Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Let's start with a roll call. Commissioner Tantillo present. Uh, Commissioner Bilina. Absent. Commissioner uh, Clattkkey. She did say she was coming, so she might be running a little late. Commissioner Menshaw here. Commissioner Lucenti here. Commissioner Gormley Barnes is absent and chairman Greg Scovich present. Four members a is a quorum. Wonderful. If I can get everybody to stand for a pledge.

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. Okay, everybody has the agenda of what we are going to be considering tonight. First order of business will be um review consideration for approval both December and January meeting minutes. Um couple of lengthy documents. Hopefully everybody had time to review those before tonight. Um, but if you didn't take a moment now, otherwise I'll entertain first a motion to approve the December meeting minutes and then we'll have us vote and then a second motion to approve the January meeting minutes. So, I'll let somebody from the plan commission when they feel they're ready make a motion. I approve uh move to approve the December meeting minutes.

Commissioner Mshaw. No motion to approve. Looking for a second when the commission's ready. I'll second that. December 2025. All in favor of approving the December 2025 meeting minutes in its current form say I.

I. All opposed. Motion carries. Um, now I'd like to uh entertain an approval for the million minutes in their current form as published for the January 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission. I motion to approve the January mo uh committee meeting minutes. Thank you. Thank you, Rick. Let the record show that Commissioner Mshaw motion to approve the January 2026 meeting minutes in their current form. Looking for a second.

I'll second the January 2026 approval. Uh second from uh Commissioner Lucente. Uh with a second take a uh mo uh formal vote. All in favor of approving the January 2026 meeting minutes in their current form say I.

I. All opposed. Let the record show January minutes for January 2026 planning commission minutes in their current form passed. Um, moving on. Public hearings. No public hearings. I think we all know why we are here. We are here to consider the continuation and hopefully u have leave leave tonight's meeting with a recommendation that the board can consider on our efforts in review of the fence ordinance. Um thank you commission or thank you Andre and uh Commissioner Tantillo. Um supplemental to the agenda and meeting minute package that uh you all received tonight was a very concise um document describing our effort uh our effort to date and then specifically what we are um considering this evening um in the form of a vote. Um, and uh, Andreas, I'd like uh for you to take a minute kind of run through your thoughts behind this document. Um, to the extent you need help from Commissioner Santillo, uh, please leverage him. But, um, this is a a a terrific tool um, and really clears up the subject and, uh, what we're what we're considering here tonight.

Yeah, thank you. Um because we are at the end of this process uh and it's a very it was a very large and broad and very uh you know big scope of the entirety I wanted to go back and basically go back to the original board direction so we could see all what we're voting on and then clarify kind of because we kind of got off on little tangents here which is as a broad policy topic these things happen um it's not unique to here. So, uh, we basically came back and said, "Okay, here we are. We're at the final recommendation. What are we We've done a very exhaustive overview of the fence issue in Indian Head Park." I can honestly say I don't think there's any stones that are out there that are left unturned. And so, what are we actually looking to do at this moment? And um having clarified you know what our scope was what we're looking for from the commission uh including like including that we are looking for uh amendments to fence regulations and general framework and standards but not looking for you know technical guidelines building codes etc engineering details. Then to hope after we clarified all that then going down and basically looking at what is the recommendation that we are looking to provide to the board the commission is looking to provide to the board and synthesizing that down is is that we are is that the commission is has come to uh a recommendation that I I put in here which is um essentially allowing those fences uh on property lines bordering Wolf Road, Juliet Road, Willow Springs Road and Planefield Road. And then we also discussed the kind of general aesthetics and overall um guidelines for it and I'm just going to read them here. Uh the recommended guidelines would be height of 5T uh no more at 5t a maximum of 5t at walk grade level. It' be rowd iron or aluminum or some other material that that's corrosion resistant. Um the appearance

would be a row iron fence with vertical you know fencing. um openness 50% open basically meaning it's not obstructing views and then should be flat top with no spikes or anything on pointed on the end of it. Um so that was what the commission has narrowed it down to for this meeting. There was two outstanding questions from the last meeting that the commission um should consider and then wrap into their final recommendation and that was whether uh recommending that um 65th Street which abuts uh well excuse me the properties that 65th Street which is not a Indian Head Park Road and is very open whether they should be allowed to put fences on that property buy as well. Um there's like four properties there. And then also there was discussion about screening, particularly vegetative screening and specifically um being required for uh anyone that puts in a fence. Um and so and then the final recommendation we're looking at was that we're not making a recommendation that that these recommendations would not apply village wide but in this just a specific incident. So right now uh what staff is looking for is um discussion on those two items but also the recommendation as a whole and then moving on to this the plan commission making those recommendations and I can read that too we want to or I can wait till after discussion is concluded.

