We will call to order the meeting of the
November 20th, 2025
uh [snorts] meeting of the city of
Highland Park zoning board of appeals.
Patrick, may I get an attendance roll
call, please?
>> Member Arnoff
» Member Arnoff
>> here.
» here.
>> Member Weissberg
» Member Weissberg
>> here,
» here,
>> member Chase, member Tashansky
» member Chase, member Tashansky
>> here,
» here,
>> member Zaransky
» member Zaransky
>> here,
» here,
>> Vice Chair Yablon
» Vice Chair Yablon
>> here,
» here,
>> and Chair Bay
» and Chair Bay
>> here.
» here.
>> We have a quorum.
» We have a quorum.
>> Okay, thank you. Uh, first item up for
» Okay, thank you. Uh, first item up for
business on our agenda is the approval
of the minutes from the November 6th
meeting. Did everyone get a chance to
review those?
>> And if so, I will entertain a motion.
» And if so, I will entertain a motion.
>> Vice Chair Yavon makes a motion to adopt
» Vice Chair Yavon makes a motion to adopt
the minutes as drafted.
>> And can we get a second?
» And can we get a second?
>> Second. Members Ransky.
» Second. Members Ransky.
>> All right. All in favor of adopting the
» All right. All in favor of adopting the
minutes as drafted, please say I.
>> Any opposed?
» Any opposed?
>> No. Motion carries. minutes are adopted
» No. Motion carries. minutes are adopted
as written. Uh item number three on our
agenda, business from the public. Is
there anybody here uh that has something
that's not on the agenda that they want
to bring to this board attention?
Doesn't appear as such. So we can move
on. Uh item number four, old business.
There is no old business. Item number
five, new business. There's one item of
new business and we will get to it now.
It is V 202250057
property address 1331 Hillary Lane
Abalant Brett Kaplan and Patrick do we
have a presentation please?
>> Yes. So 1331 Hillary Lane applicant
» Yes. So 1331 Hillary Lane applicant
Brett Kaplan proposal is for a new
addition. The property is located in the
R six zoning district and according to
Lake County Assessor's home was built in
2000. The requested relief is to
construct the allowable floor area, F
short, of 30.48%
or 4,080 ft for a residence that already
exceeds the permitted F to construct a
382 ft addition for a proposed total F
of 42.69%
or 5,713.9
square ft.
So, here is the property uh located at
the end of Hillary Lane next to the Skoi
River here
and just kind of an aerial shot of the
property.
The uh existing structure uh this is a
kind of a trapezoidal kind of shape lot.
um existing home with a deck in the rear
of the property and the proposed
addition will be located here
approximately where the uh deck is
located.
I couldn't get to the property for this
one, so we'll have to live with the
Google Street View. Uh not the best view
for this property. Uh but is at the end
of the block and kind of see a little
bit of the house there.
So, in blue is the existing home. Yellow
here is the proposed screen porch. Oops.
Deck or not porch. Yeah, just a screen
porch. Jeez. [gasps] Um, and then so the
required F I'm going this is going to be
a lot of numbers. [clears throat] Um,
please stop me if you ever get confused.
So the required F is 4,080 ft for the
total uh footprint for the home. Um the
existing home is 5,332
square ft and the applicant is proposing
a new total of 5,714
ft for the new total. Uh the addition
will be a total size of 382 square ft.
So on the left hand side here, these are
the existing conditions of the rear of
the property and on the right hand side
is the proposed uh screened in porch.
And again on the top here are the
existing conditions and the bottom is
what the new porch would look like on
the back of the house.
So for the neighborhood context, uh the
F kind of totals on the end of the
block, this comes from the Lake County
um assessor's office. The average square
foot totals for the homes at the end of
this block here is 4,267.
Uh a little lower than what is currently
at this property. The average F being
37.4.
And then I also provided the median um
just for a different metric a little
lower 4,152 and a median of 37.9. So
neighborhood in total is a little less
than what the uh applicant's property
is.
In 2006, this property received a
variation to exceed the maximum floor
area. Uh they were approved for 4751
square feet or 35.67 67.
Um, if you'll notice that they were
approved for 4,751.
However, today they are current existing
conditions is 5,332.
Uh, I have asked the applicant to kind
of review that and their architect has
confirmed that this 5,332
is correct. So, it's just kind of the
information I have for you. Uh, but
there is kind of a discrepancy from this
2006 variation and today.
Uh but again, the applicant is now
proposing a new total of 5,714
square feet.
Uh I didn't receive any comments from
either city staff or members from the
public.
So in review, uh the requested relief is
to exceed the maximum floor area for a
new addition that is a total size of 382
square ft for a proposed total F of
42.69%. 69% or 5,713.9
ft.
Uh, that's all I have for you. If you
have any questions, I'd be happy to
answer them. Okay, Patrick, they you
said there was a variance. Thank you.
That's the exactly the screen I was
looking for. Um, where they were
specifically
approved [snorts] for a maximum of 4751
square ft. Correct.
>> Correct. So it was to
» Correct. So it was to
do this portion of the house. This is a
addition that happened in 2006 and they
needed a variation to the F for that
portion of house.
>> Okay. But somehow they ended up with
» Okay. But somehow they ended up with
5332 which is you know significantly
larger than 4751.
[clears throat] Uh how would they have
gotten away with that?
Why would the building department did
they do things without permits or
>> so? It it's the same footprint. I'm not
» so? It it's the same footprint. I'm not
sure if there could have been a
miscalculation in 2006.
I'm not I uh I reviewed everything.
There's not like an additional addition
somewhere on the property that is
between 2006 and now. Um I can have the
applicant speak a little bit more on
that as well with their speaking with
their architect. Um, but yeah, I don't
quite have an answer for you on that. It
>> was different ownership in 2006 than it
» was different ownership in 2006 than it
is today.
