[2:55] We will call to order the meeting of the

[2:58] November 20th, 2025

[3:01] uh [snorts] meeting of the city of

[3:02] Highland Park zoning board of appeals.

[3:03] Patrick, may I get an attendance roll

[3:05] call, please?

[3:06] >> Member Arnoff

[3:07] » Member Arnoff

[3:07] >> here.

[3:08] » here.

[3:08] >> Member Weissberg

[3:09] » Member Weissberg

[3:09] >> here,

[3:09] » here,

[3:09] >> member Chase, member Tashansky

[3:12] » member Chase, member Tashansky

[3:12] >> here,

[3:12] » here,

[3:12] >> member Zaransky

[3:13] » member Zaransky

[3:13] >> here,

[3:13] » here,

[3:13] >> Vice Chair Yablon

[3:14] » Vice Chair Yablon

[3:14] >> here,

[3:15] » here,

[3:15] >> and Chair Bay

[3:16] » and Chair Bay

[3:16] >> here.

[3:17] » here.

[3:17] >> We have a quorum.

[3:18] » We have a quorum.

[3:18] >> Okay, thank you. Uh, first item up for

[3:20] » Okay, thank you. Uh, first item up for

[3:20] business on our agenda is the approval

[3:22] of the minutes from the November 6th

[3:24] meeting. Did everyone get a chance to

[3:26] review those?

[3:28] >> And if so, I will entertain a motion.

[3:31] » And if so, I will entertain a motion.

[3:31] >> Vice Chair Yavon makes a motion to adopt

[3:34] » Vice Chair Yavon makes a motion to adopt

[3:34] the minutes as drafted.

[3:36] >> And can we get a second?

[3:38] » And can we get a second?

[3:38] >> Second. Members Ransky.

[3:40] » Second. Members Ransky.

[3:40] >> All right. All in favor of adopting the

[3:42] » All right. All in favor of adopting the

[3:42] minutes as drafted, please say I.

[3:44] >> Any opposed?

[3:46] » Any opposed?

[3:46] >> No. Motion carries. minutes are adopted

[3:48] » No. Motion carries. minutes are adopted

[3:48] as written. Uh item number three on our

[3:51] agenda, business from the public. Is

[3:53] there anybody here uh that has something

[3:56] that's not on the agenda that they want

[3:58] to bring to this board attention?

[3:59] Doesn't appear as such. So we can move

[4:03] on. Uh item number four, old business.

[4:06] There is no old business. Item number

[4:07] five, new business. There's one item of

[4:09] new business and we will get to it now.

[4:11] It is V 202250057

[4:15] property address 1331 Hillary Lane

[4:19] Abalant Brett Kaplan and Patrick do we

[4:22] have a presentation please?

[4:24] >> Yes. So 1331 Hillary Lane applicant

[4:29] » Yes. So 1331 Hillary Lane applicant

[4:29] Brett Kaplan proposal is for a new

[4:32] addition. The property is located in the

[4:34] R six zoning district and according to

[4:36] Lake County Assessor's home was built in

[4:38] 2000. The requested relief is to

[4:40] construct the allowable floor area, F

[4:43] short, of 30.48%

[4:46] or 4,080 ft for a residence that already

[4:49] exceeds the permitted F to construct a

[4:52] 382 ft addition for a proposed total F

[4:56] of 42.69%

[4:58] or 5,713.9

[5:03] square ft.

[5:05] So, here is the property uh located at

[5:08] the end of Hillary Lane next to the Skoi

[5:11] River here

[5:13] and just kind of an aerial shot of the

[5:16] property.

[5:21] The uh existing structure uh this is a

[5:24] kind of a trapezoidal kind of shape lot.

[5:28] um existing home with a deck in the rear

[5:32] of the property and the proposed

[5:34] addition will be located here

[5:36] approximately where the uh deck is

[5:38] located.

[5:41] I couldn't get to the property for this

[5:43] one, so we'll have to live with the

[5:45] Google Street View. Uh not the best view

[5:47] for this property. Uh but is at the end

[5:51] of the block and kind of see a little

[5:54] bit of the house there.

[5:59] So, in blue is the existing home. Yellow

[6:03] here is the proposed screen porch. Oops.

[6:08] Deck or not porch. Yeah, just a screen

[6:10] porch. Jeez. [gasps] Um, and then so the

[6:13] required F I'm going this is going to be

[6:15] a lot of numbers. [clears throat] Um,

[6:17] please stop me if you ever get confused.

[6:19] So the required F is 4,080 ft for the

[6:24] total uh footprint for the home. Um the

[6:28] existing home is 5,332

[6:31] square ft and the applicant is proposing

[6:33] a new total of 5,714

[6:36] ft for the new total. Uh the addition

[6:40] will be a total size of 382 square ft.

[6:46] So on the left hand side here, these are

[6:49] the existing conditions of the rear of

[6:51] the property and on the right hand side

[6:54] is the proposed uh screened in porch.

[6:59] And again on the top here are the

[7:01] existing conditions and the bottom is

[7:04] what the new porch would look like on

[7:06] the back of the house.

[7:12] So for the neighborhood context, uh the

[7:15] F kind of totals on the end of the

[7:17] block, this comes from the Lake County

[7:20] um assessor's office. The average square

[7:23] foot totals for the homes at the end of

[7:25] this block here is 4,267.

[7:28] Uh a little lower than what is currently

[7:31] at this property. The average F being

[7:34] 37.4.

[7:36] And then I also provided the median um

[7:38] just for a different metric a little

[7:41] lower 4,152 and a median of 37.9. So

[7:46] neighborhood in total is a little less

[7:47] than what the uh applicant's property

[7:50] is.

[7:54] In 2006, this property received a

[7:57] variation to exceed the maximum floor

[7:59] area. Uh they were approved for 4751

[8:03] square feet or 35.67 67.

[8:07] Um, if you'll notice that they were

[8:09] approved for 4,751.

[8:11] However, today they are current existing

[8:14] conditions is 5,332.

[8:18] Uh, I have asked the applicant to kind

[8:19] of review that and their architect has

[8:21] confirmed that this 5,332

[8:24] is correct. So, it's just kind of the

[8:26] information I have for you. Uh, but

[8:28] there is kind of a discrepancy from this

[8:30] 2006 variation and today.

[8:34] Uh but again, the applicant is now

[8:36] proposing a new total of 5,714

[8:39] square feet.

[8:44] Uh I didn't receive any comments from

[8:46] either city staff or members from the

[8:48] public.

[8:50] So in review, uh the requested relief is

[8:52] to exceed the maximum floor area for a

[8:55] new addition that is a total size of 382

[8:59] square ft for a proposed total F of

[9:02] 42.69%. 69% or 5,713.9

[9:07] ft.

[9:09] Uh, that's all I have for you. If you

[9:10] have any questions, I'd be happy to

[9:12] answer them. Okay, Patrick, they you

[9:14] said there was a variance. Thank you.

[9:17] That's the exactly the screen I was

[9:19] looking for. Um, where they were

[9:22] specifically

[9:23] approved [snorts] for a maximum of 4751

[9:27] square ft. Correct.

[9:29] >> Correct. So it was to

[9:32] » Correct. So it was to

[9:32] do this portion of the house. This is a

[9:35] addition that happened in 2006 and they

[9:38] needed a variation to the F for that

[9:40] portion of house.

[9:42] >> Okay. But somehow they ended up with

[9:44] » Okay. But somehow they ended up with

[9:44] 5332 which is you know significantly

[9:47] larger than 4751.

[9:50] [clears throat] Uh how would they have

[9:51] gotten away with that?

[9:54] Why would the building department did

[9:56] they do things without permits or

[9:58] >> so? It it's the same footprint. I'm not

[10:01] » so? It it's the same footprint. I'm not

[10:01] sure if there could have been a

[10:02] miscalculation in 2006.

[10:05] I'm not I uh I reviewed everything.

[10:08] There's not like an additional addition

[10:10] somewhere on the property that is

[10:12] between 2006 and now. Um I can have the

[10:15] applicant speak a little bit more on

[10:16] that as well with their speaking with

[10:18] their architect. Um, but yeah, I don't

[10:22] quite have an answer for you on that. It

[10:24] >> was different ownership in 2006 than it

[10:26] » was different ownership in 2006 than it

[10:26] is today.

