North Aurora Board votes against amendment

Share this article:

By Jason Crane

The North Aurora Village Board, through the Zoom video conference platform, voted against a third amendment to the annexation agreement for the Moose Lake Estates subdivision at the Board meeting Monday.

The Board has spent many hours receiving input from dozens of residents since the October 19, 2020 Committee of the Whole meeting.

Concerns were expressed by residents of Moose Lake Estates that smaller homes proposed to be built next to their semi-custom single-family homes up to 4,000 square feet south of Mooseheart Road between Randall Road and Route 31 would decrease the value of their homes.

Information on the Village’s website shows representatives from M/I Homes seek approval of the third amendment to the annexation agreement for the Moose Lake Estates subdivision.

M/I Homes is the contract buyer for the remaining 68 vacant lots of the 250 total lots that comprise Moose Lake Estates Units 1, 2, and 3. There are 32 lots remaining in Units 1 and 2 and 36 lots that would be available in Unit 3. M/I intends to develop the lots with single-family homes. M/I is seeking approval of the Moose Lake Estates – Unit 3 plat of subdivision, which is nearly identical to the former final Unit 3 plat that was approved by the Village, recorded in 2006 and then later vacated in 2011.

A public hearing was held at the November 16, 2020 Village Board meeting for consideration of the Third Amendment to the Moose Lake Estates Annexation Agreement. Both the Third Amendment and the Moose Lake Estates – Unit 3 plat of subdivision were to be formally considered at that time. The meeting was heavily attended by Moose Lake Estate residents. As a result, the Village Board tabled the item to the December 7 Committee of the Whole meeting to further discuss the matter. After that discussion, the Board agreed to vote at the December 21 meeting.

Gladstone Homes started developing the subdivision in approximately 2004. The homes offer semi-custom single-family homes up to 4,000 square feet.

There are three parties involved, M/I Homes, the Village, and the Moose Lake Estates homeowners association.

Trustee Mark Carroll said, “This process from start to finish has been mucked up.

“We’re being asked to clean up something that’s eighteen years old because at the time the original annexation agreement was written, they decided not to write any of these standards.

“We’re asked now, to clean it up. I don’t like being put in that position.

“I also don’t like being threatened by an attorney. Either have our citizens threatened or the Board threatened with further litigation if we don’t side a certain way.

“I don’t like the tone that sets for somebody that’s supposed to be a partner moving forward in the Village.

“I think that this stinks all around!”

Carroll agreed with the Moose Lake Estates residents stating, “they made an investment in their property and there were certain mistakes made along the way, and frankly, I don’t know what to do about it!

“M/I, if they want to be a partner in this community, needs to go back and really, truly make some true concessions.

“When the average home size is 3,500 square feet and we’re being asked to approve a 1,400 and a 1,600 minimum house size, there’s more that they can do.”

Carroll said he understands the fact the market is different and can sympathize that nobody recently has come in and built a 4,000 square foot house.

President Dale Berman added, “What M/I homes has proposed does not meet our requirements or the requirements of our Moose Lake Estate homeowners.

“I do believe that a negotiated, quality home for Moose Lake Estates could be proposed.

“I think there needs to be more discussion.”

The Village Board unanimously voted 6-0 against the third amendment on the annexation agreement.

In addition, the Board voted 4-2 against an ordinance approving a plat for Moose Lake Estates – Unit 3.

From the December 7 Village Board meeting minutes, Village attorney Kevin Drendel gave an overview of the history of Moose Lake Estates and its development.

He said, “the original annexation agreement was approved in 2003 and included a preliminary plat and plan, which was incorporated as part of the zoning, being E-3 estate residential, and subdivision deviations and zoning deviations were part of the PUD (planned unit development). The 1990 zoning code was what applied at the time and PUDs were not required for single family projects and are not required under the current 2013 building code either. The preliminary plat for Moose Lake Estates was approved in 2003 and the plat lays out the parameters of the lots, streets and easements for both units 1, 2 and 3. The preliminary plan includes those same lots with further details like landscaping and streets, which all together become part of the PUD.

Attorney Drendel again noted that PUDs are not required for single-family homes, but said at the time Moose Lake Estates requested one as they wanted to have deviations in the subdivision code as well as to underlying zoning to allow for staggered setbacks and variations. The PUD did not incorporate architectural design standards, building elevations or a minimum house size. To that, the PUD was “silent” on those items. The PUD was coded for E-3 zoning, which is a transition from less dense to more dense and E-3 zoning looks at lot size as well as setbacks, but the zoning code does not impose design standards.

Attorney Drendel said no one anticipated in 2003 what was to come with the beginning of the housing recession. The original developer, Gladstone, approached the Village in 2008 as they were required to have completed all public improvements for the subdivision but unit 3 was not yet built out and units 1 and 2 were not completed. The Village provided a three-year extension. In three years though not much had changed with the economy and the Village and Gladstone agreed to suspend their requirement to build out the public improvements, but that suspension was on the condition of vacating the plat. Part of the reason for that, Drendel explained, is once a plat is approved the ordinances provide a certain amount of time for the subdivision to be built out alongside public improvements. The idea was that rerecording the plat would trigger the need to complete those public improvements. Gladstone was required to replant and grade unit 3 lots to help with erosion control and that is where the subdivision has remained until today.

Attorney Drendel said there were two items being brought before the Board for discussion. The first is a request to approve the plat for rerecording and that the new developer, M/I Homes, has not asked for any changes. The only changes in the plat were ones submitted by Village engineers regarding easements on two lots, but otherwise the plat they are asked to be rerecorded is the same one that was originally expected to be rerecorded in 2011. Attorney Drendel said M/I Homes has taken the position that the Village has no discretion to refuse to approve the plat as there are no deviations save for ones the Village requested. He also said some discussions of PUD had been brought to his attention and said he believed there some misunderstandings on how the PUD applies and said provisions, purposes and standards in the 1990 code are prospective in application and that the code is designed to guide review processes and decision making and set parameters so the Village can create the PUD. When the PUD is silent on items then the default rules of the underlying zoning take place.

The second item is the amendment to the annexation agreement, which is seeking to confirm obligations that already exist and to lock in building permit fees for the next five years. As part of the annexation agreement, M/I Homes has agreed to concessions to not build homes less than 1,900 square feet and they would not build any one-story ranch models next to already existing homes, and they also offered to complete the public improvements that otherwise the Village would be obligated to do so. The Village does not have to approve the annexation agreement and Attorney Drendel said M/I Homes has no right to demand the Village approves it.

Leave a Reply