Village of Lombard Legistar System

Mr. Timothy Moore and Mrs. Cathy Moore presented the petition. Mr. Moore stated the

fence was sold as a four-foot fence. He stated that they spent time investigating

different fences after contacting the Village about the maximum height requirements.

He stated that they checked with the salesperson upon selection of the fence. Mr.

Moore stated that after the fence was installed he measured the fence and discovered

that the fence was actually four and a half feet tall. He notified the contractor and then

called the Village and was informed of the enforcement policy. He stated that they

decided to proceed with the variation request. Mr. Moore stated that they do not wish to

alter the fence since the ornamentation is what causes it to exceed code. He stated that

their yard is unique in the sense that it does not have a backyard and fronts Main Street.

Mr. Moore stated that the neighbors like the fence. He stated that he feels that they

selected a fence that compliments the neighborhood well.

Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for public comment. Mr. Karl Hillman

and Mrs. Jean Hillman, 233 N. Main, stated that they are the neighbors to the south of

the Moore family. Mr. Hillman stated that the fence is a beautiful fence and believes that

it is prudent given that they have four children. Mrs. Hillman stated that the fence

doesn't obstruct vision since it is not a privacy fence. She stated that the fence is better

than the landscaping often found on corner lots.

Mr. Phil Pollard, of Complete Fence, stated that he was the fence contractor. Mr.

Pollard stated that the petitioners were diligent about researching the code requirements

and acknowledged the error on his part. He stated that the fence was listed as a

four-foot fence, however in small print the manufacturer's specifications noted the

fifty-two inch height. Mr. Pollard stated that this is the first time that a situation like this

has occurred. He stated that the fence is beautiful and he would hate to see it torn

down. He stated that he hoped some leniency could be given.

Angela Clark, Planner I, presented the staff report. Ms. Clark stated that the petitioners

applied for and received a building permit to construct a four-foot, aluminum fence in the

front and corner side yards of their property. The petitioners' fence contractor contacted

staff after the fence was installed and asked what the regulations were regarding fence

height on corner lots as well as the enforcement procedures for fences that exceeded

the requirements. The contractor stated that the fence that was installed was slightly

higher than four feet. Staff informed the contractor that four feet is the maximum

allowable fence height in front and corner side yards and of the enforcement

procedures. Ms. Clark stated that the contractor was also informed that in light of the

Village's reliance on citizen complaints regarding fence height enforcement there were

no guarantees that a violation would not be issued at some point in time for the fence.

The property owner later contacted staff to verify the requirements and stated that they

ordered a four-foot fence yet upon installation discovered that it was actually four and a

half feet. Staff informed the petitioner that a variation was necessary to keep the fence

at the current height.

As stated in previous cases, increasing the four-foot maximum height in corner side

yards was workshopped before the Plan Commission, which recommended that the

current requirements remain in place. Therefore, staff maintains previous

recommendations to not support an increase in fence height in residential front and

corner side yards. While the petitioner's fence is an attractive fence and poses no risk

to the visibility of pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular traffic, staff finds that supporting the

variation would be inconsistent with previous recommendations. Ms. Clark stated that

the code does not identify the type of fence when referring to height, therefore granting

such a variation would not prevent the placement of other types of fences also of open

construction, such as chain link, within front and corner side yard areas. She also noted

that there were no physical hardships of the petitioner's lot that prevented compliance

with the ordinance, but rather the contractor's erroneous placement of a taller fence.

Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for discussion by the Board Members.

Mr. Bedard noted the assembly of the fence. He asked if disassembling the screws

could drop down the fence. Mrs. Moore stated that the ornamental part of the fence was

not attached, therefore the fence would still exceed code.

Chairperson DeFalco noted the sphere and posts. He stated that if the fence were

measure vertically it would measure forty-six inches, but the posts would still measure

fifty-two inches even if the fence were lowered. He stated that the code identifies fence

height at the highest point including ornamentation or posts.

Mr. Moore stated that altering the fence would not match what they had purchased. He

stated that he understands that code is code, however he believes that the code is

meant to protect. He stated that there were no visibility issues with the fence and hoped

there was some leeway that could be given for the fence.

Mr. Polley asked if the code considers this type of fence. He stated that the codes

should be written more carefully. Ms. Clark stated that the code does not reference the

type of fence when referring to height.

Mrs. Newman stated that in previous cases the concern has been visibility. She stated

that there is not any visibility issue here.

Chairperson DeFalco reiterated that there was not an issue of visibility. He stated that

the fence is attractive, however the ordinance does not take into consideration the

openness of fences or ornamentation. He stated that the fence height regulations have

been workshopped before the Plan Commission in the past and the decision was to

leave the code as it is currently written.

Mrs. Newman asked was the workshop in response to board on board fences or open

construction fences. Ms. Clark stated that she believed the issue was board on board

fences.

Chairperson DeFalco stated that two months ago a fence appeared before the Zoning

Board for a wrought iron fence in an industrial area. The request stated that the fence

was 75% open. He stated that the ordinance is meant to provide visibility and safety.

He stated that the ZBA couldn't dispute the ordinance and that their responsibility is to

determine hardship.

Mr. Young stated that the contractor has taken responsibility for the error. He asked if

there were any bonds that the contractor had to place with the Village. Ms. Clark stated

that bonds are not required for fences.

Mr. Pollard stated that there would be costs involved to modify the fence.

Mr. Young asked if the height was discovered after the fence was erected. Mr. Pollard

stated that he wasn't aware until the petitioner notified him.

Mr. Young asked if the fence could be constructed at three feet. Mr. Pollard stated that

it could.

Mrs. Moore stated that a neighbor has a three-foot fence that the children love to climb.

They felt that the four-foot fence was more appropriate.

Mr. Pollard stated that most communities are concerned with visibility and openness and

that aesthetics typically aren't considered. He asked if there was room for review of this.

Chairperson DeFalco stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals has the ability to table the

petition and research this further, but it is not under the purview of the Zoning Board to

research it.

Mr. Moore asked if that were a possibility. Ms. Clark stated that the action would have

to come from the Board of Trustees.

Mr. Young stated that the hardship is on the contractor.

Chairperson DeFalco stated that the hardship is on the homeowner. He stated that the

owners tried to comply and notified both the Village and the contractor.

Dr. Corrado asked if a stipulation could be placed that any future repair or replacement

of the fence be restricted to four feet if the variation were to be approved.

Chairperson DeFalco stated that if a portion of the fence were damaged the repair would

be regulated to four feet while the rest of the fence was still four and a half feet.

Mr. Young stated that the variation should be addressed as a definitive yes or no. He

asked if the board had made such stipulations in the past. Mr. Corrado stated that they

had. Mr. Young asked if they were adhered to by the Board of Trustees. Mr. Corrado

stated that they had.

Mr. Bedard noted the previous meeting's fence petition. He stated that he noted items

such as visibility should be addressed by the code considering it wasn't an issue with

these fences due to location or open construction.

Chairperson DeFalco stated that this case brings the perfect opportunity for review of

the fence code regulations.

Dr. Corrado asked if a review of the requirements could be included in the

recommendation. Chairperson DeFalco discussed whether or not the recommendation

could be worded in such a way that this could be accommodated.

Mrs. Newman asked if the ordinance itself was creating the hardship. Chairperson

DeFalco stated that it is not the ordinance that creates the hardship because the fence

could be constructed at a lower height. Mr. Moore stated that if the fence were denied