>> It was Kaplan's. I'm going to assume
» It was Kaplan's. I'm going to assume
just different generation of family.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> Okay. Um, anybody else have any
» Okay. Um, anybody else have any
questions?
>> Yes, please.
» Yes, please.
um for
the existing deck or porch does not go
towards F. Correct.
>> Correct. It's not until it's enclosed.
» Correct. It's not until it's enclosed.
So having kind of those walls around it
is what then triggers the F total.
>> Okay. And do we know the dimensions of
» Okay. And do we know the dimensions of
the porch versus just the square
footage? Um,
» I'll have the applicant confirm that and
I'll look at the plans. They're not on
this screenshot right now.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> Are they planning, if you know, Patrick,
» Are they planning, if you know, Patrick,
or if not, we'll ask the owner the on
doing any foundation work or just
enclosing an an addition or an existing
footing if you would. So, it'll be a
little bit more new because it is in
this area and you'll see that it kind of
zigzags this way. So, there'll be a
little bit new coverage in this area. Uh
there are no setback um
requests for this addition. Uh but there
will be a little bit new land coverage
>> in a uh a pergola would not be
» in a uh a pergola would not be
considered like enclosed, right? It has
to have complete enclosure.
>> Correct. to perllo would not be
» Correct. to perllo would not be
considered for F.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> Okay. So they they are expanding off of
» Okay. So they they are expanding off of
the existing debt.
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> So this is what the existing conditions
» So this is what the existing conditions
are and then this is what the proposal
will be.
>> Can you show me the existing again?
» Can you show me the existing again?
>> Okay. So they're kind of squaring off
» Okay. So they're kind of squaring off
basically.
>> Yeah. So it's square off a little bit.
» Yeah. So it's square off a little bit.
Gotcha.
>> Okay. Thank you. [clears throat]
» Okay. Thank you. [clears throat]
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> Well, can you just scroll back like
» Well, can you just scroll back like
couple um
the there's the variation a slide and
then couple before that
like it was like the average the street.
Um yeah. So,
so would it be accurate that like the
whole neighborhood is significantly over
the minimum F cuz when would it all be
30%.
» So, it's dependent on your lot area and
these lots are
>> not all the same exact size, but yeah,
» not all the same exact size, but yeah,
they should be roughly around the same
lot area. Um,
so most of them I guess are I guess I
didn't check the
>> You know, it just seems odd that they're
» You know, it just seems odd that they're
all over.
>> Yeah. Um,
» Yeah. Um,
>> so far I I don't know.
» so far I I don't know.
>> Yeah, I'll say that their square
» Yeah, I'll say that their square
footages are around 4,000, which was a
little bit closer to what compliance is.
Um, but based off of the when I
calculated the F based on their lot
areas, they were a little bit over.
What's what's the required or supposedly
required F percentage?
>> It's all based on the lot area. Um, so I
» It's all based on the lot area. Um, so I
guess I'd have to
>> What's the percentage of F that you're
» What's the percentage of F that you're
allowed to to do as a matter of
>> there is no one set number. So it's like
» there is no one set number. So it's like
if I have 10,000 square ft, it's a
different percentage versus if I have
12,000 ft.
>> Oh, it's a different the percentage
» Oh, it's a different the percentage
changes.
>> It's all based on the lot area. So I can
» It's all based on the lot area. So I can
uh
>> so it's a tiered approach. Is it fair to
» so it's a tiered approach. Is it fair to
say that the the smaller the lot is the
larger the F is allowed or is it the
other way?
>> Uh
» Uh
>> or is there or is there any correlation
» or is there or is there any correlation
or is it just random?
>> It's not random. There is a calculation.
» It's not random. There is a calculation.
Um I don't know if
I'm I don't have an answer on if it how
scaled it is. It is scaled in a certain
way, but I don't have the
>> Well, there have to be certain criteria
» Well, there have to be certain criteria
that determine what an F is. We don't
know what those criteria.
>> Yeah, it's a So, it's like your lot air.
» Yeah, it's a So, it's like your lot air.
>> So, just a law calculation.
» So, just a law calculation.
>> Nothing's ever used.
» Nothing's ever used.
>> Seems like it should be right.
» Seems like it should be right.
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
>> Says R six.
» Says R six.
>> It should. I mean, generally F is a set
» It should. I mean, generally F is a set
percentage for certain districts. So,
I'm not sure why this would vary
depending on lot size.
» So, whole point of F is to keep it
proportional to your lot.
>> Oh, it's really tiny.
And then are there any issues with bonus
F or
>> we can I don't think it's
» we can I don't think it's
>> I think he already has a very
» I think he already has a very
exceeding.
It's a little artery but um so these are
the calculations for F. Um they each
have
I didn't create this so I don't know the
I'm also not a mathematician so I don't
know the um
full understanding of the using point 42
like having the starting point but it's
kind of tiered based off of how big your
lot size is and then depending on if
you're within there you use this
calculation in order to figure out your
uh F totals.
Okay. So, it's tiered based on lot size.
So, it's
>> it's consistent theoretically that if
» it's consistent theoretically that if
you have a bigger lot, you can build a
larger structure with the with
approximately but somehow they change
the F depending on lot size. It's kind
of
>> okay.
» okay.
>> Kind of complicated. Okay.
» Kind of complicated. Okay.
>> Correct. Yeah. So I can't there's no
» Correct. Yeah. So I can't there's no
like if it's in the R six it's you get
32%. That that doesn't
>> Okay. So does
» Okay. So does
>> it hovers around doing it the opposite
» it hovers around doing it the opposite
because if you have a humongous lot they
don't want you to have a house the
entire size of I think it's normalizing
it.
