►
From YouTube: Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 11-17-2020
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
A
A
Testimony
is
taken
under
oath,
although
we
do
not
apply
the
strict
rules
of
evidence
and
procedures.
We
ask
that
you
keep
your
testimony
relevant
to
the
proposal
as
it
relates
to
the
standards
contained
in
the
zoning
ordinance.
When
you
testify,
please
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record
and
print
your
name
on.
Well,
let
us
know
your
name.
Each
case
will
be
introduced
by
staff
and
a
list
of
documents
will
be
read
into
the
record.
Then
the
applicant
will
give
an
explanation,
an
explanation
of
their
proposal
after
that.
A
A
A
Can
I
have
a
motion
to
suspend
the
rules
to
participate
electronically
in
by
telephone.
C
I
move
that
we
suspend
the
regulations
to
meet
in
person
and
in
light
of
the
covid
pandemic,
that
we
meet
digitally
for
this
zba
meeting.
D
B
Will
yeah
okay,
member
colin
or
chair
colin
hi,
remember
zordon
hi
member
mccauley.
I
remember
deacon.
E
A
F
C
A
Just
so,
we
can
be
on
record
for
that.
Okay,
let's
move
forward
to
new
business
is
the
respondent
for
900
edgemere
court
present
the
person
that's
going
to
be
speaking
for
night.
Is
that
you
amy?
Okay?
Yes,
thank
you.
Thank
you.
Okay.
Would
you
like
to
read
that
into
the
record.
B
Amy
reichert
architect
applies
for
major
zoning
relief
to
construct
a
roofed
connection
between
the
existing
detached
coach
house
and
principal
structure
in
the
r1
single
family,
residential
district
in
lakeshore,
historic
district.
The
applicant
requests
a
zero
foot,
rear
yard
setback
for
a
principal
structure
where
30
feet
is
required
and
zero
feet
is
the
existing
legal
non-conforming
condition
as
an
accessory
structure.
Zoning
code,
section
6828a4
zoning
board
of
appeals,
is
the
determining
body
for
this
case.
G
Sure
sure
so,
there's
a
wonderful
landmark
building,
900
edge
here
by
mayo
and
mayo
and
1927
and
with
a
coach
house,
that's
very
close
about
the
closest
part,
is
under
seven
feet,
we're
looking
to
connect
the
garage
interior
with
a
new
mud
room
attached
to
the
house,
which
is
now
permitted
as
of
september
29th,
ruling
by
city
council
and
while
we
are
not
actually
building
in
beyond
any
current
setbacks.
G
G
A
So
I
have
a
question
about
this
is
how
much
of
a
square
footage
is
this
extension.
G
C
You
know
I
really
I
I
looked
at
the
documents
presented
and
and
there's
nothing
that
you
can
do
to
move
the
garage
further
in
from
the
alley.
This
is
a
historic
structure.
Needless
to
say,
you
know,
preservation
voted
unanimously
to
approve
it.
I
see
this
as
being
a
a
very
reasonable
accommodation
for
the
the
needs
that
are
present.
G
I
Just
to
echo
I
mean
any
concerns
that
I
could
have
had
over.
This
would
have
been
appropriately
reviewed
and
raised
by
the
historic
preservation
commission
so
with
their
unanimous
approval.
I'm
I'm
happy
to
move
forward.
A
I
as
well
support
this
and
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
read
the
variance
standards
for
this.
If
there's
no
other
problems,
anybody
have
anything
else
to
say
about
this.
This
project.
A
Okay,
so,
let's
move
forward
the
responses
to
the
standards
below
can
constitute
the
professional
opinion
of
the
planning
and
zoning
staff
determination,
whether
the
standards
for
marriage,
major
variation
have
been
met
shall
be
exclusively
afforded
to
members
of
the
board
for
the
zba
to
recommen
recommend
approval
of
a
variance.
The
zba
must
find
that
the
proposed
variance
a
will
not
have
a
substantial
adverse
impact
on
the
use,
enjoyment
or
property
values
of
adjoining
property
staff
believes
that
this
standard
has
been
met.
Staff
has
not
received
any
objections
from
the
neighboring
property
owners.
A
Moreover,
the
non-conforming
setback
in
question
is
unchanged
and
will
not
increase
its
impact
on
the
neighboring
properties.
