DeKalb Times

City of Dekalb Planning & Zoning Commission met Sept. 15.

Here are the minutes provided by the commission:

The Planning and Zoning Commission held a meeting on September 15, 2025, in the Yusunas Meeting Room at the DeKalb Public Library, 309 Oak Street, DeKalb, Illinois. Chair Maxwell called the meeting to order at 5:57PM.

A. ROLL CALL

Recording Secretary, Olivia Doss, called the roll. Planning and Zoning Commission members present were: Thomas Fellabaum, Trixy O’Flaherty, Jerry Wright, Maria Pena-Graham, Vice Chair Bill McMahon, and Chair Max Maxwell. Commission member Steve Becker was absent. Planning Director Dan Olson, City Manager Bill Nicklas, and Assistant City Manager Bob Redel were also present representing the City.

B. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA (Additions/Deletions)

Chair Maxwell requested a motion to approve the September 15, 2025, agenda as presented. Mr. Wright motioned to approve the agenda as presented. Ms. O’Flaherty seconded the motion, and the motion was approved by unanimous voice vote.

C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

1. September 2, 2025 – Chair Maxwell requested a motion to approve the September 2, 2025, minutes as presented. Mr. McMahon motioned to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Fellabaum seconded the motion, and the motion was approved by unanimous voice vote.

D. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (Open Floor to Anyone Wishing to Speak on Record)

None.

E. NEW BUSINESS

a. Public Hearing – A petition by James Hartwig for approval of a variance to Articles 7.06.3, 7.06.4.b, and 7.06.6 of the Unified Development Ordinance to allow a new 6-foot-high privacy fence to be constructed in a portion of the front yard along S. 2nd St. for the property located at 129 Wendell Place.

James Hartwig, and his wife, Kleady Hartwig, spoke to the Commission about their petition for 129 Wendell Place. They explained they have three children of various ages, two of them younger, and a dog. They began saving money for a fence upon moving into 129 Wendell Place four years ago, and a deployment to Africa via the National Guard for Mr. Hartwig allowed them to have the funds to begin the project. The Hartwig’s stated they did not realize the fuss their request would cause and added their number one concern is safety. They do not want their fence to create safety issues where a child could get hit by a car or cause car accidents. They explained they researched previous variance requests for corner lots that were granted and based their request off of those, as they did not want to ask for anything that had not been brought before the Commission previously. Mr. Hartwig addressed the safety concerns, noting he took pictures from the stop sign at S. 2nd St. and Wendell Place, and even with the proposed fence location, there would still be a clear line of sight for vehicles. He stated he does not believe a safety issue will be caused. Drivers will be able to see cars on S. 2nd

St. and kids walking to school. He explained this was confirmed by the City Engineer who completed an analysis and found the fence would not obstruct views from Wendell Place onto S. 2nd St.

Mr. Hartwig continued, providing their reasoning for requesting the enclosure on the east side of the property. The west side of the property is obstructed by three large trees and removing them would increase their budget by adding the cost of repairing the property as well as putting up the fence. On the back side of the house, they are planning to put a new deck where a patio was previously which will leave only about 13-14 feet of yard space. In comparison, the east side, where the fence is proposed, will give them about 20-21 feet of yard space for the dog and children to play. The west side of the home also includes a staircase to the basement which they believe should remain unobstructed to allow the Hartwig’s to easily enter or leave their home in an emergency.

Mr. Hartwig summarized his request, and encouraged the Commission to vote based on facts, and not popular opinion. He acknowledged the fence has been met with opposition, and while they have listened and understood, they are trying to do what’s best for their family’s safety and privacy.

Planning Director, Dan Olson, gave his staff report dated September 11, 2025 on the variance. He explained the petitioner is requesting a variance to Articles 7.06.3, 7.06.4.b and 7.06.6 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to allow a six (6) foot-high privacy fence in a portion of the front yard along S. 2nd St. The UDO states that privacy fences cannot be over three (3) feet tall if they are in front of the front building line (home).

He stated the applicant would like to construct a six (6) foot high wooden privacy fence four (4) feet from the edge of the sidewalk along S. 2nd St. The east side of the home is about 25 to 29 feet from the property line (right-of-way) along S. 2nd St. Mr. Olson detailed the proposed fence will start 11 feet north of the southeast corner of the home and stretch east to within four (4) feet from sidewalk along S. 2nd St. The fence will then run north along S. 2nd St. to the north property line. At that point the fence will extend westward to the west property line and eventually connect to the west side of the home on the back end of the walk-out basement stairs.