[10:27] >> It was Kaplan's. I'm going to assume

[10:30] » It was Kaplan's. I'm going to assume

[10:30] just different generation of family.

[10:34] >> Okay.

[10:37] » Okay.

[10:37] >> Okay. Um, anybody else have any

[10:39] » Okay. Um, anybody else have any

[10:39] questions?

[10:41] >> Yes, please.

[10:43] » Yes, please.

[10:43] um for

[10:45] the existing deck or porch does not go

[10:50] towards F. Correct.

[10:52] >> Correct. It's not until it's enclosed.

[10:54] » Correct. It's not until it's enclosed.

[10:54] So having kind of those walls around it

[10:56] is what then triggers the F total.

[11:00] >> Okay. And do we know the dimensions of

[11:03] » Okay. And do we know the dimensions of

[11:03] the porch versus just the square

[11:05] footage? Um,

[11:10] » I'll have the applicant confirm that and

[11:12] I'll look at the plans. They're not on

[11:13] this screenshot right now.

[11:15] >> Okay.

[11:16] » Okay.

[11:16] >> Are they planning, if you know, Patrick,

[11:18] » Are they planning, if you know, Patrick,

[11:18] or if not, we'll ask the owner the on

[11:22] doing any foundation work or just

[11:24] enclosing an an addition or an existing

[11:28] footing if you would. So, it'll be a

[11:31] little bit more new because it is in

[11:33] this area and you'll see that it kind of

[11:36] zigzags this way. So, there'll be a

[11:38] little bit new coverage in this area. Uh

[11:41] there are no setback um

[11:45] requests for this addition. Uh but there

[11:48] will be a little bit new land coverage

[11:52] >> in a uh a pergola would not be

[11:54] » in a uh a pergola would not be

[11:54] considered like enclosed, right? It has

[11:56] to have complete enclosure.

[11:59] >> Correct. to perllo would not be

[12:00] » Correct. to perllo would not be

[12:00] considered for F.

[12:02] >> Okay.

[12:04] » Okay.

[12:04] >> Okay. So they they are expanding off of

[12:06] » Okay. So they they are expanding off of

[12:06] the existing debt.

[12:09] >> Yes.

[12:10] » Yes.

[12:10] >> So this is what the existing conditions

[12:12] » So this is what the existing conditions

[12:12] are and then this is what the proposal

[12:16] will be.

[12:19] >> Can you show me the existing again?

[12:23] » Can you show me the existing again?

[12:23] >> Okay. So they're kind of squaring off

[12:25] » Okay. So they're kind of squaring off

[12:25] basically.

[12:26] >> Yeah. So it's square off a little bit.

[12:28] » Yeah. So it's square off a little bit.

[12:28] Gotcha.

[12:29] >> Okay. Thank you. [clears throat]

[12:31] » Okay. Thank you. [clears throat]

[12:31] >> Okay.

[12:33] » Okay.

[12:33] >> Well, can you just scroll back like

[12:35] » Well, can you just scroll back like

[12:35] couple um

[12:38] the there's the variation a slide and

[12:41] then couple before that

[12:46] like it was like the average the street.

[12:47] Um yeah. So,

[12:54] so would it be accurate that like the

[12:56] whole neighborhood is significantly over

[12:59] the minimum F cuz when would it all be

[13:02] 30%.

[13:05] » So, it's dependent on your lot area and

[13:10] these lots are

[13:12] >> not all the same exact size, but yeah,

[13:14] » not all the same exact size, but yeah,

[13:14] they should be roughly around the same

[13:17] lot area. Um,

[13:20] so most of them I guess are I guess I

[13:23] didn't check the

[13:24] >> You know, it just seems odd that they're

[13:26] » You know, it just seems odd that they're

[13:26] all over.

[13:27] >> Yeah. Um,

[13:28] » Yeah. Um,

[13:28] >> so far I I don't know.

[13:30] » so far I I don't know.

[13:30] >> Yeah, I'll say that their square

[13:31] » Yeah, I'll say that their square

[13:31] footages are around 4,000, which was a

[13:35] little bit closer to what compliance is.

[13:37] Um, but based off of the when I

[13:41] calculated the F based on their lot

[13:43] areas, they were a little bit over.

[13:45] What's what's the required or supposedly

[13:49] required F percentage?

[13:51] >> It's all based on the lot area. Um, so I

[13:54] » It's all based on the lot area. Um, so I

[13:54] guess I'd have to

[13:54] >> What's the percentage of F that you're

[13:57] » What's the percentage of F that you're

[13:57] allowed to to do as a matter of

[13:59] >> there is no one set number. So it's like

[14:01] » there is no one set number. So it's like

[14:01] if I have 10,000 square ft, it's a

[14:04] different percentage versus if I have

[14:05] 12,000 ft.

[14:06] >> Oh, it's a different the percentage

[14:08] » Oh, it's a different the percentage

[14:08] changes.

[14:09] >> It's all based on the lot area. So I can

[14:13] » It's all based on the lot area. So I can

[14:13] uh

[14:14] >> so it's a tiered approach. Is it fair to

[14:16] » so it's a tiered approach. Is it fair to

[14:16] say that the the smaller the lot is the

[14:18] larger the F is allowed or is it the

[14:22] other way?

[14:23] >> Uh

[14:23] » Uh

[14:23] >> or is there or is there any correlation

[14:25] » or is there or is there any correlation

[14:26] or is it just random?

[14:27] >> It's not random. There is a calculation.

[14:29] » It's not random. There is a calculation.

[14:29] Um I don't know if

[14:34] I'm I don't have an answer on if it how

[14:37] scaled it is. It is scaled in a certain

[14:39] way, but I don't have the

[14:42] >> Well, there have to be certain criteria

[14:43] » Well, there have to be certain criteria

[14:43] that determine what an F is. We don't

[14:46] know what those criteria.

[14:47] >> Yeah, it's a So, it's like your lot air.

[14:53] » Yeah, it's a So, it's like your lot air.

[14:53] >> So, just a law calculation.

[14:57] » So, just a law calculation.

[14:57] >> Nothing's ever used.

[15:00] » Nothing's ever used.

[15:00] >> Seems like it should be right.

[15:01] » Seems like it should be right.

[15:01] >> Yeah.

[15:03] » Yeah.

[15:03] >> Says R six.

[15:04] » Says R six.

[15:04] >> It should. I mean, generally F is a set

[15:06] » It should. I mean, generally F is a set

[15:06] percentage for certain districts. So,

[15:09] I'm not sure why this would vary

[15:10] depending on lot size.

[15:16] » So, whole point of F is to keep it

[15:18] proportional to your lot.

[15:19] >> Oh, it's really tiny.

[15:30] And then are there any issues with bonus

[15:32] F or

[15:33] >> we can I don't think it's

[15:35] » we can I don't think it's

[15:35] >> I think he already has a very

[15:38] » I think he already has a very

[15:38] exceeding.

[15:45] It's a little artery but um so these are

[15:47] the calculations for F. Um they each

[15:51] have

[15:52] I didn't create this so I don't know the

[15:55] I'm also not a mathematician so I don't

[15:57] know the um

[15:59] full understanding of the using point 42

[16:02] like having the starting point but it's

[16:05] kind of tiered based off of how big your

[16:08] lot size is and then depending on if

[16:10] you're within there you use this

[16:12] calculation in order to figure out your

[16:14] uh F totals.

[16:20] Okay. So, it's tiered based on lot size.

[16:22] So, it's

[16:23] >> it's consistent theoretically that if

[16:26] » it's consistent theoretically that if

[16:26] you have a bigger lot, you can build a

[16:28] larger structure with the with

[16:30] approximately but somehow they change

[16:32] the F depending on lot size. It's kind

[16:35] of

[16:36] >> okay.

[16:37] » okay.

[16:37] >> Kind of complicated. Okay.

[16:39] » Kind of complicated. Okay.

[16:40] >> Correct. Yeah. So I can't there's no

[16:42] » Correct. Yeah. So I can't there's no

[16:42] like if it's in the R six it's you get

[16:44] 32%. That that doesn't

[16:47] >> Okay. So does

[16:48] » Okay. So does

[16:48] >> it hovers around doing it the opposite

[16:50] » it hovers around doing it the opposite

[16:50] because if you have a humongous lot they

[16:52] don't want you to have a house the

[16:53] entire size of I think it's normalizing

[16:55] it.

