Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Setback Variation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Plan commission refuses homeowner's request to retain straight fence at 157 West Jeffrey, sends case to Village Board
Summary
The Wheeling Plan Commission declined to approve a homeowner's post-permit alteration to a fence at 157 West Jeffrey Avenue and will forward the matter to the Village Board for final action after neighbors raised safety and encroachment concerns.
The Wheeling Plan Commission on April 22 voted not to approve a homeowner's altered fence installation at 157 West Jeffrey Avenue and told the petitioner the matter will go to the Village Board for final determination.
Staff presented PV25-000016 and said the petitioner had previously received a 2024 variation that required the northeast corner of a 6-foot fence to be angled to preserve sight lines. The petitioner instead installed a straight fence that staff says encroaches and creates sight-line and driveway-access risks; staff recommended restoring the angled notch.
Petitioner Mohamad Khan, sworn to testify, said family medical emergencies and accessibility needs prompted the change. "My son climbed over twice and got to the hospital," Khan said, describing his decision to alter the fence as a safety measure for his children and noting other household hardships.
Neighbors told a different story in public comment. Daniel Tomas, who lives at 147 West Jeffrey, said the new fence crosses the driveway and restricts access for his mother, who is on disability: "It's in the driveway; I can't even get out of the car," he said. Another neighbor, Ron Tmani, said approaching Jeffrey Avenue near the park is already a blind spot and urged the commission to require the original setback.
Commissioners expressed sympathy for the petitioner's circumstances but repeatedly stressed that unilateral changes to approved permits undermine safety and neighbor rights. Several members said an angled corner could be considered if the petitioner returned with a site plan showing the required vision triangle and dimensions, but they rejected the as-built configuration.
A motion (to approve the petition as presented) failed in recorded votes. Commissioners Spragazy, Meyer, Riyles, Smart, Hiken and Chairman Johnson recorded "no." Chairman Johnson told the petitioner the item will be placed on the Village Board agenda for May 4 for a final decision.
What happens next: The Commission did not approve the as-built fence; the petitioner retains the option to submit a revised site plan showing an angled corner compliant with the approved vision-triangle condition or to await the Village Board review next month.