Beyond
what
exists
currently
b
is
in
keeping
with
the
intent
of
the
zoning
ordinance.
Ordinance
staff
believes
that
this
standard
has
been
met.
The
proposal
aligns
with
the
goals
of
the
comprehensive
general
plan
and
the
zoning
ordinance's
desire
to
promote
the
health
and
well-being
of
evanston's
citizen
citizenry
c.
Has
the
hardship
or
practical
difficulty
that
is
peculiar
to
the
property
staff
believes
that
this
standard
has
been
met.
A
The
existing
detached
structure
is
legally
non-conforming
located
on
the
rear
lot
line.
The
condition
is
typical
of
many
properties
within
periods
of
construction
which
predate
the
zoning
ordinance.
The
proposed
changes
do
not
alter
the
existing
condition
in
question.
Although
the
setback
requirements
change
based
on
the
owner's
desire
for
the
attached
accessory
dwelling
unit,
as
recently
committed
by
city
council
standard
d,
the
property
owner
would
suffer
a
particular
hardship
or
practical
difficulty,
as
distinguished
from
a
mere
inconvenience
staff
believes
that
this
standard
has
been
met.
A
A
Standard
ee
is
not
based
exclusively
upon
a
desire
to
extract
additional
income
from
the
property
or
benefit
to
the
whole
will
be
derived.
Staff
believes
that
this
standard
has
also
been
met.
The
property
will
continue
to
be
owner,
family
occupied
and
no
additional
income
will
result
from
this
proposal.
A
Even
if
the
accessory
dwelling
unit
were
rented
in
the
future,
no
significant
increase
in
rent
could
be
attributed
to
the
proposed
roof.
Connection
f
does
not
have
a
hardship
or
practical
difficulty
that
was
created
by
any
person
having
an
interest
in
the
property
staff
believes
that
this
standard
has
been
met.
The
practical
difficulty
of
navigating
the
space
between
structures
safely
during
inclement
weather
is
in
no
way
created
by
the
property
owner's
desire
to
create
safe,
multi-generational
housing
and
housing,
which
fits
the
needs
of
their
aging
family.
A
Member
standard
g
is
limited
to
the
minimum
change
necessary
to
alleviate
the
particular
hardship
or
practical
difficulty.
Staff
believes
that
this
standard
has
been
met.
Although
other
alternatives
were
considered,
including
temporary
overhead
structures,
they
would
not
result
in
an
adequately
safe
intervention
capable
of
accommodating
the
accessibility
needs
of
the
elderly
family.
Member
can
I
have
someone
call
the
motion.
A
D
I'll
call
the
motion
in
the
matter
of
zba
20zm
jv-0069
for
900
edgemere
court.
I
move
that
we
support
the
major
zoning
relief
to
construct
the
roof
connection
between
the
existing
detached
coast,
coach
house
and
the
principal
structure
in
the
r1
single
family
residential
district.
D
E
E
A
A
B
J
Okay,
so
this
is
basically
a
convenience
store
in
the
beautiful
west
end
neighborhood
of
evanston.
J
This
is
gonna,
consist
of
snacks,
cookies,
donuts,
granola
bars,
mexican
candy
chips,
a
lot
of
variety
of
chips,
three
coolers,
which
is
going
to
consist
of
drinks
like
coke,
seven,
7up
and
arizona,
we'll
have
a
little
bit
of
a
section
for
a
beauty
supply,
diapers
medicine
like
tylenol
micro,
excedrin,
cigarettes,
chewing
tobacco
and
cigars.
A
C
Yeah,
mr
ali,
there
there
was
some
concern
from
dapper
that
the
layout
of
the
store
was
not
sufficiently
presented
for
them
to
confirm
that
the
cigarettes
were
safely
out
of
the
way
of
miners
and
and
just
essentially
the
the
floor
plan
that
you
had
presented
to
dapper
apparently
didn't
match
the
the
storefront
plan
that
they
had,
and
they
had
suggested
that
you
revise
that
that
floor
plan.
J
Yes,
I
made
another
one
and.
J
I
can
get
it
for
you
yeah.
I
could
send
it
again.
C
A
B
I
think
what
he's
referring
to
is
we
we
originally
at
the
first
dapper
meeting,
had
a
site
plan
a
floor
plan
that
was
a
completely
different
proposal
right
and
then
it
was
held
in
committee,
and
he
came
back
with
a
revised
floor
plan
and
dapper
had
asked
for
revisions
to
that
revised
floor
plan
which
he
presented
then
which
which
we
haven't
received.