I think we need to factor that into our discussion. So while you're at it let's go ahead and okay

read it now. So after discussions after the plan commission has concluded its discussions feels that they have you know come to uh the end of it uh we are looking at getting a recommendation here and so we put in here in the language that it has to be um originally done by has to be moved by one member seconded by another. So that's the someone makes the I move to do this and someone says I second that motion. Um and then we have the kind of we have the the wording here as well. So at this moment it the to make the recommendation for allowing fences that border the those four major roads and possibly 65th Street. This would what would be what one of the commissioners would say. It doesn't count when I say it cuz I'm staff. Uh it said it would be I move that the village amend its fence regulations to allow for the installation of fences along Wolf Road, Juliet Road, Willow Springs Road, and Payfield Road. And if the commission wants 65th Street um with the following specifications which I'd already read that's height, materials, appearance, openness, design and then if the commission thinks that screening requirements should vegetative screening requirements should be added, we can add that in there as well. So that's the first recommendation. If the plan commission makes that recommendation, that's the only recommendation they they actually need to send to the board because it's amending the current regulations. We put in here a second res recommendation in there in case the plan commission feels that they want to be extra clear on it which was the second recommendation was I move that with the exception of the specific changes recommended in the proceeding motion regarding fences with along certain arterial roads the village maintains all existing fence regulations villagewide without further changes at that time. It's redundant, but it's also exceedingly clear that the letting everyone know that you considered fences

villagewide and you're not recommending changes outside the ones you already did. At that point, I'm just going to go keep going through the process. Once you make that final vote and recommendation here, staff will put it into the into the report that we have included in there as the draft report. We'll put those recommendations in there and we'll have that on the board agenda for them to see on February 12th. Once the board reviews it and provides any feedback or recommendations or subsequent direction um staff and our consultants for our engineering, our zoning um and our building will also look at the the broad recommendations and direction and finalize those uh specifics to it. At that point, we would be looking at at bringing back uh an ordinance uh draft ordinance for the board's consideration on March 12th. We would bring that draft ordinance here as part of the board report as more an informative so it wouldn't be voted on again by the commission here. Um but you'd see it before it goes to the board on March 12th just as like I said as an information type uh item. So that's the overview. So the ordinance when it comes back to us will be information for discussion but we will not be taking action.

Correct. There'll be no action at that point by the commission because you've already made your recommendation. What the board has decided then is it. Excellent. This is a terrific piece of work right here. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions for staff from the commission on number one the document that we have in front of us and then number two what we have been tasked with doing tonight. I'm not sure question, but um I believe our intent with the with the vote in the survey from the community, our intent with the um um allowance for fences along the arterial major roads was to provide security for those homeowners so their pets or children or whatever wouldn't go out into these busy streets. Is that correct? It was definitely part of the consideration of it in the commission. Um, yeah.

So, I I bring up this point again. I brought it up last month, but that I am just envisioning the fence, let's say, along Wolf Road, which is where I live, to to enable th those families to have the inability of a dog or a child to wander into those busy streets by securing the fence all the way to their home or somehow making it at a functional fence, not just something along the road, which is what we viewed in your document, similar to a park or whatever that was a a village some community property

or whatever. So So can we clarify that once finally I mean just so that when I know we're making this motion

