The Highland Park Zoning Board of Appeals voted 4–2 on Nov. 20 to grant a variance allowing a screened-in porch addition at 1331 Hillary Lane, increasing the property’s gross floor area to about 5,713.9 square feet (approximately 42.69% FAR), according to staff and applicant materials.

The request, introduced by staff, named applicant Brett Kaplan and sought relief from the R6 zoning district FAR limit; staff said the allowed FAR equates to 4,080 square feet for this lot and that the property’s current gross floor area was recorded as 5,332 square feet. The applicant proposed a roughly 382-square-foot screened porch to result in a new total of about 5,713.9 square feet.

Applicant Brett Kaplan told the board the existing deck is deteriorating and that a transplanted balcony off the main bedroom was removed, and that the family wants an enclosed outdoor space to avoid bugs and highway noise: “We currently are hoping to get a screened in porch. We have a existing deck that is deteriorating … so just the way we’ve kind of always envisioned that space become a screened in porch.” Kaplan also said the project reduces some deck area to offset added space.

Board members focused on two primary issues: whether the five standards for variance approval — especially the hardship-on-owner standard — were met, and whether the numeric FAR data were accurate. Staff noted a 2006 variance had approved 4,751 square feet for earlier work, and also said the assessor’s and the architect’s figures differ; staff reported the applicant’s architect confirmed the current 5,332-square-foot measurement.

Vice Chair Yablon moved approval, arguing the record and the applicant’s packet explained the site’s constraints: “I believe the standards have been met,” Yablon said, citing the property’s proximity to floodplain and slope conditions that limit where an enclosed outdoor space can be placed.

Chair Jamie Bey voted against the motion and delivered the principal dissent, saying the house already substantially exceeds its applicable FAR and that granting additional FAR would run counter to zoning intent: “I don’t think the standards have been met … we’ve got a house that appears … to be the largest house in the neighborhood already,” Bey said, urging consideration of alternatives.

Several members said they were influenced by the packet’s hardship statement and by site constraints such as detention easements and proximity to the Skokie River. Members Arnoff, Trishanski, Zoranski and Vice Chair Yablon voted aye; Member Weisberg and Chair Bey voted nay. The motion was seconded by Member Trishanski and passed by roll-call vote 4–2; staff was instructed to sign the variance approval order as written.

Board discussion also flagged confusing or inconsistent FAR and assessor figures and several members suggested a continuance to provide clearer comparative FAR calculations for nearby houses; the applicant opted to proceed to a vote. Staff noted that if the motion to approve had failed, the board would need a separate denial order in the public packet for OMA compliance.

The board’s approval authorizes the screened porch construction as described in the application but does not alter other permit and engineering reviews; staff said building and engineering divisions will review floodplain, detention-easement and construction details before issuing building permits.

The board’s action is limited to the variance request heard Nov. 20; the material in the public packet and the vote record will constitute the formal decision.