Title/Name/Summary
Cooper Residence Variance - 14461 Woodland Avenue - Committee of the Whole
History
Project: Cooper Residence Variance - 14461 Woodland Avenue
Prepared: 8/25/2026
Prepared by: Hailey Gorman, Planner
Legistar ID: 2026-0504 (PC/BOT), 2026-0859 (COW)
Project ID: PPA-26-0035
Petitioner: Brian Cooper (Property Owner)
Address: 14461 Woodland Ave, Orland Park, IL
P.I.N.s: 27-09-111-014-0000
REQUESTED ACTIONS
The Petitioner is requesting approval of a variance from Sections 6-310.H & 6-310.1.A.1.b.2.a.9 of the Land Development Code to eliminate the requirement to install a 6’-tall opaque fence to screen a swimming pool on a corner lot.
BACKGROUND
The petitioners began working with staff in January of 2026 upon submission of their pool and fence permit applications to the Village’s Development Services Department. They were first formally notified that their proposed fence did not meet the code requirements on January 27, 2026 through the permit review process.
Following the notification, the petitioners came in-person to Village Hall on February 3, 2026 to discuss the fence requirement, showing photos of their rear yard and explaining that they did not believe a 6’-tall privacy fence would screen their pool due to their rear yard sitting at a lower elevation in comparison to the public right-of-way. Staff presented multiple options to the petitioner, including installing the code-compliant privacy fence along the street-side of the lot facing 145th Street, and transitioning to their desired 5’-tall open style fence around the remainder of the property. A variance petition was discouraged by staff, as it is not possible for all 10 variance standards prescribed in the LDC to be met for this type of request. However, alternative variance options were also discussed in order to ensure screening of the pool, like locating the fence closer to the property line or a taller fence. Ultimately, the petitioners decided that they would pursue code-compliant fence options.
The pool permit was subsequently issued on February 5, 2026, with the understanding that a code-compliant fence would be installed under the separate fence permit prior to completion of pool construction. It was understood that final inspections could not pass on the pool permit until an appropriate swimming pool barrier was installed. Final inspections were never requested or completed on the swimming pool.
In late April 2026, the petitioners came to the Village and stated that they would like to proceed with a 5’-tall open style fence. After further discussions, they submitted a development petition application for the variance on May 19, 2026.
Village code enforcement staff identified the lack of the appropriate swimming pool barrier for an active pool on July 1, 2026. The pool was filled with water without an adequate barrier to protect the public from access. They were issued a citation the same day and were required to install a 4’-tall temporary barrier, in accordance with Section 6-310.H.3.b of the LDC.
The variance petition proceeded to a public hearing with the Plan Commission on August 4, 2026. The meeting summary is provided below.
PLAN COMMISSION SUMMARY
Present at the Plan Commission were 4 Commissioners, members of the public, the petitioners, and staff. Following the petitioner’s and staff’s presentations, members of the public were given the opportunity to speak. There were multiple comments made by members of the public in support of the petition. Some statements made during the meeting were inaccurate, which staff will clarify throughout this report. The Commissioners proceeded to discuss the project and pose questions to staff and the petitioner. The following summarizes the major topics discussed during the meeting:
Fence Design
The proposed design of the fence was discussed in comparison to what is required by the LDC. The staff presentation included photo examples comparing the proposed design with an example of a design that would meet code requirements. The example used was a white vinyl privacy fence. During public comment, it was misinterpreted that a white vinyl privacy fence is required by the LDC, which is not the case. The LDC requires a 6’-tall opaque fence constructed of wood, vinyl, or masonry to screen swimming pools located on corner lots.
Fence Height
The petitioners and members of the public claimed that a 6’-tall fence would not be able to provide any screening for the swimming pool due to the change in elevation on the lot. Some photos of the rear yard were provided for review, but they did not accurately portray the condition of the site. The petitioners did not provide further proof supporting this claim.
After the public hearing, staff further reviewed the topographical survey of the property that was submitted with their pool permit application. This survey shows the grade change on the property, in which the elevation decreases by approximately 4’ in total from the curb to the swimming pool location in the rear yard. A 6’-tall privacy fence must be setback at least 5’ from the property line. However, when installed 5’ from the property line, it was determined that a 6’-tall privacy fence would be able to screen most (if not all) of the swimming pool from the public right-of-way. See the sight-line exhibit attached to the staff report for reference.
