Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

How you doing? By my watch, it says it's 7:02. I think we're going to go ahead and start our December 2nd uh planning and zoning commission with a gavl. Um let's run through roll good attendance tonight. Commissioner Tantillo

here. Commissioner Bina here. Commissioner Gormley Barnes here. Commissioner Mshaw here. Commissioner Lucenti here. Chairman Greg Scovich present and Commissioner Hatkkey. Commissioner Hatkkey present. That's a full That's the full commission. So, we have a quorum. That's

how serious we're taking this subject. I love it. All right. Uh can we all please stand for the pledge of allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Uh, seriously, good turnout, guys. Love it. Um Bob, thanks for covering last month. My pleasure. Had a good turnout reading the minutes. It uh looked like it was a very constructive conversation. Um hopefully everybody else had a minute to review the minutes. Uh because now I'm going to ask you guys if you have any comments, clarifications, or if we uh have a motion to approve the November 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes. Take your time if you haven't read them already. Uh if you have and you're comfortable, I'll entertain a motion barring any corrections.

[clears throat]

A motion. Second. Let the record show motion by Anthony Bolina to approve yes the minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Mshaw. All in favor of approving the November Plan Commission meeting minutes say I. I. I I

All opposed. Motion carries. Um and now we're going to dive into the business at hand. Continuation of last couple months and the discussion of fences and whether or not we need to re-evaluate the ordinance as it's currently written. Um we do there is no public hearing formal public hearing. We do have members from the public uh who are attending. I assume they may or may not have comments. So uh I think how we'll start is understand from uh Anthony the updated results of the survey. Um and then we'll go down the agenda and we'll talk about uh you know the potential of uh fences along major roads and the potential of uh fences fences beyond major roads into the neighborhoods. Um, so without further ado, Anthony or

Andre, Andre, okay, [laughter] can you enlighten us on uh your recent findings and uh which include the second batch of surveys for of of some of the residents that weren't on the first mailing.

Yeah. So, I'm more than happy to do this unless you want to do it, Anthony. I'm size checking. Um, okay. Yeah. So as uh uh chairman Scovic uh stated that um in the previous one we had realized that we had missed roughly uh 74 to 72 to 76 I forget exact number of residents that were on the mailing so we had sent those out as well. Um and so then we extended it through the end of November. The memo that is included in the packet and also included up there in the agenda if you if any of the res anybody in the public wants them was from those we received is from last uh Friday. Um and which is a total of 693 respondents. We have had received three more since then. Um and uh I'll just kind of edit that in as we go. I'm not going to actually report on those three just because it's it's easier not to but once we do the final report you'll see where they are in it. Anyway, so um of the 1947 that we were mailed out, 693, uh we had 693 that were responded and 19 that were returned for either vacancy, which then we we confirmed that they were vacant. Um a few of them were people who were out of town, they're, you know, long-term snowbirds. Um or they had incorrect addresses. Most of those were actually from Acacia Lane Apartments. Um the first part of this memo, the one that I'm going to go through uh first addresses the quantitative questions. Those are the ones where people marked it and we can just say here's what the numbers and the results are. The memo after that which is actually provided by our intern Brandon Fleer um he did a he did an analysis of the qualitative which is the open-ended and he basically turned that into some quantitative data as well. So, so for going jumping right into it, um in question one, we were basically ask we were asking for should fences be allowed in the residential

districts in in a head park. Overall, um 372 or 54% said yes, 276 or 40% said no, 37 said didn't know, and eight people did not answer or eight respondents did not answer. Um looking at uh the next question which is um where they should be allowed on residential properties. Uh we asked if someone didn't respond yes in the first one to to skip this question um or uh or if they did respond to check many of the boxes. So um of the total 693 responses 300 did not respond to this question. Um some of the questions of the remaining 393 um there were 70 751 location selected that the reason that adds up like that is because if you selected if you selected both you know front side and rear yard that counts as three selections. Uh so um uh the other the other note about thing I noted on this one was that some people who had marked yes on the first question then promptly skip this question and some people who also marked no on the first question would then mark this question and indicate like their open comments that they were they didn't want fences in residential areas but if they did here's the reason they marked the number two was to to explain where they would be want them if they if they were to happen. So anyways, going into it, um, for the fence location, uh, 100 100 responses for the front yard, which is 13%. There was 266 responses for the sidey yards, and there was 365 responses for the rear yard, which was 49%. So a near majority on that, and 20 people marked, they didn't know. Question three, we asked, regardless of the way you as answered question one, would you want to have allow properties that border Willow Springs Road, Joliet

Road, Wolf Road, and Planefield Road to allow to allow fences on that part of the property that borders those roads along that property line? The reason of this is because of the the planned widening of Planefield and Wolf Roads um and the impact of the residents along them if if they so happen to have a sidewalk or just additional traffic either. So um we also noticed that it uh in the previous questionnaire in the previous surveys that they seem to be more of a split question. So we wanted to pull this out. Um looking at it of the 693 responses 508 or 73% of the responses indicated that they were in favor of that. 162 or 23 response or 23% of the responses were not in favor. two two responses for less than 1% that's why it looks like zero on that um responded they didn't know and 21 people didn't answer this question or 21 respondents didn't answer this question um question four which is the last part of this memo specifically that I'm going to go over was um the last question this one will go over was we asked where in the general area do in the general vicinity of the um general location of the village people live. Um that is because that the village is very segmented. So uh west of Wolf Road is is nearly all single family where where east of Wolf Road tends to be a mixture of attached single family and multifamily with a smaller amount of of single family overall. And then south of Joliet uh tends to be a smaller part of the village which is almost all um almost all attached single family or multif family. So looking at the responses, uh 240 or 35% indicated they are from west of Wolf Road. Uh 327 or 47% indicated they are from east of Wolf

Road and 76 or 11% indicated they were from south of Juliet Road. Um 32 marked that they preferred not to say and 18 people skipped it. Um, one thing to note is that looking at the number of surveys that we sent out west of Wolf Road for those west of Wolf Road, um, there's about 400 roughly 400 single families west of Wolf Road. Um, and so 240 is while only 35% of the overall responses, that means that over 50% of the homes west of Wolf Road responded to the survey, which is what staff expected due to the fact that it is more impactful to them on it. But either way, this was a a good representation, a good spread from all three of the areas. So, no area was left out. Um, which going once again back into uh that that disparit impact on west of Wolf Road. Um, one of the most requested from staff was to break out this information on what did those who responded there west of Wolf Road, what did they what did they answer? So, of those 240 households that responded from Western Wolf Road, 106 or 44% voted to said that they were in favor of fences and residential area. 124 or 52% stated that they were not in favor of fences in residential areas. 10 mark they didn't know and nobody none of the 240 skipped the answer. So as to to highlight that so 52% were against having them in residential 44% were for uh in the fencing location we see here of those we had 260 216 responses to that in total um 50 I'm just going to kind of abbreviate this but 50% um said they'd be be in the rear yard 37% said the sideyard and 12% said the front yard. So, very similar to the survey overall.