all it says is fences are allowed along these arterial streets. It doesn't say more detail about that they're actually intended to provide security for those families by making it un, you know, impossible for a dog to to cross the fence, not just go around the edge of the fence where Haywa and Wolf Road meet. So, so the homeowner when they see this thing approved eventually they're going to say, "Oh, I can build a fence. It's going to make it impossible for my dog to get out onto the road." So, to modify that, we'd have to be looking at, you know, where the fences are in what yard. So several of the properties on Wolf Road, it'd be simpler. It' be simple to say like on the on the it would be allowed to build a fence in the yard in the yard where which abuts the street, right? Where it gets tricky with that is that some of the some of the properties have yard have multiple yards that are abuting it. So I'm thinking of the property we're talking about 65th Street. Um the the property that that is that comes off of 65th place and then backs up to 65th Street has both their because it's a it touches at Willow Springs on the side. It would has both their front yard, their side yard and their rear yard touching that. And so to allow if in my the language that I provided the saying the the yard that abuts it would essentially allow them to build a fence around their entire home. Um and that was something that uh when we did the survey originally uh the language that we have here which which has the property bordering the property the property line bordering

that was part of the survey question. Um so while it is definitely something that it could be addressed it'd be much more complex than just allowing it as a yard because all these little uniqueness ill unique parts we have to look at. So like there are some that are back up to it right they're rear yards very simple. There are some that are front yards, very simple. Um, but there are some that are side yards and front yards and rear yards. And how that would look, you know, how that language would be drafted to allow that, um, would be a little bit more complex. I also understand my point is that it makes no sense just to have a fence along the road without any u ability to enclose that fence to to the home or to the garage or to the whatever so that things can't get out. Just having a fence along the road broken up by streets doesn't make any sense.

I don't know if that's what we're voting for it. Yeah, that's I think that's exactly what we're voting for. right there, which doesn't to me now make any sense.

Um part of it I mean that's there is part of that enclosure of it, but it was also to restrict to help restrict um pedestrians or any type of other moving across it, right? You don't need to necessarily enclose it when you have when you have a fence in your yard. I mean, yes, could someone want if someone willingly wants to walk around it, that can happen, but unless you know, as we were discussing before, um if someone wants to jump a 5ft fence, they can also jump a 5ft fence. Um, so a lot of it was more on the controlling the flow of pedestrian and and non-pedestrian traffic. Well, I should pedestrian and and those who walk on four legs [laughter] traffic um rather than [clears throat] than necessarily enclosing those entire yards in in discussion. So that is I said that's where I can land on it. But you are absolutely correct. What we are talking about at this moment is just allowing those fences along that property line. Yeah, I think it becomes less of an issue if everybody in a row decides to do it. But if you have breaks, if one neighbor decides, "Yeah, I want the fence." And then another one, the one behind it says, "No, I don't." Then to your point, then it's just it's literally like a tiny wall that has really no purpose. Yeah, that's precisely the way it's uh that's the precisely the way it's contemplated in the way it's written and the intent of of uh what we've been discussing and generally supportive of.

So there could be gaps along the way with 100% the way it's written right now. Yeah. because we don't have the benefit of, you know, an association where we might could have the ability to enforce it. You know, the only thing we do have is the discretion of the individual property owners. There's no vehicle that we're aware of because it's individual property owners for the village to enforce a continuous installation. We can allow it and that's what we're considering tonight.

What's the possibility of having the gaps along the way? Correct. But is it possible to allow the option for for a return some sort of a return? Um, not the way it's currently written and not not what I don't know that we've considered that to date. I think we looked at them in isolation. one fences and then two fences along uh the property line that abuts a major major thorough affair.

So how do we consider that? Is that like majorly disruptive throwing everything off or do we go back and say can we allow for some it

adjustments. So what you can do is you can modify one of the motions that we've talked about and instead of allowing for just along property lines, you could allow for it on the yard that is abudding the major the the streets that are so aligned on it. While you were discussing this, I actually was just looking around real quickly to see on that there are roughly one to probably about two properties that we'd have that incident of multiple yards being well the one on anybody that could basically comes out to to a tea on one of the major ones will have the would have the ability, I should say, to to basically enclose the entirety of of the property. Now, could you offer that recommendation with with saying that we are looking at it allowing fences along, you know, along these major roads and closing the yards that that the major roads you could and with it with a kind of further direction staff to figure out the language to make it work. Um, yes, that's absolutely possible. Um, and if this is a sticking point for the commission, I would actually recommend that to get the to get the recommendation moving. Um

I mean I do think it's worth moving forward on this point because otherwise I think that the entire effort is just going to be um for not because it's not going to provide the intended purpose of the homeowner andor the commission which was to provide a mechanism to enable safety along the busy thoroughares. safety for the homeowners, children, and pets. I don't think the intended purpose was How is today aesthetic? How's today any different?

