East Central Reporter

City of Effingham Zoning Board of Appeals met June 24.

Here are the minutes provided by the board:

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mike Mumm

Mark Thies

Don Bushue

Ken Wohltman

Carrie Rodman

Brandon Weber

Andrew Grunloh

MEMBERS ABSENT: None

OTHERS PRESENT: Tracy A. Willenborg, City Attorney

Luke Thoele, City Engineer

Greg Koester, City Planner

Lauren Ozenkoski, Taylor Law Offices, P.C.

1. Quorum: The June 24, 2025 City Zoning Board of Appeals meeting was called to order at 6:00 P.M. by Chairman Mike Mumm. A quorum was present.

2. Approval of May 27, 2025 Minutes: On motion by Board Member Carrie Rodman, seconded by Board Member Ken Wohltman, the minutes for the May 27, 2025 meeting were approved by unanimous vote, as presented.

3. Location: 2307 Lilly Street, Effingham, Illinois

Requesting: Rear Yard Setback Variance in the Golden Fields Subdivision Planned Residence District

Petitioner: Karen K. Wiercioch

The Petition for Variance was filed by the owner of the Subject Property, Karen K. Wiercioch. Petitioner is seeking a variance to allow the construction of a covered and enclosed patio on the existing residential structure on the Subject Property with a rear yard setback of seventeen (17) feet, which is less than the minimum twenty-two (22) foot setback required in the Golden Fields Subdivision Planned Residence District.

Petitioner, Karen Wiercioch, appeared to testify in support of the Petition. Ms. Wiercioch testified that she would like to construct a screened-in patio in the same area as the existing concrete patio. Ms. Wiercioch advised that she spoke with her adjacent neighbors, and they have signed a letter confirming that they did not object to the request for a variance. The signed letters were made a part of the record.

Ms. Wiercioch testified that she is not able to use the patio area because it faces the west and the sunlight impacts the ability to use the area. Therefore, she would like to construct the covered patio. The covered patio will provide shade relief. Ms. Wiercioch advised that there is limited buildable space in the rear yard so she cannot construct the proposed patio without the variance.

In response to questioning by City Attorney, Tracy Willenborg, Ms. Wiercioch advised that, if the variance is granted, she does not believe that the variance would be detrimental to any adjoining properties, alter the character of the neighborhood, or negatively impact any property values, public health, safety, or welfare of the neighborhood. Ms. Wiercioch advised that she has a fenced in yard and the neighbors will only be able to see the roof.

Ms. Wiercioch testified that City Planner, Greg Koester, mentioned that other people have requested and were granted variances for the same reason. Ms. Wiercioch advised that she believes the covered patio will add value to her property. She presented a picture of a patio, which is similar to the patio that she would like to build.

In response to questioning by Board Member Thies, Ms. Wiercioch advised that the neighbor to the rear has a fence, and the two properties to the south have fences.

In response to questioning by Chairman Mumm, Ms. Wiercioch advised that no one in her neighborhood has a comparable variance.

In response to questioning by Board Member Wohltman, Ms. Wiercioch advised that while there are not any utility easements in her rear yard, there is a large drainage ditch, which was constructed to address the standing water issues.

Laura Didier, Ms. Wiercioch’s neighbor to the north, appeared to testify in support of the Petition. Ms. Didier advised that she is present to support the Petitioner and her request to build the sunroom. Ms. Didier advised that the Petitioner’s backyard has a fence all around it and Ms. Didier will only be able to see the roof of the proposed sunroom. Therefore, Ms. Didier did not see any problem with the request.

No one appeared to testify in opposition to the Petition.

The hearing was closed, and a discussion was conducted among the Board members in open session.

The Board concurred that the variance is appropriate for the reason that the direction of the house and patio impacts the ability to utilize the existing patio area and rear yard. Furthermore, the location of the drainage ditch limits the size and use of the Petitioner’s rear yard.

On motion by Board Member Mark Thies, seconded by Board Member Andrew Grunloh, the Zoning Board of Appeals approved, by a 7 to 0 vote, the variance as requested.

