Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Highland Park zoning board grants variance for screened porch at 1331 Hillary Lane over some member objections
Summary
The Highland Park Zoning Board of Appeals approved a variance 4–2 to allow a roughly 382 sq ft screened porch at 1331 Hillary Lane, amid debate over whether the homeowner met the code's hardship standard and a discrepancy in reported gross floor area.
The Highland Park Zoning Board of Appeals on Nov. 20 approved a variance to allow a screened-in porch at 1331 Hillary Lane, voting 4–2 after extended questioning about lot size, floodplain proximity and conflicting square-footage figures.
Planner Patrick (staff) told the board the applicant seeks to add about 382 square feet, raising the property's total gross floor area to roughly 5,713.9 square feet and the allowable floor area ratio (FAR) to about 42.69 percent from the calculated baseline in the packet. He also flagged a discrepancy with a 2006 variance: that earlier approval recorded 4,751 square feet, but current existing gross floor area is listed in the materials as 5,332 square feet.
Homeowner Brett Kaplan, who testified in support, said the existing deck is deteriorating and the family wants an enclosed outdoor area to escape noise and 'bugs' from the nearby highway and river. "No one on the street can see it and we're actually backing up into a highway so no one really can see it," Kaplan said, describing the proposal as a modest, practical change and noting neighbors expressed support.
Members divided over whether the applicant met the code's hardship standard. Chair Babb said he did not think the standards had been met and urged caution because the house already exceeds previous FAR approvals: "I 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 FAR," the chair said. Vice Chair Yablon, in contrast, said the packet and letters described factors that made the situation distinct and that he believed the standards had been met.
Several board members asked for clearer measurements and verification of the assessor's versus applicant's figures. Staff said the board typically accepts architect-submitted materials and that building and engineering review would examine floodplain and detention easement constraints.
Vice Chair Yablon moved to approve the variance as drafted; Member Trishanski seconded. In the roll-call vote the board recorded four ayes and two nays; the motion passed. The board did not request further conditions in the public record during the meeting.
Next steps: the approval order will be prepared and signed according to the board's routine process. If the applicant had instead asked to continue, staff said the applicant could return with revised documentation; likewise, if a motion to approve had failed, the board would need to adopt a denial order in a later packet. The meeting record contains inconsistent spellings of several member names and internal packet figures that the board flagged for clarification.
