Artisan Manufacturing – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – P P –
Eating and Drinking Place Limited Manufacturing – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – P P –
Bar or Tavern – – – – – – – – S [8] S [8] – – S – – – – – High-Impact Manufacturing & Industry – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – S –
Craft Alcoholic Beverage Dispenser – – – – – – – – S [8] S [8] S [8] – S [8] – – – – – Industrial Service – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – S P –
Restaurant
Tobacco or Vape Lounge
Other Eating and Drinking Place
– – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – –
special use procedures of Sec. 14.04. Special use uses are subject to compliance
P
–
–
P P
– S [8] –
– S
–
–
P
–
S
–
–
–
S
–
S
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Recyclable Material Drop-off Facility
Recyclable Material Processing
Junk or Salvage Yard
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
S
S
–
–
–
–
Entertainment, Participant
Arcade (non-video gaming)
Video Gaming, Accessory
– – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – –
with all applicable supplemental use regulations (see Sec. 6.01(B)(5)).
–
–
– S [8] –
– P P
S
P
–
–
–
P
–
–
–
P
–
– Sec. 6.04(F)(3)(a)
PUBLI C & I NSTI TUTI ONAL
Community Garden
Governmental Use
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
–
S
–
S
–
S
–
S
–
P
–
S
–
S
–
S
P
P
–
S
P
S
Video Gaming Cafe – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Sec. 6.04(F)(3)(b) Hospital S S S S S S – – – – – – – – – – – S
Other Participant Ent., Indoor
(4) Uses Not Allowed
– – – – – – – – – – P P S – – – – – Library or Cultural Exhibit S S S S S S S – S S S – – – – – – S
Participant Ent., Outdoor – – – – – – – – – – S P S – – – – – Parks and Recreation
Entertainment, Spectator Community Park S S S S S S S – – – – S – – – S – S
Indoor – – – – – – – – S S S – S – – – s S Neighborhood Park P P P P P P P – – – – P – – – P – P
Uses identified with an “–” are not allowed. Uses that are not listed in the table
Outdoor – – – – – – – – – – S [13] – S – – – – s Religious Assembly S S S S S S S – – – – – – – P – – S
Financial Service Safety Service S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P
Bank, Credit Union or Savings & Loan – – – – – – – – S S S P S S [9] S – – – School P P P P P P – – – – – S – – – – – S
and that cannot be reasonably interpreted (as stated in Sec. 6.02(D)) to fall within
Village of Westmont Zoning Ordinance Update: April 2025 Draft Village of Westmont Zoning Ordinance Update: April 2025 Draft
Page VI-2 Page VI-3
any defined use category are also not allowed.
16 WESTMONT Zoning Ordinance Update Page 33 of 333
ART. VI PRINCIPAL USES
Article VI Principal Uses
Sec. 6.01 Allowed Uses .......................................................................................................................................................... VI-1
Sec. 6.02 Use Classification System .......................................................................................................................................VI-6
Sec. 6.03 Residential Use Group ............................................................................................................................................ VI-7 Use Group
Sec. 6.04 Commercial Use Group ........................................................................................................................................... VI-8
Sec. 6.05 Warehouse & Distribution ..................................................................................................................................... VI-18
Sec. 6.06 Article VI Principal Uses | Sec. 6.02 Use Classification System
Manufacturing and Industry Use Group................................................................................................................ VI-19 Use Category Use Subcate
Sec. 6.07 Public and Institutional Use Group ....................................................................................................................... VI-21
ec. 6.02 Sec.
Use6.08
ClassificOther
ationUse
SysGroup
tem ...................................................................................................................................................VI-23
his section establishes and describes the use classification system used to categorize principal uses in
his zoning ordinance.
S(Ae) c. U6s.e0G1roupAs llowed Uses
This zoning ordinance classifies principal land uses into major groupings (described in
Sec. 6.02(D)(1) through Sec. 6.08). These major groupings are referred to as “use
(A) Table of Allowed Uses −
groups.” The groups are as follows:
Uses are allowed in accordance with Table VI-1.
(1) Residential. See Sec. 6.03.
(2) (B) ISee
Commercial. nterSec.
pret6.04.
ing the Use Table
− − − −
(3) (1) Distribution.
Warehouse and Use ClasSee sificSec.
atio6.05.
n Sy s t e m − − −
(4) Manufacturing and Uses are
Industry. listed
See Sec. in the first column of Table VI-1. This zoning ordinance− − −
6.06. classifies
(5) usesSee
Public and Institutional. into groups,
Sec. 6.07. categories, and subcategories, which are defined in this article.
(6) (2) 6.08.
Other. See Sec. Pe r m i t t e d U s e s
(B) Use Categories Uses identified with a “P” are permitted as-of-right in the subject zoning district,
Each use group is furthersubject
divided to
into more specific “use
compliance categories.”
with all Use categories
applicable supplemental use regulations (see Sec.
classify principal land uses and activities based on common functional, product or
6.01(B)(5)).
physical characteristics, such as the type and amount of activity, the type of customers
or residents, and how
(3) goods
Specoriaservices
l Uses are sold or delivered, and typical site
conditions.
Uses identified with an “S” may be allowed if approved in accordance with the
(C) Use Subcategories
special use procedures of Sec. 14.04. Special use uses are subject to compliance
Some use categories are further broken down to identify more specific “use
subcategories.”
with all applicable supplemental use regulations (see Sec. 6.01(B)(5)).
(D) Classification of U(s4e)s Uses Not Allowed
(1) General Authority Uses identified with an “–” are not allowed. Uses that are not listed in the table
The zoning administrator
and thatis authorized
cannot tobeclassify uses on interpreted
reasonably the basis of the(as
usestated in Sec. 6.02(D)) to fall within
group, category, and subcategory descriptions of this article. When a use cannot
any defined use category are also not allowed.
be readily classified into a use group, category, or subcategory, the zoning 17 WESTMONT Zoning Ordinance Update
Page 34 of 333
administrator is authorized to determine the most similar and thus most
ART. VII ACCESSORY AND TEMPORARY USES
Article VII Accessory and Temporary Uses
Sec. 7.01 Accessory Uses and Structures Generally ............................................................................................................. VII-1
Sec. 7.02 Residential Accessory Uses and Structures Generally .......................................................................................... VII-2
Sec. 7.03 Nonresidential Accessory Uses and Structures Generally .................................................................................... VII-3
Sec. 7.04 Accessory Structures in Setbacks .......................................................................................................................... VII-3
Sec. 7.05 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) ........................................................................................................................... VII-5
Sec. 7.06 Air Conditioner Compressors and Heat Pumps ..................................................................................................... VII-7
Sec. 7.07 Animals .................................................................................................................................................................. VII-7
Sec. 7.08 Antennas ................................................................................................................................................................ VII-7
Sec. 7.09 Donation Drop Boxes ............................................................................................................................................. VII-8
Sec. 7.10 Electric Vehicle Charging Stations ......................................................................................................................... VII-9
Sec. 7.11 Fences.................................................................................................................................................................. VII-10
Sec. 7.12 Fireplaces, Grills, Kitchens, and Fire Pits (Outdoor) ............................................................................................ VII-12
Sec. 7.13 Flagpoles ............................................................................................................................................................. VII-12
Sec. 7.14 Fleet Vehicle Storage ........................................................................................................................................... VII-12
Sec. 7.15 Garages and Carports .......................................................................................................................................... VII-12
Sec. 7.16 Generators ........................................................................................................................................................... VII-13
New +
Sec. 7.17 Geothermal Heat Exchange Systems .................................................................................................................. VII-13
Highlighted changes
Sec. 7.18 Home Occupations .............................................................................................................................................. VII-13
Sec. 7.19 Manufacturing Accessory Uses............................................................................................................................ VII-15
throughout
Sec. 7.20 Outdoor Accessory Uses...................................................................................................................................... VII-15
Sec. 7.21 Recreational Vehicles .......................................................................................................................................... VII-16
Sec. 7.22 Solar Energy Systems ...........................................................................................................................................VII-17
Sec. 7.23 Swimming Pools and Hot Tubs .............................................................................................................................VII-17
Sec. 7.24 Temporary Storage Units ..................................................................................................................................... VII-18
Sec. 7.25 Tents ..................................................................................................................................................................... VII-18
Sec. 7.26 Vending Machines ............................................................................................................................................... VII-19
Sec. 7.27 Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECSs) ......................................................................................................... VII-19
18 WESTMONT Zoning Ordinance Update
Sec. 7.01 A c c e s s o r y U s e s a n d St r u c t u r e s G e n e r a l l y Page 35 of 333
ART. VII ACCESSORY AND TEMPORARY USES
Residential Accessory Buildings
Accessory Structures in Building Setbacks
• More resident friendly; reduced need for variances Article VII Accessory and Temporary Uses | Sec. 7.04 Accessory Structures in Setbacks
Table VII-1: Allowed Yard and Setback Encroachments and Obstructions
• One detached + 2 add’l detached buildings; 1,250
Yard/Setback
Obstruction/Encroachment
Street Side Rear
(1) Accessory dwelling unit, detached (See also Sec. 7.05) No No Yes
Awning or canopy (attached to principal building) projecting no more than one foot into Yes Yes Yes
(2) interior side setback or 3 feet into any other setback
sq. ft. max. coverage; maximum height [1518’]
(3) Arbor or trellis (freestanding) No No Yes
(4) Arbor or trellis (attached to principal building) Yes Yes Yes
Air conditioner compressor, heat pump, or back-up power generator (See also Sec. 7.06, No Yes Yes
(5) Sec. 7.16), and Sec. 7.17)
(6) Antenna and tower, amateur radio (see also Sec. 7.08) No No Yes
(7) Antenna, ground-mounted satellite dish (see also Sec. 7.08) No No Yes
(8) Antenna, building-mounted satellite dish (see also Sec. 7.08) No Yes Yes
• Up to 2 small sheds (12 sq. ft. max.) exempt
Antenna and tower, wireless telecommunications (See for Article VIII for
(9) regulations)
Balcony, projecting no more than 5 feet into a rear setback and no more than 3.5 feet into a Yes No Yes
(10) street setback
Bay window, as defined in Sec. 17.06, not exceeding 5020% of the width of the room Yes Yes Yes
(11) building façade of which it is a part and projecting no more than 3 feet into setback
(12) Chimney (attached to principal building) projecting no more than 1.5 feet into setback Yes Yes Yes
(13) Clothesline No Yes Yes
Nonresidential Accessory Buildings
(14) Deck No No Yes
(15) Driveway (see Sec. 9.07(A) for residential driveway regulations) Yes Yes Yes
Dumpster enclosure trash bins, liquid petroleum or compressed natural gas containers and No Yes Yes
storage facilities not otherwise identified, not exceeding 100 square feet in area, may be
(16) permitted if screened or fenced on no less than three sides and the open side not visible
from a public street
Eave or gutter, projecting no more than 4 feet into a street or rear setback and no more Yes Yes Yes
(17) than 2 feet into an interior side setback
• Special use approval required
Fallout shelter or other type of underground emergency shelter, (attached to principal No No Yes
(18) building or freestanding), no closer than 10 feet to any lot line
(19) Fence (see also Sec. 7.11) Yes Yes Yes
Fire escape, open or enclosed, projecting into a street setback no more than 5 feet and Yes Yes Yes
(20) projecting into an interior side setback no more than 3.5 feet
(21) Fireplace or grill, freestanding masonry (see also Sec. 7.12) No No Yes
Firewood stack storage pile shall not be located in any setback or easement. A firewood No Yes Yes
pile shall not to exceed 4 feet in height, shall be neatly stacked, and shall be comprised of
• Maximum height: 20 feet
(22) raw, untreated lumber. If firewood is stored in an accessory structure, the structure shall not
exceed six feet in height at ground level
Flagpole, not to exceed the maximum height allowed in the zoning district in which they are Yes Yes Yes
(23) located, but in no event greater than 60 feet. (see also Sec. 7.13)
Garage or carport (detached, freestanding), not more than 576 square feet in size, nor No Yes Yes
(24) larger than 28 feet in length, except when approved by a variance (see also Sec. 7.15)
(25) Gazebo No No Yes
Greenhouse, hoop house, or similar garden structure customary yard buildings not No No Yes
• Subject to foundation landscaping requirements
(26) exceeding 144 square feet in area
(27) Hen coop No No Yes
Kitchen, outdoor (freestanding or attached to principal building) up to 144 square feet in No No Yes
(28) area (see also Sec. 7.12)
Lawn furniture, such as benches, sundials, birdbaths and similar household yard/landscape Yes Yes Yes
(29) features
Village of Westmont Zoning Ordinance Update: April 2025 Draft
Page VII-4
19 WESTMONT Zoning Ordinance Update
Page 36 of 333
ART. VII ACCESSORY AND TEMPORARY USES
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) ADU Benefits
• Small, secondary housing units on a lot occupied 1. Increase housing stock
while helping preserve
by single-family, detached house
neighborhood character/
• Sometimes referred to as “in-law suites,” scale
“backyard cottages,” or “granny flats” 2. Additional housing
options; support aging in
• Can be built new or converted from existing floor place
space. Take many forms: garage apartments, 3. Address affordability,
housing diversity and
addition to main house, backyard cottage preservation
ADU Regulations
1. Allowed only on lots with detached single-family dwelling unit
2. No more than one ADU per lot
3. Size limited to 850 sq. ft. or floor area of principal dwelling
4. Design standards for new buildings and building additions
20 WESTMONT Zoning Ordinance Update
Page 37 of 333
ART. VII ACCESSORY AND TEMPORARY USES
Electric Vehicle Charging Equipment
• Clarifies that equipment is allowed; EV spaces count toward parking minimums
Outdoor Fireplaces, Kitchens, Fire Pits
• Clarifies that such amenities are allowed; aligned with building/fire codes
Fleet Vehicle Storage
• Light-duty vehicle storage allowed in commercial and industrial districts;
max. 2 vehicles unless approved as special use; screening from streets
Generators (backup power)
• Expressly allowed; must have sound attenuation and be screened from view
Alternative Energy
• Express allowance for solar, wind, and geothermal energy devices
21 WESTMONT Zoning Ordinance Update
Page 38 of 333
Electric vehicle charging stations may be counted toward satisfying minimum off-street
parking space requirements.
(C) Equipment
ART. VII ACCESSORY AND TEMPORARY USES
Vehicle charging equipment must be designed and located to not impede pedestrian,
bicycle, or wheelchair movement or the creation of safety hazards on sidewalks.
Vehicle charging equipment may not be located within required landscape areas
unless expressly approved by the zoning administrator.
Donation Drop Boxes
Sec. 7.11 Fences
Fences are allowed as accessory structures in all districts, subject to compliance with the following
regulations.
• Limited to B-2, C-1, M-1, M, and P/I districts; permit required; regulations apply
(A) General
The general regulations of this subsection apply to all fences.
Outdoor Accessory Uses
(1) Public Safety
Fences may not be constructed or maintained in any way that would impair public
protection services or impair public safety by obstructing the vision of persons
• Display areas—expressly allowed; goods offered as part of principal use using streets, sidewalks or driveways. Fences may not be constructed in a way
that would impede the natural flow of storm water (drainage).
• Storage areas—limited to M-1 and M; special use
( 2 ) St r u approval
ctural Element s required
All fences must be constructed so that fence posts and structural elements are
• Seating and dining areas—allowed for eatinglocated
andondrinking establishments;
the side of the fence facing the property being enclosed.
setback, fencing, and landscape required “Open-design” fences must be designed and constructed so that at least 50% of
(3) Open-Design Fences
• Others—special use approval required
the fence’s surface area, including posts and cross supports, consists of regularly
distributed openings affording direct views through the fence.
Figure VII-1: Open-Design Fence (Example)
Fences
• Clarified regulations
(4) Electrified or Barbed Wire Fences
Electrified or barbed wire fences are regulated in accordance with section 58-23
of the village code.
Fence posts shall be set below grade a minimum of 36 inches.
22 WESTMONT Zoning Ordinance Update
Page 39 of 333
ART. VIII WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES
Article VIII Wireless Telecommunications Facilities7
Sec. 8.01 Purpose ................................................................................................................................................................. VIII-1
Sec. 8.02 Applicability........................................................................................................................................................... VIII-1
Sec. 8.03 Freestanding Wireless Telecommunications Towers ............................................................................................ VIII-1
Sec. 8.04 Cell Antennas ........................................................................................................................................................ VIII-6
• Reorganized and edited
Sec. 8.01 Purpose
The regulations of this article provide regulations for wireless telecommunication facilities, including
• Adds authorization for “microcell” networks; consistent
freestanding wireless telecommunications towers (“cell towers”) and building- and tower-mounted cell
antennas. The village recognizes the value of wireless telecommunications and the public's need for its
with Chapter 82 of village code (small wireless facilities)
safety, convenience and productivity. The village also recognizes the need to comply with the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended from time to time, and recognizes that the village's zoning
and other regulations may not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting wireless telecommunication
facilities within the village and may not unreasonably discriminate among providers or functionally
equivalent services. However, the village must weigh the public benefit of wireless telecommunications
against the need of the village to protect land uses from the potential adverse impacts, including, but not
limited to, adverse visual impacts, of wireless telecommunication facilities. The village desires specifically
to keep the erection of new cell towers to a minimum and to maximize the use of existing cell towers. To
that end, the village encourages new cell antennas to be located on existing buildings, existing structures,
or existing cell towers. Additionally, the village encourages the co-location of cell antennas whenever
possible.
Sec. 8.02 Applicability
The regulations of this article apply to all wireless telecommunications facilities, as defined in Sec. 6.08(E).
The regulations do not apply to any of the following:
(A) Amateur radio antennas;
(B) Receive-only antennas, including satellite dish antennas; or
(C) Small wireless facilities, as defined in 50 ILCS 835.
Sec. 8.03 Freestanding Wireless Telecommunications Towers
(A) Where Allowed 23 WESTMONT Zoning Ordinance Update
Page 40 of 333
ART. IX PARKING
Article IX Parking
Sec. 9.01 General ....................................................................................................................................................................IX-1
Sec. 9.02 Minimum Parking Requirements............................................................................................................................. IX-2
Sec. 9.03 Calculation of Required Parking ............................................................................................................................. IX-4
Sec. 9.04 Parking Exemptions and Reductions ...................................................................................................................... IX-5
Sec. 9.05 Location of Off-Street Parking ................................................................................................................................ IX-7
Sec. 9.06 Use of Required Off-Street Parking Areas .............................................................................................................. IX-8
Sec. 9.07 Parking Area Design ............................................................................................................................................... IX-8
Sec. 9.08 Accessible Parking ................................................................................................................................................ IX-10
Sec. 9.09 Stacking Spaces for Drive-Through Facilities ........................................................................................................ IX-11
Sec. 9.10 Off-Street Loading................................................................................................................................................. IX-12
• Reduced min. requirements for some uses
Sec. 9.01 General
• Additional reductions allowed based on context (e.g.,
(A) Purpose
The regulations of this article are intended to help ensure provision of off-street motor
vehicle parking facilities in rough proportion to the generalized demands of different
downtown, multi-tenant centers, small uses (i.e., 3 or
land uses. By requiring such facilities, it is the intent of this article to help avoid the
negative impacts associated with spillover parking into adjacent areas, while at the
fewer spaces) same time avoiding the negative environmental and visual impacts that can result from
excessive motor vehicle parking. The provisions are also intended to provide flexible
methods of responding to the transportation and access demands of various land uses
• New stacking requirements for drive-throughs
in different areas of the village.
(B) Applicability
(1) General
Unless otherwise expressly stated, the regulations of this article apply to all zoning
districts and uses.
(2) New Uses and Development
Unless otherwise expressly stated, the parking regulations of this article apply to
all new buildings constructed and all new uses established in all zoning districts.
24 WESTMONT Zoning Ordinance Update
(3) Enlargements and Expansions Page 41 of 333
Article IX Parking | Sec. 9.07 Parking Area Design
ART. IX PARKING
Article IX Parking
Where parking of a long-term duration (4 hours or more) is expected, the standard dimensions for a parking
space may be reduced by up to I foot in width and 2 feet in length.