>> It's generally F is generally a fixed
» It's generally F is generally a fixed
percentage which then makes it
proportional to your lot size. So it
would be the lot size determining how
much large of structure. Apparently, it
is the lot size, but it's based on a
calculation that remains to be
unnecessarily complicated or somewhat
mysterious as to what the outcome is as
a result or what the purpose is for it.
So,
>> and like how much does it really move?
» and like how much does it really move?
It's can't move 7%. It's like maybe 1%
difference, you know?
>> Well, yeah. I I don't I give no clue as
» Well, yeah. I I don't I give no clue as
to why they would do it that way.
>> So, the
» So, the
compared to the other houses in the
neighborhood, I think this is at least
what I'm trying to get to.
Are the other houses
over the F by a commensurate amount with
what these people are asking or are the
people asking for something that would
make them the
exceed the F by the most if you
understand what I'm asking.
>> Yeah. So,
so they're asking for
uh 42 almost 43%
kind of the block is hovering around 37.
So about 5%
>> asking for 5% more F than the average F
» asking for 5% more F than the average F
of the the block.
>> Correct.
» Correct.
>> Regardless of lot size dependent on lot
» Regardless of lot size dependent on lot
size, but regardless of lot size. Okay.
>> Correct.
» Correct.
>> What is their lot size? I can't find it.
» What is their lot size? I can't find it.
Um,
yeah.
» Do we have a comparison of what the
different lot sizes are in the in the
area?
>> That's in here. Yeah.
» That's in here. Yeah.
>> Um, so there is a page in the packet.
» Um, so there is a page in the packet.
It's all over the place.
Well, I'm assuming that the lot size is
what's indicated, not on all of them,
but on some of them at the
in the in the individual lots that are
indicated on that diagram, like the one
at 1271, Hillary's 11,000t lot. 1291 is
a 9700 square foot lot, etc.
>> Is that is that correct?
» Is that is that correct?
>> Yeah, that's correct. Yeah. So, it's not
» Yeah, that's correct. Yeah. So, it's not
um completely consistent. This lot is
slightly larger because of kind of the
triangle shape at the end where these
interior lots aren't getting that much
space because of that. So, these lots on
the end are a little bit bigger uh than
kind of the block.
» A lot bigger. Page 17 of the packet
shows
that, you know, some of them are under
10,000 [clears throat] square ft
where this one's almost 1900.
» Right. That's what you're asking.
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
So, there's a wide range of lots.
» And this house is already substantially
bigger than the other houses involved.
Okay.
>> Looks like they kind of lose a little
» Looks like they kind of lose a little
bit of, you know, as the trapezoid. I
don't know. There's a little bit of
extra space that maybe I don't know.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> All right. Anybody have any other
» All right. Anybody have any other
questions for staff at this point? So
even though the assessor listed as 4106,
we think it's 5713.
>> So that's what the assessor's um gross
» So that's what the assessor's um gross
floor area um has. I also referenced
their sketching and it's referenced
around that. But again, I'll have the
applicant talk with their architect has
come up with for their numbers.
And we are allowed and bound to go off
what the applicants numbers are as
opposed to
>> presumably the assessor took
» presumably the assessor took
measurements at some point or took it
off a survey or something.
>> I'm not quite clear on how the assessor
» I'm not quite clear on how the assessor
gets their information if it's just
through sale and then
if that information is as accurate as it
can be. Um, but yeah, I mean,
>> is there a current survey that indicates
» is there a current survey that indicates
at least [laughter]
the foot the footprint, the size of the
footprint of the house? I It wouldn't
tell the square footage because it
wouldn't get the volume.
>> Yeah. Um, I mean, that's we accept the
» Yeah. Um, I mean, that's we accept the
architect's materials. They're licensed
by the state. They're kind of honor
bound to be
accurate and we accept that.
» Interesting.
Please.
>> And there's no um issue with bonus F
» And there's no um issue with bonus F
because this property already has had
variance
>> over. Yeah, it's over the bonus.
» over. Yeah, it's over the bonus.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> Any other questions for Patrick right
» Any other questions for Patrick right
now?
>> Okay. Thank you, Patrick. Seeing no more
» Okay. Thank you, Patrick. Seeing no more
questions at this point, we will ask if
there's someone else here that would
like to be heard on this matter.
>> Okay. If you would be kind enough to
» Okay. If you would be kind enough to
approach the podium and state your name
for the record, please.
Brett Kaplan.
>> Mr. Kaplan, do you affirm or attest that
» Mr. Kaplan, do you affirm or attest that
testimony you're about to give will be
the truth, all truth, and nothing but
the truth?
>> I do.
» I do.
>> Please proceed.
» Please proceed.
>> So, we uh currently are hoping to get a
» So, we uh currently are hoping to get a
a screen in porch. We have a existing
deck that is uh deteriorating and we
have a um a balcony off of a of a a room
that is un structurally unound. So, that
needs to come down. It was off of our
main bedroom. Um, you know, up there.
We've since converted uh there was a
sliding door. We since converted it to a
window um in anticipation and hope for
for this. So, just the way we kind of
always envision that that space become a
screen porch. Uh it just fits the the
area really well. Um
you we are reducing the deck size a
little bit uh on the side there as you
could see uh to try to make up for some
of the gained space if you will. Um yes
it was my uh my parents who own the
house before. I was trying to ask them
if they knew why the the calculations
were off. Best I guess I'm not an
architect or anything. uh was that from
what I saw the garage wasn't included in
the 4751 perhaps I don't know it just
wasn't um some numbers that I saw on on
the on the 2006 variance report I tried
to look into if the um the regulations
changed on what constituted the F uh
kind of calculation but I couldn't find
anything uh to that effect um
So, uh I I don't think our uh proposed
variation will kind of impair or
material det be a material detriment to
the to the neighborhood, if you will. Um
no one, uh in on the street can can see
it. Uh and we're actually backing up
into a highway, so no one really can can
see it, if you will. Um and so, yeah, if
it pleases you all, I I appreciate the
time and the consideration, and
hopefully could be approved.
