[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