The Lake Bluff Committee of the Whole reviewed a request to amend restrictive covenants tied to 300 McLaren Lane that would increase the lot
llowable impervious surface from about 12% to approximately 16%, allowing the homeowners to add a roughly 400-square-foot deck. The committee expressed general support and agreed by consensus to forward the item to the Village Board meeting later that evening for formal consideration.

The request was introduced by Drew, a village staff member, who said the amendment stems from a zoning relief request and noted the restrictive covenants on Lot 37 date to 1994 and were previously modified in the 1990s. Drew told trustees the village record did not show a clear rationale for the 12% standard and that the Plan Commission/Board of Appeals had recommended the owners seek relief from the covenants to pursue the project as drawn. "We did not find anything to help us in that regard," Drew said about the origin of the 12% figure.

John McClendon, who identified himself as representing the owners of 300 McLaren Lane, described the plan and the area needing relief. He said the proposed deck is "about 400, a little over 400 feet" and that adding it would raise the lotoverage figure from the existing 12% to about 16%. McClendon said the project team intends to preserve a large tree located within the deck area.

Trustees raised questions about possible impacts on the adjacent Skokie Preserve and on neighborhood drainage. Trustee Fisher asked whether Openlands, which stewards the preserve, had concerns; Drew said village staff had not spoken directly with Openlands but that Openlands staff had discussed site work with the property owners. Several trustees said they did not expect the change to create new drainage problems in that immediate area because runoff generally drains to the preserve and an existing ditch. Trustee Cole said she visited the preserve and saw no apparent intrusions to the prairie view that would be caused by the proposed change.

Trustees and staff discussed the longer-term implications of granting a site-specific amendment to a decades-old covenant. Drew recommended creating a clear record of the considerations (drainage, preserve impacts, tree preservation) so future requests could be judged against documented factors. Trustees expressed interest in cleaning up and standardizing how the village handles similar one-off covenant amendments so future boards would have clear guidance.

No formal vote was taken in the Committee of the Whole. The committee recorded a consensus to move the request forward to the Village Board agenda for a formal action later the same evening; any amendment to the declaration of restrictive covenants would apply technically as a first amendment for the single property, not a blanket repeal of the 1994 restrictions for other lots.

The item will appear on the Village Board agenda at 7 p.m. for formal consideration and any official vote.