Plan Commission

P2605-01 / 200 Tulip Court / Hernandez Residence / Fence Variation Village of Schaumburg Plan Commission June 3, 2026 1 The hearing was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Rich Gerber. ROLL CALL Members Present: Chairperson Rich Gerber, Don Watson, Charles Nordstrom, Steve Robles, Anil Barot, Tanvi Vora, and Kenneth Ropiak Members Absent: Dale Litney, David Piecuch Staff Present: Chidochashe Baker, AICP, Community Planner Ryan Franklin, AICP, Assistant Director of Community Development A quorum was present. Sworn in for testimony: Chidochashe Baker, AICP, Community Planner Juan Hernandez, Applicant Ryan Franklin, AICP, Assistant Director of Community Development Chairperson Gerber introduced the case being presented P2605-01 / 200 Tulip Court / Hernandez Residence / Fence Variation Chairperson Gerber asked the Recording Secretary if public notice was given regarding the case. Ms. Storm stated that Staff and the petitioner have given proper public hearing notification. Mr. Hernandez stated that he built a fence after obtaining a permit, site survey, and hired a professional contractor. He stated that he did not agree with the staff report. He shared that he previously had a home addition that was inspected by Village of Schaumburg contracting staff, Lou Ortiz. Mr. Hernandez explained that the property passed the Phase 1 rough inspection. At the time of the Phase 2 electrical inspection, several items failed that did not fail his initial inspection. He stated that he applied for a new permit to install a fence with horizontal, six inch boards for a five foot tall fence. His contractor informed him after delivery that the boards required metal spacers, which added to the height of the fence and gap between boards. The spacers added 2.5 inches to the gap, ending with 8.5 inches overall. Mr. Hernandez explained that he referenced the code on the Village’s website, discovering that the fence requires a 30% spacing gap between boards. He shared that his contractor contacted the Village to inquire about the spacing requirements. He stated his contractor called the Village on September 17th, 2025 and was advised to build the fence with 2 5/8 inch spacing by Brock Wittcamp, Plans Examiner. He stated that the call lasted roughly 12 minutes, which was confirmed by Mr. Franklin. He explained that the purpose of the call was to verify spacing. P2605-01 / 200 Tulip Court / Hernandez Residence / Fence Variation Village of Schaumburg Plan Commission June 3, 2026 2 Mr. Hernandez stated that he did not personally contact the Village to confirm spacing before the fence was built. He stated that when his fence failed the building inspection after it was installed, he was surprised because he was pre-approved. He called Bob Kryder, the building division supervisor, several times following the failed fence inspection about what was discussed between his contractor and Mr. Wittcamp. Mr. Hernandez said that Mr. Wittcamp relayed information that the fence spacing was not discussed during the call. Mr. Hernandez filed a complaint with the Village, and in response to that Mr. Franklin confirmed that a phone call did take place, but the phone calls are not recorded so no statements made during the call could be confirmed. Mr. Hernandez stated that the spacing between the boards of the fence vary from 2 5/8in. to 2 ¾ in. He stated that if he is required to expand the spacing in the fence, to 3.64in., he would rather not have the fence. He stated that he is asking the commission to see the Village’s mistake. Ms. Baker stated that this variation is to allow a solid perimeter fence with gaps less than 30% of the surface area. A perimeter fence is classified as a fence built within six inches of the property line. The fence can be no greater than five feet in height, being either open or semi-open. A semi- open fence is defined as having between 30% and 80% space unobstructed to light or air. A solid fence would be a fence with less than 30% open space. She stated that Mr. Hernandez obtained a fence permit for six inch wood-composite boards with the appropriate spacing. The spacing for these boards would be 2.625 inches, or 2 5/8 inch. Once the fence was installed, the solid space was 8.5 inches. The spacing that was calculated on the approved permit was for six inch boards, and not for the final board width of 8.5 inches. The required board spacing for the 8.5 inch solid space would be 3.64 inches. Staff is not supportive of the variation. The fence was constructed differently than proposed on the permit, and would set a negative precedent for allowing a solid perimeter fence. Solid fences are allowed as privacy fencing when constructed 16 feet into the rear yard. Solid perimeter fences are only allowed along property lines that abut neighbor schools, public parks, properties with commercial and manufacturing uses, or throughfares specified in the fence code. The code intends for fence spacing to be wide enough for light and air to flow through, as well as to