Mr. Olson noted the applicant states in their summary they are proposing the new fence so their kids and dog can play outside safely and with some privacy. The applicant further notes the east side of the lot is the largest area of open space. Also pointed out by the applicant is how the west side of the lot has three (3) large trees and will be the location of a future deck thus leaving little usable area. Finally, the applicant notes they are requesting to have the fence four (4) feet off the sidewalk along S. 2nd St., in keeping with some previous approvals by the Planning and Zoning Commission.

He continued to detail the lot layout, adding the subject lot is roughly 80’ x 125’ (10, 579 sq. ft.) which results in a small area for a usable back yard and limits the area where a six (6) foot high privacy fence could be placed. The subject site is a corner lot and is narrow compared to many other newer corner lots in the City. The location where the petitioner can place a six (6) foot high privacy fence, under current City regulations, hinders their ability to enjoy the privacy and safety of their yard. The west side of the lot has three (3) large trees and will be location of a future deck, which limits the usable area of the rear yard.

Mr. Olson confirmed the proposed fence will not alter the character and scale of the structures in the neighborhood nor impact the visibility of any adjoining home or traffic along S. 2nd St. The visibility for motorist on Wendell Place looking north along S. 2nd St. will not be affected. The City Engineer has provided correspondence supporting that there is no visibility issue for vehicles turning onto S. 2nd St.

He reminded the Commission of their recently approved variances for six (6) foot high privacy fences for two corner lots at 857 S. 1st St. and 1158 S. 5th St. For 857 S. 1st St., the fence was approved at 10 feet from Taylor St. (lot is 100 feet wide at point of fence location). For 1158 S. 5th St., the fence was approved four (4) feet from the edge of the sidewalk along Charter St. (lot is 50 feet wide). In 2024, the Commission approved a fence variance for a corner lot at 960 N. 12th St. to allow a fence to be four (4) feet from the School St. right-of-way (lot is 44.65 feet wide). In addition, at 928 N. 14th St., a variance was approved to allow a fence to be four (4) feet away from the right-of-way line along Prairie Ave. (lot is 51 feet wide). Mr. Olson acknowledged the three lots that were granted variances for a six (6) foot high privacy fence at four (4) feet from the edge of the sidewalk had less width than the subject lot.

Several comments were received from neighbors prior to the meeting in opposition of the fence: Nancy Partch of 924 S. 2nd Street, James Kunkel of 1011 S. 2nd Street, Joel and Laura Lundgren of 1014 S. 2nd Street, Adele Panttila of 111 Wendell Place, and Susan Petras of 117 Wendell Place. Their concerns ranged from safety concerns affecting cars driving on S. 2nd Street and children walking down Wendell Place to diminishing property values due to the fence being an anomaly in the neighborhood. Mr. Olson mentioned one email was received from Brandon Makthepharaks (923 S. 2nd St.) in support of the fence.

Mr. Olson said additional letters and emails were received after the agenda was posted on September 11th with some coming on the day of the Commission meeting. Additional objections were received from Rochelle Quade of 1010 S. 2nd Street, Frederick Quade of 1004 S. 2nd Street, Don and Jacalyn Collin of 903 S. 2nd Street, Timothy McMaster of 121 Wendell Place, and Joel and Laura Lundgren of 1014 S. 2nd Street submitted a revised opposition letter. A letter from Century 21 Realtor Sharon Rhoades (901 N. 1st St.) was also received detailing her believed negative effects the proposed fence would have on property values.

Finally, a petition signed by the following 17 neighbors was also submitted: Ronald Partch Jr. of 924 S. 2nd Street, Jeanne Burtzos of 204 E. Taylor Street, Dianne Fraedrich of 126 Wendell Place, Adele Panttila of 111 Wendell Place, Steve Guadagoli of 118 Wendell Place, Tom Becker of 122 Wendell Place, Susan Petras of 117 Wendell Place, Megan McWilliams of 114 Wendell Place, Jacalyn and Donald Collin of 903 S. 2nd St., Ron Lawhorn of 930 S. 2nd St., Joel and Laura Lundgren of 1014 S. 2nd St., James Kunkel of 1011 S. 2nd St. and Rochelle and Frederick Quade of 1010 and 1004 S. 2nd St.