E
C
Well,
so
so,
mr
ali,
I
think
that
that
would
be
a
good
thing
for
you
to
have
prepared
in
a
visual
format
or
send
it
to
kade,
or
you
know,
someone
in
zoning
for
the
city
council
meeting
to
follow
this.
Should
we
recommend
approval
to
city
council.
E
H
H
H
It
is
actually
a
relatively
large
space
that
is
accessible
from
an
interior
corridor
that
leads
to
the
car
wash
in
the
back.
So
the
place
is
not
available
from
the
street.
You
have
to
go
into
the
corridor
to
the
right
is
the
door
to
the
future
convenience
store
to
the
left
is
a
phone
company
office.
H
So
that's
why
it
is
a
little
bit
confusing
with
all
the
plans
that
were
provided.
Obviously,
on
the
front
pages,
there
were
some
sample
layouts
of
different
projects,
and
the
only
layout
that
refers
to
this
project
is
on
display
page,
which
is
once
again
called
one
of
one
and
it's
called
ground
floor
plan,
and
there
are
some
indications
of
the
location
of
the
coolers,
the
candy
bars
and
and
so
on.
So
just
explanation
to
the
to
the
board
members.
C
Clear
from
that
floor
plan
that
the
cigarettes
were
actually
set
up
behind
the
counter
and
the
coolers
were,
I
think,
labeled
beer
coolers,
which
caused
people
to
question
that,
but
carol
what
I
also
didn't
get
from
that
floor
plan.
I
did
not
understand
that
the
entry
to
this
convenience
store
was
the
common
entry
to
the
car
wash.
C
E
H
The
right
is
the
window
for
this
future
convenience
store
on
the
left
is
the
metro
pc?
It's
actually
a
phone
store,
so.
H
H
J
Yeah
the
employees
could
come
through
the
back,
also
like
through
the
car
wash
there's
a
door
also.
E
C
J
C
Raises
a
little
bit
of
concern
about
the
you
know,
you
you
had
indicated
in
the
materials
that
your
busiest
time
you
anticipate
will
be
between
12
and
3,
I'm
assuming
that
that
might
entail
students
from
the
high
school
at
lunchtime
or
right
after
school,
which
could
create
a
little
bit
of
a
crush
in
that
hallway.
But
I'm
sure
that
that's
something
that
you
would
regulate.
E
A
D
Jump
in
here,
if
I
may,
mr
ali,
can
you
speak
to
where
deliveries
are
going
to
be
received
for
the
store?
How
well.
J
Delivery,
we
we
won't
do
delivery
unless
there's
an
option
on
the
uber
app
where
uber
eats.
You
could
also,
you
know,
get
delivered
food
from
like
convenience
stores
outlaw
7-11.
You
know
like
they
have
their
own
app.
Where
customers,
you
know,
choose
on
the
app
what
they
want
and
and
the
drivers
deliver
to
the
customers,
but
other
than
that
we
won't
do
deliveries.
D
J
Will
be
delivered,
it
could
come
through
the
back,
there's
a
large
parking
space,
and
if
we
have
inventory,
we
could
come
from
the
back
and
there's
a
back
door.
Also
that
I
could
come
and
place
the
items
through
the
door
and
bring
it
to
the
store.
D
J
I
mean
it
could
also
be
deliveries
from
the
front,
but
they
would
there's
there's
a
bike
lane
over
there,
so
they
would
have
to
park,
like
maybe
10,
to
15
feet
away
from
the
store
they
could
also
deliver
through
there.
I
feel
be
much
better
if
they
come
through
the
back,
because
there's
parking
already
back
there,
you
know,
so
they
don't
have
to
worry
about
where
they're
gonna
place
their
cars
or
when
they
come.
D
And
so
speaking
of
parking,
I
understand
there's
some
parking
spaces
in
the
back
and
can
you
help
me
understand
so
some
customers
will
park
in
those
designated
spots
in
the
back?
Is
that
accurate.
J
They
could
choose
to
park
in
the
back
if
they
want,
but
there's
also
a
lot
of
parking
on
dodge.
It's
a
it's
empty
majority
of
the
time.
