►
From YouTube: Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 1/5/2016
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Good
evening
and
welcome
this
is
a
public
hearing
of
the
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals
of
the
city
of
Evanston.
The
zoning
ordinance
directs
this
body
to
hear
applications
for
major
variations,
special
uses
and
appeals
from
decisions
of
the
Zoning
Administrator,
depending
on
the
type
of
matter.
This
board
will
either
make
a
final
determination
or
send
its
recommendation
to
City
Council.
Would
you
please
call
the
roll.
C
A
Six
members
present
we
do
have
a
quorum
also
present
tonight
our
zoning
planner
Melissa
clots
and
Planning
and
Zoning
Administrator
damier
latina.
This
is
a
formal
meeting
and
there
are
rules
that
govern
our
proceedings.
Most
importantly,
only
one
person
speaks
at
a
time,
so
all
testimony
may
be
accurately
recorded.
Anyone
who
wishes
to
address
the
board
regarding
any
matter
on
the
agenda
will
have
the
opportunity
to
do
so
at
the
appropriate
time.
A
Our
procedure
is
to
hear
from
staff
on
all
documents
on
file
and
then
receive
testimony
and
other
evidence
from
the
applicant
or
appellant
next.
Persons
who
wish
to
make
a
statement
regarding
the
matter
may
do
so
at
that
time,
any
person
with
a
legal
interest
in
property
located
within
500
feet
of
the
subject.
Property
may
present
evidence
reasonably
question
witnesses
or
seafood
continuance
of
the
hearing.
When
all
supporting
and
opposing
testimony
and
statements
have
been
heard,
the
applicant
or
appellant
will
be
given
the
opportunity
for
rebuttal
or
closing
statement.
A
Then
the
board
will
close
the
record
and
begin
deliberations.
All
testimony
will
be
under
oath,
although
we
do
not
apply
the
strict
rules
of
evidence.
Please
limit
your
testimony
or
statement
to
your
personal
knowledge
when
you
address
the
board,
please
state
your
name
and
address
and
sign
in
on
the
provided
sheet.
Our
meetings
are
audio
and
video
recorded.
Please
make
sure
that
you
are
at
a
microphone
when
asking
questions
or
making
statements
so
that
you
may
be
properly
recorded.
All
proceedings
are
subject
to
broadcast
at
a
later
date.
A
A
The
matter
2422
Hastings
Avenue
has
requested
a
continuance
and
I
don't
see
the
applicant
from
1610
Fowler
here.
If
he
does
not
show
up
when
it's
time
to
hear
the
case
will
grant
a
continuance
because
something
may
have
come
up,
but
with
that
we
will
move
into
the
first
item
on
our
agenda,
which
is
the
approval
of
minutes
from
December
15th.
Has
everyone
had
an
opportunity
to
read
them
and
are
there
any
changes?
A
There
was
one
change.
I
had
noted
on
page
two
underneath
the
list
of
four
bullet
points
where
it
says
miss
McCauley
disclosed.
She
had
worked
with
the
architect
in
the
past,
but
it
would
her
decision
on
this
case.
I
don't
know,
I
think
it
would
not
affect
her
decision
on
this
case
is
probably
missing
from
in
there.
A
It
has
been
moved
and
seconded
any
further
discussion.
All
those
in
favor
say
aye
aye
opposed
with
six
votes
in
favour.
The
meetings
the
minutes
will
be
approved
with
that.
We'll
move
into
the
first
item
on
our
agenda,
an
old
business
which
is
1303
rosalie
street,
and
I
would
ask
that
please
be
read
into
the
record
nate.
B
Rosalie
contractor
applies
for
major
zoning
relief
to
construct
an
enclosed
porch
in
the
r1
single-family
residential
district.
The
applicant
proposes
a
5-foot
rear
yard
setback
where
30
feet
is
required
so
on
in
code,
section
6,
8
to
8
a-4,
the
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals
is
the
determining
body.
For
this
case.
Documents
included
as
part
of
the
record
include
variation
application
submitted
October
thirtieth
2015.
A
G
So
basically,
the
proposal
is
to
construct
a
new
porch
where
their
existing
porches
that's
slightly
larger.
To
accommodate
you
know,
table
for
eating
the
existing
porch
is
kind
of
small
and
the
stairs
are
one
side
and
the
entry
to
the
porch
to
the
kitchen
is
at
the
other,
so
it
basically
functions
as
a
hallway,
so
we're
looking
to
enlarge
it
to
come
in
at
a
table
for
eating
and
I
brought
some
print
out.
Second
pass
out.
If
you
guys
need
that
know,
you
guys
have
seen
on
it
so
far,.
G
There's
a
couple:
a
couple
extra
pieces.
A
F
H
A
G
So,
basically,
if
you
can
see
it
from
the
existing
that
the
door
to
the
kitchen
in
order
to
get
out
through
the
stairs
the
existing
stairs,
who
basically
use
that
space
as
a
hall
and
so
for
the
proposed
we
put
the
stairs.
So
it's
more
of
a
straight
shot
out
to
the
exterior
so
that
there
would
actually
be
a
spot
for
a
table
and
then
so
that
would
put
the
the
it
would
encroach
on
the
lot
line.
An
additional
two
feet
to
the
north.
G
F
G
D
F
F
F
Basement
bedroom,
I,
don't
think
that's
what
you
actually
mean.
What
room
is
that
it.
G
Is
an
office,
its
basement
partl.
G
F
F
A
H
H
F
A
E
F
A
F
H
D
H
We
haven't
had
any
note,
no
concerns
and
the
one
letter
is
for
the
neighbors
to
our
north.
That's
the
letter
from
November.