Planning Director Olson reminded the Commission of their options regarding the petition including denying the petition, approving it, approving it with conditions such as moving the fence further back from S. 2nd St., or they could choose to continue the hearing to the next meeting if they believed further discussion was warranted. He cautioned the Commission that since the findings of fact have been met by the City and are in the affirmative, if the variance is denied, they must come up with findings that would be against granting the variance. Should the Commission choose to do that, Mr. Olson recommended tabling the hearing so staff could draft findings denying the variance.

The first to speak for the public hearing portion was Susan Petras of 117 Wendell Place. Ms. Petras explained she has lived in the neighborhood for over 60 years and knows the area well. She sympathized with the applicants wanting a fence, as it makes life so much easier with a dog. However, her concerns are based on how the fence would appear and she believed it would definitely block views as people on the north side of the house (those living on 2nd Street) would only look out their front windows to fence. Ms. Petras inquired how Mr. Olson arrived at the conclusion the fence would not alter the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Olson stated he looks at other variances on corner lots, many of which have been met with approval of the Commission with no complaints received after the fact. He added he did not feel this proposed fence would cause harm to the neighborhood. Ms. Petras did not agree, adding kids riding bikes down the street do not pay attention and there is a surprising amount of traffic on Wendell Place. She stated she understood a safety study took place but retained her position. If the fence were the only option, she would understand. She shared her belief that neighbors would be on board if the fence was matching up with the house and offered to assist the Hartwig’s with trimming the branches on the three large trees on the west side of the property. She concluded, stating they are hoping for a compromise.

Jackie Collin of 903 S. 2nd Street spoke next. Mrs. Collin lives two houses down from the Hartwig’s and is opposing the fence. Mrs. Collin read her letter (dated 9-15-25) submitted to the Commission. She expressed her strong belief that the criteria necessary for a variance have not been met and a unique hardship has not been met. She believes the lot is of ample size, and more than sufficient for children and pets to play without altering ordinances. The neighborhood is defined by open front yards and allowing the fence as proposed would disrupt the current character. She thought there may be an opportunity to change a couple of things up which would not be as intrusive. Mrs. Collin cited the petition signed by her fellow neighbors, the letter submitted by realtor Sharon Rhodes, and brought pictures she took containing an AI rendering of the proposed fence to the Commission’s attention. She also used her very own similar sized lot in comparison to the Hartwig’s’, stating her husband raised six children in that yard, with a smaller usable yard, and were able to make it work. She closed, reiterating that she would love Hartwig’s children and dog to have a safe place to play, and stressing the neighbors’ hope for a compromise.

Adele Pantilla of 111 Wendell Place shared her concerns regarding the Hartwig’s dog barking at passersby, including children walking by to the elementary and middle school. She also echoed others’ concerns regarding neighbors on S. 2nd Street having their view out their front windows negatively impacted and altering the appearance of the neighborhood. She suggested having the fence extend north from the house line which she felt would complement the house and still allow those on 2nd Street a better view.

The last to speak was Dianne Fraedrich of 126 Wendell Place. She shared in her neighbors’ opinion of putting the fence on the west side of the house. She felt the Hartwig’s shortchanged themselves in space with how they proposed the fence. Ms. Fraedrich expressed concern with the Hartwig’s dog being on the S. 2nd Street side, explaining the dog barks often and although she enjoys the dog, she believes it is skittish. The dog being on the S. 2nd Street side often will continue to create issues with the dog barking. She noted the Hartwig’s are wonderful people and have been good neighbors, but she did not feel this request was well thought out. Ms. Fraedrich also offered to assist in trimming the large trees obstructing the west side of the property and was in favor of compromising.

Chair Maxwell closed the public hearing.

Ms. O’Flaherty asked about the distance between the side of the house and the fence line for S. 2nd Street. Mr. Olson reported it was 25.3 feet to 29 feet to the Right-of-Way/sidewalk.

Mr. Fellabaum commented on the eyesore concern that was brought forth several times and inquired if the pictures the Commission was given was the fencing the Hartwig’s intend to use. Mr. Olson clarified that picture was not produced by the City but was created using AI generation by one of the speakers (Jacalyn Collin). Mr. Fellabaum added he thought it was interesting the one person most directly affected was actually in support of the fence (Brandon Makthepharaks - 923 S. 2nd St.).