And finally, along uh allowing them along major roads, um 191 or 80% stated that they would allow would like would be in favor of them being along major roads. 42 or 18% said no. Two respondents said that they didn't know and five skipped the answer. So, um to kind of give an overall conclusion of it, uh looking at the survey data, 54% of all respondents ac villagewide were in favor of residential fences in the village. However, 52% of the respondents west of Rolf Road were not. Um resident respondents wished for fences um to be mostly in the rear yard 49% 50%. Um followed by the sideyard but with very little support for the front yard. Um but overall respondents overwhelmingly favored allowing fences along property lines bording bing bordering major thorough affairs in the village um with 73% overall but also 80% of those who are west of Wolf Road. So that's the qualitative section of it. Um now I'm going to unless there's any questions you want to stop me there. Um, I'm going to go on to the open-ended the analysis of the open-ended questions.

I had one question. I had one question on your summary of question four. In what general area of the village do you live? The second paragraph it says there is an over representation from west of Wolf Road. What does that mean?

That that was that of the 400 households of west of Wolf Road, 240 responded. So in comparison to the the survey results overall which were of the 1947 we have was about 40% 54% of people wolf west west of wolf road responded comparatively to the overall which is roughly about 35 to 40%. So that's why I say there's an over representation of it because that area responded at a higher rate than east of Wolf Road and Joliet which as I said staff expect

not as a percent as a percentage as an absolute number. No, not as an absolute number. Um my my apologies that is not as not as the most clear of that but yeah as I said it's something we also expected as well because it is the most is a very more pertinent issue than than east and south. So okay thank you for the question. Thank you. My apologies for not making that absolutely clear. Was there any other questions on it? Yeah. Did you happen to do an analysis on east of Wolf Road?

I did not. um that didn't seem to be the the West Wolf Road one was the more that was the hot topic on it and um you know looking at it uh just kind of off the kind of doing a a basic back of the napkin look at it that um you know they had to be in more in favor the east both the east and the and the south of Juliet had to be more in favor of it to balance out the numbers of you know the more in favor of it that was from the less in favor of those wolf That sentence makes sense. My apologies. Essentially essentially because of the fact of how how that that east or west of Wolf Road was not in favor of residential fences that that east and south east of Wolf Road and south of Joliet had to have actually be more in favor of it. So this is something it's just kind of like the balancing act of what goes through on it. So um I didn't do a full analysis on that. I can do more breakdown but

right I you got my email about the mapping. So I guess the working theory is if east of Wolf Road and the opportunity for them to even have fences is highly limited by the HOAs for them to vote and be included is we have to be cautious of that. Well, as as we've discussed before on this topic that this is a survey and it's advisory, but at the same point everybody in the village you we sent these to households. These are property taxpaying households. No, that part.

So, so they do get it. They do get their opinion on that one. Once again, it's not a vote. It's not, this is not a vote. It's an advisory for the opinion overall. Um, on the other hand though, I will point out that yes, there is there is limitations east of Wolf Road due to the fact that there are HOAs and their multifamilies, etc. Um, however, Bartlett Estates still there and still has a a certain I haven't I don't know the numbers exactly in Bartlett Estates, but there's 30ome

there's a 30 odd sum. Yeah. Still still have that as well. So, um, you know, and Ashbrook, even though the Ashbrook HOA probably won't allow fences, um, in the single family, nor would they be very viable because there's a lot of drainage easements between those lots. Um, it is hypothetically something that could happen. So, that is that is why I we do have them in there because it is something that we do we do want you to look at and we want you to to wait and feel on it. But I would be very cautious of dismissing the results from different sections of the village because that is in in the end you know they you should look at the policy of the village as a whole. So because [snorts] HOAs can change their rules. It's hard

in theory in in theory just like just like you know we can change the rules of the code. H in theory. Yeah. I guess I I just wanted to make sure that everyone that's listening in or here the um the recap of the results seem to indicate that the village is in favor of fences. Voting though. I I would say I would say the households yes are overall

that 54% was that they're in favor of of of it. Let me give me one second. Let me scroll back. Those 372 respondents were in favor of it. Correct. Right. But the blending of the east and the west is in that number. Correct. But even in but even in the eastern part of or the western part of Wolf Road, there were still 106 that were in favor as well. I mean, just looking at the the total numbers of it, the only the difference between the yes and the nos is 18 households. So,

yeah. Yeah. And Bob, I think if this looks like a a math problem that I help my st son with every night, but I think [laughter] you could back into the metrics for east of Wolf Road given the numbers that we have for the totals less the west of Wolf Road if you wanted to a representation for the other two combined. I'm not separating south of Joliet, but it's 58%. Okay. Say yes. Okay. 33. No. What was that? Removing the west homes from the total number. You come up with the east and south homes or boats.

58

58%. So for for what he what what uh Commissioner Mshaw is doing his math very fast um is basically said that for east of Wolf Road and [laughter] east of Wolf Road and and south of Juliet 50% of those respondents were in favor of it. Whereas comparatively to just west of Wolf Road only 44% were in favor of it. And it's important to note as well that the total number of responses that we got represent just under 36% of the people who were given the opportunity to respond.

Thank you.

Disappointingly low number. [laughter] I mean, it's I mean I mean 36% is not the it's not the best thing ever. It's not the best response ever, but at the same point like when was the last time we had a 36% turnout for eligible voters? Like it's it doesn't happen. Not registered, but people who are eligible for it. um or you know I mean most elections here last time I looked at the election data was that we had something like 3,300 eligible voters and less than a thousand around a thousand show up on average. So it's more than voting numbers on that. Um, and I will say like I there was at least a half a dozen people that I when they were coming in to pay water bills or stickers or something, I was always we were always bugging them like, "Hey, did you get your survey in?" At least a half a dozen I heard of them were like, "Oh, no. I'm from East Wolf Road, so I just threw it in the trash."

I mean, and I told them like, "Well, we still wanted your opinion on it." And they're just like, "Nah, it's fine. Thank you for anyways. Thanks for asking, but I don't care." So,

so Richard, I guess what I think you were getting close to what I was where I was trying to distill it down of the people that live east of Wolf Row and those residents that the likelihood I'll go to your script could possibly put fences in in their HOA residential areas voted to have fences as a higher propensity than the rest. So, you're you have a population of residents, test me on this, that voted yes to fences when their own area can't have fences in theory.

I mean, that's kind of just how government works. I don't really know how to explain it more than that because like it's the facts of the I was going to say this is a I mean, I'm just saying interpretation is right. Yeah. on the numbers that were nothing to do with government. Just looking at the statistics, needed

those that will probably most likely not have fences voted to have fences and it's not in their area. What's the uh you know another question would be 36% of the people voted. what percentage of east of Wolf Road voted and what percentage of west of Wolf Road voted. So we we can we can we can we can weight everything as much as we want but um you know I think the population is much heavier given the density east of Wolf Road. So you know it's it's we can we can throw throw darts and and and and find flaws in in it um all night long. Yeah,

we were looking for indicators. Yeah. And this I think this I think the data that we collected was was extremely helpful um and uh and should help help guide us in in uh making a recommendation to the board if if even necessary. So is there a part two? Yes, there is the analysis of the open-ended questions. Is there anything else that the commission has relative to the numbers the data and move over to the analysis?