[16:55] >> It's generally F is generally a fixed

[16:58] » It's generally F is generally a fixed

[16:58] percentage which then makes it

[17:00] proportional to your lot size. So it

[17:02] would be the lot size determining how

[17:04] much large of structure. Apparently, it

[17:07] is the lot size, but it's based on a

[17:09] calculation that remains to be

[17:11] unnecessarily complicated or somewhat

[17:13] mysterious as to what the outcome is as

[17:15] a result or what the purpose is for it.

[17:18] So,

[17:19] >> and like how much does it really move?

[17:20] » and like how much does it really move?

[17:20] It's can't move 7%. It's like maybe 1%

[17:23] difference, you know?

[17:24] >> Well, yeah. I I don't I give no clue as

[17:25] » Well, yeah. I I don't I give no clue as

[17:26] to why they would do it that way.

[17:28] >> So, the

[17:30] » So, the

[17:30] compared to the other houses in the

[17:32] neighborhood, I think this is at least

[17:33] what I'm trying to get to.

[17:36] Are the other houses

[17:39] over the F by a commensurate amount with

[17:43] what these people are asking or are the

[17:46] people asking for something that would

[17:47] make them the

[17:50] exceed the F by the most if you

[17:52] understand what I'm asking.

[17:54] >> Yeah. So,

[17:57] so they're asking for

[18:00] uh 42 almost 43%

[18:04] kind of the block is hovering around 37.

[18:07] So about 5%

[18:09] >> asking for 5% more F than the average F

[18:13] » asking for 5% more F than the average F

[18:13] of the the block.

[18:15] >> Correct.

[18:16] » Correct.

[18:16] >> Regardless of lot size dependent on lot

[18:18] » Regardless of lot size dependent on lot

[18:18] size, but regardless of lot size. Okay.

[18:20] >> Correct.

[18:22] » Correct.

[18:22] >> What is their lot size? I can't find it.

[18:25] » What is their lot size? I can't find it.

[18:25] Um,

[18:28] yeah.

[18:36] » Do we have a comparison of what the

[18:37] different lot sizes are in the in the

[18:39] area?

[18:40] >> That's in here. Yeah.

[18:43] » That's in here. Yeah.

[18:43] >> Um, so there is a page in the packet.

[18:48] » Um, so there is a page in the packet.

[18:48] It's all over the place.

[19:05] Well, I'm assuming that the lot size is

[19:07] what's indicated, not on all of them,

[19:08] but on some of them at the

[19:11] in the in the individual lots that are

[19:14] indicated on that diagram, like the one

[19:17] at 1271, Hillary's 11,000t lot. 1291 is

[19:22] a 9700 square foot lot, etc.

[19:25] >> Is that is that correct?

[19:26] » Is that is that correct?

[19:26] >> Yeah, that's correct. Yeah. So, it's not

[19:30] » Yeah, that's correct. Yeah. So, it's not

[19:30] um completely consistent. This lot is

[19:33] slightly larger because of kind of the

[19:35] triangle shape at the end where these

[19:37] interior lots aren't getting that much

[19:40] space because of that. So, these lots on

[19:42] the end are a little bit bigger uh than

[19:44] kind of the block.

[19:49] » A lot bigger. Page 17 of the packet

[19:53] shows

[19:55] that, you know, some of them are under

[19:57] 10,000 [clears throat] square ft

[20:00] where this one's almost 1900.

[20:07] » Right. That's what you're asking.

[20:08] >> Yeah.

[20:10] » Yeah.

[20:10] So, there's a wide range of lots.

[20:16] » And this house is already substantially

[20:18] bigger than the other houses involved.

[20:20] Okay.

[20:22] >> Looks like they kind of lose a little

[20:23] » Looks like they kind of lose a little

[20:23] bit of, you know, as the trapezoid. I

[20:26] don't know. There's a little bit of

[20:26] extra space that maybe I don't know.

[20:29] >> Okay.

[20:30] » Okay.

[20:30] >> All right. Anybody have any other

[20:31] » All right. Anybody have any other

[20:31] questions for staff at this point? So

[20:35] even though the assessor listed as 4106,

[20:38] we think it's 5713.

[20:41] >> So that's what the assessor's um gross

[20:45] » So that's what the assessor's um gross

[20:45] floor area um has. I also referenced

[20:48] their sketching and it's referenced

[20:49] around that. But again, I'll have the

[20:52] applicant talk with their architect has

[20:54] come up with for their numbers.

[20:58] And we are allowed and bound to go off

[21:04] what the applicants numbers are as

[21:05] opposed to

[21:07] >> presumably the assessor took

[21:08] » presumably the assessor took

[21:08] measurements at some point or took it

[21:11] off a survey or something.

[21:12] >> I'm not quite clear on how the assessor

[21:13] » I'm not quite clear on how the assessor

[21:13] gets their information if it's just

[21:15] through sale and then

[21:18] if that information is as accurate as it

[21:20] can be. Um, but yeah, I mean,

[21:23] >> is there a current survey that indicates

[21:25] » is there a current survey that indicates

[21:25] at least [laughter]

[21:26] the foot the footprint, the size of the

[21:28] footprint of the house? I It wouldn't

[21:31] tell the square footage because it

[21:32] wouldn't get the volume.

[21:33] >> Yeah. Um, I mean, that's we accept the

[21:36] » Yeah. Um, I mean, that's we accept the

[21:36] architect's materials. They're licensed

[21:39] by the state. They're kind of honor

[21:42] bound to be

[21:44] accurate and we accept that.

[21:48] » Interesting.

[21:51] Please.

[21:51] >> And there's no um issue with bonus F

[21:55] » And there's no um issue with bonus F

[21:55] because this property already has had

[21:57] variance

[21:59] >> over. Yeah, it's over the bonus.

[22:01] » over. Yeah, it's over the bonus.

[22:01] >> Okay.

[22:04] » Okay.

[22:04] >> Any other questions for Patrick right

[22:05] » Any other questions for Patrick right

[22:05] now?

[22:07] >> Okay. Thank you, Patrick. Seeing no more

[22:10] » Okay. Thank you, Patrick. Seeing no more

[22:10] questions at this point, we will ask if

[22:11] there's someone else here that would

[22:12] like to be heard on this matter.

[22:15] >> Okay. If you would be kind enough to

[22:16] » Okay. If you would be kind enough to

[22:16] approach the podium and state your name

[22:18] for the record, please.

[22:20] Brett Kaplan.

[22:22] >> Mr. Kaplan, do you affirm or attest that

[22:23] » Mr. Kaplan, do you affirm or attest that

[22:23] testimony you're about to give will be

[22:25] the truth, all truth, and nothing but

[22:26] the truth?

[22:27] >> I do.

[22:28] » I do.

[22:28] >> Please proceed.

[22:29] » Please proceed.

[22:29] >> So, we uh currently are hoping to get a

[22:32] » So, we uh currently are hoping to get a

[22:32] a screen in porch. We have a existing

[22:35] deck that is uh deteriorating and we

[22:38] have a um a balcony off of a of a a room

[22:43] that is un structurally unound. So, that

[22:46] needs to come down. It was off of our

[22:49] main bedroom. Um, you know, up there.

[22:51] We've since converted uh there was a

[22:54] sliding door. We since converted it to a

[22:55] window um in anticipation and hope for

[22:58] for this. So, just the way we kind of

[23:01] always envision that that space become a

[23:03] screen porch. Uh it just fits the the

[23:06] area really well. Um

[23:09] you we are reducing the deck size a

[23:13] little bit uh on the side there as you

[23:15] could see uh to try to make up for some

[23:17] of the gained space if you will. Um yes

[23:21] it was my uh my parents who own the

[23:23] house before. I was trying to ask them

[23:25] if they knew why the the calculations

[23:27] were off. Best I guess I'm not an

[23:29] architect or anything. uh was that from

[23:34] what I saw the garage wasn't included in

[23:36] the 4751 perhaps I don't know it just

[23:40] wasn't um some numbers that I saw on on

[23:42] the on the 2006 variance report I tried

[23:46] to look into if the um the regulations

[23:49] changed on what constituted the F uh

[23:53] kind of calculation but I couldn't find

[23:55] anything uh to that effect um

[24:00] So, uh I I don't think our uh proposed

[24:04] variation will kind of impair or

[24:07] material det be a material detriment to

[24:09] the to the neighborhood, if you will. Um

[24:12] no one, uh in on the street can can see

[24:15] it. Uh and we're actually backing up

[24:17] into a highway, so no one really can can

[24:19] see it, if you will. Um and so, yeah, if

[24:22] it pleases you all, I I appreciate the

[24:24] time and the consideration, and

[24:26] hopefully could be approved.