I I don't know. I think it's just um realizing that there was there was no language in the survey, no language in this motion that says that our intended purpose is to provide those homeowners the safety that they're requesting. We talked and and I'm just recalling, but we talked about safety and we felt that that could be leading um in the survey. Okay. You know, a for safety purposes, do you think a fence is is good? But if it was purely an aesthetic Yeah. Yeah.

motion, yes, we people want fences because they're they're going to look nice. Um then then you could have fences with brakes for driveways and roads and and corner lots that fine you're just providing the aesthetic value but I don't think that's the purpose of it at all. Right. Especially since there's such a strong feeling against the aesthetic offenses in this. Yeah. So

so giving time to think about this. Here's what I would recommend on that motion. Okay. for those properties that are budding those the roads so described, they are allowed to have they're allowed to enclose those yards with fences um but shall not shall shall only allow be allowed to enclose the yards with enclose up to one or two yards with fences. So what that will what and the when I'm speaking about yards, I'm speaking front yard, sideyard, rear yard. They're very clearly defined. So, if there is three yards that are being touched, front yard, sideyard, and rear yard, the owner can choose to enclose one of those fences or one of those yards or two of those yards,

but not three. So, they would not be able to enclose the entire house. So, you could say up to two or up to one yard. So, they'd still get to if they have a rear yard that touches it, they could do the entire rear yard. They have a sideyard and a and a rear yard, maybe they can only do one or the other. You know, if they have a front yard, they could do the front yard. So that was what I would recommend to the commission right now is that if you're looking for the yards of of the yards and closing the yards and closing the properties that touch it, you can make you can modify the motion to do that and pick a and and pick how many yards you are comfortable with them doing. I would if you want the most lenient, I would say up to two because then you could do a sideyard and a rear yard. You could do a front yard and a sideyard. But if you don't have more than one yard touching it, rear yard or front yard, which most people only have, a front or a rear yard, that way then we are preventing the whole enclosing the entire property, but we are also then still allowing them to enclose a single yard of the property. Is that it's a little complex, but does that make sense? [laughter] Um, so I have two sides, one rear.

Correct. So under under what you described, I could get one side and one rear. So it' be it'd be on it'd be the yard abuing the major road, right? So let's just say it's my rear yard, right? So it's just your rear yard. You'd be able to get just the rear yard. Okay? If you have a rear and a sideyard because only one of your sideyard touches it, right? Um then you if you if the commission wanted to allow for two then you could do your side and your rear yard. If the commission only wanted to allow for one of the yards then the commission would then they would only be able to do your rear yard. But if you have like a couple of these these corners I'm also looking at Sequoia Sequoia and Wolf right now.

Real quick in the in forgive me I'm a little slow. Um but when you say sideyard is it one sideyard or both sides? One yard. one side yard because it's also would be the yard abudding that so it has to be touching one of the major roads right and then that is that yard is left this is one this is two right so so so what can I see a piece of paper CP pace paper for a second let me let me just draw it because it'll make make life a lot easier for all of us involved if I just draw it for us right visual learners yes well it's just

because so the way it's written we're allowing for a fence when it abuts against one of the major roads that we've highlighted here. And if you just so happen to be a property owner that two of your property lines abut a major road, then this provision allows for that. So is a major road Hayawa? It already handles that provision. So I don't know if we need to go down the path of rewriting everything. So is is Hayawa a major road? So if a guy's on the corner lot of Hayawa and Wolf, can he enclose the fence so that But that's my point. Maybe I didn't make that correct. So