>> Okay. You're aware that we have certain
» Okay. You're aware that we have certain
standards, eight eight in particular,
that we must apply to every variation
request and in order for us to grant the
variation requests, we have to be of the
opinion that all of the standards are
met. Um, I would appreciate if you could
ask address the these standards and
specifically um the first three or four
uh
pretty uh the the meat of the of the
matter if you would. So, um
>> yeah, sure. So, um we we don't intend to
» yeah, sure. So, um we we don't intend to
to resell anytime soon or or make money
just from building uh the porch. Um,
it's it's really um
I I think there's definitely other area
other um houses on the street with
similar uh structures such as this. I
don't think it's undo hardship or or
unique uh in that regard. Um, I think it
is consistent with the
um
the the the
apologies. It's consistent with how the
rest of the houses are are looking too.
We're not making any changes from a a
structural [snorts] or a visual
perspective. Um,
>> and I don't think
» and I don't think
>> Let me allow me to maybe focus you in a
» Let me allow me to maybe focus you in a
little bit on what at least I would
perceive being one of the obstacles that
would prevent us from possibly uh
granting this variance
>> would be the the number two um the the
» would be the the number two um the the
hardship that the standard number two is
referring to would be the hardship upon
you upon the owners of the property if
we were not to grant the variance. So,
what specifically is what hardship is
creating the need for the variance?
>> Got it. Okay. Um, because we're on a a
» Got it. Okay. Um, because we're on a a
highway and a lot of forest area, we
would like a place to sit outside, be
enclosed to away from the bugs. It's
very buggy and and fairly noisy. So, we
would like a place to enjoy with our
family um to to be outside and enclosed
space.
>> Okay. Is there anything unique about
» Okay. Is there anything unique about
your lot that would require the only way
to accomplish that to be to give you
more F and and and be able to consider
that to be in compliance with the with
the code?
» Um I don't believe so.
>> Let me help you out here. Okay. Your
» Let me help you out here. Okay. Your
packet you have a whole section says
that's titled hardship if variance is
denied.
One of the things you say is the
property's existing configuration
and lot shape limit options for
expansion without exceeding coverage
limits.
Would that be a hardship?
>> Yes. Thank you for
» Yes. Thank you for
>> and just real quickly
» and just real quickly
um can you just explain why the lot
shape limits the options?
>> Yeah, just because of kind of the
» Yeah, just because of kind of the
angling if you will. It's and the slope
down this is really the only way we
would kind of be able to have it in a
closed space. Um it's pretty gradient
and this would be the best way to have
an enclosed space. Look outside. Thank
you.
And
>> by all means,
» by all means,
>> could you tell us how large the like the
» could you tell us how large the like the
dimensions
are going [snorts] to be?
>> I don't remember off the top of my head.
» I don't remember off the top of my head.
I want to say uh 11 by 22 uh square ft
if you will. Uh is the screen
>> skinny?
» skinny?
Yeah,
>> I think so.
» I think so.
>> But I It's in the It should be in all
» But I It's in the It should be in all
the drawings. Yeah.
>> Is that right or not?
There it is. Um, it's about 15 1/2 ft by
22 feet or 23 ft.
>> 15 ft by 22 wide along the back of the
» 15 ft by 22 wide along the back of the
house.
» Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Camp?
Seeing none, I guess is there I will ask
if there's anybody else here that wants
to be heard on this matter. Doesn't
appear as such. You Mr. G, I'll ask you
one follow-up question. You I know uh
Patrick already mentioned this, but
you've obviously provided notice to the
neighbors. Have you gotten any feedback
whatsoever from any of your neighbors
just to be for or against?
>> They just are excited if if it goes
» They just are excited if if it goes
through to have them over for some
cocktails or some some meal.
>> If you're if you're giving free
» If you're if you're giving free
cocktails, they'll win the neighbor over
every time.
>> [laughter]
» [laughter]
>> Okay. All right. Thank you.
» Okay. All right. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> Um,
» Um,
>> appreciate the time.
» appreciate the time.
>> Appreciate it. Okay. I will at this
» Appreciate it. Okay. I will at this
point poll the board and I'm going to
begin with member Arma. Great. Uh,
this is tough because I don't see that
there's a current hardship there, but I
think he did a nice job explaining what
he perceives to be the hardship with
regard to the highway and the um the
buggess, I guess.
Um,
so
I would be on the fence because of that
one, but I think I would vote to approve
it.
>> Okay. Member Weissber.
» Okay. Member Weissber.
>> Um, yeah. I mean, I think, you know, I
» Um, yeah. I mean, I think, you know, I
think it makes a lot of sense to enclose
it, but
I I mean, I to me it's a it's a
convenience. Um, like I don't know. I
think of a better case is made that's
more convincing that we're not kind of
hand feeding. Like I want to approve it,
but using the standards, I just don't
see how number two currently uh is able
to be met, but I'm able to be uh my
mind's able to be changed if someone's
got a good reason on the board.
>> There is no standard that says Weisber
» There is no standard that says Weisber
always has to be a nice guy, [laughter]
>> right? So, I mean, I want to do it, but
» right? So, I mean, I want to do it, but
yeah, number two is uh I'm not seeing
it.
members are asking.
>> Um,
» Um,
yeah, I I agree. I think it's it's it
seems like a big ass because it's such
a, you know,
such an exceeds the the the the ratio by
so much, but there may be a math problem
there that we're just missing and it's
just skewed. Um, I mean, I guess I could
get behind the hardship.