Chair Maxwell understood the neighbors’ concern but acknowledged they have approved several variances before and the unique position of this home.

Mr. Olson reiterated the City Engineer reviewed the proposed fence location, and he drove out there himself. He stated a sight distance issue would not be created by the proposed fence.

Chair Maxwell inquired if there may be room for compromise and suggested further discussion could be had amongst the neighbors and the Hartwig’s. His preference was for an agreement where everyone is happy rather than the Commission determining the outcome and continuing the hearing to the next meeting.

Mr. Hartwig responded to Mr. Maxwell, stating they purchased the property, paid their property taxes and have already done a lot of work inside the home. No safety issues are created by the proposed fence, and, as point of principle, would be sticking to their proposal. He added they are comfortable with their request and, given the cost of the project, will get what they want to get. Ms. Hartwig stated she understood the neighbors’ concerns but as a parent, safety of her children is her top priority. She stated she did not believe a decision based on opinion was fair, and whether the neighbors agree or not should not be part of the Commission’s deliberation.

City Manager Nicklas proposed an option regarding a grant the City received from Morton Arboretum. While the City has had a 50/50 tree planting program for the last few years to replace old trees, he ruminated on whether those funds could potentially be used for tree removal as well, subject to City Council approval. He suggested a few other options for the Hartwig’s to move their fence and wondered if they would be willing to consider any of the proposals. Mr. Hartwig stated it was something to consider, but for now, would like to put the fence up per their proposed plans.

Mr. McMahon responded to an earlier comment made by a neighbor stating a hardship has not been met. He disagreed with that statement. He also reiterated the City Engineer has reviewed the site and submitted no issues. He agreed with Chair Maxwell that they approved similar requests several times before. He believed the variance request met all criteria.

City Manager Nicklas interjected that the Staff report did not sufficiently address the dramatic change that the proposed fence would make to the look of the building line along S. Second Street. He added that the fence would dramatically and negatively impact the value of the homes to the north of the Hartwig property and on the east side of the S. Second Street corridor. He added while he trusts the City Engineer on safety, he has no opinion on zoning matters. Chair Maxwell stated that is why they address each request individually, but believed all criteria were met.

Mr. McMahon inquired if the back fence could be installed without a permit and pointed out, if true, the people citing view obstruction could potentially have a fence built anyway without any input needed from the Commission. Mr. Olson confirmed the Hartwig’s could install a fence on the back portion of their property and into the yard along S. 2nd St. without any variances requested but noted the fence would need to be 3 ft in height if a solid fence and 4ft in height if open.

Chair Maxwell commented to City Manager Nicklas’ point that the fence would be an anomaly on the street, but felt they were not there to judge aesthetics.

Mr. McMahon addressed the applicant, reminding him that if the petition was voted down, they would be back at square one. He inquired if there was any room for compromise. Mr. Hartwig explained he had read all of the letters and heard the same concern of the fence being an eyesore several times. He also touched on the few safety concerns brought up and was in agreement something endangering others should not go up. He did not feel they would be able to come to common ground regarding the fence changing the look of the neighborhood. Mr. Hartwig stated he and his wife value the privacy and safety of their kids and the 6-foot-high fence at the proposed location establishes both.

Mr. Maxwell asked about moving the location of the fence slightly. He understood the Hartwig’s want what they want but encouraged them to discuss the new suggestions brought forth by City Manager Nicklas. If the Commission denied the petition, he would have to go through the process again, and Mr. Maxwell would rather see additional conversation take place.

Ms. O’Flaherty asked if there was a compromising point between the end of the house and the current proposed 4ft setback they could compromise on, or if landscaping could be added in front of the fence. She noted similar conditions and concessions had been made on previous approved variances. Ms. Pena-Graham suggested tapering the height of the fence to improve the aesthetics.

Mr. Wright urged the Hartwig’s to work with City Manager Nicklas on the tree issue and discuss options with neighbors that will still fit their family needs as well.

Mr. McMahon asked the Hartwig’s if they would like the Commission to vote or table the hearing for the next meeting date. The Hartwig’s agreed to further discussions with neighbors and City Manager Nicklas, requesting the hearing to be tabled.