[24:27] >> Okay. You're aware that we have certain

[24:31] » Okay. You're aware that we have certain

[24:31] standards, eight eight in particular,

[24:33] that we must apply to every variation

[24:36] request and in order for us to grant the

[24:38] variation requests, we have to be of the

[24:40] opinion that all of the standards are

[24:42] met. Um, I would appreciate if you could

[24:45] ask address the these standards and

[24:49] specifically um the first three or four

[24:53] uh

[24:55] pretty uh the the meat of the of the

[24:58] matter if you would. So, um

[25:01] >> yeah, sure. So, um we we don't intend to

[25:04] » yeah, sure. So, um we we don't intend to

[25:04] to resell anytime soon or or make money

[25:07] just from building uh the porch. Um,

[25:16] it's it's really um

[25:24] I I think there's definitely other area

[25:27] other um houses on the street with

[25:30] similar uh structures such as this. I

[25:33] don't think it's undo hardship or or

[25:36] unique uh in that regard. Um, I think it

[25:40] is consistent with the

[25:44] um

[25:46] the the the

[25:49] apologies. It's consistent with how the

[25:52] rest of the houses are are looking too.

[25:54] We're not making any changes from a a

[25:56] structural [snorts] or a visual

[25:58] perspective. Um,

[26:01] >> and I don't think

[26:02] » and I don't think

[26:02] >> Let me allow me to maybe focus you in a

[26:05] » Let me allow me to maybe focus you in a

[26:05] little bit on what at least I would

[26:06] perceive being one of the obstacles that

[26:09] would prevent us from possibly uh

[26:12] granting this variance

[26:13] >> would be the the number two um the the

[26:17] » would be the the number two um the the

[26:17] hardship that the standard number two is

[26:20] referring to would be the hardship upon

[26:22] you upon the owners of the property if

[26:25] we were not to grant the variance. So,

[26:27] what specifically is what hardship is

[26:31] creating the need for the variance?

[26:34] >> Got it. Okay. Um, because we're on a a

[26:36] » Got it. Okay. Um, because we're on a a

[26:36] highway and a lot of forest area, we

[26:39] would like a place to sit outside, be

[26:42] enclosed to away from the bugs. It's

[26:44] very buggy and and fairly noisy. So, we

[26:47] would like a place to enjoy with our

[26:48] family um to to be outside and enclosed

[26:52] space.

[26:55] >> Okay. Is there anything unique about

[26:58] » Okay. Is there anything unique about

[26:58] your lot that would require the only way

[27:02] to accomplish that to be to give you

[27:05] more F and and and be able to consider

[27:08] that to be in compliance with the with

[27:10] the code?

[27:13] » Um I don't believe so.

[27:16] >> Let me help you out here. Okay. Your

[27:19] » Let me help you out here. Okay. Your

[27:19] packet you have a whole section says

[27:22] that's titled hardship if variance is

[27:24] denied.

[27:26] One of the things you say is the

[27:27] property's existing configuration

[27:30] and lot shape limit options for

[27:32] expansion without exceeding coverage

[27:35] limits.

[27:37] Would that be a hardship?

[27:39] >> Yes. Thank you for

[27:40] » Yes. Thank you for

[27:40] >> and just real quickly

[27:44] » and just real quickly

[27:44] um can you just explain why the lot

[27:47] shape limits the options?

[27:49] >> Yeah, just because of kind of the

[27:51] » Yeah, just because of kind of the

[27:51] angling if you will. It's and the slope

[27:54] down this is really the only way we

[27:56] would kind of be able to have it in a

[27:58] closed space. Um it's pretty gradient

[28:01] and this would be the best way to have

[28:02] an enclosed space. Look outside. Thank

[28:05] you.

[28:08] And

[28:10] >> by all means,

[28:11] » by all means,

[28:11] >> could you tell us how large the like the

[28:14] » could you tell us how large the like the

[28:14] dimensions

[28:16] are going [snorts] to be?

[28:17] >> I don't remember off the top of my head.

[28:19] » I don't remember off the top of my head.

[28:19] I want to say uh 11 by 22 uh square ft

[28:24] if you will. Uh is the screen

[28:25] >> skinny?

[28:27] » skinny?

[28:27] Yeah,

[28:28] >> I think so.

[28:30] » I think so.

[28:30] >> But I It's in the It should be in all

[28:32] » But I It's in the It should be in all

[28:32] the drawings. Yeah.

[28:35] >> Is that right or not?

[28:40] There it is. Um, it's about 15 1/2 ft by

[28:45] 22 feet or 23 ft.

[28:48] >> 15 ft by 22 wide along the back of the

[28:52] » 15 ft by 22 wide along the back of the

[28:52] house.

[28:56] » Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Camp?

[29:05] Seeing none, I guess is there I will ask

[29:08] if there's anybody else here that wants

[29:10] to be heard on this matter. Doesn't

[29:12] appear as such. You Mr. G, I'll ask you

[29:14] one follow-up question. You I know uh

[29:17] Patrick already mentioned this, but

[29:18] you've obviously provided notice to the

[29:20] neighbors. Have you gotten any feedback

[29:22] whatsoever from any of your neighbors

[29:23] just to be for or against?

[29:26] >> They just are excited if if it goes

[29:28] » They just are excited if if it goes

[29:28] through to have them over for some

[29:29] cocktails or some some meal.

[29:31] >> If you're if you're giving free

[29:32] » If you're if you're giving free

[29:32] cocktails, they'll win the neighbor over

[29:34] every time.

[29:35] >> [laughter]

[29:36] » [laughter]

[29:36] >> Okay. All right. Thank you.

[29:38] » Okay. All right. Thank you.

[29:38] >> Thank you.

[29:38] » Thank you.

[29:38] >> Um,

[29:38] » Um,

[29:38] >> appreciate the time.

[29:39] » appreciate the time.

[29:40] >> Appreciate it. Okay. I will at this

[29:43] » Appreciate it. Okay. I will at this

[29:43] point poll the board and I'm going to

[29:47] begin with member Arma. Great. Uh,

[29:53] this is tough because I don't see that

[29:56] there's a current hardship there, but I

[29:58] think he did a nice job explaining what

[30:00] he perceives to be the hardship with

[30:02] regard to the highway and the um the

[30:05] buggess, I guess.

[30:08] Um,

[30:10] so

[30:12] I would be on the fence because of that

[30:15] one, but I think I would vote to approve

[30:19] it.

[30:20] >> Okay. Member Weissber.

[30:23] » Okay. Member Weissber.

[30:24] >> Um, yeah. I mean, I think, you know, I

[30:26] » Um, yeah. I mean, I think, you know, I

[30:26] think it makes a lot of sense to enclose

[30:28] it, but

[30:31] I I mean, I to me it's a it's a

[30:33] convenience. Um, like I don't know. I

[30:36] think of a better case is made that's

[30:38] more convincing that we're not kind of

[30:40] hand feeding. Like I want to approve it,

[30:43] but using the standards, I just don't

[30:45] see how number two currently uh is able

[30:48] to be met, but I'm able to be uh my

[30:52] mind's able to be changed if someone's

[30:53] got a good reason on the board.

[30:55] >> There is no standard that says Weisber

[30:57] » There is no standard that says Weisber

[30:57] always has to be a nice guy, [laughter]

[31:00] >> right? So, I mean, I want to do it, but

[31:01] » right? So, I mean, I want to do it, but

[31:01] yeah, number two is uh I'm not seeing

[31:03] it.

[31:05] members are asking.