Um,
you know, I'm sympathetic to like
highway noise and you know, you know,
there is some slope issues and you're
kind of backing up to a sort of a little
messy back over there and it's it's
difficult, but it's also like you exceed
the F today. Um, but again, I sort of
agree. I think it's a makes sense. It's
reasonable. Um,
I guess I would like to see
how one of my elders can take over and
see if they could convince us that this
is a true hardship that meets these
standards.
>> And and by elders, I presume you mean
» And and by elders, I presume you mean
longer serving members,
>> elders, uh attorneys on the board.
» elders, uh attorneys on the board.
>> Well, speaking of attorneys, member
» Well, speaking of attorneys, member
Toshansky.
>> Oh, lovely. Um,
so
right now there's a there's a deck
that's structurally unsound that needs
to come down, right? That that's right,
Patrick.
>> According to the applicant, I don't know
» According to the applicant, I don't know
that information.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> Which could probably be rebuilt as a
» Which could probably be rebuilt as a
matter or repaired as a matter of Right.
>> Right.
» Right.
>> That's correct. Um,
» That's correct. Um,
I mean, I I think that the hardships are
or were more addressed in the packet,
um, as opposed to the presentation, and
I can
I think I can get behind it. Um,
it does seem like a relatively big ask,
um, as mentioned by members.
Um, but I also see that the packet did
set forth alternatives that were
considered and um,
one of them was the unscreened decker
patio which is currently what is there
and um, the applicant described or or
stated why that really wouldn't be a
feasible option.
Um,
I think I would be for it. I would go
for it.
>> I have some question. Maybe Patrick
» I have some question. Maybe Patrick
knows. Is this like a like a wetland
behind him? Like what is that?
>> Uh, this is a Skooki River.
» Uh, this is a Skooki River.
>> Yeah, but it's kind of like a ravine
» Yeah, but it's kind of like a ravine
than not really,
>> but it's not like a wetland where
» but it's not like a wetland where
there's like extra buggy or anything
like that.
>> Well, I mean,
» Well, I mean,
>> yeah, it's this is the river. So, I
» yeah, it's this is the river. So, I
mean, there is just flood plane areas. a
lot of the area floods like you know
that next street is like notorious for
flooding
>> like all those houses flood
» like all those houses flood
>> on Taylor Street.
» on Taylor Street.
>> I don't know. Okay. Well, if no one has
» I don't know. Okay. Well, if no one has
information, I'm good.
>> Um I guess I just speaking a little bit
» Um I guess I just speaking a little bit
on that. So, this property does have a
lot of So, this is like detention
easements and
um just other areas on the property that
can't really be built on because of
their proximity to the Skoi River. Um
this would be reviewed by our
engineering and building division to
make sure that that uh excess water
would be mitigated from going to
neighboring properties. But uh this is
another condition of the property that
just has uh detention easements on it
and its proximity to Skooki River.
» Member Trishansky, are you finished?
>> Yeah, I said that I'd be ultimately for
» Yeah, I said that I'd be ultimately for
it.
>> Okay. Vice Chair Yemen.
» Okay. Vice Chair Yemen.
>> Um, [clears throat] I believe the
» Um, [clears throat] I believe the
standards have been met. I think that
the letter really does spell out a lot
of the issues that makes this a distinct
hardship for this piece of property,
especially when you take into
consideration
the proximity to the water and flood
planes. And
I understand the need to have
an outside area that's inside for this
particular piece of property and also
one that's a little bit elevated too if
it gets that, you know, mushy over
there. Um, so I believe the standards
have been met and I would be in favor of
this project. I do think the F is a
little bit on the high side, but I don't
think that the ask itself is
unreasonable.
So, I would be willing to grant a
variance.
>> Okay. Thank you. Um, well, I'm going to
» Okay. Thank you. Um, well, I'm going to
throw a little bit of a curveball here
because I don't think that the standards
have been met. Um, I think we've got a
house that appears, unless I'm mistaken,
to be the largest house in the
neighborhood already. Um, it's already
exceeding the F F, including the bonus F
by a considerable amount. Um, and I
really can't get behind the idea of it
being a hardship to not be allowed to
expand upon something that is already
well over the F. I think it's kind of
would be flying a little bit in the face
of the zoning code to grant this thing
and saying, "Oh, we've got a big house,
and I'm repeating myself, but it's
substantially over the F, and we're
going to give them even more F." Um,
there's got to be other alternatives to
give them uh either, you know, screened
in space or other space without either
by reconfiguring or taking, you know,
whatever. It's not really my role to
advise. it's how to, you know, avoid uh
having to seek this variance. But I just
I can't again b based strictly on the
size and how much it already exceeds the
existing F that's supposed to be there.
Um I can't I can't see justification for
grant granting an even bigger structure.
And I know that's something that
historically uh the the zoning board and
the city council have always expressed
uh that we should be extra vigilant on F
matters so we don't end up having too
much house on too little lot. Um, so I'm
personally don't don't think I think
there might be a way to redo this and
you know and come back or or maybe I'm
missing some other uh factors that uh
should be given more weight that haven't
been presented to us. But um as it
stands right now I I don't think the
standards are met and I couldn't support
this.
So, having said that, um, you your
options at this point are I could ask
for a motion, you can get a I can also
go back and I know a couple people said
they were on the fence and said they
were uh waiting to hear what others
said. So, if you want me to kind of
repole before we take any take a vote,
I'll be happy to do that. And you're
you're nodding, so I'm going to assume.
>> Is it is it like a unanimous decision
» Is it is it like a unanimous decision
this time?
>> No, no, no. It just has to be four.
» No, no, no. It just has to be four.