Sec. 9.01 General ....................................................................................................................................................................IX-1
• Integrates existing parking lot design standards with
(C) Parking Lot Layout
Sec. 9.02 Parking areas containing 4 or more motor vehicle parking spaces must be designed
Minimum Parking Requirements............................................................................................................................. IX-2
and marked in accordance with the dimensional standards of Table IX-2, which shows
Sec. 9.03 Calculation of Required Parking minimum dimensions for various parking layouts
............................................................................................................................. IX-4
updated stall size [10 x 209 x 18’]
(angles). Requirements for layouts or
angles not shown in Table IX-2 may be interpolated from the layouts shown, as
Sec. 9.04 Parking Exemptions and Reductions ...................................................................................................................... IX-5
approved by the zoning administrator.
Sec. 9.05 Location of Off-Street Parking ................................................................................................................................ IX-7
Table IX-2: Parking Lot Layout
(Dimensions in Feet)
Sec. 9.06 Use of Required Off-Street AParking Areas B
..............................................................................................................
C D D Vertical IX-8
Sec. 9.07 Stall Angle Stall Width (ft) Stall Depth (ft) 1-Way Aisle Width (ft) 2-Way Aisle Width (ft) Clearance (ft)
Parking Area Design ............................................................................................................................................... IX-8
0° 8.5 22.0 12.0 20.0 7.0
Sec. 9.08 Accessible Parking ................................................................................................................................................
45° 9.0 18.0 13.0 21.0 7.0 IX-10
60° 9.0 18.0 18.0 23.0 7.0
Sec. 9.09 Stacking Spaces for Drive-Through 9.0
90° Facilities 18.0
........................................................................................................
24.0 24.0 7.0 IX-11
Sec. 9.10 Off-Street Loading.................................................................................................................................................
Figure IX-1: Parking Lot Layout IX-12
Sec. 9.01 General
(A) Purpose
The regulations of this article are intended to help ensure provision of off-street motor
vehicle parking facilities in rough proportion to the generalized demands of different
land uses. By requiring such facilities, it is the intent of this article to help avoid the
negative impacts associated with spillover parking into adjacent areas, while at the
same time avoiding the negative environmental and visual impacts that can result from
excessive motor vehicle parking. The provisions are also intended to provide flexible
methods of responding to the transportation and access demands of various land uses
in different areas of the village.
(B) Applicability
(1) General
Unless otherwise expressly stated, the regulations of this article apply to all zoning
districts and uses.
• Other technical
(2) New Uses and Dedits
evelopmentand updates as indicated in text
(D) Curbs
Concrete, barrier-type curbs must be provided for all parking lots containing 5 4or more
motor vehicle parking spaces. This includes driveways accessing such parking areas.
Unless otherwise expressly stated, the parking regulations of this article apply to
(E) Surfacing
all new buildings constructed and all new uses established in all zoning districts.
All off-street parking areas containing 4 or more motor vehicle parking spaces must be
surfaced with a dustless, all-weather surface25
unless otherwise expressly stated. WESTMONT Zoning Ordinance Update
(3) Enlargements Pervious
and Expavement
pansionorspervious pavement systems are allowed subject to approval by Page 42 of 333
ART. X TREE PRESERVATION AND LANDSCAPING
Article X Tree Preservation and Landscaping
Sec. 10.01 Jurisdiction............................................................................................................................................................... X-1
Sec. 10.02 Required Tree Surveys, Tree Preservation Plans and Landscape Plans.................................................................. X-1
Sec. 10.03 Permit Issuance........................................................................................................................................................ X-1
Sec. 10.04 Tree Preservation and Replacement ....................................................................................................................... X-1
Sec. 10.05 Tree Protection......................................................................................................................................................... X-2
Sec. 10.06 Penalties and Tree Replacement Requirements ...................................................................................................... X-3
Sec. 10.07 Landscape Regulations............................................................................................................................................ X-4
• Mostly existing provisions from Ch. 80 of village code
Sec. 10.01 Jurisdiction
All construction activity that is subject to the site plan approval procedures of Sec. 14.05 is subject to the
• Landscape regulation proposed changes:
tree preservation and landscape regulations of this Article X as well as the heritage tree regulations of
Chapter 80, Article III of the village code.
• Clarifies open space and parking lot landscape requirements
Sec. 10.02 Required Tree Surveys, Tree Preservation Plans and Landscape Plans
All zoning and permit applications for construction as described in Sec. 10.01 must include the following
materials in a form acceptable to the village and as further described herein. The village’s review of the
• Landscape islands in large (20+ space) parking lots
application may include an inspection of the site and referral of the application to other appropriate
administrative departments or agencies for review and recommendation.
• (A)
Visual screening from R districts and streets
Tree Survey
Tree surveys must include information on all existing trees with a diameter at breast
• Alternative compliance provisions added for flexibility
height (DBH) of 4 inches or greater. Information must indicate the location, size, species
and condition of each tree, as well as existing and proposed structures, improvements,
utilities, driveways, and contours at one-foot intervals.
(B) Tree Preservation Plan
Tree preservation plans must identify those trees to be protected with a tree protection
detail labeled on the tree survey. The plan must indicate the location, size, species and
condition of each tree to be protected, as well as proposed structures, improvements,
utilities, driveways, and contours at one-foot intervals. The tree preservation plan must
also identify all protective measures to be taken to avoid construction damage to
protected trees (i.e., pumping concrete, crown or root
26 pruning). WESTMONT Zoning Ordinance Update Page 43 of 333
(C) La n d s c a p e P l a n
ART. XI SIGNS
Article XI Signs8
Sec. 11.01 General ................................................................................................................................................................... XI-1
Sec. 11.02 Prohibited Signs ...................................................................................................................................................... XI-2
Sec. 11.03 Sign Exceptions ....................................................................................................................................................... XI-3
Sec. 11.04 Allowed Signs ......................................................................................................................................................... XI-7
Sec. 11.05 Additional Regulations for Specific Sign and Site Types ........................................................................................ XI-8
Sec. 11.06 Construction Standards ......................................................................................................................................... XI-11
Sec. 11.07 Maintenance ......................................................................................................................................................... XI-12
Sec. 11.08 Abandoned Signs .................................................................................................................................................. XI-12
Sec. 11.09 Nonconforming Signs ........................................................................................................................................... XI-12
Sec. 11.10 Permits .................................................................................................................................................................. XI-12
Sec. 11.11 Sign-Related Measurements................................................................................................................................. XI-12
• Existing regulations; edits to address known issues
Sec. 11.01 General
• Minor substantive changes:
(A) Purpose
The sign regulations of this section are intended to balance the following differing, and
at times, competing goals:
• Expanded list ofthe “prohibited
(1) To support desired character of thesigns” (e.g.,inflashing,
village, as expressed adopted plans, LED window
policies, and regulations;
borders)
(2) To promote an attractive visual environment;
• New sign
(3) To“exceptions”
encourage the effective useadd certainty/flexibility
of signs as a means of communication for for merchants (e.g.,
businesses, organizations, and individuals;
fuel pumps, driveways,
(4) To provide parking
a means of way-finding for visitorslots, grand openings, rear wall signs
and residents;
for downtown buildings)
(5) To provide for reasonable business identification, advertising, and communication;
(6) To prohibit signs of such excessive size and number that they obscure one
another to the detriment of the economic and social well-being of the village and
its residents, property owners and visitors;
(7) To protect the safety and welfare of the public by minimizing hazards for
27 WESTMONT Zoning Ordinance Update
motorized and nonmotorized traffic; Page 44 of 333
ART. XII GENERAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
Article XII General Development Regulations
Sec. 12.01 Outdoor Lighting .................................................................................................................................................... XII-1
Sec. 12.02 Underground Utilities............................................................................................................................................. XII-6
Sec. 12.03 Street Access ......................................................................................................................................................... XII-6
Sec. 12.04 Outdoor Storage of Junk and Debris ..................................................................................................................... XII-6
Sec. 12.05 Sight Vision Triangles............................................................................................................................................. XII-6
• Mostly carry over of existing regulations; “performance”
Sec. 12.01 Outdoor Lighting10
standards migrating to village code
(A) Purposes
The outdoor lighting regulations of this section are intended to help ensure safe and
adequate lighting; provide for the efficient use of energy; and reduce the impacts of sky
• New(Boutdoor lighting regulations apply to new
glow, nuisance lighting, and glare on nearby areas.
) Applicability and Exemptions
development; aimed at nuisance/spillover lighting
The outdoor lighting regulations of this section apply to all outdoor lighting except the
following:
• Updated (1)
intersection visibility provisions
Outdoor lighting on lots occupied by detached houses, semi-detached houses, or
two-unit houses;
(2) Illuminated signs;
Visibility Triangles at Alleys and Driveways Full Cutoff Light Fixtures
(3) Emergency lighting used by police, fire fighting, or medical personnel;
(4) Traffic control devices or streetlights installed by the village or other governmental
entity;
(5) Aviation safety lights required by the FAA (e.g., warning lights on radio,
communication and navigation towers);
(6) Spotlighting of official government flags if the spotlighting is contained within the
area of the flag;
(7) Outdoor lighting used for emergency equipment and work conducted in the
interest of law enforcement or for public health, safety or welfare;
(8) Outdoor lighting used for a village-approved temporary use or event;
28 WESTMONT Zoning Ordinance Update
Page 45 of 333
(9) Lighting fixtures with a light output of no more than 1,500 lumens; and
ART. XIII NONCONFORMITIES
Article XIII Nonconformities
Sec. 13.01 General ................................................................................................................................................................. XIII-1
Sec. 13.02 Nonconforming Lots ............................................................................................................................................. XIII-2
Sec. 13.03 Nonconforming Uses ............................................................................................................................................ XIII-2
Sec. 13.04 Nonconforming Structures .................................................................................................................................... XIII-4
Sec. 13.05 Nonconforming Signs ........................................................................................................................................... XIII-5
Sec. 13.06 Nonconforming Development Features ............................................................................................................... XIII-6
• Editorial changes for clarity (as identified) in text
Sec. 13.01 General
(A) Purpose
The regulations of this article govern nonconforming lots, uses, structures, and signs
that were lawfully established but because of the adoption of new or amended
regulations no longer comply with one or more requirements of this zoning ordinance.
These regulations are intended to ensure that zoning ordinance establishes separate
zoning districts, each of which is an appropriate area for the location of the structures
and uses in that district. It is necessary and consistent with the establishment of those
districts that any nonconformities nonconforming structures and uses which that
adversely affect the orderly development and taxable value of other property in the
district not be permitted to continue without restriction. This article provides for the
regulation of nonconformities of lawfully established nonconforming structures and
uses and specifies those circumstances and conditions under which those
nonconforming structures and uses shall be such nonconformities are permitted
allowed to continue. Nonconforming structures and uses established illegally shall be
removed or discontinued immediately and shall be subject to enforcement action by
the village for the failure to do so.
(B) D e t e r m i n a t i o n o f N o n c o n f o r m i t y St a t u s
The burden of establishing the legality of a nonconformity under the provisions of this
article proving that a nonconformity exists (as opposed to a violation of this zoning
ordinance) is the responsibility of the property owner or the operator of the use. The
zoning administrator is authorized to determine whether adequate proof of
nonconforming status has been provided by the owner or operator. Such evidence may
29 WESTMONT Zoning Ordinance Update
include historical documents, including building permits, lawfully recorded plats, aerial Page 46 of 333
ART. XIV REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES
Article XIV Review and Approval Procedures
Article XIV Review and Approval Procedures
Sec. 14.01 Common Procedures ............................................................................................................................................ XIV-1
Sec. 14.01 Common Procedures ............................................................................................................................................ XIV-1
Sec. 14.02 Zoning Ordinance Text and Zoning Map Amendments ........................................................................................XIV-6
Sec. 14.02 Zoning Ordinance Text and Zoning Map Amendments ........................................................................................XIV-6
Sec. 14.03 Development
Sec. 14.03 Plans
Development Plans...............................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................XIV-8 XIV-8
Sec. 14.04 Special
Sec. 14.04 UsesUses........................................................................................................................................................
Special ........................................................................................................................................................ XIV-12 XIV-12
Sec. 14.05 Site Plans ............................................................................................................................................................ XIV-15
Sec. 14.05 Site Plans ............................................................................................................................................................ XIV-15
Sec. 14.06 Variances ............................................................................................................................................................ XIV-19
Sec. 14.06 Variances ............................................................................................................................................................ XIV-19
Sec. 14.07 Zoning Verification Letters ..................................................................................................................................XIV-24
Sec. 14.07 ZoningCertificates
Sec. 14.08 Verification Letters ..................................................................................................................................
of Occupancy ...................................................................................................................................XIV-24 XIV-24
Sec. 14.08 Certificates
Sec. 14.09 Appealsof Occupancy ...................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................................. XIV-25 XIV-24
Sec. 14.09 Appeals .............................................................................................................................................................. XIV-25
• Revised to reflect actual practice/state law
Sec. 14.01 Common Procedures
(A) Applicability
Sec. 14.01 CommonThePrcommon
oceduprovisions
res of this section apply to all the review and approval procedures
• New(A“development
) Applicability plan” procedure for PUDs
(B)
in this article unless otherwise expressly stated.
Review and Decision-making Authority (Summary Table)
The common provisions of this section apply to all the review and approval procedures
• Revised, streamlined “site plan review” procedure
Table XIV-1 provides a summary of the review and approval procedures of this article. In
in this article
the event of unless otherwise
conflict between expressly
this summary stated.
table and the detailed procedures
contained elsewhere in this article, the detailed procedures govern.
(B) Review and Decision-making Authority (Summary Table)
Table XIV-1: Review and Decision-making Authority Summary Table
Table XIV-1 provides a summary of the review and approval procedures of this article. In
Planning and
Procedure Staff
the event of conflict between this Zoning summary tableBoard
Commission and of Trustees
the detailed procedures
Zoning Ordinance Text & Map Amendments
contained elsewhere in this article, ☐ the<detailed
☑> ■
procedures govern.
Planned Unit Developments
PUDTable
Development
XIV-1: Plans
Review and Decision-making
☐ <☑> Authority Summary ■ Table
Minor Development Plan Amendment ☐ ■Planning and –
Procedure PUD Site Plans ■ Staff – – Board of Trustees
Special Uses
Zoning Commission
☐ <☑> ■
Zoning
SiteOrdinance
Plans Text & Map Amendments ☐ <☑> ■
Planned Major
Unit Site Plans
Developments ☐ ☑ ■
PUD Development Plans
Administrative Site Plans ■ ☐ – <☑> – ■
Variances ☐ <☑> ■
Minor Development Plan Amendment ☐ ■ –
Zoning Certificates ■ – –
PUD
ZoningSite Plans Letters
Verification ■ ■ – – – –
Special Uses of Occupancy
Certificates ■ ☐ – <☑> – ■
Appeals
Site Plans of Administrative Decisions ☐ < ■ > –
☐ = Review | ☑ = Recommendation | ■ = Final Decision | < > = Public hearing
Major Site Plans ☐ ☑ ■
(C) Administrative
Applications Site
and Plans
Fees ■ – 30 – WESTMONT Zoning Ordinance Update
Variances
(1) Owner-initiated Applications ☐ <☑> ■ Page 47 of 333
ART. XIV REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES
Development Plan Thresholds Approval Process
• Required for new and amended PUDs and B-3
1. Preapplication Meeting
(Resort District) requests
2. Concept Plan
• Optional for any zoning map amendment 3. Development Plan
(rezoning) request PZC Review
Board of Trustees Approval
4. Site Plan Review
31 WESTMONT Zoning Ordinance Update
Page 48 of 333
ART. XIV REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES
Site Plan Review Thresholds Approval Process
1. Three or more dwelling units (DUs) Major (PZC + BoT)
• More than 10,000 sq. ft.
2. More than 1,000 sq. ft. of impervious cover on lot of gross floor area (new or
occupied by 3+ DUs addition)
• Plans referred by the zoning
3. Nonresidential building or 1,000 sq. ft. addition
administrator for processing
4. More than 1,000 sq. ft. of impervious cover on lot as a major site plan
occupied nonresidential use • Other activities for which
major site plan approval is
5. Reconstruction/replacement of more than 50% of expressly required
street-facing façade in B-1(A) or B-1 district Minor (Zoning Administrator)
• Any site plan not classified
6. Other activities for which site plan approval is as major site plan
expressly required under zoning ordinance
32 WESTMONT Zoning Ordinance Update
Page 49 of 333
ART. XV ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT
Article XV Administration and Enforcement
Sec. 15.01 Administration ........................................................................................................................................................ XV-1
Sec. 15.02 Enforcement.......................................................................................................................................................... XV-2
• Clarified roles/responsibilities for zoning administrator
Sec. 15.01 Administration
(A) Generally
(community development director)
The administration of this zoning ordinance is hereby vested in:
(1) The zoning administrator;
• Enhanced(2)
(3)
range of enforcement options
The planning and zoning commission; and
The board of trustees.
(B) Zoning Administrator
The community development director serves as the zoning administrator and has the
authority to delegate zoning administration duties to other staff within the community
development department. The zoning administrator has primary responsibility for
administering and carrying out those powers and duties expressly identified in this
zoning ordinance or those authorized by law, including the following:
(1) Interpreting and administering the provisions of this zoning ordinance;
(2) Conducting needed inspections of structures and uses of land to determine
compliance with this zoning ordinance;
(3) Notifying persons responsible for violating this zoning ordinance;
(4) Taking appropriate actions to ensure compliance with this zoning ordinance and
remedying violations of its provisions, including but not limited to:
(a) Ordering discontinuance of any illegal use of land or structures;
(b) Ordering removal of illegal structures and additions or alterations thereto;
(c) Ordering discontinuation of work being done in violation of zoning ordinance
provisions;
(5) Maintaining permanent and current records related to this zoning ordinance,
33 unit developments, special uses,
including all zoning maps, amendments, planned WESTMONT Zoning Ordinance Update
Page 50 of 333
and variances;
ART. XVI MEASUREMENTS
Article XVI Measurements
Sec. 16.01 Lot Area ................................................................................................................................................................. XVI-1
Sec. 16.02 Lot Area per Dwelling Unit .................................................................................................................................... XVI-1
Sec. 16.03 Lot Width ............................................................................................................................................................... XVI-1
Sec. 16.04 Building Width ....................................................................................................................................................... XVI-1
Sec. 16.05 Build-to Zone ........................................................................................................................................................ XVI-1
Sec. 16.06 Outdoor Open Space ............................................................................................................................................ XVI-1
Sec. 16.07 Setbacks .............................................................................................................................................................. XVI-2
Sec. 16.08 Lot Coverage......................................................................................................................................................... XVI-7
Sec. 16.09 Lot Depth .............................................................................................................................................................. XVI-7
Sec. 16.10 Streetwall Width .................................................................................................................................................... XVI-7
Sec. 16.11 Transparency........................................................................................................................................................ XVI-9
Sec. 16.12 Building Entrances .............................................................................................................................................. XVI-10
Sec. 16.13 Height ................................................................................................................................................................. XVI-10
• Measurement rules for lot and building
Article XVI Measurements | Sec. 16.07 Setbacks
Figure XVI-8: Contextual Setbacks (3)
S e c . 1 6 . 0 1 Lo t A r e a
and design-related regulations
Lot area is measured as the total ground-level surface area contained within the property lines of a lot.
S e c . 1 6 . 0 2 Lo t A r e a p e r D w e l l i n g U n i t
• New “contextual” setback regulations
Lot area per dwelling unit is a measure of residential density. It governs the amount of lot area required for
each dwelling unit on a lot. To determine the number of dwelling units allowed on a lot, divide the lot area
by the minimum lot-area-per-unit requirement, and round any fractional result down to a whole number. If,
• Added illustrations
(5) When the subject lot is a corner lot, the average street yard depth must be
for example, a minimum lot-area-per-unit requirement of 1,750 feet is applied to a 10,000 square foot lot, a
computed on the basis of the nearest 2 lots with frontage on the same street as
the subject lot. See Figure XVI-9.
Figure XVI-9: Contextual Setbacks (4)
maximum of 5 units would be allowed on that lot (5.71 rounded down to 5).