4. Reconvened Public Hearing:

Location: 212 W. Douglas Avenue, Effingham, Illinois

Requesting: Variance for Front Yard Fence and distance from curb Petitioner: Dennis Tieffel

The Petition for Variance was filed by the owner of the Subject Property, Dennis Tieffel. Petitioner is seeking a variance to allow the construction of a fence (1) at a height of ten (10) feet on the west side yard, and extending into the front yard, which is greater than the allowable eight (8) feet allowed on a side yard and the three (3) feet minimum and four (4) feet maximum allowed in a front yard; and, (2) to allow the fence to be constructed closer than 20 feet from the curb, as required per Article 6.3A and Article 5.3M of Appendix B of the Municipal Code of the City of Effingham.

City Attorney, Tracy Willenborg provided a brief synopsis of the original hearing, held during the May 27, 2025 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.

Petitioner, Dennis Tieffel, appeared to offer more testimony in support of the Petition. Ms. Tieffel testified that he has continued to experience issues with the neighbor since the last Zoning Board meeting.

At the request of the Board, City Planner, Greg Koester, appeared to offer testimony. Mr. Koester presented a rendering of a revised plan for the fence which would allow a 10-foot fence running 24 feet from the southwest corner of the Petitioner’s attached garage/lean-to. This 10-foot fence would end at the corner of the neighbor’s porch. The proposed fence would then continue with an 8-foot fence for another five feet. The edge of this eight-foot fence would end approximately 5 to 6 feet back from the sidewalk. Mr. Koester testified that ending the fence approximately 5 to 6 feet back from the sidewalk should address concerns about whether the fence would impact view of vehicular traffic.

Board member Thies questioned whether a five or six foot fence would fulfill the intended purpose to block the view of the neighboring property rather than the proposed eight foot fence.

In response to questioning by Board Member Bushue, Mr. Koester testified that the fence height is measured from the ground.

In response to questioning by Board Member Weber regarding possible impacts on visibility, Mr. Koester testified that if the proposed fence ends five to six feet from the sidewalk, this would mean that the fence would end approximately 20 feet from the curb.

Chairman Mumm inquired about a possibility of putting a fence running west to east which would connect to the proposed fence.

The Board Members made statements of concerns about that portion of the proposed fence that would be eight (8) foot high. The Board Members expressed a concern about the impacts on visibility and accessibility.

No one appeared to testify in opposition to the Petition.

The hearing was closed, and a discussion was conducted among the Board members in open session.

The Board Members held a lengthy discussion regarding concerns with allowing that high of a fence on the Subject Property. The Board Members were especially concerned with the proposed 8-foot fence in the front yard and the potential impact of visibility for vehicular traffic.

Several Board Members expressed understanding with the hardship of the Petitioner’s and the ongoing issues between the Petitioner and Petitioner’s neighbors.

The Board Members held a lengthy discussion on possible alternative fence heights that would possibly address the Petitioner’s issues, while still ensuring addressing negative impacts that could result from the higher fence.

On motion by Board Member Brandon Weber, seconded by Board Member Andrew Grunloh, the Zoning Board of Appeals approved, by a 7 to 0 vote, the variance as follows:

a. Allow construction of a ten (10) foot solid fence for twenty-four (24) feet running from the southwest corner of the Petitioner’s attached garage canopy;

b. Allow construction of a four (4) foot solid fence for five (5) feet

commencing from the southern portion of the aforesaid ten (10) foot solid fence;

c. Allow construction of a four (4) foot solid fence from the eastern portion of the aforesaid four (4) foot solid fence to the western edge of the Petitioner’s driveway;

d. Allow construction of the fence with a setback of fifteen (15) feet from the curb, which deviates from the required twenty (20) feet from the curb.

5. Discussion Only: Revisions and Changes to Zoning Ordinance: City Planner, Greg Koester advised that the City is planning to update its zoning regulations as part of the Effingham 2050 Comprehensive Plan. The members of the Zoning Board of Appeals are encouraged to review the zoning regulations and provide a list of areas that they would like to see updated, revised, etc.

6. Public Comment: None

7. On motion by Board Member Ken Wohltman, seconded by Board Member Carrie Rodman, the meeting was adjourned.

https://go.boarddocs.com/il/voeil/Board.nsf/files/DJGQMV6A07F3/$file/06-24-2025%20ZBOA%20Minutes.pdf