Chair Maxwell requested a motion to table the hearing. Mr. Wright moved to continue the public hearing on the proposed variance request at 129 Wendell Place until Monday, October 6, 2025, at 6:00 p.m. Ms. Pena Graham seconded the motion, and the motion was approved by unanimous voice vote.

b. Discussion Item: Planning and Zoning Commission Roles and Responsibilities.

City Manager Bill Nicklas addressed the Commission. He believed the previous item was a good segue into the conversation. Mr. Nicklas discussed the chain of conversation that occurs from the moment a petitioner comes and talks to the City. The discussion may involve attorneys, realtors, and so forth, along with various City staff, and then suddenly these items fall on the Commission. He touched on the history of the Planning and Zoning Commission, which has now assumed the role of the defunct Zoning Board of Appeals which was a semi-judicial group requiring a court reporter. They voted on items solely based on the findings of fact which then went to County court, so the usual rules of evidence had to apply. If not done correctly, it left the City subjected to legal and reputation risk.

Mr. Nicklas further explained that although the Zoning Board was supplanted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, findings of fact still apply to development agreements which include zoning amendments. It remains outside the Commission’s role to be concerned with whether the City is going to give property tax abatement, etc. Although 4/5th of development agreements do not touch the Commission’s purview, agreements are still touched twice by the Commission at the rezoning and annexation steps.

He further explained the difference between the City Council and Commission in terms of standing. Neither the City staff nor the Commission represent local constituents; only the Mayor and the Council represent geographic areas as elected officials. The sole voting concern of the Commission rests on facts only. Although it is important for any appointed official to know the concerns of the community they serve, the Council relies upon the Commission to center on the facts that might lead them to a representative opinion. Citing the most recent example, Mr. Nicklas discussed the voting that took place with the solar farm and data center (Donato Solar). He recapped the findings of fact that were met and should have been the basis for the Commission’s vote. He also clarified violation versus speculation. He noted the petitioner would still like to be in DeKalb and therefore is still looking for a location.

Mr. Nicklas pointed out the Commission could have moved to reconsider their vote, however, that would have needed to happen by this meeting. And, even still, could have ended up at the same vote. Mr. Nicklas concluded his summary of the Planning and Zoning Commission roles and responsibilities, affirming that the Commission did not do anything wrong. He understands the Commission’s roles are not easy, and they are volunteers who deal with tough issues.

Mr. McMahon inquired how to relate to the audience if the findings of fact have already been met and written by the City. Mr. Nicklas affirmed facts define the course of their vote and suggested the Commission chair (appointed or acting) might begin meetings by explaining to the audience, before any testimony is heard, the role of the Commission.

Additional discussion ensued between the Commission and Mr. Nicklas regarding public hearings, the ability of the public to introduce facts for consideration, and findings of fact. Mr. Nicklas gave a brief overview of the social and political movement in Chicago that led to other cities enacting Planning and Zoning Commissions. He explained that while back and forth dialogue cannot take place between public speakers and the Commission once the public hearing has been closed, members of the public are absolutely able to bring new information to the table which could influence the Commission’s decision. He encouraged the Commission to continue to hear out those members of the public who show up to speak at meetings. But, when it is time to vote, narrow it down to what it is that the Commission can actually affirm. Mr. Nicklas acknowledged the findings of fact have been written in general terms since every scenario cannot be anticipated. The test to meet the findings of fact is significant and not based on personal preference.

Mr. Wright inquired about a dry run for petitioners to get a sense of the City’s thoughts on a project, and Mr. Olson noted they have the option of submitting a concept plan to receive early feedback for larger developments. He added this was done with the Donato Solar Farm/Data Center project. Mr. Nicklas gave examples of this occurring with Meta and the Goldin property.

Mr. Nicklas told the Commission the long-range planning they have seen come through has been superior to any Commissions he has worked with prior and expressed his delight in continuing to work with this Commission. Chair Maxwell thanked Mr. Nicklas for the discussion.

F. REPORTS

Mr. Olson stated the next meeting will see the variance request for 129 Wendell Place come back in front of the Commission. No other items are planned for at this time.

G. ADJOURNMENT

Chair Maxwell requested a motion to adjourn. Mr. Wright motioned to adjourn, and Ms. O’Flaherty seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 7:27 p.m.

https://www.cityofdekalb.com/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_10062025-2754