Long Grove trustees reopen fence rules debate but opt to table changes

Trustees and residents engaged in a lengthy discussion over whether Long Grove should expand its existing fence regulations or leave decisions to homeowners associations.

Staff framed the issue as a discussion item and listed four options: maintain existing limited regulations, regulate fences in the downtown/business (B1) district, apply rules to all nonresidential properties, or adopt a village‑wide policy covering height, materials and design. As staff put it, “So, again, just for discussion, there's no action being requested tonight.” (Staff member)

Several residents told the board fences are necessary for basic uses such as gardens, pets and sound buffering. Nick Michaud, who said he has lived in Long Grove for three decades, said: "I can't have a vegetable garden if I don't have a fence." He urged the board not to adopt a blanket prohibition that would prevent residents who depend on fencing to protect plants and animals from deer and other wildlife.

Other speakers and trustees raised concerns about fences’ visual impact in tight, newer subdivisions and the downtown. One trustee recommended limiting hazardous materials and distinguishing front‑yard versus rear‑yard locations; another suggested safety rules such as banning fences that block traffic sight lines. A staff member noted the village currently has no permitting process outside the scenic corridor and said retroactive enforcement can be painful for residents who have already installed fences.

Board members repeatedly emphasized the village’s varied lot sizes and neighborhood characters — from 0.25‑acre lots to multi‑acre parcels — arguing a one‑size‑fits‑all policy may be inappropriate. Trustee Brodsky (introduced earlier in the meeting) urged a field visit to see neighborhood differences before setting new rules.

After airing pros and cons for more than an hour, trustees concluded there was not overwhelming support for immediate regulation. The board agreed to "put it back on the shelf" and may revisit the issue with further study and neighborhood field visits rather than adopt new rules at this meeting.

The discussion produced no formal direction or ordinance; staff will not prepare a regulatory amendment at this time unless the board requests it in a future packet.