Well, there's actually six of us, so it
still would have to be four. Um there's
usually seven or there's supposed to be
seven, but um there there has to be a
majority of the existing quorum. The
quorum being six, majority of six in
this case would be four um or more. Um
so if it's three people voting against,
um it would not pass. If it if it
doesn't pass, the the matter is over and
we we've denied the variation. Um, the
other option is, and you can wait till I
poll again if you want me to, um, is you
could ask for a continuence and come
back and try and present a more
compelling case as to why in fact all
the standards of for granting a variance
have in fact been met. Um, to try to
convince anyone who may have been
preventing the variance. Um, but uh,
those are so those are the options. We
we pretty much routinely would grant
anyone a continuence if they wanted it.
So, um would you like me to get a straw
poll kind of of the board at this point?
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> Okay. I'll go back in the the order in
» Okay. I'll go back in the the order in
which we if I can remember that we
opined uh that would be first member
Arnoff.
>> So, actually listened.
» So, actually listened.
>> Yeah. So actually after listening to you
» Yeah. So actually after listening to you
and taking into account that it is
larger than you know it should be today
not should be that per the F today and
even a larger variance I'm swayed a
little bit against against it. Um I do
have a Can I ask a question?
>> Sure.
» Sure.
>> Is the
» Is the
uh room is it heated and cooled or is it
just like um screens?
>> Just screens. So there's no ventil
» Just screens. So there's no ventil
there's no HVAC into it. [clears throat]
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> The applicant said that there was it's
» The applicant said that there was it's
just screen. You said there was no HVA
HVAC unit.
>> Correct.
» Sorry, I just don't didn't remember.
>> You're good. It's just a recording. So
» You're good. It's just a recording. So
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> Hard to hear them from the audience.
» Hard to hear them from the audience.
>> Okay. Um,
» Okay. Um,
but I'm I'm like
on the fence literally on this one.
>> All right. Member Weissber.
» All right. Member Weissber.
>> Yeah, I'm pretty much at the same exact
» Yeah, I'm pretty much at the same exact
spot. Um,
I mean, trying to think about it more
like, you know, you move into a house
that's existing as is. You didn't change
the house, correct?
>> So, you want to have a screened in
» So, you want to have a screened in
porch. You should be able to, right? But
again, I I just see it as a mere
convenience cuz really, like as I said
before, you could do a pergola. You
could kind of enclose it without
enclosing it. You get the same effect.
So, you know, I'd be a no unless, you
know, there was kind of a I I need to be
convinced on the standards that, you
know, I don't I don't want to do too
much convincing my own to try to like
make it happen. So, I'd still be a no.
>> Fair enough. Members are asking
» Fair enough. Members are asking
>> um I just question for the applicant.
» um I just question for the applicant.
Sorry, I broke a record on this, but so
currently he's asking for 5700 or he has
5,700.
>> Asking for
» Asking for
>> asking for and
» asking for and
um
>> there are the figures up on the screen.
» there are the figures up on the screen.
>> All this whole subdivision was built
» All this whole subdivision was built
relatively around the same time, right?
So, is your house much larger than all
the other houses?
>> No.
» No.
>> It just again would you just would you
» It just again would you just would you
mind coming up to the podium?
>> Sure.
» Sure.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> I'll remind you you're still sworn in.
» I'll remind you you're still sworn in.
So yeah,
>> it's not the 3771 looks bigger.
» it's not the 3771 looks bigger.
>> Yeah, the one directly across.
» Yeah, the one directly across.
>> I just I feel like a broken record. It
» I just I feel like a broken record. It
just the numbers it just doesn't seem
right. Like something's missing. I don't
know if it's the architect or if it's
the assessor or the lot. It just it
doesn't make sense that
>> all these houses are over and it's just
» all these houses are over and it's just
confusing. I I guess it'd be more
comfortable, you know, deciding if we
kind of knew
with, you know, definitive that, you
know,
>> what the actual size is.
» what the actual size is.
>> Yeah, I kind of agree [clears throat]
» Yeah, I kind of agree [clears throat]
with you. The the and you know what the
actual sizes are important because if
the if the house is if he's saying his
house isn't that much bigger than any
the other ones and his house is 5,300
ft,
>> I mean on by the numbers, it is a lot
» I mean on by the numbers, it is a lot
bigger than the other ones. But if it's
not in reality, then something we're
missing some information that should be
pretty relevant in determining whether
this is
>> this is appropriate or not,
» this is appropriate or not,
>> right?
» right?
>> Um,
» Um,
>> and again, I do see a harsh being by the
» and again, I do see a harsh being by the
highway and being by, you know, kind of
swampy land that you would need it
>> um or at least desire it. But at the
» um or at least desire it. But at the
same time, we are, you know, as the
chair mentioned, like we're kind of
bound to sort of execute the city
council's vision. and it's sort of like
sensitive to the F request and it's just
such a gross
ask that it's, you know, an excess that
it's just it's it's difficult. So, I
guess I'm um
>> computer
and if I was to vote tonight, I probably
would approve based on thinking that
something's skewed with these numbers
and I believe there's a harsh that's met
because of what you're backing up to,
but I'm also still I'm not quite there,
but I guess I would be leaning toward an
approval if we were to, you know, be
forced to do a vote today. So, okay,
>> if that helps.
» if that helps.
>> Member Trishansky.
» Member Trishansky.
>> Um, I'm still the same. I I I would
» Um, I'm still the same. I I I would
approve it.
>> Okay. Thank you, member Yla.
» Okay. Thank you, member Yla.
>> I too would still vote to approve, but I
» I too would still vote to approve, but I
do hear what you're saying about the the
numbers being really wonky.
