A new, powerful Citizen Portal experience is ready. Switch now

ZBA continues fence variance for 353 N. Deer Park Dr. E. after neighbor concerns

April 17, 2026 | Highland Park, Lake County, Illinois


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

ZBA continues fence variance for 353 N. Deer Park Dr. E. after neighbor concerns
The Highland Park Zoning Board of Appeals voted April 16 to continue consideration of a fence variance for 353 North Deer Park Drive East to its May 7 meeting so the petitioner can supply additional information and photos.

Patrick, the city staff member presenting BAR202665, said the owner seeks relief from a 40-foot subdivision building line to install a 4-foot wrought-iron fence (about 36 feet of new fence) tied into an existing nonconforming fence. He noted a 5-foot ingress/egress easement along the property line for lake access and said staff had not received additional city comments.

Contractor Jeff Tandola, speaking for owner Peter Rose, said the fence is decorative and intended to match existing wrought-iron sections; he told the board the fence would not block the easement and would not include gates. “It's really more just an entrance to this property,” he said.

Neighbor Shera Goodman, who lives at 359 N. Deer Park Dr. E., asked the board to consider neighborhood character and raised a concern that the proposed fence would reach closer to the street than other properties in the subdivision. Goodman also warned that cementing posts where the applicant proposes could disturb underground cable or electrical lines, citing prior utility problems on the shared boundary.

Board members questioned whether the application showed the unusual hardship required for a variance. Several said the petitioner had not demonstrated sufficient need beyond aesthetics and asked for clearer photos, a better explanation of the hardship, and documentation about utilities and easement impacts. At the applicant’s request, the board continued the case to May 7 to allow the petitioner to provide more detailed materials.

The continuance was passed by voice vote. The board asked the applicant to coordinate with neighbors and to return with clearer evidence about the fence’s location relative to the easement and underground utilities.

View the Full Meeting & All Its Details

This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.

Watch full, unedited meeting videos
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
Permanent access to expanding government content
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee