Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Fence Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trustees reject fence-variance request at 6344 Blackhawk Drive; board to explore zoning changes
Summary
The Village Board declined to approve a petitioners request for a variation to allow a fence at 6344 Blackhawk Drive after the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended denial. Trustees who voted against approval said the current fence code (Sec. 142-14) is restrictive; several trustees asked staff and legal counsel to prepare a text-amend
The Village of Indian Head Park Board of Trustees on June 12 voted against overturning a Planning and Zoning Commission denial of a requested variation to allow a fence in the rear and side yard at 6344 Blackhawk Drive.
The petitioner asked for a fence to contain two large dogs that their trainer and other professionals advised should have a physical barrier. Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission said the petitioners submission did not meet the statutory findings required to demonstrate a hardship; the commission unanimously recommended denial at its May 6 public hearing.
Trustees debated two tracks: deny the individual petition consistent with the planning commission recommendation, or start a text-amendment to the zoning code (Sec. 142-14) to change how fence requests are treated. The village attorney and staff explained that any code change would be a text amendment: the board would be the applicant, the amendment would go to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a public hearing and recommendation, and the board would then vote on any ordinance change.
Board action and vote: the motion to approve the petitioners variation failed; trustees recorded four "no" votes and one abstention, and the motion did not pass. Trustees who supported the code review said the current fence rules were possibly too restrictive and suggested the board could initiate a transparent, public text-amendment process rather than granting a one-off variance.
What happens next: several trustees committed to drafting proposed ordinance language for the board to refer to Planning and Zoning for a public hearing. The petition itself remains denied unless the board later adopts language or chooses to overturn the commission with a supermajority on a future vote.
Petitioner: the resident who spoke at the meeting said the requested fence would be primarily in the backyard and not visible from the street and that the dogs have anxiety and chase cars, creating a safety risk for the animals.
Ending: trustees directed staff and legal counsel to prepare options for a potential text amendment; the board did not adopt any zoning change during the June 12 meeting and the variance request was not approved.