>> Okay. Thank you. All right. I haven't
» Okay. Thank you. All right. I haven't
changed and that was the most recent to
opine and I my opinion study still
remains the same. I kind of agree with
members zerinsky that it seems like
something's off but without knowing for
sure that's that something's off. It's
hard to just kind of fly blind and say
well we think there must be something
off and because there might be something
off we're going to give it to you even
though the information presented to us
is in fact correct we shouldn't be
giving it to you. So I would I'd vote
against it if we were to vote right now.
Patrick, a question.
>> Would it help I I I saw this on the
» Would it help I I I saw this on the
package and I should have brought a
computer. I can't read what's on the
screen. If you looked at every house in
the area and does it show what their F
ratio is? I can't.
>> No. Provides the lot area and then
» No. Provides the lot area and then
>> but not the F
» but not the F
>> gross floor. E correct
» gross floor. E correct
>> because I think if you had that might
» because I think if you had that might
get some people more comfortable if you
saw what each house size is and their F
ratio.
>> Well, Patrick has it. Well, he had the
» Well, Patrick has it. Well, he had the
average. It's 37% which is
>> but you know sometimes averages are
» but you know sometimes averages are
misleading. I thought put in context of
the five or seven houses around it.
>> My concern would be like at what point
» My concern would be like at what point
do you say no on an F though based off
percentage cuz I think this is testing
like just forgetting that it makes
sense. I feel like this would be testing
the bounds of just that number whatever
it is you know.
>> Yeah. No, I agree. the FA is supposedly
» Yeah. No, I agree. the FA is supposedly
there for a reason and in order to
exceed it we have to have the standards
met and I you know that's
we're kind of getting into kind of
repeat mode. Um at this point Mr. Kaplan
I'm not even sure how the how the
[laughter] board would vote 100%. Um I'm
going to I'm not going to read the tea
leaves for you. I'm going to leave that
up to you. Um, so you do have the option
at this point of asking us to call a
vote on the manner or you have an option
of continuing it. Um, it's up to you.
>> If if the vote goes through, can I then
» If if the vote goes through, can I then
also have a continuence? If it
>> No, if you if well, if the vote goes
» No, if you if well, if the vote goes
through and you are granted the
variance, you it's over. if it if it's
if it goes through and you're not
granted the variance, it's also over and
you're unless I'm mistating things.
>> I will note that. So, if you make a
» I will note that. So, if you make a
motion to approve and if that fails,
that just means the motion to approve
has failed. Um, and then you would
create a motion to uh I didn't bring a
document to deny the uh request. So, I
would then have to draft documentation
and then you would have to adopt the
denial order. Is there not a rule that
if a variation is denied that there's a
certain time before you can reapply for
the same variance
one year?
>> I I think there is. I'm not not 100%
» I I think there is. I'm not not 100%
sure.
>> Um I don't know off the top of my head.
» Um I don't know off the top of my head.
Um it's just that that would also give
the applicant time to possibly come back
with new plans at that next meeting
because you would then need to adopt the
denial order.
>> Right. Say that. Say that again.
» Right. Say that. Say that again.
>> So, if the motion to approve fails here,
» So, if the motion to approve fails here,
>> you then need to motion staff to draft
» you then need to motion staff to draft
denial orders because that's not before
you. I only have the drafted approval
orders. Um
then so that would go to a next meeting.
It would essentially work like a
continuence where the applicant would
then have time to talk with his
architect and possibly reformat plans
and um they could propose new materials
for you. Um so then at that next meeting
you could either approve of the denial
order or based off of what the applicant
has brought before you again could sway
you to have a approval order.
>> Okay. Um I understand what you're
» Okay. Um I understand what you're
saying, Patrick. I'm just questioning in
the past
>> that's
» that's
>> when we've all when we've denied a
» when we've all when we've denied a
variance the variance has been denied
and we I don't recall specifically
asking a because a denial order could be
as simple as the variation is denied.
You could draft that in you know
literally 30 seconds. So I I don't
recall matters being continued to
approve a denial letter. Um, maybe I'm
wrong, but I don't
>> I do know that we still need to record a
» I do know that we still need to record a
denial order and that material is not uh
in the packet. So, it would need to be
in the public packet in order for OMA.
Um, it would be an OMA violation uh in
order to you couldn't I couldn't just
provide that to you and sign it. It
would kind of be a legal document that
needs to be uh in the record.
>> Um, that's how Carl has told it to me.
» Um, that's how Carl has told it to me.
Did you have something to add? Uh I was
going to agree with you Jamie that or
for chair Bart that
in the past it has seemed to be more of
if it's not granted it is denied and
then yes there does need to be another
motion drafted that says that but
um so this is a little bit different
than
>> are you saying that the path I'm sorry
» are you saying that the path I'm sorry
to interrupt but are you saying the
pathway would then
for him to come back and before we
actually approve the denial order to try
to convince us to not approve the denial
order. I mean
>> he could bring new materials if he'd
» he could bring new materials if he'd
wishes. Um
>> that kind of seems like a an odd path to
» that kind of seems like a an odd path to
traverse, but um
>> yeah. Um but I asked Carl and that's
» yeah. Um but I asked Carl and that's
kind of how the process he laid it out
for me. Um I can
I will speak with corporation council to
verify if that's correct. Um but that's
how it's been told to me.
>> Guess after 8 years my last meeting I
» Guess after 8 years my last meeting I
can learn some huge [laughter]
members.
>> I just wanted to say um I just I I read
» I just wanted to say um I just I I read
I read your letter again
>> and while I don't think that you
» and while I don't think that you
specifically walk through every single
standard to prove them out. It it is a
good letter and it does help me get over
the finish line and I would support your
variation. I don't know, you know, that
gets you the votes you need, but I would
vote for you.
>> Thank you. And I I honestly I didn't
» Thank you. And I I honestly I didn't
realize I was going to be speaking, so I
would have brushed up on what I had
said. So, I apologize for that.