Right. So uh looking at the uh qualitative analysis of the number of questions that uh of the number of respondents that were had uh last we had about 125 that had provided us open-ended comments on it. Um, basically they wrote in whatever they wanted, what, you know, we basically as ask if they had any other comments and then we had uh Brandon go through and analyze that for themes. What are the themes that are coming in here? What are what are the other things that we didn't capture in the qualitative data that we want to see what they capture in it? Um and so he he split them into uh basically looking at those who wanted you know what were the themes for those who wanted um the change for the fences or the theme those who wanted you know to not change the current ordinance for the fences um what the themes with those around major roads and then other kind of notable comments that popped up with significance that might not have fallen in those in those areas. So, um I'm not going to read through it specifically, but these themes that popped up in the in the survey were things we've all, you know, the commission have already heard. Um those that were mostly in for ch mostly uh for change. They noted that it was the safety for, you know, safety in relation to children and pets, um being in the backyards, general protection and privacy. Um there was a very strong current about uh property rights, the very like it's my, you know, plot of land, I should be able to do it. Um and then also there were some smaller themes that popped up that you know about increasing property values, some of noise reduction and basically modernizing our policy to fit with the neighboring communities. Now with those who didn't want the change or prop preservation um the the number one thing was the preservation of the village character and rural aesthetic. Uh there was also uh some an undercur there's also a

current of fairness and expectations in there meaning that um residents believe that when you moved here you knew that there were there were no fences that were allowed and that to try and move here and change the the code was was not a uh you know it wasn't fair to that but it was also like you you shouldn't come to some new pl you couldn't shouldn't move into a place and then try and change it was was basically kind of to summarize it and there were some also small smaller themes in those were where wild where wildlife and environmental concerns um uh you know that they would decrease property values um that there was an extra maintenance cost for those and that quite a few people noted that we already have a special use in place for people who actually you know for people who can justify having a fence. So now uh the other one was on m I said one of the other themes that came up in the um in the comments was about the major roads. Those were the ones you know putting fences along the major roads. Um there was a strong there was strong concern for about the uniformity of the fences along the roads. Um and you know consisting con ensuring there's a consistent looking maintained fence line on that. Um quite a few quite a few residents thought that I do or uh Cook County should build the fence. Um which uh was something I did not expect. But um there was also comments about how they how timber trails the timber trail subdivision fence also looked you know nice was something that they were looking at. Uh once again safety of children and pets was the next one. The high traffic from those roads. Um you know uh there was some concerns about aesthetics making the village appear more closed off. Quite a few residents use the word fortresslike. Um and then also that uh a noise reduction and privacy basically being adding more privacy adding more noise reductions along some of these roads. Um other notable comments that came up

that were neither for or against or or as we moved on to talking about materials um was they wanted us to make sure that there were certain guidelines that were vetted and gone through to maintain, you know, make sure they look nice if they put them in, you know, how they look, where they're allowed, etc. Um and then there was quite a few comments about how we should revisit the shed issue. Um so uh [laughter] yeah that's our next survey.

So anyways um you know so this is you know we we wanted to get more information. I said there's 125 comments. These themes are we've heard them in our public comments. we've heard, you know, we've discussed them here. Uh, but having those comments was very uh useful. And then the last the last page of the packet and also that memo is a qualitative analysis of those themes that they showed up. So in the pro in the pro change, the safety ch for for children and pets showed up 36 times. General privacy and protection showed up 29 times. Property rights showed up 25 times. Property values nine, noise reduction two, and basically being an outside outdated policy showed up twice. Now once again, these don't all add up perfectly because sometimes people made it multiple comments in the same comment. Propreservation uh the preservation of village character and rural aesthetic wasif showed up 51 times. Fairness and expectations showed up 29. Um alternative fence options basically like what people can do for fences otherwise showed up about 10. Um let decreased property value showed up seven times. Animals and environmental concerns. So a lot of it was like we like animals being able to move through the village. Um but then also environmental concerns about trees and flooding and that type showed up. uh six um the comments that the planning and zoning can already planning zoning commission can already you know issue these showed up five times. Um maintenance and cost related issues showed up three times. The theme with that was pretty much the Juliet road fence. They you know it looks a little um was a little disrepair right now. So that's that popped up a bit. Um and then sort of you know people and it's called animal and child neglect here. What that basically means is that you know people would just not watch their children showed up a couple times. Um in the main roads government responsibility and the

uniformity of fences whether showed up 14 times safety children residents and pets eight aesthetic and traffic concerns eight noise reduction and privacy seven. And then like I said other notable comments you know far and above anything that else came back to us was we need to have strict guidelines. 62 of the comments said that. um 22 comments basically said they didn't fit with the that eight comments. I was a little off there. Uh said that we need to we need to allow sheds too while now now that we're looking at it. And then um one comment was specifically about um you know the fact that we keep revisiting this. So there's any questions on that I can feel free answer them. Okay, that's what I have. That is the overall analysis of the fence survey. I will say that I will make a more in-depth report. Um, it was just a bit of a rush this time trying to make sure everybody got it. So, I hit the major points, but I'll be a much more with visualizations and much more in-depth uh follow-up report as part of the final recommendation and final report from the commission. So with that comment, are we are we armed tonight regardless of are we armed tonight with all the tools to make a recommendation or is there subsequent information that you'll be presenting us at a later date?

There is not. Um, I believe I provided everything to allow you to and and you can always correct me if I'm wrong, but the point of this that the the discussion tonight is to focus on the big picture. So, materials, heights, where they go, these types of things. Um, that'll be our next meeting. Right now, we're really focusing on idea, the Yeah, the policy. Got it. Okay. I misunderstood uh the follow-up documentation. Yeah, my apologies. I was just Excellent.

Did we decide that the public get to the speaker or not? Like uh I think it would be appropriate for the public to uh engage uh at at uh based on anything that you heard in the results of the survey. Please come up to the mic and make sure it's clicked on. It should just be a slider. Uh, no, there's there's a top there's a button on the top. Just slide it towards you on the very top of it. Why? Maybe I twist. Ah, it's okay. No.

Okay. Um I was we were one of the 72 people who didn't get the initial survey and 36 apparently west of Wolf Road did not and we are probably the greatest impacted because we have smaller lots along um the the interior ones on Apache and Big Bear. We got our survey. The the error was realized on Friday, Monday, and [clears throat] the 36 east of Wolf Road went out on Monday. And Andreas, [clears throat] you told me that on Thursday, ours were going to be picked up that day by the mailman. By the time we got it, it was Saturday. And there was nothing in there that said it has been extended till November 30th. And if I wasn't so invested, I would have looked at it, thrown it out, and figured, well, this is old news. Um, and I wonder, do you have any idea of the responses from those 72 late responses? Because some people may have thrown them out. There was nothing on there that said extended to November 30th. You read it and it said November 7th.

Could I tell you how many responded to those? Yes. The reason I'm not going to is because so the the responses that we sent out for those 72 and actually specifically for for the 30 for most of all of your 36 and then half of the ones that we missed in Indian wood drive were on a slightly different shade of blue paper. Okay.