S e c . 1 6 . 0 3 Lo t W i d t h
Lot width is measured as the horizontal distance between the side lot lines of a lot measured at the
narrowest width between the front yard line minimum front setback and a point 30 feet to the rear of the (6) When the subject lot abuts a corner lot with frontage on the same street, the
average street yard depth must be computed on the basis of the abutting corner
lot and the nearest 2 lots with frontage on the same street as the subject lot. See
minimum front yard linesetback. On cul-de-sac lots and similarly shaped lots, the lot width shall be is Figure XVI-10.
measured along a line tangent to and at the midpoint of the minimum front yard setback line. On lots
Village of Westmont Zoning Ordinance Update: April 2025 Draft
Page XVI-6
located along an opposite shaped curve (i.e., pie-shaped lots or those narrowing toward the rear of the lot),
34 WESTMONT Zoning Ordinance Update
the lot width shall be is measured along a line parallel to and 30 feet to the rear of a chord drawn between Page 51 of 333
ART. XVII DEFINITIONS
Article XVII Definitions
Sec. 17.01 General ................................................................................................................................................................ XVII-1
Sec. 17.02 Abbreviations ....................................................................................................................................................... XVII-1
Sec. 17.03 General Rules of Language and Ordinance Construction ................................................................................... XVII-1
Sec. 17.04 Use Definitions ..................................................................................................................................................... XVII-1
Sec. 17.05 Measurement-Related Terms ............................................................................................................................... XVII-1
Sec. 17.06 Definition of Words and Terms............................................................................................................................. XVII-1
• Edits and additions
Sec. 17.01 General
Article XVII Definitions | Sec. 17.06 Definition of Words and Terms
Figure XVII-5: Reversed Corner Lot
Words and terms expressly defined in this zoning ordinance have the meanings assigned unless the
• Deleted unused terms
context clearly indicates another meaning. Words and terms that are not expressly defined in this zoning
ordinance have their ordinary dictionary meaning.
• Added illustrations
Sec. 17.02 Abbreviations
Abbreviations used in this zoning ordinance have the following meanings: Lot Width
See Sec. 16.03.
Table XVII-1: Abbreviations
Marquee or Canopy
A roof-like structure of a permanent nature that projects from the wall of a building.
Abbreviation Meaning Motor Home
A vehicle that can be driven and that is designed and constructed for dwelling purposes and that may
% Percent
contain cooking, sanitary and electrical facilities.
Multi-Tenant Commercial BuildingCenter
DU Dwelling Unit
A single building, containing on one lot, under unified control that is occupied by 2 or more commercial
uses. in a horizontal configuration in designated units/spaces within such building. Office buildings are
excluded from this definition.
ft. Feet (or foot) Nonconforming Building or Structure
ILCS Illinois Compiled Statutes
See Sec. 13.04.Any building or structure lawfully established that:
(a) Does not comply with all the regulations of this ordinance or of any amendment hereto governing
In. Inches (or inch)
bulk of the district in which such building or structure is located; or
(b) Is designed or intended for a nonconforming use.
max. Maximum Nonconforming Use
See Sec. 13.03(A).Any building or structure and the use thereof or the use of land that does not conform
min. Minimum with the regulations of this ordinance or any amendment thereto governing use in the district in which it is
located but conformed with all of the codes, ordinances and other legal requirements applicable at the
no. Number
time such building or structure was erected, enlarged or altered, and the use thereof or the use of land was
established.
NA (or N/A) Not applicable (no requirement) Occupied (or Occupiable) Building Space
Interior building space occupiable by people, not including storage, mechanical, utility, or garage or
parking space.
sq. ft. Square feet Open Sales Lot
Land used or occupied for the purpose of buying, selling or renting merchandise stored or displayed out-
S e c . 1 7 . 0 3 G e n e r a l R u l e s o f La n g u a g e a n d O r d i n a n c e C o n s t r u c t i o n
of-doors before sale. Such merchandise includes automobiles, trucks, motor scooters, motorcycles, boats
or similar commodities.
See Sec. 1.10 for general rules for interpreting the general language of this zoning ordinance. Village of Westmont Zoning Ordinance Update: April 2025 Draft
Page XVII-12
Sec. 17.04 Use Definitions
See Article VI for an explanation of the use categorization system used in this zoning ordinance and for use
35 WESTMONT Zoning Ordinance Update
type definitions. Page 52 of 333
APPENDIX A. RECOMMENDED TREES AND SHRUBS
Article XVII Definitions
Sec. 17.01 General ................................................................................................................................................................ XVII-1
Sec. 17.02 Abbreviations ....................................................................................................................................................... XVII-1
Sec. 17.03 General Rules of Language and Ordinance Construction ................................................................................... XVII-1
Sec. 17.04 Use Definitions ..................................................................................................................................................... XVII-1
Sec. 17.05 Measurement-Related Terms ............................................................................................................................... XVII-1
Sec. 17.06 Definition of Words and Terms............................................................................................................................. XVII-1
• List of trees/shrubs that satisfy landscape requirements
Sec. 17.01 General
Words and terms expressly defined in this zoning ordinance have the meanings assigned unless the
(zoning administrator authorized to permit other non-invasive species)
context clearly indicates another meaning. Words and terms that are not expressly defined in this zoning
ordinance have their ordinary dictionary meaning.
• Native and non-native species appropriate for NE Illinois
Sec. 17.02 Abbreviations
Abbreviations used in this zoning ordinance have the following meanings:
Table XVII-1: Abbreviations
Appendix A: Recommended Trees and Shrubs
Appendix A
Abbreviation Meaning
Botanical Name Common Name Street Tree Parking Lot Transition Area
Non-Native Evergreen Trees
Recommended Trees and Shrubs Picea abies Norway Spruce No Yes Yes
Picea omorika Serbian Spruce No Yes Yes
% Percent
Botanical Name Common Name Street Tree Parking Lot Transition Area Picea pungens Colorado Spruce No Yes Yes
CANOPY TREES Thuja shandishii x plicata Green Giant Arborvitae No No Yes
Native Canopy Trees UNDERSTORY TREES
DU Dwelling Unit
Acer saccharum Sugar Maple No No Yes Native Understory Trees
Aesculus glabra Ohio Buckeye N No Yes Amelanchier arborea Serviceberry No No Yes
Carya cordiformis Bitternut hickory Yes No Yes Amelanchier interior Inland shadblow No No Yes
Carya glabra Pignut hickory Yes No Yes Amelanchier laevis Alleghany serviceberry Yes No Yes
ft. Feet (or foot)
Carya ovata Shagbark hickory Yes No Yes Asimina triloba Pawpaw No No No
Carya tomentosa Mockernut hickory Yes No Yes Betula alleghaniensis Yellow Birch No No No
Celtis occidentalis Hackberry Yes Yes Yes Betula nigra River Birch No No No
ILCS Illinois Compiled Statutes
Fagus grandifolia American Beech No No Yes Carpinus caroliniana Blue beech or musclewood No No Yes
Gymocladus dioicus Kentucky Coffeetree Yes No Yes Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud No No Yes
Juglans nigra Black walnut No No Yes Cornus alternifolia Pagoda dogwood No No Yes
Larix laricina Tamarack No No Yes Crataegus coccinea Scarlet hawthorn No Yes Yes
In. Inches (or inch)
Nyssa sylvatica Black Tupelo or sour gum Yes No Yes Crataegus crus-galli Cockspur hawthorn No Yes Yes
Platanus occidentalis American Sycamore Yes Yes Yes Crataegus mollis Downy hawthorn No Yes Yes
Populus deltoides Eastern cottonwood No No Yes Euonymus atropurpureus Wahoo No No Yes
max. Maximum
Quercus alba White Oak No No No Hamamelis virginiana Common Witchhazel No No Yes
Quercus bicolor Swamp White Oak Yes Yes Yes Malus ioensis Prairie Crab No No Yes
Quercus coccinea Scarlet Oak No No Yes Ostrya virginiana Hophornbeam or ironwood Yes Yes Yes
Quercus imbricaria Shingle Oak Yes Yes Yes
min. Minimum
Ptelea trifoliata Wafer Ash No No Yes
Quercus macrocarpa Bur Oak Yes Yes Yes Sassafras albidum Sassafras No No Yes
Quercus muehlenbergii Chinquapin Oak Yes Yes Yes Non-Native Understory Trees
Quercus palustris Pin Oak No No Yes Larix decidua Larch No No Yes
no. Number
Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak No No Yes Magnolia species Magnolia No Yes Yes
Quercus velutina Black Oak Yes Yes Yes SHRUBS
Tilia americana American Basswood or linden Yes Yes Yes Native Shrubs
Non-Native Canopy Trees
NA (or N/A) Not applicable (no requirement)
Amorpha canescens Lead plant NA NA No
Acer nigrum Black Maple No Yes Yes Amorpha fruticosa False Indigo Bush NA Yes No
Acer pseudoplatanus Sycamore Maple No No Yes Aronia melanocarpa Black Chokeberry NA No Yes
Acer miyabei Miyabe Maple Yes No Yes Cephalanthus americanus New Jersey tea NA No Yes
sq. ft. Square feet
Acer rubrum Red Maple Varieties Yes Yes Yes Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush NA No Yes
Aesculus hippocastanum Horsechestnut No No Yes Cornus obliqua Blue-fruited dogwood NA No Yes
Cladrastis lutea Yellowwood No No Yes Cornus stolonifera Red osier dogwood NA No Yes
Fagus sylvatica European Beech No No Yes Corylus americana American Filbert or hazelnut NA No Yes
Ginkgo biloba (male) Ginkgo Yes No Yes Diervilla lonicera Dwarf honeysuckle NA Yes No
S e c . 1 7 . 0 3 G e n e r a l R u l e s o f La n g u a g e a n d O r d i n a n c e C o n s t r u c t i o n
Liquidambar styraciflua Sweetgum No No Yes Euonymus atropurpureus Wahoo NA Yes Yes
Liriodendron tulipifera Tuliptree No Yes Yes Hamamelis viginiana Common Witchhazel NA Yes Yes
Metasequoia glyptostroboides Dawn Redwood No No Yes Hydrangea arborescens Wild Hydrangea NA No Yes
Platanus acerifolia Planetree Yes Yes Yes Hypericum kalmianum Kalm's St. John's wort NA Yes Yes
Quercus prinus Chestnut Oak Yes Yes Yes Hypericum prolificum Shrubby St. John's wort NA Yes Yes
See Sec. 1.10 for general rules for interpreting the general language of this zoning ordinance.
Quercus robur English Oak Yes Yes Yes Ilex verticillate Winterberry NA No Yes
Taxodium distichum Bald Cypress No No Yes Lindera benzoin Spicebush NA No Yes
Tilia cordata Little Leaf Linden Yes Yes Yes Physocarpus opulifolius Common Ninebark NA Yes Yes
EVERGREEN TREES Potentilla fruticosa Bush/shrubby Cinquefoil NA Yes Yes
Village of Westmont Zoning Ordinance Update: April 2025 Draft Village of Westmont Zoning Ordinance Update: April 2025 Draft
Sec. 17.04 Use Definitions
Page A-1 Page A-2
See Article VI for an explanation of the use categorization system used in this zoning ordinance and for use
36 WESTMONT Zoning Ordinance Update
type definitions. Page 53 of 333
Village of Westmont
Zoning Ordinance Update
Planning and Zoning Commission
Public Hearing April 2025
Page 54 of 333
Page 55 of 333
Page 56 of 333
Page 57 of 333
Page 58 of 333
Page 59 of 333
Page 60 of 333
Page 61 of 333
Page 62 of 333
Page 63 of 333
Page 64 of 333
Page 65 of 333
Page 66 of 333
Page 67 of 333
Page 68 of 333
Page 69 of 333
Page 70 of 333
Page 71 of 333
Page 72 of 333
Page 73 of 333
Page 74 of 333
Page 75 of 333
Page 76 of 333
Page 77 of 333
Page 78 of 333
Page 79 of 333
Page 80 of 333
Page 81 of 333
Page 82 of 333
Page 83 of 333
Page 84 of 333
q
w
e
r
t
y
u
i
o
Page 85 of 333
1)
1!
1@
1#
1$
h
1^
1&
Page 86 of 333
Page 87 of 333
q
w
e
r
t
y
u
o
Page 88 of 333
1)
1#
1$
h
1^
1&
Page 89 of 333
Page 90 of 333
q
w
e
r
t
y
u
o
Page 91 of 333
1)
1#
1$
h
1^
1&
Page 92 of 333
Page 93 of 333
Page 94 of 333
Page 95 of 333
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
Page 96 of 333
Page 97 of 333
Page 98 of 333
Page 99 of 333
q
w
e
r
t
y
u
i
o
u
i
o
o
Page 100 of 333
Page 101 of 333
Page 102 of 333
Page 103 of 333
Page 104 of 333
Page 105 of 333
Page 106 of 333
Page 107 of 333
Page 108 of 333
Page 109 of 333
Page 110 of 333
Page 111 of 333
Page 112 of 333
Table V-2 Notes:
[1] Buildings occupied by public or institutional uses Public, semipublic or public service buildings, hospitals,
institutions or schools, when permitted in a district, may be erected to a height not exceeding 60 feet, and
churches and temples may be erected to a height not exceeding 75 feet if the building is set back from
each yard minimum setback line at least one foot for each one foot of additional building height above the
maximum height limit otherwise provided applicable in the subject zoning district in which the building is
located.
Page 113 of 333
Page 114 of 333
Page 115 of 333
Page 116 of 333
Page 117 of 333
Page 118 of 333
Page 119 of 333
Page 120 of 333
Page 121 of 333
Page 122 of 333
Page 123 of 333
Page 124 of 333
Page 125 of 333
Page 126 of 333
Page 127 of 333
Page 128 of 333
Page 129 of 333
Page 130 of 333
Page 131 of 333
Page 132 of 333
Page 133 of 333
Page 134 of 333
Page 135 of 333
Page 136 of 333
Page 137 of 333
Page 138 of 333
Page 139 of 333
Page 140 of 333
Page 141 of 333
Page 142 of 333
Page 143 of 333
Page 144 of 333
Page 145 of 333
Page 146 of 333
Page 147 of 333
Page 148 of 333
.
Page 149 of 333
Page 150 of 333
Page 151 of 333
Page 152 of 333
Page 153 of 333
Page 154 of 333
Page 155 of 333
Page 156 of 333
Page 157 of 333
Page 158 of 333
Page 159 of 333
Page 160 of 333
Page 161 of 333
Page 162 of 333
Page 163 of 333
Page 164 of 333
Page 165 of 333
Page 166 of 333
Page 167 of 333
Page 168 of 333
Page 169 of 333
Page 170 of 333
Page 171 of 333
Page 172 of 333
Page 173 of 333
Page 174 of 333
Page 175 of 333
A B C D D
Page 176 of 333
Page 177 of 333
Page 178 of 333
Page 179 of 333
Page 180 of 333
Page 181 of 333
Page 182 of 333
Page 183 of 333
Page 184 of 333
Page 185 of 333
Page 186 of 333
Page 187 of 333
Page 188 of 333
Page 189 of 333
Page 190 of 333
Page 191 of 333
Page 192 of 333
Page 193 of 333
Page 194 of 333
Page 195 of 333
Page 196 of 333
Page 197 of 333
Page 198 of 333
Page 199 of 333
Page 200 of 333
Page 201 of 333
Page 202 of 333
Page 203 of 333
Page 204 of 333
Page 205 of 333
Page 206 of 333
Page 207 of 333
Page 208 of 333
Page 209 of 333
Page 210 of 333
Page 211 of 333
Page 212 of 333
Page 213 of 333
Page 214 of 333
Page 215 of 333
Page 216 of 333
Page 217 of 333
Page 218 of 333
Page 219 of 333
Page 220 of 333
–
– –
– –
– –
– –
– –
–
Page 221 of 333
Page 222 of 333
Page 223 of 333
Page 224 of 333
Page 225 of 333
Hearing & Recommendation:
Review: zoning administrator Decision: board of trustees
planning and zoning commission
Page 226 of 333
Page 227 of 333
Preapplication Meeting: Application Filing: with zoning Hearing & Recommendation:
schedule with zoning administrator planning and zoning
administrator commission
•(Optional) Concept Plan •Concurrent PUD Special Use •Final Decision: board of
Review: PZC/CDC Application trustees
•Site Plan Approval: within
12 months*
Page 228 of 333
Page 229 of 333
Page 230 of 333
Page 231 of 333
Hearing & Recommendation:
Review: zoning administrator Decision: board of trustees
planning and zoning commission
Page 232 of 333
Page 233 of 333
Page 234 of 333
Page 235 of 333
Review & Recommendation:
Review: zoning administrator Decision: board of trustees
planning and zoning commission
Page 236 of 333
Review: zoning Review: other departments Decision: zoning
administrator and agencies (as required) administrator
Page 237 of 333
Page 238 of 333
Review: community Review and Hearing: planning Decision:
development director and zoning commission board of trustees
Page 239 of 333
Page 240 of 333
Page 241 of 333
Page 242 of 333
Zoning Administrator: Application Filing: within Decision: planning and
decision 45 days of decision zoning commission
Page 243 of 333
Page 244 of 333
Page 245 of 333
Page 246 of 333
Page 247 of 333
Page 248 of 333
Page 249 of 333
Page 250 of 333
Page 251 of 333
Page 252 of 333
Page 253 of 333
Page 254 of 333
Page 255 of 333
Page 256 of 333
Page 257 of 333
Page 258 of 333
Page 259 of 333
Page 260 of 333
Page 261 of 333
Page 262 of 333
Page 263 of 333
Page 264 of 333
Page 265 of 333
Page 266 of 333
Page 267 of 333
Page 268 of 333
Page 269 of 333
Page 270 of 333
Page 271 of 333
Page 272 of 333
Page 273 of 333
Page 274 of 333
Page 275 of 333
Page 276 of 333
Page 277 of 333
Page 278 of 333
Page 279 of 333
Page 280 of 333
Page 281 of 333
Page 282 of 333
Page 283 of 333
VILLAGE OF WESTMONT
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: April 23, 2025 PZC 001-2025
TITLE: Requests from the Village of Westmont regarding Zoning Ordinance text amendments as
follows:
1. Zoning Ordinance text amendments to repeal Appendix A – Zoning, of the Westmont Code of
Ordinances and to establish new Chapter 95 – Zoning, of the Westmont Code of Ordinances,
with comprehensive updates to the entire Zoning Ordinance, including amendments to the zoning
districts, development standards, planning processes, and other zoning regulations.
I. BACKGROUND OF ITEM
A. Background:
The Village of Westmont initiated a Zoning Ordinance update in Spring 2023 with the passage of
Ordinance #23-049. This ordinance contracted Duncan Associates for consulting services.
Community input was gathered in Summer 2023 through a public listening session, and Duncan
Associates prepared an Assessment and Project Direction Report.
By Spring 2024, staff completed reviews of four installments of the draft zoning ordinance text.
Village staff then held discussions with elected and appointed officials on various topics at
Community Development Committee (CDC) and Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) meetings
throughout Spring and Fall 2024. Meeting details were made available to the public on the Village's
Agenda Center and on a webpage specific to the update. Additional summaries of these discussions
are attached as supplemental memo.
At its CDC meeting on January 23rd, 2025, the first full draft was presented to the Committee, with
the next step being a Public Hearing at a Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. The committee
agreed that, after incorporating final staff comments, staff should proceed to this stage. This public
hearing initiates the final adoption process, with approval dependent on the number of meetings
necessary for the PZC to provide staff with comments and provide the Village Board with a final
recommendation. Final action on the Zoning Ordinance Update will then occur at a future Village
Board meeting, alongside any necessary municipal text amendments. If approved, rezonings to the
newly-created districts will follow at a later date. Required noticing for the potential rezoning and
required public hearing will be provided to property owners and the public.
Page 284 of 333
B. Proposed Chapter 95 - Zoning Structure and Content Summary
This list of proposed changes is not intended to be comprehensive. Instead, it aims to provide an
overview of the more significant amendments being suggested to the updated ordinance. Additional
changes, clarifications, or adjustments are included in the complete documentation, which is
attached for further review. Readers are encouraged to consider this list as a summary of the key
highlights rather than an exhaustive account of all proposed updates.
Article I Introductory Provisions:
Article I lays the foundation for the zoning and development regulations. It establishes the
purpose, scope, and guiding principles that inform the rules throughout the document. These
provisions ensure consistency in interpretation and application while setting the framework for
achieving the community’s development goals.