I don't think Hayawa under the current definition is considered

I mean all the way down Hwath just Hwath and Wolf. So, if your if your house is on a busy street, are you going to be able to enclose the yard on, you know, the yard absuts the busy street by by wrapping that fence around to either connect to the garage or something, but at least so that there's all the way down to the next street or the next driveway somehow. Then they can also then the last house could be able to finish the fence off to enclose it. as currently the motion is no. So I'm gonna I'm gonna bring this up. My apologies. I did not go to art school. So if you can see I basically said this is the house, right? I'm just be real loud. This is the house. This is Let's call this wolf. Let's call this Hayawa because that's the one I've been staring at, right? So this is the front yard. The front yard touches Wolf. Sideyard touches wolf. And the rear yard touches wolf. If allowing to enclose those yards, right, you would allow them to enclose the entirety of the rear yard, the entirety of just this sideyard because it's the only one that touches and the front yard. But if the commission would like to do it, they can limit the number. They can limit how many yards they could enclose. So they could say you can only enclose one of these three or two of these three. But the way it's written now, it's giving the homeowner the provision of installing a fence when it abuts against the road, the major roads that we've accounted for. Flat out, that's it.

But only on the property line. It does not allow to enclose the yard that it's abut abuted on. So like for the current provision, they would only be able to be able to put a fence from here to here. Turning the side again here to here. They would not be able to put a fence that would essentially make a very long fence, you know, dog run essentially. So I'm looking at Wolf Road, Juliet, Willow Springs, Planefield, and possibly 65th Street.

Correct. In this recommendation, we state that if your property has a border along these roads, we're allowing you to consider putting a fence up under our specifications that we're recommending. That's it. Only along the road, correct? On whatever yard that is, right? So like my neighbor off of 65th and Willow Springs, if that was the case, if we went with 65th Street, then he would just have a fence that's like freestanding like an L. If that's that's what the current re That's where the current that's the recommendation.

Current mo motion of recommendation is correct. Now, if you're looking to let the fences enclose a yard to make a a not freestanding fence, right? Yeah. But we we're not down that path. Right before us now is just the recommendation to allow for fences when they are against the prop one of the properties is against the roads that we've mentioned here. That's it. That's all for today.

Correct. I'm um willing to to vote on this motion um knowing that it's going to come back to us to enclose the yard at a later date because that's what the homeowner is going to wish for and and they have that ability to come before us. Yeah, that's fine. Yeah. Okay, that's fine.

But at least we're, you know, revision is history. We've described everything we've done to date and now the recommendation is guess what? You get to put a fence along a major road when your property goes against it. That's and that would be by right coming back in front of us for the returns would be special use.

Correct. Also once again to clarify with your recommendation will go to the board and they'll also get to review it for the final the final of it as well. Switching subjects and I don't want to I don't want to dismiss this but I do want to uh let the commission know that Diane Gormley Barnes is uh was unable to attend but she did send some comments. Um and uh I wanted to share with the commission what she was thinking. Um and she was of the opinion that we take no action and that was largely driven behind the uncertainty relative to timing of the Wolf and PL potential playingfield road improvements. Um, and I can support and see her position, but my concern is that the last six months of effort that we've all put into this could be lost and the momentum could be gone if we if we don't take action and give the board a recommendation. The board may given their knowledge of the improvements and the timing, they may choose to not act on it, but um at a minimum as a service to the public who has been paying attention to the subject. Um my opinion and I'm I my opinion is that we you know we we memorialize the effort that we've all put in um and take action. Um, but you know, you all may have a different opinion based on Dian's position, which is a valid position given the uncertainty behind when those improvements may kick off. When those improvements do kick off, you

got to expect if we haven't taken action in the near future, it will come back in front of us the same subject. So, I wanted that to be noted. Also, I wanted to welcome Cat. Sorry, didn't say hi sooner, but um so I just wanted everybody to take that into consideration as you continue to think about how you feel about the what's in front of us, the recommendation as it's written. Um, and to the extent we have uh any any further considerations for Andreas to run down, we should I I think real quick two things that we that we do have to con contemplate is, you know, right now we've included Wolf Road, Juliet Road, Willow Springs Road, and Planefield Road as the thorough affairs that would qualify. for allowing fences abudding these thorough affairs. One of the things we discussed was do we also include 65th?

So when we make the recommendation, you know, we can talk about it. I think admit personally my opinion, I think it's a no-brainer. Include it. If anybody has a an an opinion or position, I I agree with the 65th. Okay. I agree too. It's it's definitely been a a pain point for those families having people cut through going from Walgreens trying to get to Acacia, cutting through their yard. So wonderful. And to clarify, it's 65th Street, not 65th Place. 65th Street.