Permit and Code Compliance
During the petitioner’s presentation, they stated that they had appeared in municipal violations (MV) court on August 3, 2026, in regard to the citation they had received for the improper swimming pool barrier. They expressed that they were unaware of code requirements to have a swimming pool barrier, and that they were unable to use the pool without it passing final inspections. As a part of all pool permit applications, the Village requires that the applicant submit a signed copy of the Village’s pool requirements handout, which outlines the minimum requirements and the required inspections. This form was signed by the petitioner’s pool contractor, Aqua Pools, Inc and submitted to the Village with the rest of the pool permit application. The petitioners were included in the permit application paperwork as the owner contact, and it is ultimately the landowner’s responsibility to ensure the appropriate site barrier is provided for the swimming pool, per Section 6-310.H.1.b of the LDC.
Commissioner Fenton expressed that a swimming pool permit should not be issued when an appropriate fence has not been identified on the plans. Since the fence and pool permit applications were submitted to the Village simultaneously and the Village had been in consistent communication with the petitioners, it was understood that the appropriate barrier would be installed prior to final inspection of the pool. Ultimately, the petitioners did not comply with the terms and conditions of their pool permit, which resulted in the citation. At this time, a permanent barrier has still not been installed as the petitioners are waiting to see if their variance request will be approved for them to install the proposed 5’-tall open style fence. It was acknowledged during the meeting that their proposed fence design meets the minimum requirements for a swimming pool barrier and would be permitted if not for the subject property being located on a corner.
Staff Recommendation
There was no staff recommended action to the Plan Commission for this petition. The Plan Commission were presented two motion options to recommend approval or denial of the petition.
The Plan Commission recommended approval of the petition and voted 4 ayes, 0 nays, and 3 absent. This case is now before the Board of Trustees for consideration.
FINDINGS OF FACT
When considering an application for a Variance, the decision-making body shall consider the Findings of Fact. Please refer to the accompanying Findings of Fact document, certified by the Plan Commission.
PLAN COMMISSION RECOMMENDED ACTION
Regarding Case Number 2026-0504, also known as the Cooper Residence Variance, I move to accept and make findings of fact as discussed at this Plan Commission meeting and within the Staff Report dated July 27, 2026;
And
Recommend that the Board of Trustees approve a Variance from Sections 6-310.H and 6-310.1.A.1.b.2.a.9 of the Land Development Code to eliminate the requirement to install a 6’-tall opaque fence to screen a swimming pool on a corner lot and allow for a 5’-tall open-style fence in accordance with swimming pool barrier requirements.
Recommended Action/Motion
MOTION OPTION #1 - UPHOLD PLAN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION (APPROVE)
I move to recommend that the Board of Trustees approve a Variance as written in the Plan Commission Recommended Action regarding Case Number 2026-0504, also known as the Cooper Residence Variance.
(Full motion - not necessary to be read)
I move to recommend that the Board of Trustees approve a Variance from Sections 6-310.H and 6-310.1.A.1.b.2.a.9 of the Land Development Code to eliminate the requirement to install a 6’-tall opaque fence to screen a swimming pool on a corner lot and allow for a 5’-tall open-style fence in accordance with swimming pool barrier requirements regarding Case Number 2026-0504, also known as the Cooper Residence Variance.
MOTION OPTION #2 - DENY
I move to recommend that the Board of Trustees deny a Variance as written in the Plan Commission Recommended Action regarding Case Number 2026-0504, also known as the Cooper Residence Variance.
(Full motion - not necessary to be read)
I move to recommend that the Board of Trustees deny a Variance from Sections 6-310.H and 6-310.1.A.1.b.2.a.9 of the Land Development Code to eliminate the requirement to install a 6’-tall opaque fence to screen a swimming pool on a corner lot and allow for a 5’-tall open-style fence in accordance with swimming pool barrier requirements regarding Case Number 2026-0504, also known as the Cooper Residence Variance.
MOTION OPTION #3 - REMAND THE CASE TO THE PLAN COMMISSION
I move to remand the petition back to the Plan Commission.
(Full motion - not necessary to be read)
I move to remand Case Number 2026-0504, also known as the Cooper Residence Variance, back to the Plan Commission for further discussion.