So as they came in I was keeping an eye on it to make sure we got a a good response rate. And the response rate for those were very very similar to the response rate overall for the survey. Now, have I gone back and checked to see which ones, you know, and and done a direct comparison? I have not. But I can tell you that it was a significant amount. So, it wasn't like one or two or three. It was basically everything after our last meeting was that we got the the odd well not basically but about half the surveys that we got from our after our last meeting the 100 odd we got came from those 72 that we missed. So about I could confidently say 35 to 40 came back from those those numbers. But like I I don't I don't want to my concern the reason I want don't want don't want don't want don't want don't want don't want don't want don't want don't want don't want don't say is my concern is because I don't want to be to have them identify you right so they're they're tucked in a f because they're a different color I could basically go back and say these are the people who I know these 72 are for the an you know for it to be anonymous in the survey I didn't want to identify that being an issue but because you're concerned on it that's why I'm saying that there is a way that we looked at it we were keeping you know kind of a back of the napkin track on it so

okay the other thing I was going to say is that the Bartlett area is grandfathered. I know they have a special situation really with the um nursing home I guess um over there and so their situation's a little bit different. They were grandfathered and they were on the verge of losing their fences because my understanding I remember at one of the meetings that they were told to take their fences down and to get rid of their sheds and then that was changed. So they would be absolutely foolish to say no fences in Indian Head Park and again they're east because they're grandfathered and they have special needs over there.

To to clarify with that um they all have special uses. So it doesn't actually matter what we do here because they have special uses. Now to to expand on that a little bit is that those special uses only run with the property uh owner. So when they change properties, then they would no longer have those types of fences allowed there. So that's if they got them now, if they have their special use, th the the people who have the that have those fences right now gain nothing by saying yay and gain and lose nothing by saying nay in their responses because they already have their they already have their ability to have their fence there. Right. But they can,

right? It's pretty nuanced and they may not understand the the the the the way that the ordinance is written, but but that is factual, right? Like as I heard someone say, you know, until they move, right? But the I haven't surveyed the people that are going to move in eventually. Well, but they can't they can't put up new fences. It's just the ones that are there are allowed. Right. Right. So I I mean I think the sentiment is can I put up a new fence? That's the question. Or replace an old fence that is, you know, a little run down. So I mean that's fair.

And then the the other nuance for Bartlett is that if their property abuts a non-residential property, correct? They can have a they there is a fence actually between them and the shopping center area and that is allowed by the code because of the proximity to commercial. Yeah, correct. So

that is that's unique to Bartlett as well. Well, yeah, that's unique to a couple areas of the village and the plan commission um and the board in the last I can't remember exactly what it was changed I think it last few years changed the language from being ab budding a business district to abuing a non-residential district and that change um essentially part of that change allows it for those to be um if they wanted to put one let's say between like the brier place fence the brier place frier place is not a business it is an institution utional district, but because the fact that that they are, you know, a non-residential district, they can have that that fence. Um, same thing, the Juliet Road fence exists because of that. Um, the, like I said, the fence between, uh, Brookside exists for that, um, as well. So, uh, that's a little bit of the uniqueness there.

Any other comments from the public on the data? Well, it's not particular to have the data. Well, you can spin it however you want. Just throw a number at me or something. It's going to take a second here.

Thanks. I'm John Quirkerin, 6417 Apache Drive. I think I stunned Bob last time that I didn't have anything to say, but uh well, hopefully this will work. Um my comments are somewhat redundant to what's in the data if that's any help but maybe to try to boil it down. I I thought a lot about it after the last meeting and that's why I didn't speak then and really what came to me and I think paraphrasing my my rowmate back there if you spoke last time. Yeah. I what's changed you know and I think I think there is some validity to the fact that you know the status quo is no fences so I think to change that there needs to be a driver for that if we find [snorts] a reason to do that then I think we also need to make sure that we're mitigating any cost that we can associated with that and when I say cost I'm not talking about money I'm talking about, you know, loss of my view or, you know, loss of the animals trapesing through my yard, which I enjoy. Um, you know, certainly there's been a change or there will be a change with Wolf Road, you know, and that's going to take out a lot of the I don't love but the, you know, the the tree barriers there or the weed barriers, however you want to think about it. You know, that is going to be a change. That's going to be a significant change. That's going to be a significant impact to the folks along Wolf Road and I I I fully support giving them some ability to try and restore some some of their privacy and a barrier. Nothing else has changed within the village. We've had kids since the village was formed. We've had

pets since the village was formed. I I I'm just not seeing the driver to make this change away from the status quo. If you guys see differently then again I encourage you you know what can we do to limit the impact and I I think I mentioned some of these things in earlier in the process. You know limit limit the amount of yard that can be fenced in. So that would create kind of a a buffer zone and a and a pass lane for the animals. Uh honestly I don't know if that'll look better or worse. Um, and I'm certainly concerned about the downstream costs of, you know, when maintenance starts to become an issue. You know, is every is everybody going to maintain their fences as they should? Is the village going to get involved in that? How do we, you know, are there ways that we can incent that either through some type of aurity bond or something like that? So, again, I don't see the I don't see the change that calls for an alteration. If you guys see differently, then I'd encourage you to to think about ways that you can mitigate the uh the cost. Thanks.

Thank you.

Any other questions on the data? [clears throat] If not, I did have one email public comment. Okay. That came to me today. Um So, this was from uh Joe and Nancy Cheseri. I apologize if I

It's just Thank you very much. I have to say I'm always nervous about that when I have to read names. Um so, this is from them. Uh it was directed to you, Chairman Scovich. Um and the commission members. Uh it was I and here is I'm just going to read it verbatim. I'm unable to to attend tonight's meeting. My name is Joe Joeeri. My wife and I lived in 45 acres. We built our home here in 1978/79. We were attracted to Indian Park by its open views, hills, and wooded character. We raised our family here and enjoyed quality time with our grandchildren here. There has always been a no fence rule for the 46 years we've lived here. There is no such rule in our adjacent suburbs, and we believe this makes Indian Head Park unique and which is a strong asset resulting in special vistas and views and the park-like nature of our community. Allowing generalized fencing in our village will change its character forever. The Genie can't be put back in the bottle. Our backyard looks down the rear yards of at least six of our neighbors. I have attached two photos of our rear yard, and I apologize I didn't bring them with me. Um, that was my comment, not theirs. Uh, so they said, "I have attached two photos of our rear yard from summer and winter. We have a beautiful park-like view with rolling lawns and mature oaks. We have had many contractors, builders, realtors, and friends, and neighbors admire our views and comment that you couldn't get these views in Western Springs or Hinsdale, etc. Imagine our views with many crossing fences. It will be ruined and the beauty will be gone." This will apply to our entire village with generalized fencing. Our grandchildren love the freedom to run from yard to yard under our watchful eyes, and our friendly neighbors don't mind. We believe the lack of fences increases neighborly neighborliness. This will also be gone with fences. The word park has a dictionary definition of open green space. Let's keep the park in Indian Head Park by keeping our landscape open. Thank you for your consideration, Joe and Nancy Cheseri.

Thanks.