[31:07] >> Um,

[31:10] » Um,

[31:10] yeah, I I agree. I think it's it's it

[31:12] seems like a big ass because it's such

[31:13] a, you know,

[31:16] such an exceeds the the the the ratio by

[31:19] so much, but there may be a math problem

[31:22] there that we're just missing and it's

[31:24] just skewed. Um, I mean, I guess I could

[31:28] get behind the hardship.

[31:30] Um,

[31:32] you know, I'm sympathetic to like

[31:34] highway noise and you know, you know,

[31:37] there is some slope issues and you're

[31:39] kind of backing up to a sort of a little

[31:41] messy back over there and it's it's

[31:44] difficult, but it's also like you exceed

[31:46] the F today. Um, but again, I sort of

[31:51] agree. I think it's a makes sense. It's

[31:54] reasonable. Um,

[31:57] I guess I would like to see

[32:00] how one of my elders can take over and

[32:04] see if they could convince us that this

[32:06] is a true hardship that meets these

[32:08] standards.

[32:09] >> And and by elders, I presume you mean

[32:11] » And and by elders, I presume you mean

[32:11] longer serving members,

[32:12] >> elders, uh attorneys on the board.

[32:16] » elders, uh attorneys on the board.

[32:16] >> Well, speaking of attorneys, member

[32:18] » Well, speaking of attorneys, member

[32:18] Toshansky.

[32:18] >> Oh, lovely. Um,

[32:23] so

[32:25] right now there's a there's a deck

[32:27] that's structurally unsound that needs

[32:29] to come down, right? That that's right,

[32:32] Patrick.

[32:34] >> According to the applicant, I don't know

[32:35] » According to the applicant, I don't know

[32:35] that information.

[32:36] >> Okay.

[32:36] » Okay.

[32:36] >> Which could probably be rebuilt as a

[32:38] » Which could probably be rebuilt as a

[32:38] matter or repaired as a matter of Right.

[32:41] >> Right.

[32:41] » Right.

[32:42] >> That's correct. Um,

[32:45] » That's correct. Um,

[32:45] I mean, I I think that the hardships are

[32:49] or were more addressed in the packet,

[32:53] um, as opposed to the presentation, and

[32:55] I can

[32:57] I think I can get behind it. Um,

[33:02] it does seem like a relatively big ask,

[33:06] um, as mentioned by members.

[33:10] Um, but I also see that the packet did

[33:14] set forth alternatives that were

[33:17] considered and um,

[33:21] one of them was the unscreened decker

[33:23] patio which is currently what is there

[33:26] and um, the applicant described or or

[33:30] stated why that really wouldn't be a

[33:33] feasible option.

[33:35] Um,

[33:40] I think I would be for it. I would go

[33:42] for it.

[33:43] >> I have some question. Maybe Patrick

[33:45] » I have some question. Maybe Patrick

[33:45] knows. Is this like a like a wetland

[33:47] behind him? Like what is that?

[33:49] >> Uh, this is a Skooki River.

[33:51] » Uh, this is a Skooki River.

[33:51] >> Yeah, but it's kind of like a ravine

[33:53] » Yeah, but it's kind of like a ravine

[33:53] than not really,

[33:54] >> but it's not like a wetland where

[33:55] » but it's not like a wetland where

[33:55] there's like extra buggy or anything

[33:57] like that.

[33:57] >> Well, I mean,

[33:59] » Well, I mean,

[33:59] >> yeah, it's this is the river. So, I

[34:01] » yeah, it's this is the river. So, I

[34:01] mean, there is just flood plane areas. a

[34:04] lot of the area floods like you know

[34:05] that next street is like notorious for

[34:08] flooding

[34:08] >> like all those houses flood

[34:10] » like all those houses flood

[34:10] >> on Taylor Street.

[34:12] » on Taylor Street.

[34:12] >> I don't know. Okay. Well, if no one has

[34:14] » I don't know. Okay. Well, if no one has

[34:14] information, I'm good.

[34:17] >> Um I guess I just speaking a little bit

[34:19] » Um I guess I just speaking a little bit

[34:20] on that. So, this property does have a

[34:21] lot of So, this is like detention

[34:23] easements and

[34:26] um just other areas on the property that

[34:29] can't really be built on because of

[34:31] their proximity to the Skoi River. Um

[34:35] this would be reviewed by our

[34:36] engineering and building division to

[34:38] make sure that that uh excess water

[34:40] would be mitigated from going to

[34:42] neighboring properties. But uh this is

[34:44] another condition of the property that

[34:46] just has uh detention easements on it

[34:49] and its proximity to Skooki River.

[34:55] » Member Trishansky, are you finished?

[34:57] >> Yeah, I said that I'd be ultimately for

[34:59] » Yeah, I said that I'd be ultimately for

[34:59] it.

[34:59] >> Okay. Vice Chair Yemen.

[35:02] » Okay. Vice Chair Yemen.

[35:02] >> Um, [clears throat] I believe the

[35:03] » Um, [clears throat] I believe the

[35:03] standards have been met. I think that

[35:07] the letter really does spell out a lot

[35:10] of the issues that makes this a distinct

[35:16] hardship for this piece of property,

[35:18] especially when you take into

[35:20] consideration

[35:22] the proximity to the water and flood

[35:26] planes. And

[35:28] I understand the need to have

[35:32] an outside area that's inside for this

[35:36] particular piece of property and also

[35:38] one that's a little bit elevated too if

[35:41] it gets that, you know, mushy over

[35:44] there. Um, so I believe the standards

[35:48] have been met and I would be in favor of

[35:50] this project. I do think the F is a

[35:55] little bit on the high side, but I don't

[35:58] think that the ask itself is

[36:01] unreasonable.

[36:02] So, I would be willing to grant a

[36:06] variance.

[36:06] >> Okay. Thank you. Um, well, I'm going to

[36:09] » Okay. Thank you. Um, well, I'm going to

[36:09] throw a little bit of a curveball here

[36:10] because I don't think that the standards

[36:13] have been met. Um, I think we've got a

[36:15] house that appears, unless I'm mistaken,

[36:18] to be the largest house in the

[36:20] neighborhood already. Um, it's already

[36:23] exceeding the F F, including the bonus F

[36:27] by a considerable amount. Um, and I

[36:30] really can't get behind the idea of it

[36:33] being a hardship to not be allowed to

[36:36] expand upon something that is already

[36:39] well over the F. I think it's kind of

[36:42] would be flying a little bit in the face

[36:44] of the zoning code to grant this thing

[36:46] and saying, "Oh, we've got a big house,

[36:48] and I'm repeating myself, but it's

[36:50] substantially over the F, and we're

[36:52] going to give them even more F." Um,

[36:55] there's got to be other alternatives to

[36:57] give them uh either, you know, screened

[37:01] in space or other space without either

[37:03] by reconfiguring or taking, you know,

[37:05] whatever. It's not really my role to

[37:08] advise. it's how to, you know, avoid uh

[37:12] having to seek this variance. But I just

[37:15] I can't again b based strictly on the

[37:18] size and how much it already exceeds the

[37:20] existing F that's supposed to be there.

[37:23] Um I can't I can't see justification for

[37:26] grant granting an even bigger structure.

[37:29] And I know that's something that

[37:30] historically uh the the zoning board and

[37:32] the city council have always expressed

[37:35] uh that we should be extra vigilant on F

[37:39] matters so we don't end up having too

[37:42] much house on too little lot. Um, so I'm

[37:46] personally don't don't think I think

[37:48] there might be a way to redo this and

[37:50] you know and come back or or maybe I'm

[37:53] missing some other uh factors that uh

[37:57] should be given more weight that haven't

[37:59] been presented to us. But um as it

[38:01] stands right now I I don't think the

[38:03] standards are met and I couldn't support

[38:04] this.

[38:07] So, having said that, um, you your

[38:11] options at this point are I could ask

[38:13] for a motion, you can get a I can also

[38:16] go back and I know a couple people said

[38:18] they were on the fence and said they

[38:20] were uh waiting to hear what others

[38:22] said. So, if you want me to kind of

[38:24] repole before we take any take a vote,

[38:27] I'll be happy to do that. And you're

[38:29] you're nodding, so I'm going to assume.

[38:31] >> Is it is it like a unanimous decision

[38:33] » Is it is it like a unanimous decision

[38:33] this time?

[38:33] >> No, no, no. It just has to be four.

[38:35] » No, no, no. It just has to be four.

