Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Owner of 1632 Sheridan Road appeals denied garage variance; Land Use Commission continues decision

Evanston Land Use Commission · July 9, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Property owner Thomas Connolly sought a minor variance to enclose a three‑car parking pad into a 3‑car garage, arguing three dwelling units require three enclosed spaces; after staff corrected a rear‑yard calculation and commissioners debated alternatives, a motion to grant the appeal fell 2–3 and the matter was continued to July 22 for a final decision.

Thomas Connolly, the owner of 1632 Sheridan Road, asked the Evanston Land Use Commission to overturn a zoning administrator’s denial and allow a minor variation to increase building lot coverage from 30% to 32% in order to enclose an existing three‑car parking pad into a garage.

Staff member Jeremiah Bebo told the commission that a prior miscalculation of rear‑yard coverage meant the proposal was compliant with the rear‑yard standard and that the only outstanding issue was the building lot coverage. Connolly said the property contains three dwelling units and that three garage spaces are needed for security, weather protection and to reduce on‑street parking pressure. “We’re just basically covering the parking pad,” Connolly said, explaining the proposal is meant to provide covered parking for the owner and two tenants.

Commissioners questioned whether interior reconfiguration or flipping the garage orientation could avoid the variance, and staff said sidewalks and flatwork count toward impervious surface but are not included in building lot or rear‑yard coverage calculations. Commissioners discussed whether the zoning administrator’s original calculation was arbitrary or simply a different interpretation of the code — the legal standard for overturning an administrative decision.

A motion to grant the appeal was made and seconded. Roll call recorded two votes in favor and three opposed; because five concurring votes are required to decide an appeal, the commission did not render a final decision and continued the case to the July 22 meeting. The public hearing was closed; no additional testimony will be allowed at the continued hearing.

What happens next: The case will return to the Land Use Commission on July 22 for a final vote after commissioners who were absent tonight have had an opportunity to review the record.