So, are we ready to entertain a discussion about the brass tax? Is there is there change needed? And if so, what does that change look like? I heard I heard a pretty common theme about a willingness to consider, you know, fences. a a a overwhelming willingness to consider fences or or perhaps a better word would be screening along uh major thorough affairs. Um and then and then we had a tighter discussion or a tighter set of of metrics on moving that uh moving some provision of fences into the neighborhood. So I think uh um Andreas laid out under new business B and C appropriately as as being the two two items if we were to consider recommending a change. Those would be the two um that we would have to kind of socialize and and and uh determine whether or not um change is needed. And if so, what does that change look like? I have one question related to this issue of major roads um before I can really formulate my response and that is what what is the timing for the construction period of planefield road reconstruction and then the timing of the reconstruction of Wolf Road because this issue of the need for fences along major roads does not exist really until those projects are done and that's years from now is my understanding.

Um because that that construction process is going to be extremely disruptive um and could impact any fences that were that got built in the meantime. So I do agree there's a strong inclination in the results of this that that is something that the village needs to look at a lot more closely and develop some kind of policy around but I also feel like it's not a time sensitive issue. We have a lot of time to try to figure out the question of how that would coordinate with, you know, where the rightway line is even going to end up being and, you know, how that might impact people's desire for a fence. Um, it would give them time to think about, you know, adding some landscaping or, you know, but but and then the funding questions of how is it going to be made to look attractive and consistent. Um, I feel like we have a lot of time to figure that out.

Do we have updated time? But I don't know how many years. I mean, I think it's on the order of years, isn't it, that we have to figure that out?

Yes, there's it is it is significant number of years. I'm not 100% certain with Planefield, but I believe that Wolf Road, they are finalizing the redevelopment plan or the redevelopment design next fall. Um, and then you know the engineering takes the just basic engineering takes two years and then you know phase two takes another few years before construction happens. Um, and so for Wolf Road specifically, it'll be five to seven years if they can find the $30 million for it. Um, or it could be five to never if they can't. Um, that's just something we don't know off. We can't predict that. Planefield Road, my understanding is more of a um pressing issue, but it's also my understanding about a $300 million reconstruction. not the just in front of that but um which also is several years out as well but I but I think believe they have already got the kind of design engineering done with that so that [snorts] might just be a matter of funding and please if anybody in the audience might know more specifics on that let me know um

great question well but I think also addressing the fences along the main thoroughares you've got to consider the fact that there are existing fences that probably need some updating to. So would this issue affect that? Or I mean if we put parameters in place saying that fences in along main thoroughfairs have to look like X Y and Z, would that then translate to fixing those fences? You're referring to the ones along Juliet Road.

Yeah. That already exist. the ones along Juliet Road are special use. Um so really fixing those fences is is on code enforcement aspect of it. The way the fences look right now, um what the issue is is that it should be a double-faced fence. It is not a double-faced fence. Uh so you shouldn't be able to see the posts at all. Um but that's not how it was written into the special used and approved. So um that's what we have for that. Yeah, I think that's a good point for part two. If we are if we decide in some form or fashion that major roads do get a treatment,

then we need to then then unpack what what what consistency looks like and then how we address those folks with the special use and enforcing some form of consistency and then ask them to pay for it. I just want to bring up a point considering that um because there's been a lot of discussion currently about, you know, Wolf Road is always the one that we think about, but Joliet Road, Planefield Road, and um you know, the the small amount on on Willow Springs Road and there's a uniqueness among on Wolf Road in that most of Wolf Road frontage is actually contained within planned unit developments, PUDS. So that's the Ashbrook PUD. That is the Acacia PUD. That is the Indian Ridge Lakes uh Indian Ridge, excuse me, PUD. And that's the east side. The west side is Timber Ridge. Um the PUD and then also the 45 acres PUD. The reason I bring this up is that um these PUDs are I heard it once described as custom zoning. So you can they have their own rules to it. Um and what those rules are depends upon what the PUD was. The point of it is that that those HOAs or you know in in terms of 45 acres those residents if they got enough of the residents could petition the could petition the commission and the village to modify the spe the PUD and it would be just like doing a special use. they'd come in, present a plan, and they could make the modifications to the PUD. This has happened, you know, normally in smaller amounts. Um, but, uh, you know, we did it for Ashbrook a few years ago when they

started allowing them to have um, awnings. The original PUD awnings village modified it to it. And I apologize, I actually forgot Indian Woods Drive and Flag Creek down south of Joliet. So, um, those are also PUDs. Uh so to some extent with the major roads even if we don't either if we allow or don't allow either direction um fences along there those PUDs could either be modified to allow fences regardless if the plan commission would so choose on it. um which is partly what would actually be helpful for if we had you're talking about consistency. Um the the timber trails fence that is referenced often is actually a subdivision fence. It is a PUB subdivision fence that the entire that surrounds the timber trail or timber ridge timber trail subdivision. Um so that is something that um they could come in and do. Now, there's also been some discussion about um with some of the HOAs is kind of informally um about it because some of the HOAs border unincorporated areas and they have had issues with people cutting through their HOAs to either, you know, go to like Walgreens or something like that. Um or just cutting through if they're, you know, they don't want to walk down Wolf Road where there's no sidewalks or something. So, there has been some discussions about that. And when I say informally, I mean I've just stated that they could do that. Um, but that's something else that we need to be aware of is that the PUDs along Wolf Road in general could allow fences or not if they so choose to petition the the plan commission, the plan commission provided a recommendation, the board approved it. Does everybody I want to make sure that that's clear. It's basically like any normal special use process that we've done here just with the the

subdivisions. Makes sense.

So Diane, does the uh response on timing factor in your your thinking? I mean five five to seven years that seems like an eternity. uh but it would be here before we know it. Is there a triggering mechanism that we could solve for today upon well certain whatevers.

Yeah. I mean I some of the issues that that Andre just raised I mean get at the complexity of it because if the goal the overarching thing that we heard in the qualitative is everyone's concerned about aesthetics and consistency and appearance and those kinds of things. achieving that with fences along Wolf Road eventually maybe along Juliet somehow um along Planefield is incredibly complex and difficult. So it was done at Timber Trails because there's an HOA at Timber Trails. Everybody pays their assessment and the fence was put up. The fence was erected. The fence is maintained. you know, all of all the shared amenities in that subdivision are paid for by the residents who pay an HOA fee. We don't have any kind of mechanism like that in existence yet in the village that would allow us to say our grand scheme along Wolf Road is to have, you know, attractive matching

fences and landscaping that would look as nice as timber trails when the Wolf Road project. Don't you think that we could obviously if you're going to perform any kind of meaningful work on your property, you have to apply for a permit. So this would be a phase two of this discussion where we are going to great lengths to define what is and isn't allowed. So when you come in to apply for a permit for these improvements if you want to put in

an improvement this is the only thing you can do. So it would be the homeowner's decision. It wouldn't be a mandatory if you want screening from the right ofway apply for a permit and know that it is this fence or this screen period. It is your decision and then perhaps I think I heard somebody even mention a bond for maintaining and keeping up this what we're talking about tonight is just the idea. Um and and that part two to the extent the idea is something that we support would would be a 2026 goal. Um and and that I would expect that to be as exhaustive as this effort has been because everybody's going to have an opinion of what looks good and what doesn't. Um but but regardless, if the homeowner wants us wants one, then by gosh, they're going to have to abide by the rules that we would collectively define as a part two of this effort. And perhaps I can offer a little bit of a tidbit information. Currently under our our uh allowances for um our ADA and fair housing amend and fair housing act um we do allow fences in specific cases and this is what those requirements for those fences are. The fence shall be a minimum of 5t in height at walk-rade level. I actually think that's a typo, but that either way, the fence shall be constructed constructed of a rot iron or aluminum material or other corrosive resistant material approved by the building inspector. The fence shall give the appearance of a rot iron fence with vertical fencing sufficiently close so as to prevent a child from passing through the verticals. The fence shall not have spikes or pointed ends on the top of the fence. And then heavy

screening should be along the fence as well. Screening being landscape. Sorry. Yeah. Screening being landscaping. It's a very long thing where they talk about evergreens, pines, bushes, etc. Shrubbery, which does not lose its leave in the winter. So, we do have a very specific type of fence that is currently pro defined as when needed for the fair housing act type of fencing. So, it is something that we could once again do as well. Um, I know other communities that have basically same type of thing. This is what the fence is. This is the only type of fence that is allowed. Thank you.