● Inclusion of Transitional Provisions for Planning and Zoning Cases that are currently
under review. These provisions give applicants the option to select which zoning
ordinance will govern their case.
● Provides guidance for interpreting words and terms not expressly defined in Article XVII
of the zoning ordinance. It directs users to consult A Planner's Dictionary (American
Planning Association) as the primary reference, and, if no suitable definition is available,
to refer to the latest edition of Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary.
Article II Residential Districts:
Article II revises and reorganizes zoning regulations for residential districts, including R-1, R-1(A),
R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, and R-6. These districts are designed to foster diverse housing options and
support compatible nonresidential uses, ensuring alignment with the comprehensive plan's
envisioned physical characteristics.
● Inclusion of minimum lot depth standard of 125 feet transferred from Appendix B - Land
Development Ordinance for ease of access.
● Reduced minimum lot width for detached houses in the R-3, R-4, and R-5 zoning districts
from 60 feet to 50 feet to be more consistent with surrounding communities and allow for
lots with large depths to be subdivided while still maintaining the minimum lot area for the
district.
● Reduced minimum side setback for detached houses in R-3 zoning district to better align
with the required 5 foot easements and to cohesively integrate into the reduced lot
widths.
● Eliminated maximum Floor Area Ration (F.A.R.) from residential properties to improve
land use efficiency while maintaining other mechanisms to reduce overdevelopment such
as Lot Coverage.
● Increased the maximum accessory building height for residential properties from 15 feet
to 18 feet to allow for usable space in detached buildings.
● Changes to the method in which density is calculated by utilizing dwelling units per
square footage of a property rather than the outdated method of utilizing the number of
bedrooms for each dwelling. This is more consistent with neighboring communities and
how developers normally operate.
____________________________________________________________________________________
PZC 001-2025 Page 2 of 9
Page 285 of 333
Article III Business and Employment Districts:
Article III revises and reorganizes the zoning regulations for business and employment districts,
including the B-2, C-1, M, M-1, O/R, and O/R-1 districts. While the purposes of these districts
differ, consolidating their regulations into a single article improves public accessibility to all
relevant information.
● B-1 Limited Business District provisions moved to a separate Article specific to the
Downtown Area to provide more specific regulations.
● Elimination of supplemental street setbacks, as these regulations are out of date and
would eliminate the nonconformity for many properties
● Increase the minimum street setback in the B-2 General Business and C-1 Commercial
District from 10 feet to 20 feet to accommodate the removal of supplemental setbacks
● Elimination of Maximum Floor Area Ration (F.A.R.) for Business and Employment
Districts to be less restrictive towards future development of commercial properties and
maintain other bulks and development standards.
Article IV Downtown Zoning Districts:
Article IV provides detailed regulations tailored to the Village’s distinctive downtown and transition
areas, encompassing the B-1(A) Downtown Core, B-1 Downtown Edge, and R-7 Downtown
Residential districts. Many of these regulations are newly introduced, offering a more structured
framework by establishing two proposed zoning districts. These districts are designed to reinforce
and enhance the downtown's compact, vibrant, and walkable character while recognizing the
adjacent single-family and limited manufacturing districts.
● Substantial changes are being proposed to aid in redevelopment, align with existing
plans, and to allow the Village to be more competitive with surrounding municipalities’
development patterns.
● Proposed redistricting of the existing B-1 Limited Business and R-5 General Residence
districts into three distinct zoning districts: B-1(A), B-1, and R-7. However, no formal
rezonings will take place until after adoptions of these comprehensive text amendments.
If approved, additional public hearings and noticing will be required.
● Allowed building types are broken down into four categories: storefront building, general
buildings, row buildings, and detached houses. The new bulk regulations provide greater
clarity for new and existing development throughout the downtown and recognize the
character of the existing downtown. The draft regulations also reflect recommendations
from the Comprehensive Plan and follow the general framework of the Village’s existing
Downtown Design Guidelines.
● Increased maximum building height in the B-1(A) to allow buildings up to 5 stories while
the B-1 will remain at 3 stories. This recognizes the needs of existing businesses and
promotes more intense mixed-use development near the Village’s center.
● In the proposed R-7 District, redevelopment of row homes and general buildings are
meant to accommodate a transition into single family homes but still support compact
development and walkability adjacent to the railroad. However, existing single family
homes will be able to continue and be regulated within the R-5 regulations. New single
family homes that are proposed in the R-7 district will be required to obtain a special use
permit prior to construction.
● Removal of the B-1 Development Permit to allow for less hurdles for allowable uses and
business owners that want to invest in the community.
____________________________________________________________________________________
PZC 001-2025 Page 3 of 9
Page 286 of 333
Article V Special Purpose Zoning:
Article V governs the newly proposed P/I district, and proposed PUDs, existing PDs, and the
existing B-3 District. These unique zoning regulations are consolidated into a single article due to
their distinct processes and their misalignment with the structure of other zoning district
regulations or procedures.
● Creation of the P/I Public & Institutional zoning district to allow greater flexibility for the
unique needs of institutional and governmental uses.Institutional districts are common in
surrounding municipalities, as they allow for institutions to be scattered across the Village
and benefit from regulations that address the institution's needs. These uses include but
are not limited to safety services, schools, religious institutions, etc. In addition, the draft
regulations also reflect recommendations from the Comprehensive Plan land use maps.
However, no formal rezonings will take place until after adoptions of these
comprehensive text amendments. If approved, additional public hearings and noticing will
be required.
● Introduction of Planned Unit Developments (PUD) as a multi-step special use that allows
for greater flexibility including uses and bulk standards. The special use process aligns
with neighboring municipalities practices and provides greater clarity, while ensuring
compliance with state regulations. Further information regarding PUDs processes can be
found in Article XIV: Review and Approval Procedures.
● The Planned Development (PD) overlay district will become a legacy district, meaning
future developments may not be processed as a PD, instead as a PUD. As a legacy
district, existing PDs will not be changed nor allow for altering of previously approved
plans or agreements.
● The existing B-3 District is retained and any large future developments in the B-3 District
shall be required to be approved as PUD. However, no major changes regarding bulk and
uses are being proposed.
Article VI Principal Uses
Article VI regulates and addresses principal uses on private property. It defines land usage within
specific zoning districts by listing allowable uses as either permitted or special, or not allowed at
all. These uses are classified into groups, categories, and subcategories, with supplemental
regulations and special conditions for specific uses.
● A new classification system as detailed above, with these changes, the goal is to
maintain the existing permissions under the current zoning ordinance while providing
more discretion when determining a use.
● Replacement of outdated, and overly detailed uses to be better aligned with industry
standards.
● Enhancing the use table to be easily readable for all users by listing all categories and
zoning districts in a single color-coated table.
Article VII Accessory and Temporary Uses:
Article VII regulates accessory and temporary uses including accessory structures and buildings.
Accessory uses are generally secondary or subordinate uses, buildings, and structures that occur
in conjunction with an allowed principal use. These accessory uses generally regulate the size,
location, and design of accessory structures to ensure they complement the principal use and
comply with safety and aesthetic standards.
● Residential properties may now have one detached garage and two additional detached
buildings at a max coverage of 1,250 square feet and at a max height of 18 feet to better
____________________________________________________________________________________
PZC 001-2025 Page 4 of 9
Page 287 of 333
serve the needs of residents. (currently, properties may only have one detached garage
and one other accessory building).
● A proposed exemption for up to two small sheds, each 12 square feet or less from both
the maximum building footprint and lot coverage calculations.
● Non-residential properties may have accessory building through the special use approval
process at a height of 20 feet and compliance with the foundation landscaping
requirements. This specific language allows for clearer regulations regarding commercial
properties where current code is unclear or silent.
● The introduction of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) for lots occupied by a single
detached house to aid in the adaptation of the changing needs of residents. ADUs are
smaller, independent living spaces located on the same property as a single-family home
and are often used for rental income, housing extended family, or creating affordable
housing options. The proposed ADU regulations allow for conversions from existing floor
space within a detached home or garage, or as a separate structure. Each lot is limited to
one ADU, which cannot exceed 850 square feet and must comply with design standards
that ensure compatibility with existing neighborhood character.
● Introduction of electric vehicle charging equipment regulations to comply with state
regulations and adapt with technological advancements.
● Introduction of clarifying language for outdoor fireplaces, kitchens, and fire pits that align
better with building and fire regulations.
● Introduction of allowance for fleet vehicles such as light-duty vehicles for commercial and
industrial districts at a maximum of two vehicles that are screened from the street. This
allowance aids in providing business owners with the support needed in an ever
changing economy while maintaining a high visual aesthetic for commercial properties.
● Introduction of regulations that allow for alternative/renewable energy sources such as
solar, wind, and geothermal devices as required by state regulations.
● Clarifying and relaxing regulations related to garages and carports to aid residents that
commonly request this information.
● Relaxing and clarifying regulations for fences within setbacks/yards to better align with
the needs of residents.
● Clarifying regulations related to swimming pools and hot tubs that align with building code
regulations.
● Allowance for generators to encroach into certain setbacks to more effectively meet the
needs of residents.
● Introduction of regulations that clarify allowances for donation drop boxes on commercial
properties where current code is silent.
● Introduction of regulations for exterior vending machines where current code is silent.
● Inclusion of regulations explicitly allowing some outdoor uses including outdoor display
areas, outdoor storage areas, outdoor seating and dining areas, and other outdoor areas.
These regulations serve to provide allowances for commercial businesses while
maintaining the aesthetic character and mitigating impacts on surrounding properties.
Article VIII Wireless Telecommunications Facilities:
Article VIII outlines rules for wireless telecommunication facilities like towers and antennas.
Wireless telecommunications are valuable for public safety, convenience, and productivity, and
the village balances the benefits of wireless technology with the need to minimize any negative
effects, such as visual impacts, on the surrounding area. No substantial changes to these
provisions are being proposed other than the inclusion of microcell networks.
____________________________________________________________________________________
PZC 001-2025 Page 5 of 9
Page 288 of 333
Article IX Parking:
Article IX outlines parking regulations. Parking is essential for ensuring accessibility, safety, and
convenience for residents and visitors. By regulating parking spaces, the goal is to meet public
needs while minimizing potential negative impacts, such as congestion or aesthetic concerns, on
the surrounding area.
● Updated out of date parking minimums for most uses by generally reducing the minimum
parking requirement, which would allow for development of more lots and outlots where
parking is underutilized.
● Reductions in parking requirements for multi-unit residential properties to be more in line
with surrounding communities.
● Additional reductions allowed based on the environmental context including the Village’s
downtown, multitenant centers, and other minimal impact uses.
● Integrating parking lot design standards from engineering specification sheets to the
zoning ordinance and reducing the minimum standard parking stall size from 10 by 20
feet to 9 by 18 feet to better accommodate industry trends and needs of businesses.
● Introduction of stacking requirements for drive-through establishments to regulate the
evolving business trends.
● Inclusion of minimum landscape islands to reduce environmental concerns such as heat
island effects and stormwater.
Article X Tree Preservation and Landscaping:
Article X provides regulations for tree preservation and landscaping standards on private
property. Trees and landscaping play a vital role in enhancing the natural beauty, ecological
health, and overall character of the community. These provisions aim to ensure that the Village's
greenery is preserved and enhanced so negative impacts on the environment are minimized
while accommodating developmental growth and aesthetic harmony with its surroundings.
● Inclusion of provisions from the existing Article IV of Chapter 80 of the municipal code.
● Updated landscape regulations to require a portion of a proposed development’s open
space to be landscaped.
● Updated parking lot landscape requirements, including landscape islands for parking lots
larger than 20 spaces, requirements for visual screening from residential districts, and
enhanced street facing landscaping.
● Zoning Administrator is authorized to permit alternative compliance measures for
landscaping but all landscaping must be of a non-invasive species.
Article XI Signs:
Article XI establishes minimum standards for signs, recognizing their importance in
communication, navigation, and supporting local businesses. These regulations aim to balance
effective signage with visual appeal and safety by regulating design, placement, and size to
reduce clutter.
● No major changes being proposed to sign standards and allowances, rather clarification
of existing code that better aligns with internal policies and provides greater clarity for
business owners while maintaining the rights of the people.
● Expanded list of “prohibited signs” to include flashing LED window borders, among others
that generally have a negative impact on surrounding properties or pose a safety risk to
pedestrians and motorists.
● Updated how measurements are taken
● New sign exceptions and allowances for business grand openings to be more business
____________________________________________________________________________________
PZC 001-2025 Page 6 of 9
Page 289 of 333
friendly and that recognize the needs for new businesses.
● New sign allowances for the rear of downtown buildings, as alley enhancements have
made business owners want to provide secondary access from the rear of their business
Article XII General Development Regulations:
Article XII provides general development regulations, covering outdoor lighting, underground
utilities, street access, outdoor storage of junk and debris, and sight vision triangles. These rules
aim to support environmental objectives, improve safety, and maintain the community’s aesthetic
and functional quality.
● New outdoor lighting regulations to replace minimal vague existing language and to
better align with the environmental goals of the Village. These regulations address light
temperature and light shielding with the goal of reducing light ‘spillage’ on neighboring
properties for new commercial properties.
● Updated requirements for photometric plans and alternative compliance methods to verify
compliance with outdoor lighting regulations.
● Updated intersection visibility provisions to include alleys and streets to provide safety to
pedestrians and motorists.
Article XIII Nonconformities:
Article XII addresses nonconformities, including uses, structures, lots, signs, and development
features. The regulations aim to manage and mitigate discrepancies between existing conditions
and current standards, ensuring gradual alignment with updated codes while respecting
established properties. These guidelines support orderly development and promote consistency
within the community. While at the same time, they acknowledge and protect property owners'
rights, ensuring fairness and allowing for reasonable use and enjoyment of their properties within
the scope of the regulations.
● General changes for clarity regarding nonconformities such as uses and structures.
● The proposed language for nonconforming development features, such as undersized
parking lots, will allow for the maintenance and improvement of these features. Due to
historical development patterns, these features are unable to comply with current
regulations.
Article XIV Review and Approval Procedures:
Article XIV provides procedures for review and approval, encompassing common processes, map
and text amendments, development plans, special uses, site plans, variances, zoning verification
letters, and appeals. These guidelines are designed to ensure consistency, transparency, and
fairness throughout the review and approval process. At the same time, they protect the rights of
property owners and applicants, allowing for equitable consideration and due process in all
matters.
● Procedural changes and clarifying processes are being proposed for Development Plans,
Site/Landscape Plan approvals. Zoning certificates and certificates of occupancy are
being removed from the zoning ordinance, as some of these processes are not clear or
are categorized elsewhere in the Village’s Municipal Code.
● The purpose of a Development Plan is to present a property owner's general plan for the
type, scale, and physical characteristics of the proposed development on the property. By
offering greater clarity and certainty regarding development proposals, development
plans equip review and decision-making bodies with valuable information to support
rezoning and related decisions.
____________________________________________________________________________________
PZC 001-2025 Page 7 of 9
Page 290 of 333
○ Development Plans are required for new and amended PUDs and B-3 Zoning
District requests, but are options for any zoning map amendment request.
Development plans must ultimately be approved by PZC and the Village Board.
● Site Plans are being broken into two categories: Major and Administrative Site Plans.
○ Major site plans include the construction or enlargement of a building that is more
than 10,000 square feet in floor area, plans that are referred to the planning and
zoning commission due to potential adverse impacts on neighboring properties,
or noncompliance with applicable zoning or other Village regulations. These site
plans must be reviewed by the PZC and Village Board prior to being constructed.
○ Administrative site plans are any site plans that are not classified as a major site
plan and are not accompanied by other zoning entitlements/requests. These site
plans may be approved at the staff level without a public meeting.
● Site Plan amendments are also categorized into major and minor, with major
amendments requiring a new site plan and minor being approved at the staff level
administratively. Minor amendments include additional accessory uses and structures
customarily found in conjunction with the principal use and changes to the development
site or structures due to unforeseen circumstances.
Article XV Administration and Enforcement:
Article XV outlines regulations for administration and enforcement, detailing the roles,
responsibilities, and processes involved in overseeing and upholding zoning and development
standards.
● Clarification of the roles and responsibilities of the zoning administrator, noting that the
community development director serves as the zoning administrator but has the authority
to delegate zoning administration duties to other staff members.
● Enhanced, restated, and updated enforcement processes including violations, remedies,
and penalties to provide better transparency.
Article XVI Measurements:
Article XVI defines regulations for measurements, detailing the methods and standards used to
determine compliance with zoning and development requirements. It specifies how various
dimensions, such as height, area, and setbacks should be measured to ensure consistency and
accuracy in applying the regulations.
● This is a newly-created article meant to clarify in greater detail how measurements are
taken in a way that is not intertwined with definitions
● Inclusion of infographics and clarifying language regarding uncommon scenarios.
Article XVII Definitions:
Article XVII provides definitions to ensure clarity and consistency in the interpretation and
application of zoning and development regulations. It includes precise explanations of terms and
concepts used throughout the document, establishing a common understanding for property
owners, developers, and officials. These definitions help prevent ambiguity and ensure uniform
compliance with the standards.
● A list of all relevant definitions including but not limited to building, structures, signs, etc…
● Some definitions have been modified for clarity or removed due to outdated terms or
redundant definitions.
____________________________________________________________________________________
PZC 001-2025 Page 8 of 9
Page 291 of 333
Appendix A Recommended Tree and Shrubs:
● A list of largely native landscaping plants including canopy trees, evergreen trees,
understory trees, and shrubs that are recommended to be implemented in landscaping
plans and throughout the Village on private property.
II. SUMMARY
The Village of Westmont requests approval for text amendments to repeal Appendix A – Zoning from
the Westmont Code of Ordinances and establish a new Chapter 95 – Zoning. This comprehensive
update modernizes the Zoning Ordinance, including revisions to zoning districts, development
standards, planning processes, and other regulations. The proposed changes aim to streamline and
enhance zoning practices across the Village. Pending final approval by the Village Board of
Trustees, staff will proceed with any necessary rezonings, ensuring proper notice and community
involvement through public hearings.
III. LEGAL
A. Notification: A legal notice was published in Westmont Suburban Life on April 3, 2025.
B. Code References: Appendix A
C. Other Actions: The recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission will be referred to
the Village Board for a final decision at a date to be determined.
IV. DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
1. Legal notice was published in Westmont Suburban Life on April 3, 2025
2. Planning and Zoning Application received February 4, 2025
3. Memo Summary of the Zoning Ordinance Update Discussions dated April 23, 2025
4. Proposed Village of Westmont Zoning Ordinance Update April 2025 Redlined DRAFT
5. Proposed Text Amendment Additions & Strikethroughs
6. Petitioner Presentation
____________________________________________________________________________________
PZC 001-2025 Page 9 of 9
Page 292 of 333
Page 293 of 333
Page 294 of 333
Page 295 of 333
Page 296 of 333
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Scott Williams, Senior Planner
DATE: June 6, 2025
RE: Zoning Ordinance Update Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings Recap
This memo summarizes the special Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) meetings on April
23, 2025, and May 7, 2025. At these meetings, the public hearing for comprehensive text
amendments to the Village's Zoning Ordinance took place (PZC 001-2025). To allow for more
public input and commissioner deliberation, the hearing from April 23, 2025 was extended to a
special session on May 7, 2025. Further discussion and public comments led to another
continuation of the hearing to June 11, 2025. Written public comments were also accepted via
email before a June 6th deadline, and these comments have been attached. Detailed minutes
and video recordings are accessible on the Village’s website.
At the April 23rd meeting, Kirk Bishop of Duncan Associates, the Village’s consultant, presented
an overview of the background, objectives, and goals for the zoning ordinance update. Staff
presented a summary of the staff report, explaining the purpose of the zoning ordinance, the
identified issues with the current ordinance, and the many discussions that have informed the
proposed changes. Following the presentations, the public was invited to share their comments
during a public comment period. During this period, residents, business representatives, and
other members of the public voiced a range of feedback and concerns.
The May 7th meeting allowed for additional comments from the public at the start. The
Commissioners then had an opportunity to provide comments article by article. The commission
made it to Article VII: Accessory and Temporary Uses before voting to continue the public
hearing to June 11th to continue commissioner feedback on the remaining articles.