[38:35] Well, there's actually six of us, so it

[38:37] still would have to be four. Um there's

[38:40] usually seven or there's supposed to be

[38:41] seven, but um there there has to be a

[38:45] majority of the existing quorum. The

[38:46] quorum being six, majority of six in

[38:49] this case would be four um or more. Um

[38:52] so if it's three people voting against,

[38:55] um it would not pass. If it if it

[38:57] doesn't pass, the the matter is over and

[39:00] we we've denied the variation. Um, the

[39:03] other option is, and you can wait till I

[39:06] poll again if you want me to, um, is you

[39:09] could ask for a continuence and come

[39:12] back and try and present a more

[39:14] compelling case as to why in fact all

[39:17] the standards of for granting a variance

[39:20] have in fact been met. Um, to try to

[39:22] convince anyone who may have been

[39:23] preventing the variance. Um, but uh,

[39:28] those are so those are the options. We

[39:30] we pretty much routinely would grant

[39:32] anyone a continuence if they wanted it.

[39:34] So, um would you like me to get a straw

[39:37] poll kind of of the board at this point?

[39:39] >> Yes.

[39:40] » Yes.

[39:40] >> Okay. I'll go back in the the order in

[39:41] » Okay. I'll go back in the the order in

[39:41] which we if I can remember that we

[39:44] opined uh that would be first member

[39:46] Arnoff.

[39:48] >> So, actually listened.

[39:50] » So, actually listened.

[39:50] >> Yeah. So actually after listening to you

[39:54] » Yeah. So actually after listening to you

[39:54] and taking into account that it is

[39:55] larger than you know it should be today

[39:59] not should be that per the F today and

[40:02] even a larger variance I'm swayed a

[40:06] little bit against against it. Um I do

[40:09] have a Can I ask a question?

[40:10] >> Sure.

[40:11] » Sure.

[40:11] >> Is the

[40:13] » Is the

[40:13] uh room is it heated and cooled or is it

[40:16] just like um screens?

[40:19] >> Just screens. So there's no ventil

[40:21] » Just screens. So there's no ventil

[40:21] there's no HVAC into it. [clears throat]

[40:23] >> Okay.

[40:25] » Okay.

[40:25] >> The applicant said that there was it's

[40:27] » The applicant said that there was it's

[40:27] just screen. You said there was no HVA

[40:29] HVAC unit.

[40:30] >> Correct.

[40:33] » Sorry, I just don't didn't remember.

[40:35] >> You're good. It's just a recording. So

[40:37] » You're good. It's just a recording. So

[40:37] >> Okay.

[40:38] » Okay.

[40:38] >> Hard to hear them from the audience.

[40:39] » Hard to hear them from the audience.

[40:39] >> Okay. Um,

[40:43] » Okay. Um,

[40:43] but I'm I'm like

[40:47] on the fence literally on this one.

[40:50] >> All right. Member Weissber.

[40:52] » All right. Member Weissber.

[40:52] >> Yeah, I'm pretty much at the same exact

[40:55] » Yeah, I'm pretty much at the same exact

[40:55] spot. Um,

[40:57] I mean, trying to think about it more

[40:59] like, you know, you move into a house

[41:02] that's existing as is. You didn't change

[41:03] the house, correct?

[41:05] >> So, you want to have a screened in

[41:07] » So, you want to have a screened in

[41:07] porch. You should be able to, right? But

[41:09] again, I I just see it as a mere

[41:11] convenience cuz really, like as I said

[41:13] before, you could do a pergola. You

[41:15] could kind of enclose it without

[41:17] enclosing it. You get the same effect.

[41:20] So, you know, I'd be a no unless, you

[41:23] know, there was kind of a I I need to be

[41:25] convinced on the standards that, you

[41:27] know, I don't I don't want to do too

[41:29] much convincing my own to try to like

[41:30] make it happen. So, I'd still be a no.

[41:32] >> Fair enough. Members are asking

[41:35] » Fair enough. Members are asking

[41:35] >> um I just question for the applicant.

[41:38] » um I just question for the applicant.

[41:38] Sorry, I broke a record on this, but so

[41:40] currently he's asking for 5700 or he has

[41:43] 5,700.

[41:45] >> Asking for

[41:46] » Asking for

[41:46] >> asking for and

[41:48] » asking for and

[41:48] um

[41:49] >> there are the figures up on the screen.

[41:53] » there are the figures up on the screen.

[41:53] >> All this whole subdivision was built

[41:54] » All this whole subdivision was built

[41:54] relatively around the same time, right?

[41:56] So, is your house much larger than all

[41:58] the other houses?

[41:59] >> No.

[42:00] » No.

[42:00] >> It just again would you just would you

[42:02] » It just again would you just would you

[42:02] mind coming up to the podium?

[42:04] >> Sure.

[42:04] » Sure.

[42:04] >> Thank you.

[42:05] » Thank you.

[42:05] >> I'll remind you you're still sworn in.

[42:07] » I'll remind you you're still sworn in.

[42:07] So yeah,

[42:08] >> it's not the 3771 looks bigger.

[42:12] » it's not the 3771 looks bigger.

[42:12] >> Yeah, the one directly across.

[42:14] » Yeah, the one directly across.

[42:14] >> I just I feel like a broken record. It

[42:15] » I just I feel like a broken record. It

[42:15] just the numbers it just doesn't seem

[42:17] right. Like something's missing. I don't

[42:18] know if it's the architect or if it's

[42:20] the assessor or the lot. It just it

[42:22] doesn't make sense that

[42:24] >> all these houses are over and it's just

[42:27] » all these houses are over and it's just

[42:27] confusing. I I guess it'd be more

[42:29] comfortable, you know, deciding if we

[42:31] kind of knew

[42:33] with, you know, definitive that, you

[42:36] know,

[42:36] >> what the actual size is.

[42:38] » what the actual size is.

[42:38] >> Yeah, I kind of agree [clears throat]

[42:39] » Yeah, I kind of agree [clears throat]

[42:39] with you. The the and you know what the

[42:41] actual sizes are important because if

[42:43] the if the house is if he's saying his

[42:45] house isn't that much bigger than any

[42:46] the other ones and his house is 5,300

[42:50] ft,

[42:51] >> I mean on by the numbers, it is a lot

[42:53] » I mean on by the numbers, it is a lot

[42:53] bigger than the other ones. But if it's

[42:55] not in reality, then something we're

[42:57] missing some information that should be

[42:59] pretty relevant in determining whether

[43:01] this is

[43:02] >> this is appropriate or not,

[43:03] » this is appropriate or not,

[43:03] >> right?

[43:04] » right?

[43:04] >> Um,

[43:06] » Um,

[43:06] >> and again, I do see a harsh being by the

[43:09] » and again, I do see a harsh being by the

[43:09] highway and being by, you know, kind of

[43:10] swampy land that you would need it

[43:12] >> um or at least desire it. But at the

[43:15] » um or at least desire it. But at the

[43:15] same time, we are, you know, as the

[43:17] chair mentioned, like we're kind of

[43:19] bound to sort of execute the city

[43:22] council's vision. and it's sort of like

[43:25] sensitive to the F request and it's just

[43:27] such a gross

[43:30] ask that it's, you know, an excess that

[43:32] it's just it's it's difficult. So, I

[43:34] guess I'm um

[43:36] >> computer

[43:39] and if I was to vote tonight, I probably

[43:41] would approve based on thinking that

[43:45] something's skewed with these numbers

[43:47] and I believe there's a harsh that's met

[43:50] because of what you're backing up to,

[43:51] but I'm also still I'm not quite there,

[43:53] but I guess I would be leaning toward an

[43:54] approval if we were to, you know, be

[43:57] forced to do a vote today. So, okay,

[43:59] >> if that helps.

[44:01] » if that helps.

[44:01] >> Member Trishansky.

[44:02] » Member Trishansky.

[44:02] >> Um, I'm still the same. I I I would

[44:06] » Um, I'm still the same. I I I would

[44:06] approve it.

[44:08] >> Okay. Thank you, member Yla.

[44:10] » Okay. Thank you, member Yla.

[44:10] >> I too would still vote to approve, but I

[44:15] » I too would still vote to approve, but I

[44:15] do hear what you're saying about the the

[44:18] numbers being really wonky.