We
were
originally
going
to
meet
with
you
all
in
December,
but
schedules
didn't
work
and
then
the
other
letter
is
for
our
neighbor
immediately
to
the
west
and
we,
our
block,
is
very
amicable,
so
the
people
on
the
Block
get
along.
So
it's
why
we
stay.
Thank.
D
H
And
if
one
other
thing
that
I
might
add
is
if
you
see
on
the
plans,
were
not
in
my
mind,
we're
not
trying
to
do
that,
much
that
we're
not
extending
the
porch
all
the
way
to
the
full
length
of
the
house,
we're
adding
a
few
feet
in
a
couple
of
directions.
We
just
want
to
be
able
to
fit
in
a
small
table
that
we
could
put
four
people
around
to
eat.
So
it's
it
and
the
reason
we're
not
doing
that.
A
G
A
H
G
Okay,
I
guess
yeah,
just
thanks
for
your
time
and
if
you
guys
have
any
other
questions
we
have
to
answer,
but
that's
it.
A
F
E
A
Okay,
with
that,
we
do
have
a
set
of
standards.
There
are
seven
standards
that
we
must
find.
Our
met
for
us
to
approve
a
proposed
project
will
walk
through
those
standards,
the
the
first
one
being
the
requested
variation
will
not
have
a
substantial
adverse
impact
on
the
use,
enjoyment
or
property
values
of
adjoining
properties.
A
I
believe
that
this
standard
is
met
number
two,
the
requested
variation
is
in
keeping
with
the
intent
of
the
zoning
ordinance.
We
do
find
from
time
to
time
that
properties
that
have
been
built
in
evanston
over
the
years
need
to
have
modernizations
done
to
them.
This
is
a
very
modest
change,
but
something
that
we
would
expect
to
happen
from
time
to
time
to
some
of
our
older
properties
and
make
them
more
viable
for
the
quote:
unquote,
modern
family,
so
I
believe.
A
A
Out
of
what
was
a
larger
lot
and
looking
at
the
way
the
house
currently
sits
on
the
property,
I
think
it's
less
than
eight
feet
from
the
property
line,
and
so
any
sort
of
change
is
going
to
have
some
encroachment
into
any
change
would
have
encroachment
into
the
30
foot
back
yard,
which
doesn't
exist
at
this
particular
property,
so
that
standard
is
met.
Number
for
the
property
owner
would
suffer
a
particular
hardship
or
practical
difficulty,
as
distinguished
from
a
mere
inconvenience
at
the
strict
letter
of
the
regulations
were
to
be
carried
out.
A
This
is
a
decrepit
porch
that
seems
to
be
having
some
some
issues
in
terms
of
leaking
water,
just
in
general,
upkeep
through
no
fault
of
the
owner.
Just
properties,
age
and
the
fact
that
they
would
be
allowed
by
right
to
the
same
exact
porch
allows
them
to
build
something
that
really
doesn't
fit
in
with
their
their
lifestyle
and
for
the
minor
change
that
they
are
requesting.
I
believe
that
standard
number
four
would
be
met
by
allowing
this
project
to
move
forward
standard
number
five,
the
purpose.
A
The
variation
is
not
based
exclusively
upon
a
desire
to
extract
additional
income
from
the
property.
With
this
particular
standard
I,
don't
see
how
all
the
property
owners
are
going
to
extract
additional
income
by
increasing
their
porch
by
I
think,
probably
around
80
square
feet,
or
something
like
that.
So
I
believe
that
standard
is
met.
A
Number
60,
ledge,
difficulty
or
hardship
has
not
been
created
by
any
person
having
an
interest
in
the
property
we
have
heard
from
the
homeowner
that
they
had
lived
in
this
location
for
11
years
in
looking
at
the
structure,
I
believe
that
this
particular
porch
probably
predates
they're
moving
into
it,
and
so
by
that
fault,
our
by
that
logic,
there
they've
had
no
interest
in
creating
the
porch
that
currently
exists
there
and
so
standard
number
six
is
met
in
standard
number.
Seven.
A
The
requested
variation
requires
the
least
deviation
from
the
applicable
regulation
among
the
feasible
options
identify
before
the
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals.
This
is
the
one
where
a
lot
of
projects
kind
of
tend
to
fall
apart
for
us,
but
in
this
particular
case,
because
of
the
fact
that
it
is
a
modest
increase
in
the
overall
size
of
the
property,
and
we
have
seen
attempts
made
to
decrease
the
impervious
surface.
I
believe
that
the
standard
is
met
in
that
the
minimum
has
been.
A
E
A
A
The
second
item
on
our
agenda,
which
is
24
22
Hastings
Avenue,
has
requested
a
continuance.
My
understanding
is,
they
have
to
appear
before
dapper
again
with
some
changes,
which
is
why
they're
being
pushed
off
our
agenda.
The
request
has
been
to
continue
it
too.
February's.
Second,
so
is
there
a
motion
for
that
I.
C
A
E
A
With
six
votes
in
favor
and
0
against,
it
will
be
continued
till
that
meeting.
The
last
item
on
our
agenda
is
1610.
Fowler
avenue,
honest,
are
you
the
applicant?
Okay?
Do
we
have
the
applicant?
The
applicant
does
not
appear
to
be
here.
I
will
note
for
the
record.
It
is
7
30,
30
minutes
after
we've
begun.
Our
meeting
I
will
ask
if
there
is
a
motion
to
continue
that
until
such
time
that
we
can
find
out
if
they
are
moving
forward.
With
this
particular
case,
we.
A
C
A
A
B
A
I
get
to
write
those
every
year.
That
was
a
good
if
there's
no
other
matter
to
be
brought
before
the
board.
Is
there
a
motion
to
adjourn
just.