The June 11, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting at 6:00 PM will resume with the
commissioner review of the remaining articles. If time permits, there will be an additional
opportunity for public comments. No revised language has been proposed since the May 7th
meeting.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
1. Public comments received by June 6, 2025, 9:00AM
2. Staff Report dated April 23, 2025
3. Legal notice was published in Westmont Suburban Life on April 3, 2025
4. Planning and Zoning Application received February 4, 2025
5. Memo Summary of the Zoning Ordinance Update Discussions dated April 23, 2025
6. Proposed Village of Westmont Zoning Ordinance Update April 2025 Redlined DRAFT
7. Proposed Text Amendment Additions & Strikethroughs
8. Petitioner Presentation
Page 297 of 333
Scott Williams <swilliams@westmont.il.gov>
PUDs vs bike trails
Brian Schuering Thu, Jun 5, 2025 at 12:39 PM
To: Scott Williams <swilliams@westmont.il.gov>
That's great to hear, Scott! I definitely wish they'd thought of that back when platting our neighborhood.
Here are the suggestions that I plan to cover in greater detail during next Wednesday's meetings. I figured I'd enter them
into the record via email just to be safe:
1. I urge the village to commission a parking study at the earliest opportunity, and make the results of that study
public on the village website. Our current minimums may prove to be sensible in many instances, but we need to
be sure how much (and how little) we actually need — and we need to prove it to the community
2. Sec. 9.02, Table IX-1: Add a column for maximum parking entitlements and place a cap on any business types
whose maximum capacity and staffing can be easily calculated. Restaurants, office/research zones, and doctor’s
offices are three immediate examples I can think of.
3. Sec. 9.04(C): As with car-share services, each curbside pickup space should reduce the number of required
spaces by 4.
4. Sec. 9.05: Or wherever the best placement in the ordinance would be. Require the construction of a parking
garage if the square footage of a surface lot meeting the minimum parking requirement would exceed the footprint
of the building by a factor of 2.5-3 (again, a parking study would help determine the optimal ratio). If nothing else,
include this stipulation in O/R and M zones, where it's most commonly an issue.
See you next Wednesday,
Brian
[Quoted text hidden]
Page 298 of 333
Page 299 of 333
Scott Williams <swilliams@westmont.il.gov>
EIC questions about Outdoor Lighting Ordinance
Christa Stanulis <cstanulis@westmont.il.gov> Wed, May 7, 2025 at 4:51 PM
To: Scott Williams <swilliams@westmont.il.gov>
Cc: Bruce Barker <bbarker@westmont.il.gov>, Larry McIntyre <lmcintyre@westmont.il.gov>
Hi Scott,
Thank you for coming to speak with the EIC last month and for the opportunity to review the proposed
Village of Westmont ordinance changes. We’re so happy to see that section 12.01 “Outdoor Lighting” has
been created to regulate the direction and color temperature of proposed outdoor lights. This is a great
step to minimize the impacts that light pollution has on Westmont’s citizens and our environment. There
are a couple of exclusions to the proposed ordinance that I wanted to ask about.
Section 12.01(B)(9) states that the lighting regulations do not apply to “Light fixtures with a light output of
no more than 1,500 lumens.” As 1,500 lumens can be produced by a single 13-18 watt LED bulb
(equivalent to a 70 - 100 watt incandescent bulb), it seems this would exclude a large number of lights from
compliance with the ordinance, and in these instances provide no recourse for nuisance lighting where
multi-family, business, mercantile, office, or manufacturing districts border residential districts. The
prescriptive method for demonstrating compliance (Sec. 12.01(H)(2)), only regulates the mounting height of
fixtures relative to a lot line. For instance, fixtures less than 50 feet from a lot line may have a mounting
height of no more than 16 ft. When using the prescriptive method, this would not be sufficient to prevent
nuisance lighting from fixtures that fall under the 1,500 max. lumen exception.
Is there a reason this exception was included? Eliminating this 1,500 max. lumen exception would ensure
that all lights must meet the requirements for both color temperature and cut-off angle, and that variances
can be addressed on a case by case basis in the building permit process.
Section 12.01(F)(1) states that “All lighting fixtures, except motion detector-activated lighting, must be fully
shielded so that the lighting element is not visible to an observer at any property line, as measured 5 feet
above grade.” Again, nuisance lighting, even when intermittent, can still be problematic to neighboring
properties and the environment. When using the prescriptive method to demonstrate compliance, it would
be difficult to determine whether a proposed non-shielded motion activated fixture would comply with the
requirements of Sec. 12.01(G) Light Trespass, and this would have to be regulated post-construction by code
enforcement using a light meter. What is the benefit to exempting motion activated lighting from meeting
the shielding requirements?
Thank you for your consideration of these items and thank you to all Village staff who have worked hard to
incorporate lighting regulations into the revised ordinance. This is a great environmental step for the Village
of Westmont!
Christa Stanulis
Westmont EIC Member
Page 300 of 333
MARK W. DANIEL
May 7, 2025
Hon. Doug Carmichael, Chairperson, and Members
of the Planning & Zoning Commission
VILLAGE OF WESTMONT
31 W. Quincy Street
Westmont, IL 60559
Re: Westmont Zoning Ordinance Rewrite/Replacement
PZC 001-2025
Dear Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission:
As noted at the last hearing, I have a binder full of comments concerning the rewrite or
replacement of the zoning ordinance. The following are provided as a reflection of some of the
comments I would have made if provided more time at the last meeting and was able to attend
the May 7, 2025 meeting. As indicated it is best that I submit these in writing as thoughts the
Village should consider during this process. The information below is submitted by me
personally, as someone who spends a lot of time in Westmont and attempts to steer development
in the Village’s directions. Although I have many clients in Westmont, this is not submitted on
behalf of any of them even though you may understand that one of more of the comments below
might arise from experiences in prior or pending zoning matters.
As noted at hearing, I have been municipal counsel, represented developers and those
defending allegations of zoning violations, and, occasionally, objectors to development over
thirty years of practice. My experience includes all types of zoning relief from single-family lot
development to a one billion dollar lifestyle shopping center. My hope is that you will accept this
correspondence and enter it into the record at hearing while asking staff to consider the matters
raised before you proceed with a recommendation. Whatever the course of action taken by the
Village will be, there are several meaningful areas in the posted draft of the zoning ordinance
that require significant attention.
In largest part, the zoning ordinance sets the expectations of landowners and their tenants.
It also defines the parameters of code enforcement, zoning and development review and issuance
of building permits. The ordinance should be clear, with well-defined terms, and it should avoid
delegation except where necessary and lawful. If staff discretion or enforcement discretion could
be exercised in a variety of ways on an issue, the ordinance is not in proper form or substance.
In general, I offer only limited comment on matters of building design and construction.
The reasons for this are that it is unclear whether the “rules” and tables and figures are intended
to be aspirational or mandated. I also do not know that now is the appropriate time to be
Page 301 of 333
Hon. Doug Carmichael, Chairperson, and Members
of the Planning & Zoning Commission
VILLAGE OF WESTMONT PZC 001-2025
May 7, 2025
Page 2
importing so much regulation into the zoning ordinance when I am unaware of building
or façade surveys and can only reasonably advise that certain of the protocols in the
proposed detailed regulations are not attainable as to existing construction and even as to
new construction.
Also, from a general perspective, over the course of the last fifteen years, I have
seen a lot of development pass Westmont by. I represent the owners of many hotels,
office buildings, shopping centers, restaurants, transportation facilities, gas stations and
car washes, religious uses, non-governmental institutional uses, and residential
developments (the latter from a single-lot perspective up to multi-unit subdivisions). I
have steered many of them to Westmont only to find that the zoning ordinance is simply
not up to par or that they can only find out following the costly and burdensome process
of amendments, variations or special uses—and only then will the application of code be
clear. This amendment does not solve many of the issues that have caused folks to pass
on Westmont, whether the issues lie in higher density residential districts, downtown
districts, business districts or manufacturing and office/research districts. While staff
perceives the zoning ordinance as a means to make things easier for businesses, I do not
see it that way for several reasons. I acknowledge that some of your best projects will
require planned development approval or variations or special uses. However, there is too
much regulation and too much staff involvement (which the past has shown will
eventually lead to your involvement and that of the Village Board.
I am not ignoring the solid steps this proposed ordinance takes, but there are other
steps to consider. Re-orientation on special uses should proceed before you make a
recommendation. Special uses are not matters of convenience to staff in learning what is
going on with a parcel. A special use classification should only apply with a public or
private use has special impacts that, though generally acceptable, should proceed through
a hearing process because of off-site impacts that could arise. Some of the Village’s
special uses have zero off-site impacts. In other instances, the use lists ignore on-the-
ground realities of availability of land and the legal ability to carry out a use due to
regulations in footnotes or tables or in other provisions.
Before diving into detailed comments, I also note that there are so many people in
Westmont who work at, or operate, a business the Village has historically allowed, yet
these uses are the subject of the Village’s massive realignment to use locations. With
respect to the manufacturing and limited manufacturing districts, the Village is still
imposing process and burdens for no reason, rather than allowing for screening and
filtering of use through fencing or other mechanisms in areas where the residential use
developed after the industrial type of use. I also note that the B-2 district regulations
leave few or no meaningful use opportunities in today’s climate while ignoring the
workforce in Westmont includes contractors, mechanics, and the like who have thrived in
the B-2 district while homes near them have continued to develop and be appropriately
maintained. As a result, there is a significant substantive component to the evaluation of
Page 302 of 333
Hon. Doug Carmichael, Chairperson, and Members
of the Planning & Zoning Commission
VILLAGE OF WESTMONT PZC 001-2025
May 7, 2025
Page 3
this draft of the ordinance that involves a paradigm shift and reconsideration of whether the
Village will, or will not, continue to remember those who have lived and worked in Westmont, or
whether Westmont is striving to become another community and its future fabric will be quite
different than over the past fifty years.
General Procedural Structure
There is a serious concern that the work on the zoning ordinance is intended as a
complete replacement and an enactment of a new zoning ordinance. The Village is migrating the
zoning ordinance into the Village Code and considering a sea change in several respects,
including from the perspective of Section 1-10(7), new districts, new regulations in each chapter,
and a completely revised use table that replaces use lists that have been relied on for nearly 50
years (possibly more, but no one actually has verifiable copies of the zoning ordinance of
October 1, 1979 or the ordinance before that).
The Village may be approaching this from an improper procedural perspective. 65 ILCS
5/11-13-2 requires the appointment of a zoning commission to hold hearings and recommend a
new zoning ordinance. Unless the Village board has previously appointed the Planning & Zoning
Commission as this zoning commission to adopt a new ordinance, this concern will remain. In
1989, Hinsdale adopted a new zoning ordinance after having zoning commission meetings on a
chapter-by-chapter basis. Here, with a similarly in-depth rewriting of the zoning ordinance,
Westmont may only have two hearings, and as an attorney who specializes in this field, I find it
difficult to digest the terms, let alone the basis and implications of the terms, after only one short
hearing on the entirety of the change. I would not find it much easier after a second hearing.
Indications that the Village is adopting a new ordinance appear throughout the
voluminous changes to the substance of the zoning ordinance, in section 1.03 where the effective
date is not indicated as October 1, 1979, but rather as a date to be inserted, and in the elimination
of the historical notes of amendments (which, though incomplete, allow some historical
perspective). Since the remainder of this letter was dictated and no proofed meaningfully before I
left town, you will likely note a number of typos after the discussion of parking. The several
notes on the hundreds of pages were not something I could simply turn over as I had hoped.
Section 1.01
In the section, the Village indicates that the zoning ordinance will become part of the
Village Code, and it will no longer remain a distinct appendix. The Village has previously taken
care to avoid the use of its general regulations to amend the zoning ordinance under section 1-
10(7), but the incorporation of the zoning ordinance into the code of ordinances as Chapter 95
presents a risk of inconsistency in the Village’s past treatment of the zoning ordinance as a
distinct body of law that is not to be affected by the terms of the code of ordinances under
Section 1-10(7).
Page 303 of 333
Hon. Doug Carmichael, Chairperson, and Members
of the Planning & Zoning Commission
VILLAGE OF WESTMONT PZC 001-2025
May 7, 2025
Page 4
This codifies a practice by Village staff to apply portions of the Village Code when it
should not have done so. Village Code amendments follow one procedural path, and the only
similarities between an ordinance adopting or amending a Village Code section is the “NOW BE
IT HEREBY ORDAINED” language and the reflections of the vote and approvals. Several years
ago, the Village angered dozens of residents and business owners when it used nuisance
regulations to essentially place zoning regulations on various uses that relied on trailers or
parking of trailers that soon became known by staff as the storage of trailers even if the vehicles
were present on property only to be parked overnight or for an even shorter period depending on
emergency calls. It seems that the Village has not resolved the container or trailer issue for
manufacturers in town or addressed staff’s continued blur of the distinctions between parking
and storage of vehicles. (This latter issue is a major problem within the proposed zoning
ordinance.) In each of these important instances, staff has imported portions of the general
Village Code into the zoning ordinance and done so without legislative authority (see Sec. 1-
10(7). Several provisions of the zoning ordinance now stand to be amended by process that is
less formal and less informative that a zoning amendment. In dealing with vested property rights,
Westmont residents and business owners are entitled to more.
There should be more clarity on the import of having the zoning ordinance restated as a
chapter of the Village Code as well as the impact of incorporating Village Code terms into the
zoning ordinance (the latter from a procedural and substantive perspective).
Section 1.02
This section should refer to the powers granted under the 1970 Illinois
Constitution and by the Illinois General Assembly. I submit that the ordinance is not
being adopted pursuant to such powers. I disagree that reference to the “limitations
imposed by law“ is necessary, but I do not believe this component of Section 1.01 is an
accurate statement in this case.
Section 1.03
The effective date should remain October 1, 1979 unless this is a complete
replacement of the former zoning ordinance with a new zoning ordinance. (See note
above regarding 65 ILCS 5/11-13-2.) This ordinance is so different from the current
ordinance that it should be considered a new zoning ordinance.
Section 1.05
The Village should consider whether reference to the Illinois Commerce
Commission is adequate. In practical application, there seem to be utilities that are not
regulated by the ICC. Further, municipally-owned utilities, should be those owned by the
Village of Westmont. Otherwise, the Village runs a risk that a county or another
municipality may find provision of utility services in its corporate limits difficult and
Page 304 of 333
Hon. Doug Carmichael, Chairperson, and Members
of the Planning & Zoning Commission
VILLAGE OF WESTMONT PZC 001-2025
May 7, 2025
Page 5
decide to operate one of its utilities from a location within the Village (and not be subject to the
zoning ordinance). This dispute recently occurred when the DuPage Water Commission acquired
land in a remote municipality for operation of its utility system. Finally, the last sentence of
Section 1.05 exempts electrical substations or similar above ground structures, which are
undefined terms and used broadly enough such that the Village’s ability to control the number of
above ground electrical structures could be placed into question. (See also Section 7.17(B) (2)).
Section 1.09(A)
In the first of several provisions within the proposed zoning ordinance that indicate that
the Village is adopting a more aggressive approach to regulating the use of land than is necessary
or appropriate within its corporate limits, upon a finding of mere consistency between the zoning
ordinance and state or federal law, the Village elects to impose the most restrictive of the laws in
every instance. This eliminates the possibility that the local use may continue even in the face of
more restrictive state or federal regulation, or at best, creates confusion and uncertainty as to
which regulation applies. Perhaps the most recent example arises in land uses available under the
Smoke Free Illinois Act, wherein state law allowed for grandfathering of certain uses. Applying
the Smoke-Free Illinois Act to a smoking lounge, for example, could lead to the determination
that the grandfathering for prior uses contained in the Smoke Free Illinois Act is not available in
the Village despite being available in multiple other surrounding communities. Section 1.09(a)
causes concern inasmuch as the Village zoning enforcement officers have recently adopted the
path of least resistance in code enforcement efforts in their various and several interpretations of
useless regulatory terms – with the ultimate burden impermissibly falling on the landowners and
businesses that have invested in the Village of Westmont.
Section 1.09(B)
This provision is illegal and likely to lead to litigation. In particular, the Village’s use of
nuisance regulations is possibly the best example of general code amendments that were adopted
in a fashion to regulate the use of land as it would under a zoning ordinance. Section 1-10(7) of
the Village Code, prohibits the language in Section 1.09(b), and, as a subsidiary commission
within the Village, the Commission should not recommend regulations in the absence of
compliance with the structural Village code requirements, including Section 1-10(7). Lastly, the
use of prior plats or plans approved by the Village to impose zoning regulations is reckless and
illegal. Countless plats and plans reflect then-existing regulatory setbacks for convenience and
not for the purpose of imposing a binding setback. Setting aside the ambiguity and breath of the
pool of records from which the Village may adapt independent, more restrictive, regulatory
terms, I suggest that the commission eliminate any possibility that prior plats or plans could lead
to a more restrictive regulatory control. The provision is simply impractical and, indeed, would
have the eventual effect of undermining efforts to insure title.
Page 305 of 333
Hon. Doug Carmichael, Chairperson, and Members
of the Planning & Zoning Commission
VILLAGE OF WESTMONT PZC 001-2025
May 7, 2025
Page 6
Section 1.09(c)
I never understood how the Village could enforce the second sentence of this paragraph.
If the zoning ordinance imposes a provision, different than an agreement, easement, covenant or
deed restriction, the Village cannot simply declare that the provision of the private party
agreement no longer applies, and that the terms of the zoning ordinance are applicable.
This violates at least two provisions of the 1970 Illinois Constitution (ex post facto and
due process).
Section 1.10(a)
The Village cannot lawfully adopt all of the definitions in a planning dictionary
that does not operate as anything more than a collection of definitions of various zoning
terms from various municipalities throughout the nation that offers no indication of how
these terms applied within the ordinance from which they were taken. Further, some
terms have as many as ten definitions, and, if any one of these definitions could apply
under the facts, the use of the term in the zoning ordinance will be unconstitutionally
vague. The zoning ordinance is supposed to be a clear set of regulations and definitions
that are not only binding on landowners and occupants, but which also binds staff in the
application of law to each collection of circumstances. The dictionary must be one that is
generally publicly available and kept on file in the office of the Village clerk and in the
building and zoning office. If the dictionary is not generally available, how am I to advise
a client or how is staff to explain terms to anyone?
There are numerous terms in the zoning ordinance that require definitions. More
than a few will not have ready dictionary definitions.
Section 1.10(b)
The Village should simply follow the Statute on Statutes and protocols for
counting time. In regard to the computation of time, since regular Village working days
change from time to time, reference should be had to federal or state holidays. The end of
the period should exclude weekends and holidays for the last day counted. But, what if
the Village hall is closed on a normal business day for many needing to act for required
action such as an appeal to be filed on Good Friday? What if the Village Hall is closed on
Martin Luther King Day but the Village still has night meetings?
Section 1.10(D)
The term “or“ should not include any interpretation or application of this term as
“and.“ As written, this possibility remains, and recent uncertainties and interpretations by
staff lead to a concern that the language “or in combination” could allow staff to require
all matters listed in terms connected by “or” to exist in their entirety and not alternatively.
Page 306 of 333
Hon. Doug Carmichael, Chairperson, and Members
of the Planning & Zoning Commission
VILLAGE OF WESTMONT PZC 001-2025
May 7, 2025
Page 7
Section 1.10(E)
The disclaimer that illustrations do not define or limit the scope of any provision
in the zoning ordinance should be deleted because it is inaccurate. In some instances,
figures or illustrations are the only place where regulations appear. Specific language
relating to the application of illustrations should be presented in each regulation referencing the
illustration and at the beginning of the illustration. The use of illustrations poses risk to the
Village and landowners in as much as the Village cannot possibly illustrate all applicable ranges
of regulatory impact in its illustrations. With respect to each illustration, the Village should
consider whether the illustration imposes a regulation or merely reflects the application of a
regulation in one circumstance but not in all circumstances. As I noted during the last hearing,
there were significant gaps in the calculation and determination of height while using
illustrations intended for that purpose. In the absence of a specific regulation governing the issue,
there would be a gap in the Villages regulatory scheme. This leaves it to the zoning process or
the creativity of staff and applicants to determine the substance of the gap area.