[44:21] >> Okay. Thank you. All right. I haven't

[44:24] » Okay. Thank you. All right. I haven't

[44:24] changed and that was the most recent to

[44:26] opine and I my opinion study still

[44:28] remains the same. I kind of agree with

[44:30] members zerinsky that it seems like

[44:31] something's off but without knowing for

[44:33] sure that's that something's off. It's

[44:36] hard to just kind of fly blind and say

[44:38] well we think there must be something

[44:40] off and because there might be something

[44:41] off we're going to give it to you even

[44:43] though the information presented to us

[44:45] is in fact correct we shouldn't be

[44:48] giving it to you. So I would I'd vote

[44:50] against it if we were to vote right now.

[44:52] Patrick, a question.

[44:53] >> Would it help I I I saw this on the

[44:56] » Would it help I I I saw this on the

[44:56] package and I should have brought a

[44:57] computer. I can't read what's on the

[44:59] screen. If you looked at every house in

[45:02] the area and does it show what their F

[45:04] ratio is? I can't.

[45:06] >> No. Provides the lot area and then

[45:08] » No. Provides the lot area and then

[45:08] >> but not the F

[45:09] » but not the F

[45:09] >> gross floor. E correct

[45:11] » gross floor. E correct

[45:11] >> because I think if you had that might

[45:12] » because I think if you had that might

[45:12] get some people more comfortable if you

[45:14] saw what each house size is and their F

[45:18] ratio.

[45:18] >> Well, Patrick has it. Well, he had the

[45:20] » Well, Patrick has it. Well, he had the

[45:20] average. It's 37% which is

[45:23] >> but you know sometimes averages are

[45:26] » but you know sometimes averages are

[45:26] misleading. I thought put in context of

[45:29] the five or seven houses around it.

[45:31] >> My concern would be like at what point

[45:32] » My concern would be like at what point

[45:32] do you say no on an F though based off

[45:34] percentage cuz I think this is testing

[45:37] like just forgetting that it makes

[45:38] sense. I feel like this would be testing

[45:40] the bounds of just that number whatever

[45:43] it is you know.

[45:44] >> Yeah. No, I agree. the FA is supposedly

[45:46] » Yeah. No, I agree. the FA is supposedly

[45:46] there for a reason and in order to

[45:49] exceed it we have to have the standards

[45:51] met and I you know that's

[45:56] we're kind of getting into kind of

[45:57] repeat mode. Um at this point Mr. Kaplan

[46:01] I'm not even sure how the how the

[46:03] [laughter] board would vote 100%. Um I'm

[46:06] going to I'm not going to read the tea

[46:07] leaves for you. I'm going to leave that

[46:08] up to you. Um, so you do have the option

[46:11] at this point of asking us to call a

[46:15] vote on the manner or you have an option

[46:16] of continuing it. Um, it's up to you.

[46:21] >> If if the vote goes through, can I then

[46:23] » If if the vote goes through, can I then

[46:23] also have a continuence? If it

[46:25] >> No, if you if well, if the vote goes

[46:27] » No, if you if well, if the vote goes

[46:27] through and you are granted the

[46:30] variance, you it's over. if it if it's

[46:33] if it goes through and you're not

[46:34] granted the variance, it's also over and

[46:36] you're unless I'm mistating things.

[46:39] >> I will note that. So, if you make a

[46:41] » I will note that. So, if you make a

[46:41] motion to approve and if that fails,

[46:43] that just means the motion to approve

[46:45] has failed. Um, and then you would

[46:48] create a motion to uh I didn't bring a

[46:52] document to deny the uh request. So, I

[46:55] would then have to draft documentation

[46:57] and then you would have to adopt the

[46:59] denial order. Is there not a rule that

[47:02] if a variation is denied that there's a

[47:04] certain time before you can reapply for

[47:06] the same variance

[47:08] one year?

[47:10] >> I I think there is. I'm not not 100%

[47:12] » I I think there is. I'm not not 100%

[47:12] sure.

[47:13] >> Um I don't know off the top of my head.

[47:15] » Um I don't know off the top of my head.

[47:15] Um it's just that that would also give

[47:18] the applicant time to possibly come back

[47:21] with new plans at that next meeting

[47:24] because you would then need to adopt the

[47:26] denial order.

[47:29] >> Right. Say that. Say that again.

[47:31] » Right. Say that. Say that again.

[47:31] >> So, if the motion to approve fails here,

[47:34] » So, if the motion to approve fails here,

[47:34] >> you then need to motion staff to draft

[47:37] » you then need to motion staff to draft

[47:37] denial orders because that's not before

[47:39] you. I only have the drafted approval

[47:41] orders. Um

[47:44] then so that would go to a next meeting.

[47:46] It would essentially work like a

[47:47] continuence where the applicant would

[47:49] then have time to talk with his

[47:51] architect and possibly reformat plans

[47:55] and um they could propose new materials

[47:59] for you. Um so then at that next meeting

[48:02] you could either approve of the denial

[48:04] order or based off of what the applicant

[48:07] has brought before you again could sway

[48:10] you to have a approval order.

[48:13] >> Okay. Um I understand what you're

[48:15] » Okay. Um I understand what you're

[48:15] saying, Patrick. I'm just questioning in

[48:17] the past

[48:18] >> that's

[48:18] » that's

[48:18] >> when we've all when we've denied a

[48:21] » when we've all when we've denied a

[48:21] variance the variance has been denied

[48:24] and we I don't recall specifically

[48:26] asking a because a denial order could be

[48:29] as simple as the variation is denied.

[48:31] You could draft that in you know

[48:33] literally 30 seconds. So I I don't

[48:36] recall matters being continued to

[48:38] approve a denial letter. Um, maybe I'm

[48:41] wrong, but I don't

[48:43] >> I do know that we still need to record a

[48:45] » I do know that we still need to record a

[48:45] denial order and that material is not uh

[48:48] in the packet. So, it would need to be

[48:51] in the public packet in order for OMA.

[48:54] Um, it would be an OMA violation uh in

[48:57] order to you couldn't I couldn't just

[48:59] provide that to you and sign it. It

[49:01] would kind of be a legal document that

[49:02] needs to be uh in the record.

[49:05] >> Um, that's how Carl has told it to me.

[49:09] » Um, that's how Carl has told it to me.

[49:09] Did you have something to add? Uh I was

[49:12] going to agree with you Jamie that or

[49:17] for chair Bart that

[49:19] in the past it has seemed to be more of

[49:23] if it's not granted it is denied and

[49:27] then yes there does need to be another

[49:29] motion drafted that says that but

[49:33] um so this is a little bit different

[49:37] than

[49:37] >> are you saying that the path I'm sorry

[49:39] » are you saying that the path I'm sorry

[49:39] to interrupt but are you saying the

[49:40] pathway would then

[49:41] for him to come back and before we

[49:44] actually approve the denial order to try

[49:46] to convince us to not approve the denial

[49:48] order. I mean

[49:49] >> he could bring new materials if he'd

[49:51] » he could bring new materials if he'd

[49:51] wishes. Um

[49:52] >> that kind of seems like a an odd path to

[49:55] » that kind of seems like a an odd path to

[49:55] traverse, but um

[49:57] >> yeah. Um but I asked Carl and that's

[50:00] » yeah. Um but I asked Carl and that's

[50:00] kind of how the process he laid it out

[50:02] for me. Um I can

[50:05] I will speak with corporation council to

[50:07] verify if that's correct. Um but that's

[50:10] how it's been told to me.

[50:12] >> Guess after 8 years my last meeting I

[50:14] » Guess after 8 years my last meeting I

[50:14] can learn some huge [laughter]

[50:16] members.

[50:18] >> I just wanted to say um I just I I read

[50:20] » I just wanted to say um I just I I read

[50:20] I read your letter again

[50:22] >> and while I don't think that you

[50:25] » and while I don't think that you

[50:25] specifically walk through every single

[50:27] standard to prove them out. It it is a

[50:30] good letter and it does help me get over

[50:32] the finish line and I would support your

[50:34] variation. I don't know, you know, that

[50:36] gets you the votes you need, but I would

[50:38] vote for you.

[50:38] >> Thank you. And I I honestly I didn't

[50:40] » Thank you. And I I honestly I didn't

[50:40] realize I was going to be speaking, so I

[50:43] would have brushed up on what I had

[50:45] said. So, I apologize for that.