Thank you. Um, and then the second thing is with the potential amendment to the fence ordinance to allow for fencing uh along those thorough affairs, which now includes 65th Street. Um, do we feel it's important that we dictate a vegetative screen to be included with the fences? Um, so those are the two things that were on top of the overarching motion. Um, to the extent we consider it tonight, those are the two open-ended items. 65th sounds like we're all in agreement. Yes. And then does the ordinance go the extra step and require some form of vegetative screening? Andres, I know you've did some done some research on screening, compared uh some some ordinances in adjoining communities. Can you fill us in on the results of your findings? Of the 14 communities that we've been looking at, our comparatives, including Cook County, none of them require any sort of vegetative screening for fences. The only addition about vegetative screening is in lie of or if you have vegetative screening, a few places require that it be no taller than the fences be would be, but otherwise, nobody requires vegetative screening for general fences. So, I'm of the opinion not to include vegetation screening.

Everyone else, I agree. Okay. I think it should be up to the homeowner. Right. Right. And especially the to not have things over the fence. I mean, if you have existing trees and screening there and you're just putting the fence to reinforce that, I I don't think that makes sense. Wonderful. Okay. Yes. 65th. No, that any no form of screening. Rick good on screening or not good on screen? I don't know. I'm just Okay. So, could I make a motion?

What do you want a motion? I move that the village amend its fence regulations to allow for the installation of fences along Wolf Road, Juliet, Willow Springs Road, and Planefield, including 65th Street with the following specifications. Do we need to go to that level of detail in the motion? I would recommend that we you do it. Yes. Okay. So with these specifications that are listed here in height, materials, appearance, openness, and design that works.

Second. Let the uh let the meeting minutes show that uh Commissioner Tentillo motion to approve or to recommend uh to the board uh that we amend the fence regulations uh as Commissioner Tintillo described. Um seconded by Commissioner Mshaw. And um I'm guessing you'll want to do a roll call vote. Correct. I will. Okay. Commissioner Tantillo, yes. Commissioner Hawkley, yes. Commissioner Mshaw, yes. Commissioner Lucenti, yes.

And Chairman Greg Scovich, yes. 5-0. The motion passes unanimously. Wonderful. Okay, at least I made it interesting. [laughter] gave them their money's worth. Thanks, Rick. No, I we're here

to try to put ourselves in the rest of the community shoes. Um, and your perspective living on Wolf Road, it's exactly what you're supposed to do. Think about every I'm insulated. I'm in Linda. It's it's less of an issue for me, but I do have a brother-in-law that's right back up against Wolf Road and nieces and nephews that are running around dogs and all the things that you described. So it's definitely something that we need to consider and that's why we're pulling from all over 65th and road

and history tells us that even when back in the good old shed days we had individuals come up to us and ask for amendments that we've stated and they stated their case. They looked at documents, plat a survey, and we made decisions yay or nay on whether they could be beyond what our recommendations are. And that's true of anything that comes before the board. So even though we've now approved this recommendation and that's going to go up to the board, obviously things could change when it gets to the board, but at least we've pushed it up to them to make their final recommendation. doesn't preclude anyone from coming back to us and saying, "I would like an amendment to this ruling." And we'll see how that goes when that's presented to us. Well, thanks everybody. It goes without saying. We beat it up pretty good. Turned over a lot of stones. There were some stones that I'm sure we didn't turn over, but by God, I think we got more than we didn't. Um, thanks everybody. Thanks Andre for your patience. Thanks board for your patience. Um moving out of new business into old business. Andre doesn't look like we have anything. Um any correspondence? Any any activity?

Do you want do you want anything else? No. Thank you. But uh any correspondence? Anything going on that uh people are inquiring about? No. Just a heads up. You'll we are finishing up the zoning code update. So, you'll see the finals on that. Um, otherwise, nope. Excellent. Any comments from the public? That's a first. Okay. If uh no comments from the public, only other thing remaining is uh a motion to adjurnn. I'll make that motion to adjurnn.

Record show. Commissioner Hockey. Motion to adjurnn. Can I have a second? Second. Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. All in favor of adjournment say I. I. All opposed. Perfect. Motion carries. Let the record show at 7:41.