Section 1.10(f)
One of the rationales behind section 1–10(7) was that amending the Village code is not
governed by the same notice and hearing process or by the municipal code terms governing the
rights of landowners to object to amendments. Amendments to the general code were viewed as
historically distinct from the zoning ordinance. Only in recent times has the Village regularly and
aggressively applied general Village code provisions in their efforts to enforce disowning
ordinance—to the prejudice of landowners and tenants who had no notice of the shift in
regulatory enforcement. If a term of the general code operates as a zoning provision, it should be
part of the zoning ordinance. Recently, the Village has utilized nuisance regulation in a fashion
that conflicts with it zoning ordinance, and it has also applied various road weight regulations in
a fashion that contradicted the terms of the zoning ordinance concerning the length of time
certain vehicles could be parked on a zoning lot. Both of these occurred in circumstances of
zoning enforcement and the Village’s prerogatives severely disappointed vested owners.
Section 1.10(J)
If this is not a new zoning ordinance, I respectfully request that you re-insert legislative
history and return to using legislative authority notes. In particular, since the Village does not
have a copy of the 1979 zoning ordinance that is capable of being certified by the Village Clerk,
the Village is in the precarious position of regulating non-conforming uses, but having no basis
upon which to proceed in this respect. Indeed, there is an email from planning management staff
that blatantly acknowledged that the Village had no power to evaluate nonconforming uses and
simply directed code violation actions to put the burden on the landowner. Without the legislative
histories, there will be no document from which one can determine when particular provisions of
an ordinance amended over nearly 50 years applied. The Village’s selective, uneven, and ad hoc
recognition of nonconforming uses has caused numerous problems over the years and it is
Page 307 of 333
Hon. Doug Carmichael, Chairperson, and Members
of the Planning & Zoning Commission
VILLAGE OF WESTMONT PZC 001-2025
May 7, 2025
Page 8
strongly encouraged to establish a registry of non-conforming uses and structures,
whether or not this will be a new zoning ordinance or an amendment to the existing 1979
zoning ordinance.
Section 1.12(D)
If the Village intends a pro-business approach to zoning, the boundaries of
residential and institutional districts should be the property line of the residential or
institutional lot. It should not be treated as the centerline of a street or some other
boundary. This would assist in the measurement of separation requirements in the zoning
ordinance. For example, the ordinance could provide: “In all instances, the boundary of
the lower classification zoning district shall be the property line of the land in the lower
classification district, whether or not shown on the map.”
Section 1.12(E)
The last sentence should provide that annexed land may concurrently be rezoned.
Due to the circumstance that the entirety of Section 14.02 may not apply to all
annexations and it necessarily applies to post-annexation zoning decisions, reference to
this section is unnecessary. As written, this portends annexation followed by a distinct
proceeding to amend the classification (adding to the time required to process a
development matter when annexation is involved).
Section 1.12(F)
Subsection 2 is a subdivision regulation and not a zoning regulation. The term
“subdivision“ is not defined. The identification of parcels utilizing permanent index
numbers is not a zoning process. An aggregation of permanent index numbers may
comprise a single zoning lot under the definition of “zoning lot.” The Village should
eliminate inconsistent usage of the terms “parcel” and “zoning lot” and it should consider
that the proposed amendments essentially down zone all parcels that are smaller than
20,000 square feet. This essentially leaves the owners of lots smaller than 20,000 square
feet to negotiate zoning processes that are burdensome and costly in situations where
smaller lot development is already difficult and a substantial amount of development in
the Village will involve infill development. The Village should consider elimination of
inconsistencies in the use of “setback” and “building setback” because setbacks apply to
structures other than buildings. If the Village intends to specifically regulate split-zoned
lots and exempt setbacks to buildings, then it should define “building setback” distinctly.
Before adopting regulations of this type, the planning and zoning commission should
have at least some understanding of how many zoning lots are split-zoned and how many
future zoning lots could be split zoned following subdivision in compliance with the
Illinois Plat Act.
Page 308 of 333
Hon. Doug Carmichael, Chairperson, and Members
of the Planning & Zoning Commission
VILLAGE OF WESTMONT PZC 001-2025
May 7, 2025
Page 9
Section 1.13
The current 1979 zoning ordinance legislatively authorized several special uses
that have continued since October 1, 1979. If a use was operating as of 1979, and the
1979 ordinance designated it as a special use, the use operating in 1979 was
automatically granted a special use. The legislative authorization of these special uses remains
effective today. A substantial number of questions arises from subsection (A)(4). Legislative
special uses exist along Chicago Avenue and at other locations in the Village, and it is presumed
under subsection (A)(4) that the Village will not eliminate rights to these special uses in
existence since October 1, 1979. However, the ordinance is less clear in referring to “approved”
special uses as if some approval is required when the legislative special uses required no
subsequent approval.
Table II-2
There appear to be mathematical errors in the recitation of interior side regulations for
detached houses. Footnote 6 contains an improper delegation in as much as it creates discretion
to approve lot coverage up to 40% rather than allowing lot coverage up to 40% as of right. The
terms “drainage problem area” and “drainage subbasin area” are undefined other than by the
Village Engineer, and, next, staff may or may not allow 40% lot coverage.
Section 3.02
After the first sentence in subsection B, all terms should be cut and pasted to an earlier
general section concerning the business and employment districts because these terms apply to
all such districts. There is no zoning map contained within the amended zoning ordinance. At
hearing, it appeared that the Village was relying on future action by the Village board to adopt
zoning map amendments. There has been insufficient time to allow consideration of Article 3
deletions and the B-1/B-1A concerns.
Table III-2
Use of a general R zoning classification as causing transitional setbacks on non-
residential lots creates issues. Throughout much of the Village, residential uses nearby non-
residential corridors or districts have either gained value at their location or developed after the
non-residential use, in each instance, taking their character from the nonresidential use.
Transitional setbacks should not be required on non-residential lots where this occurred. Only R-
zoned lots of R-3 classifications or lower and used for single-family detached residential
purposes might require a transitional setback. Transitional setbacks should only apply to the
placement of buildings closer to the lot line than they exist at the time of construction. New
construction on non-residential lots should be able to retain the existing setback, notwithstanding
complete demolition or removal and replacement of the wall of the building that is within the
Page 309 of 333
Hon. Doug Carmichael, Chairperson, and Members
of the Planning & Zoning Commission
VILLAGE OF WESTMONT PZC 001-2025
May 7, 2025
Page 10
existing setback. The commission should be aware of lots in the B-2 district that will face
under-utilization as a result of footnote 4.
Section 3.05
The Village has engaged in arbitrary and inconsistent application of regulations
requiring the enclosure of operations—fully disregarding that parking and loading are not
“operations” that are the subject of indoor operations requirements. Parking and loading
are not “business, servicing, storage, processing, or other operations.” Yet there are
dozens of uses that park vehicles or load vehicle vehicles that have been placed at risk
due to the Village’s election to pursue code violations for conducting alleged outdoor
business operations by merely parking or loading. To the extent this has occurred, it is
incumbent on the Commission to understand how it occurred, where it has occurred, in
which districts, and to address the issue in this amendment. The exception for fleet
vehicle storage cannot be viewed as a step in the right direction until the Village properly
addresses the distinction between parking and loading, on one hand, and storage, on the
other. The fleet vehicles regulation and the merging of parking and loading with outdoor
operations is entirely shortsighted and ignores historic use, contractors uses, fitness and
youth program uses, and the circumstance that each trailer and commercial or passenger
vehicle is defined as a vehicle. Utilizing the same Section 7.14 in order to regulate fleet
vehicles in the B-2 district win this regulation was developed in light of some contractor
uses in the B-1 downtown core district fails to recognize that several B-2 zoning lots are
amenable to a higher number of fleet vehicles. The same rationale should be considered
in relation to any more intense zoning districts such as the O/R, M-1 or M districts. Also,
one must consider why outdoor dining on public sidewalks is exempted when there are
businesses in the Village that provide outdoor dining opportunity on private property and
this use should be encouraged where a possible. Section 7.14 relies on undefined terms
and ignores the standards and practices of public and private agencies and entities within
the Village that have existed for decades. The first challenge to any regulation under
Section 7.14 will a rise in relation to staff’s over-expansive view of the term “storage” as
encompassing parking and/or loading. Storage is not parking or loading.
Figure IV-2
Where is the regulation pertaining to storefront building side setbacks abutting a
non-R district? Zero or five is not an appropriate regulation. If the Village has adopted a
zoning map, intending to place a high density, R district adjacent to core district in a
fashion that aligns side yards of the core district with the residential district, this is a
mistake. Particularly in the core district, owners should be encouraged to develop
property to the lot lines. The maximum outdoor open space regulation should apply on
the basis of 50 square feet per residential unit up to a maximum of a percentage of lot
area that is reasonable in the relevant districts, including the core districts. Due to the lack
of lot depth in the core districts, it is highly likely that the absence of a cap based on
Page 310 of 333
Hon. Doug Carmichael, Chairperson, and Members
of the Planning & Zoning Commission
VILLAGE OF WESTMONT PZC 001-2025
May 7, 2025
Page 11
percentage of lot area will lead to several variations or deviations because there is always a point
where the amount of rooftop space available is limited by the dimensions of the property being
developed. This will conflict with the Village’s intent that core district development extend to the
lot lines and may lead to arbitrary reservations of unattractive or non-beneficial grade level open
spaces in areas where the Village prefers buildings or in areas where business use may extend to
outdoor areas in a fashion conflicting with abutting uses.
Table IV-3
The term parapet is not defined. As written, item 11 could prohibit all bays. It seems that
the 30% figure should appear before the term transparency. With respect to item 13, the
minimum number of building entrances is nonspecific as to common vs. emergency entrances. Is
this an averaging that applies so two doors within 120 feet but more than 60 apart could work?
When do these regulations apply (new building, existing storefront or new building behind or
relying on existing storefront)? Re-use of existing storefronts becomes burdensome if the rule
applies to new and existing storefronts. In item 15, a specific dimension from the abutting
sidewalk is missing.
Figure IV-5, 6 Sec 16.13(a)(2)
Each Commissioner should know coping in construction. Coping covers the top of a wall
to prevent water infiltration. Where the wall ends and parapet begins is an issue to be determined
in any height regulation. The parapet is different than the roof, and under circumstances where
height is measured to the highest point of coping of the flat roof (if coping is being used as a roof
covering), it seems that the parapet is excluded from the height measurement. This is probably a
best practice because parapet height may vary based on rooftop mechanical equipment, rooftop
open areas or signage. If coping is the covering of the parapet, then the regulation is not one that
could be viewed as best practice without substantial attention to those items above the roof that
are excluded from height. Section 16.13(B) contains the exclusions from height which include
parapet walls, but the diagrams do not seem to reflect the exclusion. Another indication of
increased regulatory burdens appears when one compares the existing 15-foot exclusion of
parapets from height to Table IV-5 which indicates parapets should have a maximum height of 6
feet—a height known to be too short to buffer noise from several rooftop mechanical units.
The diagrams in Section 16.13 do not mention coping and do not seem to allow a
distinction between the flat roof or coping and the parapet. This should be clarified. Like many
other diagrams, they content is not friendly to those with vision issues and these diagrams should
be available in the printed and online versions of the ordinance in a larger format to allow
viewing without difficulty (presumably, the Village intends to comply with applicable federal
law when it publishes or posts its ordinances). In relation to residential uses in the core districts,
the Village should consider reviewing Hinsdale‘s regulations or the regulations of another
municipality to determine how a half story is treated in the establishment of height. To encourage
architectural variety and still allow the utilization of interior space inside a half story within the
Page 311 of 333
Hon. Doug Carmichael, Chairperson, and Members
of the Planning & Zoning Commission
VILLAGE OF WESTMONT PZC 001-2025
May 7, 2025
Page 12
roof, the Village might consider the percentage of usable floor area under the roof above
the half story.
The definition of grade in article 17 refers to section 16.13 a, but section 16.13 a does not
contain a clear definition of grade. First, in relation to a new building, grade at the
setback line could change. Second, the use of the term “existing or established” begs the
question of whether the predevelopment grade or the post development grade applies.
Third, the provision relies on “building setback“ rather than “setback“ and either of these
terms, under section 17.06, applies from all lot lines. The Village should determine the lot
line from which grade will be established for the purposes of measuring height. Based on
the figures and tables, it can be implied that the Village intends to regulate grade utilizing
a measurement from the front lot line or front building set back, depending on the
applicable core district. Due to the railroad and elevation changes near downtown, it is
important to specify the elevation along which the height determination is made.
Although the Village is generally dealing with lots of limited depth, there are locations
where lots with more than adequate depth will encounter elevation changes that lead to
consternation over the determination of grade and the reasonable expectation of
development on particular parcels. There will also be occasions when an owner of a lot
on cast, Burlington, or Quincy might be able to increase the depth of the lot by acquiring
land behind it, so the determination of height might be considered in this context as well.
Section 4.12
In general, the Village is embarking on an extensive regulatory scheme. The
circumstance that reflective, glass or glass block are prohibited on street facing building
façades generally is an indication that these regulations have not been fully vetted. What
is the public interest in avoiding glass block or fake windows above the first floor of a
building in a suburb and the second floor of a building in Chicago? If mixed use or
residential use above commercial is one of the goals of the downtown core districts, the
Village needs to consider that glass block is often used for bathroom privacy, and that
fake windows can often be used to allow the appearance of continued vertical orientation
of windows in a residential setting when planning for interior storage or utility rooms or
for diversification of units within residential floors of a mixed use building.
Also, has the Village considered the conflict between its balcony regulations and
the intent to pursue construction to or nearly to the street side lot line? Balconies should
be allowed to project over the public right of way if the Village is going to enforce a
minimum balcony depth. Alternatively, the Village should consider defining the term
balcony so that it does not prevent a builder from installing opening doors or sliding glass
doors on a partial balcony. If the definition of balcony is as broad as provided for in
section 17.06, the question is whether a partial balcony that allows for the placement of
planters outside such a door or a window constitutes a balcony or a Juliet balcony or a
false balcony. Technically, a platform projecting from the wall of a building, enclosed by
Page 312 of 333
Hon. Doug Carmichael, Chairperson, and Members
of the Planning & Zoning Commission
VILLAGE OF WESTMONT PZC 001-2025
May 7, 2025
Page 13
a railing appears to be a false balcony at any time the balcony has a depth less than the 4 feet
required in Section 4.12. In other words, there is no measurable standard, which leads to the
question of whether a minimum depth for balconies is even required— particularly if the Village
wants developers to build to the street lot line.
Figure IV-17
I believe I mentioned this figure in my testimony. Appropriate scaling of windows and
shutters is a design question and not a zoning question. In the top figure, the Village prohibits,
the articulation of what appears to be the entrance to an office building with an articulated
overhang below a window and shutters that are smaller than their counterparts on each side.
Frankly, there is nothing objectionable about this type of design and it is common to residential
structures and multitenant non-residential buildings with a central stairwell. Setting aside my
personal view, the question is whether within applicable maximum height regulations, the
Village wishes to mandate purely flat canopies or overhangs over entries. On the next page in the
lower left portion of figure IV-18, the Village uses an example of a principal entryway feature,
nestled between window features that would be nonconforming according to the immediately
preceding figure on the prior page. Considering this level of regulation from the perspective of
the private owner and designer perspective, the plan commission will hopefully recognize that
over-regulation will lead to excessive uniformity if the Village is not careful. Further, such over-
regulation is a disincentive to new development and to rehabilitation of existing development.
The mechanical equipment regulations in paragraph G consider the screening of rooftop
mechanical equipment from a visual perspective. In stating that rooftop, mechanical equipment
must be concealed from view at street level (particularly five feet above street level), the Village
ignores that most persons are taller than five feet and omits definition of the location at street
level (such as the nearest or furthest point in the right of way or intersection of rights of way).
Additionally, screening of mechanical equipment, serves the additional purpose of reducing
ambient noise in a neighborhood. The Village should consider whether to require the screening
of mechanical equipment for purposes relating to noise as well as visual concerns. The straight
line of sight regulation to an undefined five-foot eyelevel does not account for most of the sound
cone generated with the emission of noise.
Another sign that these regulations have not been fully vetted appears in regard to the
location of utility appurtenances on streets (noted as front street). Can the utility box be situated
in the side street more easily? Can the utility box in the street right of way be placed below
grade? A similar question arises in relation to the utility structures that are not located in the right
of way but is located in the required setback. Has the Village considered the impact of its utility
appurtenance regulations on façades when the façades are on a building situated on a corner or
through lot? The extent of these regulations could impact the redevelopment of properties as well
as the reuse of properties, and some consideration must be given to reuse of existing buildings to
avoid excessive administration of a vast number of zoning regulations appearing in Section 4.12.
Page 313 of 333
Hon. Doug Carmichael, Chairperson, and Members
of the Planning & Zoning Commission
VILLAGE OF WESTMONT PZC 001-2025
May 7, 2025
Page 14
The regulations in Section 4.12 could serve as a substantial disincentive to the reuse of
existing downtown buildings by viable and desired businesses.
Section 5.01
Considering the effort to diversify uses within the B-3 resort district several years
ago, the Village should utilize this amendment to expand the available uses to include
new principal uses and additional secondary uses since it was abundantly clear that, prior
to a lawsuit brought by Oak Brook residents, the uses would supplement the demand for
hotel rooms in the resort district and elsewhere. Previously, there was an attempt to utilize
some of the excessive parking in the B-3 district to allow for development of a substantial
swimming facility. Clearly, the development of a smaller, focused sports complex, could
serve to benefit the hotel operator in the sales of rooms and other items in the resort
district. Why would the Village not allow indoor or outdoor spectator entertainment in the
B-3 resort district? An arcade, for example, is common in resort districts but it is not
permitted in the B-3 district. Accessory video gaming frequently arises at or in relation to
hotels, and this video gaming is frequently operated by the hotel operator, not in
conjunction with a restaurant or bar. In the instance of a hotel operating in the B-3
district, it may be in the Village’s best interest to allow a distinct standalone area within
which video gaming can be allowed, not accessory to a restaurant or bar. It appears under
Section 6.0 4F3a that such a use would be permissible. However, there is concern over
the use of the term “video gaming café” and the omission of this use anywhere within the
Village.
The regulations in section 5.01 are overly burdensome to owners within the B-3
zoning district. Every change to plans should not require a map amendment. In fact, no
map amendment should be required even for a change in use. The Village learned a
difficult lesson in this respect already, and there is no justifiable basis to require a zoning
map amendment ever. The Village of Oak Brook’s injection of attached single-family
residential use adjacent to the B-3 district should be considered by the Commission. Each
of these owners, all of whom are Oak Brook residents, can forever impede development
and adaptations of use in the B-3 district by filing protests. Further, a map amendment is
unnecessarily burdensome. Even a planned development is excessively burdensome for
“amending previously approved plans“ and there should be a clearly defined range within
which the owner will understand that an amendment is required. At this point, every
amendment, including changes in storage areas, the location of sod farm areas, the
orientation of golf, fairways, and tee boxes, and changes in use within the hotel require a
planting development. This is plainly over-regulation, unfriendly to investors in the
Village and not conducive to a proper business friendly approach to zoning and
development. Finally, as written, Section 5.01D appears to be inapplicable under the
legislative and development history of the B-3 district. I believe there have been changes
to the B-3 district development after the date the Village established B-3 zoning, but staff
would have to clarify this.
Page 314 of 333
Hon. Doug Carmichael, Chairperson, and Members
of the Planning & Zoning Commission
VILLAGE OF WESTMONT PZC 001-2025
May 7, 2025
Page 15
The entirety of Section 5.01 leads me to wonder whether anyone consulted with
the owner/owners of land in the B-3 district. I also wonder why one Villag of Oak Brook
trustee stands to gain significant benefits from the proposed zoning ordinance (Michael
Manzo opposed changes in the B-3 district and he also has a history of being related to at
least one gaming café in the Village that will now have a monopolistic advantage.) The Village’s
classification of uses in Section 5.01 refers to principal uses and secondary uses. The reference to
secondary uses appears to require that the uses must be affiliated with or part of the principal use.
