Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lot Coverage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ZBA continues contested Burton Avenue garage case after hearing extensive objections
Summary
The board continued the retroactive variance request for a large garage addition at 879 Burton Avenue to May 7 after lengthy discussion about work performed without a permit, unusually high rear‑yard coverage (reported 89%), and concerns about neighborhood character and drainage; the applicant will return with revised plans and additional neighbor outreach.
The Highland Park Zoning Board of Appeals on March 19 continued a contested variance request for 879 Burton Avenue to the board’s May 7 meeting after hearing prolonged testimony about an unpermitted garage addition and intensive board questioning about hardship, neighborhood character and stormwater.
Attorney Katarina Carrick and applicant Irvin Melendez told the board the addition and other yard work were constructed in August 2025 without a permit as a result of a miscommunication; Carrick said the work proceeded quickly and a stop‑work order was issued. Carrick described the lot as narrow (39.99 feet) and argued the site’s small size and preexisting nonconforming garage create constraints that justify relief. She said the owners submitted for permits after the stop‑work order and are now seeking to regularize the work.
Board members pressed the applicant on several points: the total rear‑yard coverage was reported as roughly 89% (staff said the addition is about 350 sq ft and that, without the new work, the property would be only slightly over the 50% allowance), the structure was built without a posted permit, and neighbors submitted letters both in support and in opposition. Member comments repeatedly raised two concerns: whether the hardship was self‑created by unpermitted construction, and whether the size and bulk of the addition would alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Member Zoransky said the project “is a big coverage” and that approving it would be “rewarding a bad act,” while Member Weissberg said the board should focus on whether the standards are met rather than penalize the applicant for the construction history.
Staff and the applicant discussed possible steps to reduce impacts: removing an existing rear shed, submitting colored renderings and more accurate elevations, demonstrating drainage mitigation (the applicant said a French drain would be installed if necessary), and seeking clearer written support from immediate adjacent neighbors. The applicant said he would try to obtain additional neighbor support and refine plans.
After deliberation the board voted to continue V‑2026‑00062 to May 7, 2026 to allow the applicant time to revise materials and consult neighbors; the continuance was approved by roll call and does not require re‑notice. The board indicated the key issues to address on return will be lot‑coverage reduction, clearer visuals of finished materials, and documentation of drainage mitigation and neighbor communications.