Barb, do we need to change the fence ordinance? I don't know. I'm asking you and I'm gonna ask Rick. I'm gonna ask you. I'm gonna ask everybody. I'm just thinking about what Diane's saying about the timing. And I know what you're saying, too. So, I'm not sure. It's going to change once. Make sure to push the button on your mic, please. Thank you.

I just I I I'm just said, you know, about the timing is this and and I'm listening to the uh what they're saying and I just go back and forth with it. Well, you should know that if you term out of this commission when this vote does come back, we're coming to get you. [laughter] So, if you're trying to Just kidding. I'm just kidding. I'm just kidding. But it is it is you know if we're five to seven years that is a it's a long time that is a and and before we know it

and I you know I think we we've we've revisited this many many times in the past and the the results have been trending in a direction that is different from what we have written in the code today. So, you know, it's, you know, the old beating a dead horse. Uh, and I don't know that I want to revisit it again and again, but you know, the change that you were talking about, I think you you you cited it very appropriately, Wolf, that's a that's a significant change. But within that within the within the neighborhood, what what has changed? we don't have zombies running around that we need to keep out of our our our yards. You know, I can think that would be an appropriate change. Um, but you know, [snorts] beyond that, I don't, you know, what has changed. Um, and I certainly don't want to influence anybody, but we've heard a lot of good content. I read a lot of good comments from the public that spoke. Bob, I've been meaning to ask you. I wasn't here last month, but from my take of the folks that came to the meeting and went to the trouble of speaking, it felt like we had a higher representation of opposition than support. Uh,

you know what I mean? Folks that came that were saying, "Hey, uh-uh, no fences." Versus folks that were in support of fences. Yeah. Um, I don't know if that's a telling um sign or not, but you know, the survey is one thing, but for people to take time out of their day to come and speak and and and uh and uh you know, it it tells me it's pretty important to him.

Yeah. I I think generally speaking there was people that opposed it and had some narrative of the reasons why um more than those that wanted fences and those that wanted fences were speaking in terms of emotion rather than fact-based. You know the whole housing appreciation values could be done many interpreted many different ways. The one thing I was going to recommend that this commission can do concurrent to its monthly responsibilities is work towards some form of standardization, especially on the Joliet Road side. You know, what would that grow up to be if we were going to do it? Um, you could even apply that to Wolf Road if it ever comes to that. Yes, it's a long timeline, but if we wanted to work towards that and develop some guidelines, standardization, you know, materials, height, fence, everything that is an existing code could be revisited. Um, that's probably something that we could spend time on, but I'm not seeing any indicators of why we should be pursuing fences at this point. I'm going to jump in here one bit as a staff person. Um, I understand the there's a I understand that we place extra weight on people who show up to meetings on comments that are placed on surveys. That's not me just making anything up. That's any anybody who's ever been trained in surveying knows that. The counterpoint to to um Chairman Scovich is that you know it's important if they show up. It's very true but we

did not write on the survey that that your opinion is only you know half the amount of someone who shows up in the room or whatever. So the point is we gave everybody we have 1947 people the opportunity to provide their comments in the implication and honestly in in my direction in in my belief that we'd weigh all those equally. So that is something that I want to to caution the commission on of overweing emotionally overweing those who have shown up who provide commentary. Not saying that I'm not pleased and happy that they are here. I always love to see P members of the public and love to get their opinion in on but there are 705 pe or excuse me there are 696 people who've provided their opinion to this commission through the survey and so that is why um I I think the commission should should keep that in mind when making their deliberation.

Yeah. So speaking just in facts, what would we need to do to take the next steps not to recommend fences? Well, my first off and either way, there needs to be a motion and a second. Okay.

And then there needs to be a then there needs to be a a vote on what the recommendation would be. And then once that is recommended, we will get if if you are looking to not provide fences, if you're looking to say that we are not looking for any changes, what we do is then we'd do that. I would get your reasoning behind it, provide a final report, and then move that report and recommendation to the board, which would essentially be a negative finding of changing of the recommendation. The boards could then accept that or with a supermajority overrule it and direct the plan commission to if they would like to have fences to basically continue the issue or they could do the work themselves honestly. But um most likely it's most often is that the plan commission would then get direction from the board from that

if that was to be overruled or the board would would accept the the commission's recommendation and then may take no further action. Is is is there anything that would prevent us or some content that would stipulate that this shall not be revisited for another 10, 15, whatever years is that government? You you could

you could make that recommendation and the board could pass said resolution. However, a new board might come in and just and just turn around and nullify that resolution and do it again. Um, so that is the legislative process. There you go. Thank you.

I think the thing I'm struggling with is that we we make these blanket statements about Indian Head Park, but really the fact of it is that there's different types of areas. I don't the Bartlett Estates does not have that open park-like atmosphere. I mean, we are very segmented. There's we know we have um we have a lot of condos. We have a lot of town homes. Um and and the area by uh Tim Timber Ridge, Timber Ridge, the Timbers confuse me, but they have a very different characteristic as well. So, we say Indian Head Park has this open park-like atmosphere, but it's really more in one specific location or various, you know, pockets of locations. So, we're trying to make this blanket statement about everybody, but I mean, how how can we actually do that? And I know we're trying to avoid taking little bits and pieces. We're trying to make it easier to have one common um you know, a common policy for everything. But I don't I just I'm struggling with how that's even going to be possible when there's all these different characteristics to the to the area. So

that's a great comment. So, I guess is there a is there an opportunity for folks in those areas that have that park-like atmosphere to come together and say, I we want to collectively put it in place that we are not going to allow fences that we are considering ourselves like a I don't know planned use or whatever. um and they can say this is the characteristic of our our area within this subdivision and we want to keep it that way. But then those that have the opportunity like Bartlett put formalize it and put it in place that okay we it's not along that we don't have the same characteristics. So you know we should have the opportunity to do what what we feel is right in our area. they could create an HOA,

right? As far as I'm aware, there's nothing stopping anyone from ever creating an HOA. So, it's just an HOA that would that would have to. As far as I'm aware, I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. However, I am not aware of anything that stops that stops any grouping of homeowners from forming an HOA and recording it with the, you know, Cook County And I think

that does that somehow allow that group of homeowners to petition the village for something that they wouldn't otherwise have the ability to petition for. I guess I'm not sure what an H an HOA would would be a special assessment on all the homeowners in that area so that they could do some something in a shared way because they have a common interest, right? doesn't it doesn't give them special powers related to zoning. I mean to some extent yeah it does because it the HOA's binding covenants and rules to allow what allow what happens in certain areas. So that's why you know if an HOA has stylistic guidelines or those types of things

but those are those are things that are more restrictive than the underlying zoning.