Westmont should allow the development of independent principal uses that include uses in
addition to those permitted by right under the Section 6.02 table in order to allow sufficient
adaptation by the hotel operator to changing demands and economies. Indeed, the history in
relation to the B-3 resort district clearly shows that the land in the district is being underutilized
and could be put to better use that strengthens the Villages tax base from a hotel, sales, food and
beverage, and real estate tax perspective.
Sections 5.03 and 5.04
At the last hearing, I mentioned to staff that it should not include existing planned
developments or future planned unit developments as a distinct zoning classification. This
appears to have already been considered, but in the absence of further review of draft
regulations, I cannot comment further.
Article VI
Preliminary, I could not provide input on article 6, without commenting on the profound
disappointment in the administration of the Village’s current and past use lists. Village staff has
abandoned the rule that general categories encompass all uses within that category unless the use
is specifically provided for elsewhere. This has led to impossible situations in the B-1, B-2 and
O/R districts. It has also led to problems in the M1 and M districts. I mentioned development
passing over the Village of Westmont based upon uncertainties, and I mentioned the Village’s
failure to provide for uses common to every municipality which are necessary and beneficial. If
these uses are not provided for in the Village on a reasonable basis they become taxes or burdens
on the Village’s residents because residents must pay for mileage or time to reach a Westmont
address requiring services or goods.
In my experience, 100% of the people that have recommended Westmont to have
considered other communities before Westmont because of a lack of certainty in the code or
over-regulation. Of these, 50-60% of these prospective new businesses or new developments
pass on Westmont due to anticipated or perceived misinterpretation or misapplication of use lists
by staff. Unfortunately, this leads to a negative perception of qualified staff members who could
serve well when tooled with a good ordinance and properly trained. But today’s perception is that
the Village is unreasonable. So, as a preliminary note, I have great concern over any regulations
that allow staff flexibility in determining which uses are available, great concern over omitted
Page 315 of 333
Hon. Doug Carmichael, Chairperson, and Members
of the Planning & Zoning Commission
VILLAGE OF WESTMONT PZC 001-2025
May 7, 2025
Page 16
definitions, and great concerns over the use of general categories given the past 10 years
within which I have seen staff ignore common interpretive rules relating to use lists.
Staff should have specific instruction under Section 6.01 or Section 6.02 that they shall
apply broad categories of use as inclusive of all uses reasonably fitting within the
category unless a more particular use within that category exists. There should be no
further searching once a use falls within the general category unless such more specific
use exists and only that specific use is exempted from the category and not all other
possible uses in the category.
With the minimal amount of time that Table VI has been discussed at a public
zoning hearing, I have significant doubt that the Commission will have had opportunity
to consider the reinvention of the existing use lists in the proposed table of uses.
Perhaps most offensive to me, given my recent experiences with matters on Cass
Avenue and along Chicago Avenue, is the creation of a building service category and
relegation of this category of use to the M1 district as a special use and the M district as a
permitted use while eliminating these uses from the B-2 district. This reflects ignorance
of the history of Westmont, the importance of these uses to Westmont and its surrounding
areas as well as the importance of these uses in Westmont to residents of Westmont who
own or are employed by businesses operating these uses. There is no reason that a
building service use (many uses of which have existed on Cass Avenue, Blackhawk
Avenue, and Chicago Avenue for longer than 50 years) should ever be a special use in
either of the M districts. Indeed, before relegating building service uses to the M districts,
this Commission should have a full understanding of the number of such uses and the
availability of existing tenant spaces or existing land available in reasonable
configurations for development of new tenant space for these uses in the Village. State
law requires that the Village consider the past 50 years of land use along Chicago Avenue
and Cass Avenue. If the Village has determined, and I do not believe it has, that building
service uses are inappropriate in the B-2 district, I would be surprised. I would also be
surprised if the Village would classify them as special uses in the B-2 district. Building
service uses might rely on outdoor storage (not the type of storage staff views as arising
from parking or loading), so outdoor storage could be a special use in the B-2 district, but
permitted as of right in both the M1 district and the M district. Indeed, the same
requirements for outdoor storage could be made applicable across these three districts so
as to avoid unduly burdensome regulation.
In no instance, does the need to know what is being stored outside, justify the
planning burdens of a special use in the B-2, M1 and M districts. In these districts, fence
heights should be adaptable up to eight feet in order to screen outdoor storage. However,
there should be no requirement that outdoor storage be limited to a height, not to exceed
that of the fence. Most land in the B-2, M and M1 districts was developed prior to nearby
residential land uses. Within the past two years, staff has testified to having to drive by
Page 316 of 333
Hon. Doug Carmichael, Chairperson, and Members
of the Planning & Zoning Commission
VILLAGE OF WESTMONT PZC 001-2025
May 7, 2025
Page 17
areas with alleged outdoor storage screened by a fence as if this were a problem. To the contrary,
building service uses are appropriate on arterial roads and most collector roads because their very
essence is that they go out into the community and serve the consumer or end user at an offsite
location even if they engaged in sales from the zoning lot at issue. The answer to the concern
expressed by staff in recent sworn testimony should be addressed with plantings and right of way
improvements if the Village has determined that a stretch of roadway in Westmont requires them,
but, again, there is no evaluation, reflected in the proposed zoning ordinance that reflects that the
Village has even given this consideration. Whether the storage is of pallets, equipment that is not
a vehicle, goods or stockpiles, the storage should be allowed at all locations in the B-2, M and
M1 districts subject to clear screening requirements (which frankly already exist for the B-2
district).
If this Commission intends to reinforce Village staff’s incorrect characterization of
overnight parking of vehicles as storage, or if this Commission intends to segregate commercial
vehicles or the undefined class of fleet vehicles, all of these uses should be permitted as of right
in the B-2, M and M1 districts. Storage of vehicles (even if it is mere parking and even if the
vehicles are oversized), could be a special use in the B-2 district. However, these activities in the
B-2 district have been commonplace, continuous, and ongoing since the 1950s. Recent pressures
brought on owners of businesses, even as they are improving the property from its prior
condition and proceeding with a better use of land than previously, have been unreasonable, and
this Commission should consider each of the building services businesses and determine the
impact of the new regulations on these uses. The Illinois Municipal Code requires the
Commission to recommend a zoning ordinance that considers existing conditions in the Village
when planning. The use lists as it relates to building services providers does not do this.
The B-2 district regulations abandon the Village’s obligation to consider its history and
existing uses, and the obligation to retain a reasonable collection of land uses available to
landowners in the B-2 district. These considerations are both legal (is there a reasonable
collection of listed uses available?) and practical (if a use is listed, is it reasonably likely to be in
the B2 district?). Several questions arise that affect these considerations.
Even though tobacco and vape lounges are ordinarily considered as allowable uses in
multiple districts in several communities, the Village only allows tobacco and vape lounges in
the B2 district if they are more than 1000 feet away from a school. Why would the Village have
an interest in this particular separation distance? Why would it matter if the use does not front on
the same street as the school or one of its playgrounds? Does this apply to public and private
schools, and what type of schools are within the category of schools? Has the Village considered
the Smoke Free Illinois Act?
Although the Village views the twice a day going and coming of building service vehicles
as problematic in the B-2 district, it appears to have no problem with lodging in the B-2 district.
The intensity of use in the B-2 district is much greater for a lodging use. The frequency of
Page 317 of 333
Hon. Doug Carmichael, Chairperson, and Members
of the Planning & Zoning Commission
VILLAGE OF WESTMONT PZC 001-2025
May 7, 2025
Page 18
foreign visitors, unfamiliar with a neighborhood is much greater for a lodging use. And
the Village simply does not have practical B-2 development tracts available for lodging
use.
A craft alcoholic beverage dispenser should be a permitted use in the B-2 district, and
outdoor service possible to a certain hour without a special use permit. The same concerns
related to distancing from schools exist. The use may not be desired on the same frontage or
opposite the frontage of a school, but a distance requirement could irrationally prevent
the operation of this use in the B-1 or B-2 district when there is no visual connectivity
with the school.
A catering establishment should be a permitted use in the B-2 zoning district. Is
catering allowed as a secondary or accessory used to a restaurant?
Business training should be a permitted use in the B-2 district. Substantial
questions exist as to why business training would be a special use in any district.
The Village might consider allowing tattoos or body piercing services in the B-2
district. Under its current posture, the Village’s allowance of these uses in the M district
conflicts with what will be a high demand for M and M1 zoned properties otherwise.
The only places where automobile maintenance and repair is available as of right
are in the M1 and M districts. Although these uses are not recommended in the B-1
district, the B-2 district has historically hosted, and can in the future host, auto
maintenance and repair uses. Vehicle sales should be permitted in the B-2 district.
Although the allowance of body and paint shops as a special use in the B-2 district
creates the impression that these uses have an envelope for their operations within the
Village, the distance requirement eliminates these locations along Chicago Avenue where
they have historically operated without problems. In general, the treatment of the B-2
district leaves multiple landowners left carrying real estate with minimal optimism for
future redevelopment of new uses, and with skepticism that the Village will allow the
continuation of existing, longstanding uses.
The Village should consider exempting lots along certain corridors from the
distance requirements from R zoned lots. These corridors would include Cass Avenue,
63rd St., Ogden Ave., Burlington, and Quincy.
There is a question whether the Village is regulation of gun and ammunition sales
is legal. Requiring at least 45,000 square feet to sell guns and ammunition in some
districts could be viewed as unconstitutional. In any event, the Village’s classification
system for gun and ammunition sales ignores recent trends that also passed over the
Village whereby a firing range could locate in the B-2 district or in another district and
engage in substantial sales of taxable items. If the Village were approached by a gun
Page 318 of 333
Hon. Doug Carmichael, Chairperson, and Members
of the Planning & Zoning Commission
VILLAGE OF WESTMONT PZC 001-2025
May 7, 2025
Page 19
range that offers accessory sales of firearms, the Village may wish to extend its hours of
operation for firearm sales to a later hour. The Villages floor area regulation substantially
limits firearms retailers to establishments with a floor area of approximately 20,000
square feet. This is not friendly to small business in a Village that once permitted firearm
sales from a residence.
Financial institutions are allowed by right only in the B-3 district, which may be the least
likely of districts for a bank. With the Village’s core district regulations, the Village should be
able to allow financial institutions downtown because they are convenient. Drive-throughs for
financial institutions obviously should not be permitted in the downtown core under the Village’s
current direction. Drive-throughs for financial institutions should be special uses in all districts
otherwise. Because financial institutions can provide valuable tenants to owners of land in all
business and commercial districts, they should be permitted uses except when they have drive-
through operations. If the Village has a concern with service uses such as financial institutions, it
needs to consider whether, in the downtown core, service uses should be permitted at all.
However, service uses such as small fitness centers, banks, cleaners, salons and the like can all
provide valuable foot traffic for retail uses in the core district.
The Village is electing to prohibit any new video gaming cafés while apparently
grandfathering existing video gaming cafés. If video gaming cafés are deemed by the Village to
cause a negative impact, the Village should amortize these uses and not allow special benefit to
existing café operators only. The Village can achieve proper spacing and locations of new video
gaming cafés, using distance requirements, but it seems not to be headed in the direction of
amortizing the existing uses. The acknowledgment of the existing uses as beneficial to the
Village should extend to appropriate inclusion of these uses in new or reused buildings in the
various zoning districts—which is the purpose of Illinois Gaming Board laws in the first place.
The screening requirements for daycare centers should not apply to properties that are not
adjacent to residential land use. Such uses adjacent to residential land use could be screened by
fence up to 6 feet tall, but what is the value in establishing an additional evergreen planting
requirement?
The definition of bar or tavern under 6.04 E2 a is vague. Is DJ’s a bar or Tavern? What
determines the principal use, design or receipts? What happens if a restaurant decides to convert
to a bar after a certain time?
The definition of non-accessory parking in 6.04L seems only to apply to parking lots
available to the general public. If there is any intention to apply non-accessory parking
regulations to parking provided on one zoning lot for the particular use of another zoning lot or
its tenants, section 6.04L requires more work.
The Village should use caution in evaluating use of the term retail sales. Historically the
Village has recognized that retail sales can apply to the sales of services and goods, but it is
Page 319 of 333
Hon. Doug Carmichael, Chairperson, and Members
of the Planning & Zoning Commission
VILLAGE OF WESTMONT PZC 001-2025
May 7, 2025
Page 20
departing from this practice by separately classifying retail sales and assigning sales of
services to different districts based upon the service. This runs the risk of substantial
upheaval to expectations of existing land owners and tenants.
Section 7.04
The new zoning ordinance appears to include a substantial reduction of the
accessory uses available (compare the accessory use portion of Section 7.03 in the current
code). Section 7.04 governs accessory structures and setbacks, but how does a building
mounted accessory use find itself in the setback? If the building is allowable (such as a
detached garage), why would you want to attach solar panels to the detached garage
rather than the principal residence? It appears that the Village would not allow the
freestanding book sharing stands that are prevalent in so many suburbs.
Section 7.10
Why would the Village allow public EV charging stations in residential districts
even if the use is nonresidential in character? The use seems inappropriate since there is
nowhere for the owner of the vehicle to wander other than through residential streets.
Section 7.11
If I owned an interior lot on a block face, I would find it offensive to have a 6-foot
fence, extending on my neighbor’s corner lot in front of the front elevation of my house.
The exhibit used at the first zoning hearing reflected only the conditions on the lot that
hosted the fence. No consideration was given to the neighboring interior lot, which would
then have a 6-foot fence in its front yard. This is so even though the zoning ordinance
found it offensive to have a 6 foot fence in front of the home on the lot hosting the fence.
This inconsistency should be resolved. If a corner lot desires privacy, that corner a lot can
operate with a 3 foot fence and arborvitae.
Section 7.14
Fleet vehicle storage is undefined. The entire section, including subparagraph B
ignores that parking is not storage. It is unreasonable to limit storage of vehicles to the
size that can ordinarily fit into a 9 x 18 space and to prohibit heavy duty vehicles. These
terms are also undefined as the Village has learned through recent zoning enforcement
proceedings. The limitation to 2 vehicles is unworkable in the M and M1 district. Storage
of additional fleet vehicles should be allowed in the M and M1 districts. In the B-2
district, special use allowances for vehicles greater than two should or for oversized
vehicles and heavy duty vehicles could apply, but this restriction is untenable in the M
and M1 districts. The requirement that fleet vehicles be parked in stalls should apply only
when the parking is not screened by a fence. The combining of considerations of storage
Page 320 of 333
Hon. Doug Carmichael, Chairperson, and Members
of the Planning & Zoning Commission
VILLAGE OF WESTMONT PZC 001-2025
May 7, 2025
Page 21
and parking in Section 7.14 continues to disregard the Village’s past and ongoing difficulties
with these terms.
Section 7.18
Particularly in relation to prohibited uses in subparagraph E, there should be defined
terms. There must be 15 to 20 uses that will be prohibited by subparagraph E1. Catering is
undefined and should be allowed to a limited extent in residential districts as a common home
occupation. Gig operators may or may not fall within subparagraph E5. Definitions should apply
to animal care, grooming, or boarding with a reasonable number of animals attached since so
many people engage in home-based pet daycare or pet training. Paragraph E12 raises questions
about neighbors with large gardens.
As the home occupation regulations are structured, do they prevent hobbyists and people
who simply like to do good things for others from doing their work for no pay? If this is not the
intent, subparagraph E12 is not one the Village should raise against an individual homeowner
who is not doing this as work, a job, or an occupation. Does the Village have an adequate
definition of passenger automobiles?
Section 7.20
The regulations pertaining to outdoor seating and dining areas are unworkable for these
accessory uses on private property or on public property. They present operational problems,
impracticability, and problems with the Americans With Disabilities Act. There is no reason to
require foundation plantings or even plantings around the outdoor dining area. In certain
instances, it is advisable to plan for a fence screen or a landscape screen, but these are typically
in instances where the dining area is adjacent to a residential district. To the extent that anyone
believes that a dining area in the B-1 or B-2 district should be screened from office use, the
Village has ample office zoning district land available for office users who do not want to be
located near an establishment engaged in B-1 or B-2 district outdoor dining.
Section 7.22
Has anyone reviewed Section 7.22B1? If this section is intended to restrict the location of
roof mounted solar systems to the street side of the property, this is an unfair and ill-advised
regulation. In essence, planning for the maximization of solar energy is reserved for only one
side of the street since there is obviously a preference for having solar panels within the same
block areas planned in likely a very similar fashion.
Section 7.24
The Village’s handling of trailer storage has been a long-standing problem for businesses
in town. Nothing in the temporary storage unit section eases the burdens on businesses for
Page 321 of 333
Hon. Doug Carmichael, Chairperson, and Members
of the Planning & Zoning Commission
VILLAGE OF WESTMONT PZC 001-2025
May 7, 2025
Page 22
temporary storage, some of whom may need storage for the winter months or storage
enrolling periods that exceed 30 days. Although the Village staff seems to have
considered the need for a dwelling unit owner to have temporary storage, nothing in this
regulation indicates follow through on the temporary storage needs of businesses in the
business, commercial and manufacturing districts.
Section 7.26
Does this section authorize outdoor vending machines in relation to every non-
residential use in every zoning district?
Section 9.01
In sub paragraph a, please consider adding: “where flexibility is provided, this
article recognizes that business owners, upon presentation of a proper parking study, also
know their demands for parking.” In Paragraph B, consider inserting the term
“applicable“ or “relevant” before “units of measurement.”
Section 9.02
Although Village staff sold the zoning ordinance on the basis that it was becoming
more business friendly, the employment-based parking requirements are likely becoming
more stringent in many respects, even though the values in Table IX-1 may not be
changing. It is imperative that the Commission understand that staff will surely undertake
determination of the number of employees based upon occupancy under the building
code. My law office had no more than five employees over fifteen years, but its
occupancy is designed for more than twelve due to staging areas, conference room space,
a gym, and storage. It is unfair, unwarranted, and ill-advised to take the business planning
away from the owner of the business. This is an overreach by staff and the Commission
should reject it except in individual cases when the business owner’s calculation of
employees is not credible.
There is no legal, practical, or efficient means through which staff can decide the
number of employees. Determination of employees required for any number of uses,
including, but not limited to animal boarding or shelters, community residences, craft
alcohol distributors, auto repair, or any of the warehousing and distribution or
manufacturing industry employee types. Several businesses may have more storage areas,
more floor area dedicated to treating rooms or housing animals, or common use space for
customers. A building code occupancy decision for employees makes no sense.
Why does the Village require no parking for single-family residential use? It
seems that the Village might well consider off street parking requirements for homes with
a minimum number of bedrooms or lots with a minimum area.
Page 322 of 333
Hon. Doug Carmichael, Chairperson, and Members
of the Planning & Zoning Commission
VILLAGE OF WESTMONT PZC 001-2025
May 7, 2025
Page 23
If the Village were to adopt an effective TIF district or special service area, the Village
might consider core districts and a reduction in parking in these areas to account for ample
parking and structured parking.
The animal boarding or shelter parking requirement does not contemplate visitors.
It seems difficult to accept that the parking ratio for a veterinary clinic is more stringent
than the parking ratio for service or goods retail.
The business training parking ratio of one per seven students plus one per employee
assumes a significant use of public transportation. If 28 people attend business training, only five
parking spaces will be required. Even if those engaged in business training are under 21, they are
likely to drive (and not carpool). General business training is not the type of activity that leads to
a rise in average occupancy per vehicle.
The Village should seriously consider using only the dining area of a restaurant building
considered for parking purposes (meaning the actual floor area of the customer seating). Unless
it does so, restaurants will continue to view the Village as too demanding and they will be
continued hurdles to the opening of new restaurants in town. Lombard recently evaluated and
redesignated parking requirements for restaurant and other uses, including banquets, utilizing
KLOA (a respected consultant in the field), and its parking requirements and flexibility are more
inviting to businesses across the board except where Westmont has elected to reduce parking
demands for retail uses.
The craft alcoholic beverage distributor parking requirement should limit its per
employee requirement to those that are not engaged in direct customer service or else employees
will be double counted. The Village should evaluate whether the bar or tavern parking ratio is
excessively high. This may impose a greater burden on businesses, particularly in a multitenant
situation.
