Plan and Design Commission - Regular Meeting

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 here. Member Weissberg here, member Chase, member Tashansky here, member Zaransky here, Vice Chair Yablon here, and Chair Bay here. We have a quorum. 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. Vice Chair Yavon makes a motion to adopt the minutes as drafted. And can we get a second?

Second. Members Ransky. All right. All in favor of adopting the minutes as drafted, please say I. Any opposed?

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 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 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 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 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 is today. It was Kaplan's. I'm going to assume just different generation of family. Okay. Okay. Um, anybody else have any questions?

Yes, please. um for the existing deck or porch does not go towards F. Correct. 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 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.

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 considered like enclosed, right? It has to have complete enclosure.

Correct. to perllo would not be considered for F. Okay. Okay. So they they are expanding off of the existing debt. Yes. So this is what the existing conditions are and then this is what the proposal will be. Can you show me the existing again? Okay. So they're kind of squaring off basically. Yeah. So it's square off a little bit. Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. [clears throat] Okay.

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, 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 all over. Yeah. Um, so far I I don't know. 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 guess I'd have to

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 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 changes. It's all based on the lot area. So I can uh 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 or is there or is there any correlation or is it just random?

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 that determine what an F is. We don't know what those criteria. Yeah, it's a So, it's like your lot air. So, just a law calculation. Nothing's ever used. Seems like it should be right. Yeah. Says R six.

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

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 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. Kind of complicated. Okay. 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 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 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? 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 to why they would do it that way.

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 of the the block. Correct. Regardless of lot size dependent on lot size, but regardless of lot size. Okay. Correct. 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.

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? 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. 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 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. 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 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 measurements at some point or took it off a survey or something. 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 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 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 because this property already has had variance over. Yeah, it's over the bonus. Okay.

Any other questions for Patrick right now? 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 approach the podium and state your name for the record, please. Brett Kaplan. 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. Please proceed.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 and just real quickly um can you just explain why the lot shape limits the options?

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, 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 want to say uh 11 by 22 uh square ft if you will. Uh is the screen skinny? Yeah, I think so.

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 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 through to have them over for some cocktails or some some meal. If you're if you're giving free cocktails, they'll win the neighbor over every time. [laughter] Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Um,

appreciate the time.

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. 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 always has to be a nice guy, [laughter]

right? So, I mean, I want to do it, but yeah, number two is uh I'm not seeing it. members are asking.

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 longer serving members, elders, uh attorneys on the board. 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 that information. Okay. Which could probably be rebuilt as a matter or repaired as a matter of Right. Right.

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 knows. Is this like a like a wetland behind him? Like what is that? Uh, this is a Skooki River. Yeah, but it's kind of like a ravine than not really, but it's not like a wetland where there's like extra buggy or anything like that. Well, I mean, 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 on Taylor Street. I don't know. Okay. Well, if no one has information, I'm good.

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 it.

Okay. Vice Chair Yemen.

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 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 this time?

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. 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. 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. Is the uh room is it heated and cooled or is it just like um screens?

Just screens. So there's no ventil there's no HVAC into it. [clears throat] Okay. 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 Okay. Hard to hear them from the audience. Okay. Um, but I'm I'm like on the fence literally on this one. All right. Member Weissber.

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 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 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 and um there are the figures up on the screen. All this whole subdivision was built relatively around the same time, right? So, is your house much larger than all the other houses? No. It just again would you just would you mind coming up to the podium? Sure. Thank you. I'll remind you you're still sworn in. So yeah, it's not the 3771 looks bigger. Yeah, the one directly across.

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 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. 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 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, right? Um, 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 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. Member Trishansky. Um, I'm still the same. I I I would approve it. Okay. Thank you, member Yla.

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 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 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 but not the F gross floor. E correct 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 average. It's 37% which is 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 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 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 also have a continuence? If it

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 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% sure.

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. So, if the motion to approve fails here,

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 saying, Patrick. I'm just questioning in the past

that's 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 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. 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 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 wishes. Um that kind of seems like a an odd path to traverse, but um 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 can learn some huge [laughter] members.

I just wanted to say um I just I I read I read your letter again 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 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. 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.

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 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 approve the motion as drafted. Okay. Do I have a second? I'll second.

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. I. Member Weissberg. Nay. Member Tashansky. I. Member Zeransky. I. Vice Chair Yavlon. I. Chair Bay. Nay. Motion passes 4 to2. Thank you. It's a close one. I didn't know what to do. I don't know either. It's on the edge of my seat belt. [laughter]

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. Okay. And item number six is a staff report. Do we have a staff report, Patrick? No staff report. 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 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 meet him someday. Okay. Thank you. Um, [singing] okay. That brings us to item number eight. 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 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? [laughter] You won't be watching. It'll be in person.

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 years, it's like a weird long It's a lot of years. Go so fast. Go so fast. So, 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

a second okay all in favor I I any opposed no we are adjourned so nothing two weeks we're done uh so I don't