Highland Park ZBA approves large front-setback variance for 175 Prospect Ave.

The Highland Park Zoning Board of Appeals on Oct. 16 approved a variance permitting a new single‑family home at 175 Prospect Avenue to encroach 28.5 feet into the established front‑yard setback, by a 5–2 roll‑call vote.

The request will allow the new primary structure to locate nearer the street than the block’s established building setback of 68.5 feet; the board approved the relief to permit a new house the applicant says is roughly the same size as the existing house and sited to keep improvements away from a ravine at the rear of the lot.

The matter returned to the board after a June hearing with more detailed site plans and elevations. The applicant, represented by attorney Cal Bernstein, argued the lot’s configuration — a corner, pie‑shaped building envelope constrained by a ravine and steep‑slope zone — creates a practical hardship that leaves no reasonable alternative location for a functioning backyard and a side‑loading garage. “The house … will be demolished after the delay is expired,” Bernstein said, noting the property change of ownership and that demolition cannot occur until the historic preservation delay concludes on Feb. 14, 2026. Architect Michael Hershinson described efforts to reduce bulk at the front and to keep most two‑story massing set back: “we did we tried to address, moving the house back,” he said, noting the two‑story portions are set roughly 5 feet further back than the projecting one‑story elements that reach closer to Prospect.

Neighbors who spoke at the meeting said the requested 28.5‑foot encroachment was large and would change the block’s character. Lauren Wood, who lives at 178 Prospect, told the board: “The 28.5 foot front yard variance is a very large variance.” Wood urged the applicant to reduce the encroachment and said neighbors had previously asked for smaller adjustments.

Board members split in deliberations over whether the legal standards for a variance were satisfied. Member Trishanski said, “I think, all the elements have been met,” and expressed comfort with the more detailed plans submitted since June. Member Weisberg said he remained inclined to support the application, citing the record and the revised designs. Member Chase and Vice Chair Yeblon voiced greater concern about the size of the request; Yeblon said, “At this moment, I would not support the project,” citing standard 1 (reasonable return and size of the ask). After debate, Member Zaretsky moved to approve the variation as presented; the motion was seconded and carried on a 5–2 roll call: Weisberg — aye; Aronoff — yes; Chase — no; Trishanski — aye; Zaretsky — yes; Vice Chair Yeblon — no; Chair Bey — aye.

The applicant’s package states the existing home (built about 1901 per the Lake County assessor) would be demolished after the preservation commission’s one‑year demolition delay ends on Feb. 14, 2026. The application seeks relief from the established front‑yard setback in the R‑4 district and relies on Chapter 150 standards of approval. The submitted plans show a house roughly similar in total area to the existing house (the applicant cited about 6,700–6,800 square feet for both existing and proposed), with a side‑loading garage sited to avoid placing improvements on a steep slope or closer to the ravine.

Board members and the applicant described additional constraints driving the request: the property is narrower and shallower than adjacent deep lots that skew the block average used to determine the established setback, and the ravine reduces the buildable table land at the rear. The applicant said that siting the garage and providing required backing clearance constrained the house location and that alternative layouts (for example, garage doors facing the neighboring street) would be undesirable and likely to prompt neighborhood opposition. The historic preservation commission previously found the property significant and imposed a demolition delay; a separate petition to include the property in a non‑contiguous historic district was filed and later withdrawn.

The board approved the variance; the applicant may pursue building permits after the demolition delay and any required permits or reviews. The board record notes that staff will handle tree‑preservation questions during permitting and that the board considered Chapter 150 standards in its decision.

The board’s action closes the zoning‑variance phase for 175 Prospect Avenue; additional permitting, building‑department signoffs and the expiration of the demolition delay are prerequisites to demolition and construction.

Sources: Highland Park Zoning Board of Appeals meeting transcript (Oct. 16, 2025); applicant presentation materials and site plans; statements on the record by Cal Bernstein (attorney for the applicant), Michael Hershinson (architect), staff member Patrick, and resident Lauren Wood.