The ratios for arcades, video gaming, and video gaming cafés are too restrictive. Arcades
generally do not draw 10 vehicles per 1,000 square feet. Video gaming would often be accessory
to a restaurant use or, potentially a retail use. In most instances video gaming in a restaurant will
be accessory and the parking will not be for additional gaming participants, but rather for
restaurant guests that game. Independent video gaming cafés are highly unlikely to draw more
than 10 users at one time, let alone 10 users per 1,000 square feet of floor area.
There is no reason to impose a greater requirement an alternative financial service
establishments. These establishments require parking no different than banks, credit unions or
savings and loans. The additional parking is merely a penalty for that part of the population in
Westmont. This group is underserved by traditional banking options, and lack access to credit.
Having represented national payday loan operations and title lenders throughout Illinois, I have
never seen a situation where a payday loan provider or other alternative financial service
Page 323 of 333
Hon. Doug Carmichael, Chairperson, and Members
of the Planning & Zoning Commission
VILLAGE OF WESTMONT PZC 001-2025
May 7, 2025
Page 24
establishment requires more parking (much more, 30% more parking) than a bank or a
retail facility. This is discrimination given the members of the class of people generally
served by alternative financial service establishments.
In the lodging category, the parking requirement reflects outdated methodology.
First, one parking space per guestroom can be reduced by approximately 20% in nearly
all instances—with or without cooperative or shared parking. Second hotel, occupancies
generally are not 100%, and the requirement of parking for 100% of the use of the hotel
is excessive and leads to an appearance of obsolescence such as what the Village
attempted to solve and its R-3 district. Third, the separate calculation of parking for a
restaurant or a bar is excessive in most instances. Most hotels offer food only for guests
that stay overnight (breakfast, happy hour, or evening snack provided on site), but a hotel
offering breakfast lunch, dinner or drinks to guess only is still just a hotel and it should
not have to face a duplicative parking requirement for restaurant purposes. In addition,
hotels never require 100% of their parking between 10 AM and 9 PM. There is no
occasion where a restaurant in a hotel will peak outside of these hours.
The Village’s parking requirement for sexually oriented businesses is four times
the requirement for retail sales. In the event that the Village faces litigation under the
First Amendment relating to any sexually oriented business application, the claimant in
the litigation will surely raise the parking requirement as unconstitutional discrimination.
The Village’s parking regulation for fueling stations is excessive. Convenience
stores accessory to fueling stations do not require the full allotment of retail parking
because 70% of retail sales other than gasoline are made to individuals that parked in the
pump island spaces.
The Village should consider whether the parking requirement for minor repair and
maintenance forces every quick service oil change or tire service to provide excessive
parking. Certainly, Jiffy Lube is a stacking operation that can get by with halve of the
required 12 parking spaces for a three bay, six employee operation.
The commission has a lot of work ahead of it relating to calculation of required
parking for warehousing and distribution and for manufacturing and industry. As the
commission is certainly aware, these large facilities can have only a fraction of the
employees that would arise from an occupancy-based calculation. The Village should not
eliminate the business owners’ well informed judgment concerning the number of
employees that will be present during the maximum shift.
Since Westmont has multiple locations for religious assembly that do not engage
in purely seated worship, the ratio for members of the Islamic faith or other religions that
do not or may not engage in seated or standing prayer should be retained at 0.2 spaces for
every area of prayer reserved for a single occupant. Imposing Christian forms of worship
Page 324 of 333
Hon. Doug Carmichael, Chairperson, and Members
of the Planning & Zoning Commission
VILLAGE OF WESTMONT PZC 001-2025
May 7, 2025
Page 25
on members of the Islamic faith leads to excessive parking requirements and ignores that the
prayer space per occupant is larger for those in the Islamic faith. An adjustment to Section
9.03(D) and this table could help to avoid a claim of religious discrimination.
The parking requirement for a college university should be more stringent than the
parking requirement for a senior high school.
Section 9.03
Initially, the Commission should be aware that indications that the Village would consider
collaborative or cooperative parking seem to have been forgotten in this draft of the ordinance.
Shared parking requires that all of the parking for each use be provided. Collaborative or
cooperative parking requires sufficient parking to allow uses to coexist without requiring parking
based on an inaccurate assumption that all parking will be required for both uses at any single
time. The Commission should evaluate collaborative or cooperative parking before it provides a
recommendation to the Village Board. The failure to consider collaborative or cooperative
parking indicates less than thorough consideration of improving the business-friendly
components of the zoning ordinance.
Section 9.03C requires calculation of parking for storage areas of retail facilities. Storage
areas, utility rooms, stairs, elevators, and other similar locations within a business could be
excluded from the floor area measurement. The Village is including these areas which
significantly waters down the promise that parking calculations were more business friendly.
Section 9.03D could be revised with a heading uses with alternatives to seating. The
existing language can remain, but the Village should add that each area of prayer designated for
non-seated religious assembly will be treated as one seat for the purposes of calculating seating-
based parking requirements.
Section 9.03E is the section that needs to be revised so that business owners can
determine their peak shift and provide the Village of the calculation of the number of employees
during the peak shift rather than face a design rated occupancy under the building code, which is
highly likely to ignore local business practices And prejudice operators who have a larger floor
area to employee ratio.
Section 9.03F should also allow the owner or applicant to submit a parking study by
qualified professional. This study proves more valuable 99% of the time compared to the ad hoc
selection of the most similar use for which a parking ratio has been assigned.
If the ordinance was truly more business friendly, Section 9.03G would authorize the
establishment by staff of other parking ratios in relation to uses other than parks and public
safety (government uses). Staff could even do so on the basis of a report to the Commission
without a public hearing if there is enough definition in the parking regulations.
Page 325 of 333
Hon. Doug Carmichael, Chairperson, and Members
of the Planning & Zoning Commission
VILLAGE OF WESTMONT PZC 001-2025
May 7, 2025
Page 26
Section 9.04
Subparagraph A2d contains a mistake. This paragraph is not consistent with the intent of
the parking regulations in Section 9.01B3 and 9.01B4. It appears that this section is in addition to
the base parking requirements and not a substitution of the base parking requirements in Section
9.02. An existing multi-tenant center may have sufficient off street parking to allow the
addition or expansion, and in such event, it should not be required to provide minimum
additional parking. This is a complete disincentive to expansion of commercial activity.
The Commission should have a study of downtown parking that it has reviewed
along with the proposed regulations in Section 9.04b. The regulations in this section will
necessarily force parking into commuter lots and neighborhoods surrounding the B-1 and
B-1A districts if the Village has not planned for sufficient public parking. The
requirement of 1.1 parking spaces per residential dwelling unit also threatens to impose
significant burdens on the public at a time when the Village seems not to have sufficient
accessible public parking to expand its downtown business or residential offerings.
Section 9.04B3 is certainly a problem for existing landowners who do not need all
of their existing off-street parking. It is unfair to mandate continued use of off-street
parking when this is not required to serve the business on the property.
Does the Village have a study reflecting the efficiency of car share services to
reduce requirements for offsite parking? Essentially, any use can avoid four parking
spaces by giving up one parking space to a carshare program. As a result, the Village
should have plenty of confidence in its carshare program.
Shared parking in section 9.04D should be expanded to cover collaborative and
collaborative parking. Shared parking is defined improperly (in subsection Section
9.04D1). If it were truly collaborative, shared parking would refer to two or more uses
who need parking at the same time but at varying levels throughout the day.
Collaborative and cooperative parking also recognizes that shopping centers and uses
therein or on outlets can be multiple stop shops with one space utilized for two or three
stops. Villa Park has a base collaborative parking schedule and it accepts parking studies
if it may deviate from the base collaborative parking schedule.
Section 9.05
In Section 9.05B1, the Commission should recommend deletion of “zoning
administrator is authorized to allow.”
There appears to be a conflict between Section 9.05B3 and the special use
authorization for non-accessory parking.
Page 326 of 333
Hon. Doug Carmichael, Chairperson, and Members
of the Planning & Zoning Commission
VILLAGE OF WESTMONT PZC 001-2025
May 7, 2025
Page 27
Section 9.05B4 should be amended to insert “and parking” after “guaranteeing
access.”
Section 9.06B should open with “Other than when a special event, permit issues,
required…”
Does the authorization section 9.06C extend to electric vehicle charging for people who
are not invited to businesses located on the property?
Section 9.07
In Section 9.07B3, the Village should allow a reduction install depth to 16.5 feet where
stalls are headed into a landscape island or a landscape yard.
In Section 9.07H the Commission should recommend the extension of tandem parking
allowances to businesses, parking business vehicles, and fleet vehicles.
In Section 9.09, the stacking for drive-through operations at banks is excessive. Today,
bank drive-through uses are minimal unless there is an automated teller machine, which is
provided for in a separate drive-through category. Typically, two or three bank teller drive-
through spaces are sufficient. The drugstore drive-through stacking requirement falls short of
typical drugstore drive-through uses—often leading to blocked access aisles and frustration for
those who are required to enter or leave a parking space through a drive through queue.
Stacking for car washes does not contemplate modern form tunnel, car washes.
Section 9.09B is incomplete. The lane should not be 8 feet in width and 18 feet in length.
Staff is attempting to require planning to contemplate the size of each stacked vehicle. The lane
should contemplate stacking for vehicles at a length of 20 feet per vehicle in most circumstances
and a width of 9 or 10 feet since the lane has at least one radius.
The Village should reconsider the setback from R zoned properties for a drive-through. A
10 foot setback, hardly avoids the impact of the drive-through operation. While most national
operators can easily comply with this, small businesses and franchisees such as for beef shops or
ice cream will have issues if the parcel is not large enough to insert a drive aisle between the
drive through and the lot line. There should be some reference to noise and speaker direction or
volume so as to protect lots use for residential purposes. The question of the type of R use to be
protected should be considered on a district by district basis since this requirement offers no
benefit to an R5 through R7 use, but helps an R3 use.
The prohibitions of pedestrian routes across drive throughs in Section 9.09D will create
obstructions to development. No fewer than three shopping centers that I’ve been involved in
Page 327 of 333
Hon. Doug Carmichael, Chairperson, and Members
of the Planning & Zoning Commission
VILLAGE OF WESTMONT PZC 001-2025
May 7, 2025
Page 28
over the past year plan for building access from the public sidewalk across a drive-
through lane is operated either by fast food burger, businesses, Starbucks, and coffee and
bakery shops. The pedestrian access prohibition assumes that customers are not educated
enough to watch for vehicles or to be seen as they cross the drive-through.
Section 9.04
Presumably, Table 9-4 continues to evaluate off-street loading on the basis of
individual commercial units.
Remainder
I have several comments about the remaining articles of the proposed zoning ordinance. I
will wait to provide these since I lacked the time to report more than what appears in this letter.
Highlights of these comments include:
1. 20% is a rather low threshold for landscape compliance in light of the burdens involved
for zoning process and/or construction (removal of pavement and walks, etc.);
2. Screening requirements should only apply to the lower density R lots, and a fence plus
plantings is burdensome compared to other communities;
3. I do not agree that the owner and the tenant are jointly and severally liable for
maintenance and protection of landscaping inasmuch as this is a matter of private leasing
and the Village likely lacks authority to simply declare joint and several liability;
4. Variances should not be the only means through which the Village adjusts its landscape
regulations since these can be adjusted through a PUD or through conditions imposed in a
special use permit (this is particularly so in a Village that allows the existence of a street
tree to upend plans for development);
5. The Village still seems not to have provided for digital window signs for either gas
stations or downtown businesses (consider the window sign problems at the southwest
corner of 63rd & Cass where the owner could not advertise that he had milk or soda on
sale or the customary downtown business from a brokerage to a retail store that may
benefit from a digital sign);
6. I do not believe your sign ordinance is supported by adequate definitions, and the first
indication of a problem is that window signs include “open” signs—again, an indication
of overly aggressive regulation;
7. Window signs should be allowed up to 40%, and staff deviations for more if the overall
balance of window signs is 40% or less;
8. The timing of a grand opening sign is not business friendly since businesses typically
advertise their grand openings a week prior;
9. Although I have not had time to drill down to sign areas (individual and gross), it appears
that the Village is not accounting for depths of storefronts from the most proximate
frontage;
Page 328 of 333
Hon. Doug Carmichael, Chairperson, and Members
of the Planning & Zoning Commission
VILLAGE OF WESTMONT PZC 001-2025
May 7, 2025
Page 29
10. The 0.5 footcandle regulations should not apply to core residential districts or to the
highest density residential districts;
11. Please take a look at Lombard’s new sight vision triangle regulations which were
intended to avoid excessive hardscape or unplanted areas near driveways, including on
major arterials;
12. I continue to disagree with the Village’s regulation of nonconforming uses (the Village
should reinstate the equivalent of Section 12.02(G)(2) concerning nonconforming
accessory structures;
13. The Village should establish a registry of nonconforming uses and nonconforming
structures since this is the least it could do after disposing of permit records and plans and
also losing a copy of the 1979 zoning ordinance;
14. When it adopts this amendment, the Village should allow all nonconforming uses,
whether or not lawfully established, since the Village Clerk does not have a copy of the
1979 zoning ordinance that she can certify and because the Village disposed of far too
many records;
15. Pre-application meetings should only be encouraged, post-application intake meetings
avoid a compelled speech problem;
16. The Village should include a provision that encourages a pre-hearing informational
meeting for neighbors;
17. I believe the language concerning the actions of review and decision bodies is too
restricted;
18. The zoning administrator should be required to review all applications for zoning,
whether or not complete, since the completeness analysis imposes a gatekeeper function
on the constitutional right to petition;
19. I do not believe the Village has the authority to place limitations on the right to protest
under 65 ILCS 5/11-13-14 (form, timing);
20. There is no transitional requirement for PD’s so that they are able to more readily and
efficiently meet the requirements for PUD review, and this PUD process will be
incredibly burdensome on landowners from residential PD’s up to and including resort
PDs;
21. The function of a special use is misstated in Section 14.04 since the use is deemed
compatible subject to review of circumstances of use that, at this location, cause impacts
not otherwise common throughout the district (special use review is not intended to
determine compatibility since the Village has already legislated this subject to a more
thorough review);
22. Please clear up the concern over “approved special uses” and “legislatively-granted
special uses;”
23. The special use will often not be established within six months given recent IDOT
practices, EPA permitting or special management area planning; please consider using the
start of construction within one year of approval of a special use;
24. If a developer hits a snag at the end of a season, the extended six months may not be
enough;
Page 329 of 333
Hon. Doug Carmichael, Chairperson, and Members
of the Planning & Zoning Commission
VILLAGE OF WESTMONT PZC 001-2025
May 7, 2025
Page 30
25. The termination provisions for nonconforming uses and special use or authorized
development are not consistent with Illinois law: (a) the Village should hold a hearing
before declaring a special use or nonconforming use forfeited or terminated; (b) intent to
abandon should be recognized in the ordinance; and (c) allowing an appeal after the
administrator delivers notice is an inadequate post-deprivation remedy since there are
valuable and substantial vested rights at issue and, often, the rights of lenders and
contractors to deal with;
26. I always wonder why municipalities believe that they need to limit their authority to grant
variations, which are constitutional relief valves in their very essence;
27. The Village’s new variation standards narrow the availability of this form of zoning relief
and impose standards that offend the sense of fairness in the process (see (H)(3) for
example);
28. Section 15.02 is offensive and simply does not support staff’s indications that the zoning
ordinance was friendlier to anyone in the Village—be it a business or residential:
a. The Village has no right to require a posted notice remain posted—none—and I
will gladly establish that the purpose of posting notice is to give the owner of
occupant notice (at least of a zoning violation);
b. Section 15.02(A)(8) contradicts state law which requires that the order be entered
and sent in the same form as the notice of violation and ticket;
c. Section 15.02(A)(9) imports non-zoning regulations and should not be
recommended;
d. Section 15.02(A)(10) is an illegal attempt to shift the Village’s burden of proof in
violation cases.
29. In general, the violation section invites gross errors by staff and the hearing officer since
these terms do not comport with state law concerning administrative hearings and the
process after these hearings;
30. It seems counterproductive for the Village to withhold permits on the site where the
violation occurred and retaliatory to deny permits for projects on other sites than the one
involved in the violation, and I challenge any Commissioner to explain the practicality of
this, the legality of this, or the business friendliness of this;
31. Revocation of permits upon deviations from plans is not business friendly and there is no
reason for this permit authority which is not zoning other than to allow staff not to
exercise as to those they love and to bury those that annoy them; and
32. As noted periodically throughout this, the measurements and definitions sections are
incomplete works and appear to ignore state law at various locations, including but not
limited to the Plat Act.
I wish you the best in your efforts here. It may seem that I oppose progress, but I am simply
informing the Commission that I do not believe its members have been empowered to make
an informed decision to recommend. This is not a matter where the Commission defers to
staff in making law. The Commission recommends law that the Village Board approves and
staff enforces. Only then does the Commission really give staff discretion.
Page 330 of 333
Hon. Doug Carmichael, Chairperson, and Members
of the Planning & Zoning Commission
VILLAGE OF WESTMONT PZC 001-2025
May 7, 2025
Page 31
The tail end of this correspondence got rather sharp. I do not believe several of the
terms are remotely appropriate in Westmont or in general. Any client is already advised of the
tenor of staff review and this alone will cause a hesitation. Imagine the impact of laying our the
Village’s lack of respect for vested rights and its view that the Village not only owns a project in
violation, but also owns related projects. All of you have common sense, and I do hope you will
understand that the basis for my belief that you are a long way away lies in the incompleteness of
the ordinance as well as in the insertion of egregious provisions that have not even seen light at
public hearing.
If I am able, I will attend a future hearing on this. As noted above, I have no horse
in this race, though I do prefer that Westmont clean up its reputation for being impossible for
developers and landowners and intolerant for homeowners. Causes of this reputation arise from
more than the terms of the ordinance, but this proposed ordinance reflects that the Village is
considering the codification of personalities on staff who believe they can igrnore
nonconforming use rights, thrust unreasonable development schedules on developers and with
the swipe of a pen eradicate vested rights. In addition, the violation provisions reflect staff
perception that if you are in Westmont, staff owns you.
Yours very truly,
[s]Mark W. Daniel
Mark W. Daniel
Page 331 of 333
Scott Williams <swilliams@westmont.il.gov>
Suggestion RE: ADU max height | Zoning Ordinance update
Brian Schuering Thu, May 1, 2025 at 4:18 PM
To: swilliams@westmont.il.gov
Hi, Scott.
My name is Brian Schuering. I spoke at the last hearing, where I suggested eliminating the parking mandate, creating
express permitting for ADUs, and lowering the minimum lot sizes to conform with the minimum lot dimensions.
Regrettably, I won’t be able to make the next meeting but in addition to my earlier suggestions, I had one more: increase
the maximum height of ADUs from 18 feet to either 20 or 22 feet.
I wanted to test my express permitting idea, so I used SmartDraw to design six ADU layouts that would suit a wide range
of Westmont lot sizes and needs. A slightly higher max would allow for a two-floor design with a 20x20 base, which would
work well for smaller lots. My concern is that if ceilings have to be a minimum of 8 feet, 18 feet would not be quite enough
for two stories, the floor between them, and the roof.
ADUs are like solar panels; people understand the benefits in the abstract but won’t take the plunge until they can ask a
neighbor how it went. If we want ADUs to take off in Westmont, we need to make it as easy as possible for the early
adopters.
Thanks for listening,
Brian Schuering
Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail for iPhone
Page 332 of 333
Adam Walsh <awalsh@westmont.il.gov>
Westmont
Lilly Kovacevic Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 6:06 PM
To: Adam Walsh <awalsh@westmont.il.gov>
Dear Adam Walsh,
My name is Lilly Kovacevic and I reside at , Westont IL 60559.
The reason I am writing to you today is to ask you if you can please share this email with Planning and Zoning Commissioners.
I have a corner property, and I've been having a 6 ft old wood fence that I would like to replace with a new composite material. My
fence is 22 feet away from the front property line. I understand that current zoning code allows only a certain distance away from the
front property line. I would like to ask you if possible for Commissioners to discuss new zoning code and regulations.
As always, I really appreciate your help with this matter.
Thank you
Lilly Kovacevic
Virus-free.www.avast.com
Page 333 of 333