Lake County Planning, Building, Zoning and Environment Committee Meeting – October 28, 2026

On October 28, 2026, the Lake County Planning, Building, Zoning and Environment Committee met in a hybrid format, with remote participation, to consider a comprehensive update to Chapter 151, the Unified Development Ordinance. The meeting included a public hearing on subdivision and school-park contribution text amendments (item 8.1), a committee vote on the consolidated UDO amendment package (item 8.2), a director's report, and an executive session. Public testimony was uniformly supportive. The committee closed the 8.1 public hearing without taking a substantive vote, then passed the motion on 8.2 to advance the consolidated amendments.

Public Hearing – Subdivision and School-Park Contribution Text Amendments (8.1)

• Staff presented exhibit D, covering proposed amendments to UDO sections 151.185–151.221. Key changes included updating the subdivision valuation requirement from 120% to 100% of the total cost of improvements, consolidating development assurance requirements, clarifying street and alley design standards, and making housekeeping updates to public meeting, appeal, and street vacation procedures.
• The committee opened and then closed the public hearing after no in-person or online commenters came forward. No vote was taken on the substance of 8.1 at this meeting.

Public Comments & Testimony (8.2)

• Michael DeBrau, Illinois Realtors local government affairs director and Lake County resident, expressed support for the amendments. He said the average home price in Lake County is about $398,000, up 6%, pricing out teachers, police officers, firefighters, and longtime residents. He described ADUs as one tool for expanding housing options and promoted the Illinois Housing Supply Accelerator as a complementary framework.
• Liz Nelson, associate director of advocacy for Connections for the Homeless and organizer with Joining Forces for Affordable Housing Lake County, said Lake County is short 17,700 market-rate and 7,900 affordable housing units. She called the amendments helpful steps and encouraged stronger policies to create housing for all income levels and abilities.
• Carolyn Lewick, president of the Lake County Audubon Society, expressed strong support for the sustainable development incentives. She specifically praised inclusion of native plantings, bird-friendly landscaping and design, dark-sky lighting, and tree preservation, and supported expanded native planting requirements and conservation subdivision incentives.
• Susan Pribble, an unincorporated Lake County resident participating online, supported the sustainability incentive approach, noting she had also testified in favor at the September 30 Zoning Board of Appeals hearing. She praised the county for going beyond required measures such as bird-friendly glass and native plants.

Discussion Items – Comprehensive UDO Amendments (8.2)

• Staff summarized four amendment packets. Exhibits A and B addressed housing flexibility and sustainable development; exhibit C covered zoning and administrative updates; exhibit D covered subdivision procedures. The Zoning Board of Appeals unanimously recommended approval of exhibits A, B, and C on September 30, 2026.
• Exhibit A would allow accessory dwelling units in all residential zoning districts, reduce the minimum lot size from 80,000 to 40,000 square feet, and remove familial and employment-based occupancy restrictions.
• Exhibit B would create a sustainable development incentives program through a new appendix W, pairing qualifying features such as geothermal systems, green roofs, LEED certification, native plantings, dark-sky lighting, solar, EV-readiness, and cool roofs with incentives like reduced setbacks, increased density, or additional non-residential floor area. It also included conservation subdivision amendments to allow more housing types and graduated density bonuses in exchange for preserved open space.
• Exhibit C included planned unit development changes: allowing a preliminary PUD plan to serve as final plan in certain cases, and creating a delegated PUD process for sites of five acres or less, non-residential projects, minor subdivisions of five or fewer lots, and lot splits. It also consolidated development assurances, clarified administrative authority, and made other housekeeping updates.
• In committee discussion, Member Wasick asked about transit-oriented development incentives; staff said transit-oriented development was not directly included but could be supported through PUD flexibility and reduced parking near transit under the People over Parking Act. Member Wasick suggested adding explicit transit-oriented development incentives.
• Member Wasick also asked about graduated density and green building incentives. Staff explained that conservation subdivisions are a by-right technique, and the amendments would gradually permit more multifamily typologies as zoning district density increases. The sustainable development program is a voluntary menu intended to improve developer economics while encouraging environmental design.
• Member Campos asked about the removal of a requirement for the director to report certain administrative decisions to the committee within 15 days. Staff said the requirement was impractical and had not been followed in practice, so the amendment would streamline committee agendas. Member Campos also asked about the delegated PUD threshold; staff confirmed five acres or less is delegated, while more than five acres follows the non-delegated process. Regarding the 120% to 100% valuation change, staff explained it aligns the application cost estimate with the actual assurance amount.
• Member Peterson asked whether an existing home on a five-acre property could add another residence. Staff said currently ADUs are allowed on properties of roughly two acres or more in certain zones; many smaller requests had been approved as variances. The change would allow ADUs on approximately one-acre lots, helping families care for aging relatives, though HOA restrictive covenants could still independently prohibit them.
• Member Wasick asked whether the amendments would produce more attainable, lower-cost housing. Staff responded that smaller ADU footprints, higher density in conservation subdivisions and PUDs, economies of scale, and streamlined approval timelines would reduce per-unit costs and help address the county's housing shortage. Staff cited a projected next-year shortfall of 11,000 market-rate units per the 2023 Lake County Partners Housing Study.
• Chair Altenberg and Member Frank praised the proposal and emphasized the importance of partnerships and continued focus on housing.

Key Outcomes

• The 8.1 public hearing was closed with no public comments and no substantive vote.
• The committee passed the motion on item 8.2 by voice vote, all in favor, advancing the consolidated UDO amendment package. The consolidated packet is expected to go to the Lake County Board on November 10, 2026, for final action.
• The director's report and county administrator's report were waived/no report; the committee entered executive session, returned with no members' remarks, and adjourned. The next committee meeting was tentatively scheduled for November 4, 2026, depending on agenda needs.