maintain public safety. The proposed fence does not meet the intent of the code. Staff recommends denial because the fence does not meet the code requirements. Chairperson Gerber asked if there were any questions or comments from the public. Mr. Barot clarified that the issue was an inch difference. He asked if the discrepancies were discovered during the initial inspection. Ms. Baker stated that the inspection takes place once the fence has been installed. She explained that during the permitting process the contractor provided a description of the proposed fence sizing, not an exhibit. Mr. Robles stated that the fence code is very specific in how to determine fence height, but not fence spacing. He stated that this appears to be more of a code interpretation discussion. Mr. Watson expressed he shares the same concerns as Mr. Robles. Mr. Watson mentioned that Mr. Hernandez stated he received bad advice from the Village, Mr. Watson inquired what the advice was. Mr. Hernandez stated that his contractor called the Village to ask about spacing between fence boards. He stated that when he applied for the permit, he was unaware of the metal brackets required for spacing, and they were not included in the original application. He said that he was advised to build the fence with 2 5/8 inch spacing, based on the six inch boards. He stated his P2605-01 / 200 Tulip Court / Hernandez Residence / Fence Variation Village of Schaumburg Plan Commission June 3, 2026 3 interpretation of the code was 30% of six inches. Mr. Watson clarified that the petitioner contacted the Village before building the fence to verify the spacing requirements, but still failed the inspection. Mr. Franklin added that the petitioner filed a complaint against the Village. Mr. Franklin completed an investigation into the complaint by looking at phone records, speaking with the petitioner, and speaking with staff. He was able to confirm that the phone call took place on September 17th, 2025, but was unable to verify the contents of the call, as the Village does not record phone calls. In speaking with Mr. Wittcamp, Mr. Wittcamp stated that he did not inform the contractor that the spacing would be determined by board size alone. Mr. Nordstrom stated that with this presentation, he learned that a solid fence is considered anything with less than a 30% gap. He said that his main takeaway from the meeting thus far was that there was a miscommunication between the petitioner and the Village. Mr. Ropiak stated that without written proof of what was discussed during the September 17th, 2025 phone call, that the code is the code. He stated that if there were documentation, he would have a different stance on the case. Ms. Vora asked if the contractor was aware of how the 30% calculation would be measured. Mr. Hernandez explained no, that the calculation is not public knowledge. He explained that when he submitted plans to the Village, he did not receive specific feedback explaining how the spacing was to be computed. He shared that the formula found in the staff report was not provided to the homeowner in the permit process. He stated that he had not seen the formula before reviewing the staff report. Mr. Hernandez shared that his contractor would be willing to sign an attestation confirming what he spoke about during the call. He shared that he was unsure if Mr. Wittcamp would do the same. Ms. Vora asked how the contractor measured. Mr. Hernandez stated that the contractor called and received advice from the Village. Chairperson Gerber stated that there was a breakdown in communication between both parties. He stated that the commission will never know specifically what was discussed during the phone call. Regardless of the existence of written proof of misinformation from staff, staff does not have the authority to approve a variation to this required code section. Mr. Watson inquired about the staff recommendation, asking what the bullet points refer to. Ms. Baker explained that while staff recommends denial, if the commission were to approve the case, staff created a list of conditions that must apply. She stated that these include submitting the plat of survey, fence image, and the fence variation justification must be submitted. Mr. Watson asked if the submission of these additional documents would lead to a precedent for future variations. Ms. Baker stated yes, this would set a precedent and be available in the future. Mr. Robles asked about previous cases, stating that fence removal is often required when an owner sells a property. He asked if that would be applicable in this case. Ms. Baker stated that in previous cases a condition and transfer stamp holds have been placeed on the property record to notify the owners to bring the property into compliance with code requirements when the property is sold. Mr. Franklin added that the fence removal condition has been utilized when staff is recommending approval. He stated that this condition is not typically applicable when staff is recommending denial.