Correct. So that let's say this commission decided that you know they went fences for all. Right? Everybody gets a fence. Uh an HOA as as Bob has so rightly pointed out, it doesn't matter in the HOAs because the HOAs control the you know control the the covenants that are part of the property. So if let's say we went fences for all and um you know Oldtown or 45 acres or trying to think of any other place that's not covered in Bartlett Estates homeowners decided to create an HOA that was more restrictive than that. um then they very could, you know, control what that would look like.

Yeah, you can be more restrictive, but you certainly can't operate outside of what's written in the ordinance, right? more ability to make your own choices. And and in today's engagement, if someone in Bartlett needed requested some type of change, a better fence structurally or something to that effect. And given the restrictions that Bartlett has, they could come before us and we could manage by exception. Correct. Technically, every fence in Bartlett has a special use. So, I'm talking about the repairs or improvements and

right, there's some chain link fences that would probably benefit from an upgrade. [laughter] So, but in in today's engagement is where I'm going, Andre, they could come before us and ask for special needs. Correct. Well, they can always ask for a spe like if they have a special use that allows them to keep a chainlink fence and they were to come to the commission and say, "I do not want this chain link. It's fallen down." Yes.

Um it is no longer in in good repair. I would like to change it out to being a row iron aluminum fence. Um the commission would then consider that if what that special use would then go in. Uh would that be appropriate? Do we want not do we want them not to have a fence anymore? And so then you don't allow them to to repair the fence. Um so those are all the things that the commission can do. I would caution about about um trying to manage and zone by exception. It opens us up to a lot of liability because then what is why does person A get something that person B does not? It has to be very firmly done. also starts putting a lot of effort on a lot of work more on staff to then you know have these exceptions as they come in as this plan commission most of you commissioners dealt with during the shed and fences marathon approval of I think it was like 22 special uses or something like that. Um

so we revisited this a long time ago. I don't know if you were on board at that time, but this manage by exception was just something we as a courtesy we looked at, but then we went with our code, existing code. So, Bob, I asked Barb question. I think I heard you answer pretty definitively. Um, do you think we need to change the ordinance? You're asking me if what again?

Do you think we need to change uh the ordinance, defense ordinance? I voted. Let's take a motion to Will. That's great. Yeah, that's my Will you motion? I'm going to motion. Yes. Have my name on that motion. Yes. For which part? To not pursue this anymore. Well, that is unfortunately that is not what we have on the agenda. We have the the residential policy and discussion recommendation of fences along major roads and then we have the other one which is in residential properties. We need a motion. So that's why I asked what what are the next steps and you recap that.

Right. So yes, we need the we need so I would need a motion to make a recommendation for fences along major roads and your motion would include what your recommendation would be. Okay. Okay. Can we can we throw out a hypothetical motion and discuss it? [laughter]

I I would feel comfortable making a motion that based on the results of this survey, there is not a strong justification for making changes to the fence regulations in the village broadly. and that our recommendation to the board should be that we leave it alone and we stop talking about it. There you go. on the issue of major roads. Yes,

the question was asked on the survey and there is a there is strong support for discussing that further and coming up with some kind of solution that likely involves you know a lot of involvement or coordination or management on the part of the village to make it what people would expect. But we also have time to address that. we would probably need some professional assistance probably from our zoning consultants to say what are the different ways we could achieve what we're talking about trying to achieve.

Um but we have time to work to to do that. So my second motion would be that we in a timely way delve into that further but acknowledge that it doesn't become an urgent issue until we understand more about what the implications of the Wolf Road and Planefield redesigns are even going to be. Yeah. And then we would know what we need to know [clears throat]

to look into that further. That's the con have it run concurrent to our normal responsibilities. We won't lose it on our scope. Um but I think the other part of the first motion is something we could push through through some narrative and counseling from Tony over there. So, um, there is a reason why I split these on the agenda. Yeah.

Because the the major roads has much more support. I I will also, as a staff member, ask you the same question that I've asked many boards before. What information do you need from staff to make the decision on whether or not to allow fences along major roads? I understand that there are some questions about timing. There are questions about style. You know, what is all that? But all those questions presuppose the fact that we allow them.

Anthony, I think you've done a fantastic job of presenting this information. But I don't think we're prepared to move on this tonight. It doesn't sound like on the major roads. Yeah. Yeah. The major roads certainly. So, what do you need from me? Nothing. You've done a great job. So,

do you want us to deny it? You want us to make a motion? My question is I do not want this to suddenly become a sitting issue that doesn't go anywhere as has been the habit of the village and this will be a this will be I understand that you are not prepared to make that which is why I'm asking what do you need from staff to keep making you more prepared to get to that final discussion if it's you know we've had a lot of discussion right now and I feel like we want it we need to mull it over another you know week we're all another month or such that's absolutely fine but I am trying to I am trying to figure out what to get to how what a to make a decision honestly is what we're coming down to is what is the resolution to to this issue that we have been directed by the board to handle

Andre I have a question maybe to help um do we know exactly what the reconstruction of Wolf Road looks like is it two lanes each way are there sidewalks is it going to extend into the properties on both sides andor if this is a state or county road. Um can the cost of that I know barrier between this now major thoroughfare be part of the construction project um and make it uniform so that so or or is this just going to fall back to the property owner? Um

it it will fall back to the property owner ultimately. There the the last draft of the of the road that basically design has been settled on um would be about a two-lane road um was the turn lane in the middle if I remember correctly with a sidewalk on one side. Um so that is what it currently is going to look like. Um there might be some property that is taken. There might also not be that. So not looking at like 15 feet, right? We're looking at something more like maybe five um in in the residential areas when you start getting down into like I the plaza and everything. There's more frontage that gets taken, but that's not uh pertinent here. And um I would say that's something that we can easily compensate for above putting off the current property line five, you know, making a forward fence five some odd feet off the property line if that's a concern. Um, I will also bring up that there are safety concerns currently, not just with the red construction of Wolf Road, but there are currently some safety concerns for those properties as well due to just the higher amount of traffic. We have, you know, there are there have been a number of properties along Wolf Road where they've unfortunately had cars end up in their front yard. Um and this commission as one has before allowed for front yard fencing and a gate in that certain incident for those certain it was a specific property that kept happening on. Um but that is also a precedent that has been sent. So, um I understand that we focus on Wolf Road the most, but Willow Springs has having, you know, and Willow Springs on the our properties or our residents that are on Willow Springs already have a, you know, a sidewalk, already have a reconstructed road, you know, and I've walked I walked by there two weeks ago, right? There is nothing that blocks anybody from walking through any of their yards at any point in time. The other point is too, we still have Juliet Road which does have some, you

know, uh they have the fence there now of course um but you know there's that um further south further south of Jo Juliet Road also currently has some issues with you know traffic and that's where more school children also walk. So while we are thinking about these major roads currently as in the reconstruction, we focus on Wolf Road predominantly. I would like to to to tell the I would like to ask the commission to think about it in more of a broader sense as well as the current conditions. So could we de departmentalize these two initiatives? He's asking for two.