>> But thank you.
» But thank you.
>> All right. Um, if no one else from the
» All right. Um, if no one else from the
board has anything to say, I will just
ask you what your preference is at the
present time.
>> I um motion to to vote, I guess.
» I um motion to to vote, I guess.
>> Okay. I'll entertain a motion at this
» Okay. I'll entertain a motion at this
point.
U motion to vote. I'm sorry. Well, it's
got to be
>> I will note that if you do motion to
» I will note that if you do motion to
approve, you do have to vote yes. Like
if you are the first, you have to be a
yes.
>> Vice Cherry Avlon makes a motion to
» Vice Cherry Avlon makes a motion to
approve the motion as drafted.
>> Okay. Do I have a second?
» Okay. Do I have a second?
>> I'll second.
» I'll second.
>> Okay. Um we have a motion
» Okay. Um we have a motion
[clears throat] by Vice Chair Yamlan to
approve the variation as requested.
And I assume that means to sign the
variance approval order as written and
as seconded by member Tenski.
Trashansky. Can we get a roll call vote
please? Patrick.
>> Member Arnoff.
» Member Arnoff.
>> I.
» I.
>> Member Weissberg.
» Member Weissberg.
>> Nay.
» Nay.
>> Member Tashansky.
» Member Tashansky.
>> I.
» I.
>> Member Zeransky.
» Member Zeransky.
>> I.
» I.
>> Vice Chair Yavlon.
» Vice Chair Yavlon.
>> I.
» I.
>> Chair Bay.
» Chair Bay.
>> Nay. Motion passes 4 to2.
» Nay. Motion passes 4 to2.
Thank you.
>> It's a close one.
» It's a close one.
>> I didn't know what to do. I don't know
» I didn't know what to do. I don't know
either. It's
>> on the edge of my seat belt. [laughter]
» on the edge of my seat belt. [laughter]
>> That's it.
» That's it.
>> Yeah. Congratulations.
» I think that's the first I've ever had.
I don't know how it's going to go.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> And item number six is a staff report.
» And item number six is a staff report.
Do we have a staff report,
>> Patrick? No staff report.
» Patrick? No staff report.
>> No staff report. Okay. Item number seven
» No staff report. Okay. Item number seven
is miscellaneous.
And there's one item of miscellaneous
entitled outgoing member. Anyone have
anything they want to say on that?
>> Uh vice chair. Yeah. One would like to
» Uh vice chair. Yeah. One would like to
make a proclamation.
Whereas Jamie Bay has served with
distinction as a member of the zoning
board of appeals since January 2017,
leading and participating in
consideration of cases essential to the
improvement of this community, its
neighborhoods, and the quality of life
therein. And whereas Jamie Bay was
responsible for promoting and increasing
community awareness of the need for
sound residential and commercial
planning and the need to appropriately
design public and private improvements
in Highland Park during their tenure on
the zoning board of appeals. And whereas
in being the institutional memory for
the zoning board and in serving with
honor, their public service attests to
their steadfast integrity, wisdom, and
excellence of character. Be it therefore
resolved that the member of the zoning
board of appeals of Highland Park do
hereby recognize Jaime Bay for their
dedicated and untiring public service
as a member of the board on behalf of
the residents of the city.
And it is further resolved that in an
expression of our respect and grateful
appreciation to Jamie Ba's service, we
hereby adopt this resolution as a
permanent record thereof on the 20th day
of November, 2025 in Highland Park,
Illinois. Thank you for your service.
>> Sounds like a nice guy. I'll have to
» Sounds like a nice guy. I'll have to
meet him someday.
>> Okay. Thank you. Um, [singing]
» Okay. Thank you. Um, [singing]
okay. That brings us to item number
eight.
>> I just want to say one thing. I just
» I just want to say one thing. I just
wanted to comment that I think Jamie has
been a phenomenal board member,
phenomenal leader, a great perspective
on this board and um surely we will be
missed by by myself and I would imagine
everybody else as well. So, thank you
for all you've done.
>> Thank you. I appreciate it. Truly. Thank
» Thank you. I appreciate it. Truly. Thank
you. Okay. And I will also say before
calling for adjournment that it it has
been an honor and a privilege to serve.
I know it sounds corny, but it really
has. I've I've learned a lot. Can't
believe it's already been eight years.
um served with two great staff people,
Patrick and Carl, before and um and
yeah, I'm I'm relieved that I'll have
Thursday nights to plan without worrying
about anything anymore, but I'll also
miss quite a bit. So,
>> you're not going to watch?
» you're not going to watch?
[laughter]
>> You won't be watching.
» You won't be watching.
>> It'll be in person.
» It'll be in person.
>> Yes, I'll be I'll be the I'll be the one
» Yes, I'll be I'll be the I'll be the one
viewer [laughter] watching it live. So,
I probably will watch occasionally I'll
watch some of the recordings just to
say, "Hey, what's going on in the zone
court without me?" So, you know, so
although I have every I I think although
it hasn't been official yet, but I have
every confidence that my replacement
will be quite up to the task. So, I
leave you in good hands.
>> It's been 8 years. When you say like 8
» It's been 8 years. When you say like 8
years, it's like a weird long
It's a lot of years.
>> Go so fast. Go so fast. So,
» Go so fast. Go so fast. So,
>> all right. That's all I got. as my as my
» all right. That's all I got. as my as my
my kids like to say that's all I got
then so um with that I'm item number
eight adjournment I will entertain a
motion
>> motion to adjourn
» motion to adjourn
>> a second
» a second
>> okay all in favor
» okay all in favor
>> I
» I
>> I any opposed no we are adjourned
so nothing two weeks we're done uh so I
don't