Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
ZBA continues fence variance for 353 N. Deer Park Dr. E. after neighbor concerns
Loading...
Summary
The Zoning Board continued an application to install a decorative fence at 353 North Deer Park Drive East to its May 7 meeting after neighbors raised concerns about neighborhood character, an old easement and potential conflicts with underground utilities; the applicant agreed to provide more information and photos.
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.