Yeah, I'm asking for two more. the two the two separate A and B or B and C, sorry, are are separate. Yeah. Could we tackle the one that we know the answer to and start making accurate motions to close that that down and then concentrate on the other more, you know, hightra Joliet Road, Wolf Road. Could we at least get the one tonight? I think we know the answer to being C. Could we do that tonight? Sure. you're always able to make a motion and pride a second.

I mean, I still I still feel like there I I don't know. Personally, I feel like there needs to be a little bit more understanding on I mean, I don't want to say no fences when I know that a majority of the folks in my specific area want have you don't have to. Well, but then what is our recourse? If we say no fences, then what is our recourse? setting up an HOA. No, they can apply for the special lane. There's special use.

Okay. So, we would just have to apply for special use individually. Okay. All right. So, it's not necessarily like a blanket statement. So, okay. Okay, that makes sense. Yeah. And and you might even be able to look into an HOA, but I think that would be a lot of work in which you'd have to garner a lot of support, right? folks. So, chairman, could you I'm willing to entertain a motion. Begin a discussion on the [snorts] motion that we would vote on today, the one that we know the answer to. Is there some I'm was just waiting on a motion.

Anybody can make a motion. You guys can make a motion. I think you know I thought I did that though. Sandbaging the process is what's going on. Somebody's got to make a motion. Sandbagging. or not sandbagging. I don't know what's you know public comments are over uh I guess but what are you guys doing? Why are you guys doing it like this?

The board has asked you to make a decision on this. We've done the survey for two months. We know where you guys are. Just make the motion go up or down. I don't understand why we don't have enough information, Diane. Five to seven years. Should we put a moratorum and never bring it up? Things have changed in the community. That's why it's on the That's why it's on the agenda. Somebody's just got to make a motion. I don't understand why there's no motion. Do I have a second? What is the motion? Bob, do you want to make it or I'll make it? Oh, I could say it again, but go ahead. Yeah.

I need I need as honestly as the the person who's doing I need clarity on what your motion is. So, if you are making a motion on item B, you say I would make a motion on the recommending uh excuse me, if you're doing if you want to do item C, which is what I'm which I believe you are doing, you would say I'm, you know, I am making a motion on item C to recommend not changing the fence policy on residential properties. That would be the motion. But I need you to say those words or someone to say those words or whatever words they if they want a positive recommendation, they can do the opposite. I'll make a motion that the plan commission does not recommend changes to the fence provisions in the current village code.

I second the motion. Is that accurate? Second. I'll second motion by uh Commissioner Gormley Barnes. Second, Miss Lucente. Um, does it need a voice vote? Uh, I certainly don't want to sandbag it anymore. So, probably be a I what I would do is I would do a roll call vote on this one. um just because the fact that we want to make sure it's it's an issue that it's one of those things where if you get a nay vote, you're going to have to do it anyways. You're going to have to go do a roll call anyway, so you might as well work it through. Okay, let's do it.

Okay, excuse me one second. Commissioner Tantillo. And what's the vote? The I vote is to not change the current I vote code. I agree with that vote. I agree with that motion. Is that good enough? Yes. Okay. Commissioner Bina. No. Commissioner Hatkkey. No. Commissioner Gormley Barnes.

Yes. Commissioner Mshaw, yes. Commissioner Lucenti, yes. Chairman Greg Scovich, yes. That negative recommendation passes 5 to2 for item B. Is the commission tableabling it for this meeting or are we having or is the commission going to have further discussions on the issue?

I'll make a motion to approve item B. Are you so you're looking to make a positive recommendation? Yes. Okay. Yes. And does that that suggest like you mentioned something about what what additional information do we need to evaluate this all of that is that does that have to get rolled up into the motion? No, that this moment what you're basically looking is you're telling staff that you are looking at at you want this code to be changed, but we staff will then and we'll discuss the specifics at the next coming meetings of what what the options might be to do that. We will get this we'll get into this where and how.

Yep. The where, the how, the what's, the what's everything, all the specifics. And because then we can bring in additional experts on the issue, right? Our planning and zoning, you know, our planners, our builders, our engineers, our everything in there to answer those more technical specific questions. This is but the focus is do you do you want to provide a positive recommendation that the village change the code to allow fences along major roads? That is what the current motion is. Yes, that's correct. Subject to the gory details to follow.

Yes, this is not this is not a final recommendation. This is just the overall because if you if you this dies here for no second, then we don't go anywhere with it. Second. Okay. Motion by Commissioner Hatkkey, second by Mr. Mshaw. Roll call. Commissioner Tantillo. No. Commissioner Bina, yes. Commissioner Hodkkey, yes. Commissioner Gormley Barnes, yes. Commissioner Mshaw, yes. Commissioner Lucente, yes. Chairman Greg Scovich, yes.

That motion carries six to one. So to recap, we have a positive recommendation to make changes to allow fences along major roads, which the commission will continue to work on to provide the exact details for it. And we have a negative recommendation to make changes to the the fence code for fences and residential properties, otherwise known as the code will stay the same. Is there something in writing somewhere in our records of the the definition of a major road is one that is not the jurisdiction of the village?

It is not in our writing anywhere, but that is very possibly be put into the changes of that. basically along these roads. You know, if if we wanted to word it kind of the same way we worded it in the survey, we basically say along the roads of Wolf, Planefield, Willow Springs, and Juliet Road on prop on property lines bordering those roads, they would be allowed to have a fence. The fences specifications are XYZ. Okay. No other new business, we can uh move on to old business. No old business. We'll move on to correspondence. I have no additional correspondence.

Uh any further public comments? Thank you everyone for your time uh through the process and your patience. Um we are just a recommending body. Oh, if you I would encourage you to uh to attend the uh when will when will this go in front of the board?

Well, if we bring the recommendations together, which I would most likely do unless the commission would want me to bring them individually, um this would go in front of the board once these the full recommendation for the fences along major roads would be done. However, I will be updating the board as well of what is going on at the plan commission level. So, especially because December in the original resolution was when we were supposed to provide a recommendation. So, I will give them the overview of what happened next week. Um, and then uh we will continue on from there. Excellent. So, we originally said December we'd make a recommendation.

Yes. December was the original point of providing the recommendation from the from the commission to the to the village board barring anything you know we there was a lot of extension timelines because for various reasons. Well, I am sincere in noting the hard work and effort that you and your support staff put into this um and and holding us accountable and making sure that we were able to honor that uh commitment to a December recommendation. Um anything else from anybody? If not, I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. I move to adjourn. I second.

Motion by Mr. Mr. Menshaw, second by Miss Hatkkey. All in favor of adjourning our December 2nd, 2025 meeting. Hang on a sec. Have a great holiday, everybody. See you all on 26. All in favor of mo of of adjourning the meeting. I I opposed. Motion carries. What's up? Dinner yet. Me? Is that use your