Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/23/2026 PZ-15-26 / 109 E Council Trl / CU: Fence1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-15-26 Hearing Date: July 9, 2026 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 109 East Council Trail PETITIONER: Anthony Albergo 109 East Council Trail PUBLICATION DATE: June 24, 2026 REQUEST: Petitioner is seeking conditional use approval to install a fence in the front yard of the property, and other relief from the Village of Mount Prospect Village Code as may be required for this project. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: Joseph Donnelly William Beattie Ewa Weir Richard Rogers Michael Fricano Donald Olsen Walter Szym cza k Fay Costa STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Jason Shallcross — Community & Economic Dev. Director Antonia Lalagos—Senior Development Planner Charlie Hogan —Senior Development Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Anthony Albergo Chairman Donnelly called the meeting to order at 7:01 PM. Chairman Donnelly moved on to Item Two, Approval of Minutes. Vice Chairman Beattie made a motion seconded by Commissioner Szymczakto approve the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on May 14, 2026. The minutes were approved 5-0 with Commissioner Costa abstaining. Chairman Donnelly introduced case number PZ-15-26, 109 East Council Trail, a request for conditional use approval to install a 5' tall, 50% opaque, scalloped wood picket fence at the subject property. Mr. Hogan explained that the subject property is a corner lot at the intersection of Council Trail and Maple Street. He explained that the petitioner is requesting to install a 5-foot tall, 50% opaque, Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting —July 9, 2026 PZ-15-26 scalloped wood picket fence, which would enclose a portion of the yard fronting Council Trail. Mr. Hogan continues that under the Village code, that yard is considered the legal If yard, but the petitioner contends that it operates more as an exterior side yard. Mr. Hogan states that prior to this year, the request would have required a variation, however, following the adoption of PZ-01-26 Text Amendments, this has become a Planning and Zoning Commission conditional use final. He says that staff has reviewed the request and recommends approval subject to the conditions contained in the staff report. Mr. Hogan explains that the property was annexed into the Village in 1954and is improved with a one-story brick and stone single-family residence on a nearly 0.23-acre lot, with a frontage on both Council Trail and Maple Street. He says the proposal would extend the existing fence by approximately 250 linear feet while maintaining a consistent 5-foot height and scalloped top profile. Mr. Hogan shares that two different fence styles are proposed. He says that the backyard and interior side yard sections would be approximately 75% opaque with 3-inch pickets separated by 1- inch gaps, while the section of fence along Council Trail would be 50% opaque. Mr. Hogan explains that the reason staff asked for this is in wanting the fence to conform with exterior side yard fence requirements, aligning with the other exterior side yard fences on the same block as the subject property. He says that the portion of the fence along Council Trail would be setback 1 foot from the public sidewalk, once again in conformance to other exterior side yard fences. Mr. Hogan states that staff recommends approval subject to the conditions in the staff report which are: A conditional use to allow a 50% opaque fence at 109 E. Council Trail, including a portion within the yard fronting Council Trail, subject to the following conditions: 1. The conditional use applies onlytothe fence and gates as depicted on the submitted site plan and specifications in Exhibits B and C of the staff report; 2. The fence shall maintain 50% opacity within 30 feet of the Council Trail Property Line; 3. The fence shall maintain a minimum 1-foot setback from the northern property line; and 4. The Petitioner shall obtain a building permit and construct the fence in full compliance with all other applicable Village codes. Mr. Hogan states many neighbors have come out in support of the project, including the next -door neighbor most "affected" by the project, and if the commissioners have questions. Vice Chairman Beattie notes that the 50% opacity makes the fence consistent with other side yard fences, but that the proposed fence does not align another fence since the rest of the properties on Council Trail have a front yard that wouldn't have a fence anyhow. Mr. Hogan explains that the narrower side of the property dictates what is considered the front yard as per village code. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting —July 9, 2026 PZ-15-26 Vice Chairman Beattie clarifies that if other houses that would have their exterior side yard facing along Council Trail, they would have a 50% opaque fence as well. Mr. Hogan agrees with the Vice Chairman. Chairman Donnelly asks, if he remembers correctly, that having a 50% opaque fence means you can go further from the house Mr. Hogan states that yes, staff had offered that if the petitioner would like to do a privacy fence, it would have to be setback 10 feet from the sidewalk. Seeing no more questions from the Commissioners, Chairman Donnelly invited the Petitioner to the stand. Chairman Donnelly swore in the Petitioner, Anthony Albergo of 109 East Council Trail. Chairman Donnelly asked the petitioner to discuss the submitted request. Mr. Albergo explains he and his wife have been residence for approximately 14 years. He says they now have 6 small children together. He explains that due to his home being 13 feet or so from the interior side property line, he and his family often use the front yard to play. Mr. Albergo says that when he or his wife have to go inside, all the kids have to go in as well. When hosting parties, Mr. Albergo notes that they have to place the tables in the driveway in order to make sure the kids are safe and not playing between cars. He further states that having this additional fence would allow them to have seating in the back [side] yard with room for the kids to safely play. He explains that they like the style of the fence as it reflects others in the area. He notes that as an additional level of safety, the fence would be over 30' from his neighbor's driveway, meaning there wouldn't be a concern about the kids running out of the fence without being seen, specifically that sightlines aren't a concern and have been taken care of. Mr. Albergo states that request about space and would help keep them in the neighborhood longer. He also feels that it's good for the neighborhood image to have a family playing behind a white picket fence. Chairman Donnelly asks if the petitioner had discussed the fence with neighbors most affected by it. Mr. Albergo answers yes, his neighbor at 107 East Council Trail is supportive of the fence, and that he had petitioner submitted a signed letter that his neighbor is in support of the fence. Chairman Donnelly invites the present neighbor up to speak and swears him in. Stan Kaniecki of 603 S Maple Street states that he lives across the street on Maple Street. He states that he feels it's a deed issue more than anything and is in favor of the fence and has no concerns of the sightlines being an issue. Chairman Donnelly asks Mr. Kaniecki if he knows the other neighbors and if they're in support of the fence. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting —July 9, 2026 PZ-15-26 4 Mr. Kaniecki states yes. Chairman Donnelly thanks him, turning to staff to ask about the three emails he had seen come in. Mr. Hogan states they were letters of support which staff forwarded after they were sure they had received all letters. Chairman Donnelly clarifies that there were only letters of support. Mr. Hogan states yes. Chairman Donnelly asks if there are any other questions for the petitioner or staff. He asks if the petitioner understands what the village is asking and if he is good with it, to which the petitioner agrees. Hearing no further comments or questions, Chairman Donnelly closed the hearing and asked for a motion to approve the conditional use based on the conditions listed in the staff report. Vice Chairman Beattie made a motion and Commissioner Weir seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL AYES: Weir, Olson, Beattie, Rogers, Fricano, Donnelly NAYS: None The Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request (6-0). After hearing one more item of new business, Chairman Donnelly asked if there were any citizens to be heard. Hearing no further discussion, Vice Chairman Beattie made a motion seconded by Commissioner Weir and the meeting was adjourned at 8:37 PM. Catherine Cook, Community Development & Planning Intern Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting —July 9, 2026 PZ-15-26