[50:47] >> But thank you.

[50:48] » But thank you.

[50:48] >> All right. Um, if no one else from the

[50:51] » All right. Um, if no one else from the

[50:51] board has anything to say, I will just

[50:53] ask you what your preference is at the

[50:55] present time.

[50:56] >> I um motion to to vote, I guess.

[51:00] » I um motion to to vote, I guess.

[51:00] >> Okay. I'll entertain a motion at this

[51:02] » Okay. I'll entertain a motion at this

[51:02] point.

[51:06] U motion to vote. I'm sorry. Well, it's

[51:10] got to be

[51:10] >> I will note that if you do motion to

[51:12] » I will note that if you do motion to

[51:12] approve, you do have to vote yes. Like

[51:15] if you are the first, you have to be a

[51:17] yes.

[51:18] >> Vice Cherry Avlon makes a motion to

[51:20] » Vice Cherry Avlon makes a motion to

[51:20] approve the motion as drafted.

[51:24] >> Okay. Do I have a second?

[51:25] » Okay. Do I have a second?

[51:25] >> I'll second.

[51:27] » I'll second.

[51:27] >> Okay. Um we have a motion

[51:29] » Okay. Um we have a motion

[51:29] [clears throat] by Vice Chair Yamlan to

[51:31] approve the variation as requested.

[51:33] And I assume that means to sign the

[51:36] variance approval order as written and

[51:39] as seconded by member Tenski.

[51:41] Trashansky. Can we get a roll call vote

[51:44] please? Patrick.

[51:45] >> Member Arnoff.

[51:47] » Member Arnoff.

[51:47] >> I.

[51:48] » I.

[51:48] >> Member Weissberg.

[51:49] » Member Weissberg.

[51:50] >> Nay.

[51:51] » Nay.

[51:51] >> Member Tashansky.

[51:52] » Member Tashansky.

[51:52] >> I.

[51:53] » I.

[51:53] >> Member Zeransky.

[51:54] » Member Zeransky.

[51:54] >> I.

[51:55] » I.

[51:55] >> Vice Chair Yavlon.

[51:56] » Vice Chair Yavlon.

[51:56] >> I.

[51:57] » I.

[51:57] >> Chair Bay.

[51:58] » Chair Bay.

[51:58] >> Nay. Motion passes 4 to2.

[52:02] » Nay. Motion passes 4 to2.

[52:02] Thank you.

[52:03] >> It's a close one.

[52:04] » It's a close one.

[52:04] >> I didn't know what to do. I don't know

[52:06] » I didn't know what to do. I don't know

[52:06] either. It's

[52:07] >> on the edge of my seat belt. [laughter]

[52:10] » on the edge of my seat belt. [laughter]

[52:10] >> That's it.

[52:10] » That's it.

[52:10] >> Yeah. Congratulations.

[52:15] » I think that's the first I've ever had.

[52:17] I don't know how it's going to go.

[52:20] >> Thank you.

[52:20] » Thank you.

[52:20] >> Thank you.

[52:22] » Thank you.

[52:22] >> Okay.

[52:24] » Okay.

[52:24] >> And item number six is a staff report.

[52:28] » And item number six is a staff report.

[52:28] Do we have a staff report,

[52:30] >> Patrick? No staff report.

[52:31] » Patrick? No staff report.

[52:31] >> No staff report. Okay. Item number seven

[52:34] » No staff report. Okay. Item number seven

[52:34] is miscellaneous.

[52:36] And there's one item of miscellaneous

[52:38] entitled outgoing member. Anyone have

[52:41] anything they want to say on that?

[52:43] >> Uh vice chair. Yeah. One would like to

[52:46] » Uh vice chair. Yeah. One would like to

[52:46] make a proclamation.

[52:49] Whereas Jamie Bay has served with

[52:51] distinction as a member of the zoning

[52:53] board of appeals since January 2017,

[52:56] leading and participating in

[52:58] consideration of cases essential to the

[53:00] improvement of this community, its

[53:02] neighborhoods, and the quality of life

[53:04] therein. And whereas Jamie Bay was

[53:07] responsible for promoting and increasing

[53:09] community awareness of the need for

[53:12] sound residential and commercial

[53:14] planning and the need to appropriately

[53:16] design public and private improvements

[53:18] in Highland Park during their tenure on

[53:20] the zoning board of appeals. And whereas

[53:23] in being the institutional memory for

[53:25] the zoning board and in serving with

[53:27] honor, their public service attests to

[53:29] their steadfast integrity, wisdom, and

[53:32] excellence of character. Be it therefore

[53:35] resolved that the member of the zoning

[53:38] board of appeals of Highland Park do

[53:40] hereby recognize Jaime Bay for their

[53:43] dedicated and untiring public service

[53:46] as a member of the board on behalf of

[53:49] the residents of the city.

[53:52] And it is further resolved that in an

[53:54] expression of our respect and grateful

[53:57] appreciation to Jamie Ba's service, we

[54:00] hereby adopt this resolution as a

[54:02] permanent record thereof on the 20th day

[54:05] of November, 2025 in Highland Park,

[54:08] Illinois. Thank you for your service.

[54:10] >> Sounds like a nice guy. I'll have to

[54:12] » Sounds like a nice guy. I'll have to

[54:12] meet him someday.

[54:14] >> Okay. Thank you. Um, [singing]

[54:16] » Okay. Thank you. Um, [singing]

[54:16] okay. That brings us to item number

[54:18] eight.

[54:19] >> I just want to say one thing. I just

[54:20] » I just want to say one thing. I just

[54:20] wanted to comment that I think Jamie has

[54:23] been a phenomenal board member,

[54:25] phenomenal leader, a great perspective

[54:27] on this board and um surely we will be

[54:30] missed by by myself and I would imagine

[54:32] everybody else as well. So, thank you

[54:34] for all you've done.

[54:35] >> Thank you. I appreciate it. Truly. Thank

[54:37] » Thank you. I appreciate it. Truly. Thank

[54:37] you. Okay. And I will also say before

[54:40] calling for adjournment that it it has

[54:42] been an honor and a privilege to serve.

[54:44] I know it sounds corny, but it really

[54:45] has. I've I've learned a lot. Can't

[54:47] believe it's already been eight years.

[54:49] um served with two great staff people,

[54:52] Patrick and Carl, before and um and

[54:56] yeah, I'm I'm relieved that I'll have

[54:59] Thursday nights to plan without worrying

[55:01] about anything anymore, but I'll also

[55:02] miss quite a bit. So,

[55:04] >> you're not going to watch?

[55:07] » you're not going to watch?

[55:07] [laughter]

[55:07] >> You won't be watching.

[55:09] » You won't be watching.

[55:09] >> It'll be in person.

[55:11] » It'll be in person.

[55:11] >> Yes, I'll be I'll be the I'll be the one

[55:13] » Yes, I'll be I'll be the I'll be the one

[55:13] viewer [laughter] watching it live. So,

[55:16] I probably will watch occasionally I'll

[55:17] watch some of the recordings just to

[55:19] say, "Hey, what's going on in the zone

[55:20] court without me?" So, you know, so

[55:22] although I have every I I think although

[55:25] it hasn't been official yet, but I have

[55:26] every confidence that my replacement

[55:28] will be quite up to the task. So, I

[55:32] leave you in good hands.

[55:33] >> It's been 8 years. When you say like 8

[55:34] » It's been 8 years. When you say like 8

[55:34] years, it's like a weird long

[55:37] It's a lot of years.

[55:38] >> Go so fast. Go so fast. So,

[55:41] » Go so fast. Go so fast. So,

[55:41] >> all right. That's all I got. as my as my

[55:43] » all right. That's all I got. as my as my

[55:43] my kids like to say that's all I got

[55:45] then so um with that I'm item number

[55:48] eight adjournment I will entertain a

[55:50] motion

[55:52] >> motion to adjourn

[55:54] » motion to adjourn

[55:54] >> a second

[55:55] » a second

[55:55] >> okay all in favor

[55:57] » okay all in favor

[55:57] >> I

[55:58] » I

[55:58] >> I any opposed no we are adjourned

[56:04] so nothing two weeks we're done uh so I

[56:07] don't

Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting

Transcript