So
if
they
want,
they
could
also
park
on
dodge
and
walk
a
couple
feet
because
there's
a
bike
lane
in
front
of
the
storefront.
D
Right
and
so
then
there
is
an
access
point
from
the
rear
parking
into
the
rear
of
the
building
to
enter
the
store
or
they
have
to
walk
around.
E
J
Maybe
10
percent
of
all
the
product
will
be
tobacco.
Approximately.
D
J
J
We
were
we're
gonna,
do
nine
to
nine
nine
in
the
morning
to
nine
at
night
nine
pm.
H
E
H
J
J
The
the
the
store
customer
parking
will
be
to
the
east
of
the
building.
The
customers
will
park
south
on
dodge.
C
There
there
is
a
a
lease
carol
I
haven't.
I
haven't,
I
didn't
read
anything
in
it
about
parking
yet,
but
that
should
be
addressed
in
the
commercial
lease
that
he
has.
H
Mr
ali
one
additional
question
in
your
estimate:
what
percentage
of
your
customers
will
come
driving
to
your
facility
and
what
percentages
will
be
pedestrians?
Just
looking
for
your
services.
J
Driving
customers-
maybe
around
10
majority,
will
be
a
pedestrian
and
a
lot
of
walking
traffic
around
the
area.
It's
a
lot
of
storefronts
on
in
the
evan
edison
plaza
across
the
street.
J
J
They
could
walk
also
and
a
lot
a
lot
of
residents
in
the
back
also,
so
they
easily
walk
to
the
store.
J
A
J
I
would
love
to
use
the
the
emerson
plaza
parking
that'll,
be
ideal,
I'm
still
in
contact
with
the
the
management
for
edmonton
plaza,
and
hopefully
we
could
come
to
agreement
on
parking
of
some
sort
or
something.
C
I
don't
see
anything
in
the
lease
to
suggest
that
that
the
premises
include
the
parking
in
the
rear
of
the
building
there.
So
you
might
want
to
confirm
with
your
landlord
what
the
conditions
are
for
the
parking
in
the
rear
of
the
building.
C
Would
be
good
that
would
be
advisable
to
do
for
your
meeting
with
council,
because
yeah
there
is
nothing
here
to
suggest
that
you
that
that
is
part
of
the
common
areas.
As
a
matter
of
fact,
it
designates
common
areas
as
being
simply
the
hallway
so
yeah
you.
You
want
to
know
that
your
clients
have
use
of
that
parking.
Also.
J
A
H
My
concern
is
parking,
as
I
told
everyone,
I
was
a
frequent
client
of
jetblue
and
frankly,
I
always
parked
the
opposite
party
parking
at
the
plaza
because
coming
to
this
place
from
both
directions,
you
cannot
access
if
there
are
no
empty
spaces
on
the
street
south
of
the
space
you're,
simply
stuck
you,
you
don't
have
a
parking
space.
H
There
is
a
bicycle
path,
and
there
actually
there
are,
there-
are
risks
of
incidents
over
their
accidents
over
there
generally
high
risk
of
that
there
are
some
plastic
boards
that
are
between
the
bicycle
path
and
the
the
street
there's
a
kind
of
a
narrow
about
two
feet
marked
area.
But
the
fact
is
that
people
using,
for
instance,
jetblue
services
used
to
park
either
on
the
bicycle
path
or
in
between
the
bullets.
H
So
I
would
strongly
suggest
that
these
bollards
are
multiplied
at
least
by
two,
so
that
nobody
can
park
on
the
bicycle
path
over
there,
so
that
there
is
certain
safety
measures.
The
other
thing
is
that
even-
and
I
can
confess
this
even
me-
parking
on
the
other
side
of
the
street-
I
cross
the
street
at
this
location,
not
at
the
lights
that
are
about,
let's
say,
100
yards
to
the
north.
So
if
people
continue
to
do
that,
there
is
another
risk
of
pedestrian
traffic
across
the
street
and
dodge
is
relatively
high
volume
street.
C
That's
what
I
was
going
to
suggest
carol,
and
maybe
you
know
I
never
want
to
saddle
a
new
business
owner
with
any
additional
expense.
But
it
seems
to
me
that
that
requesting
that
that
mr
ali
work
with
the
city
to
get
unquestionable
signage
in
front
of
the
store
that
there
can
be
no
parking
in
that
location,
because
I
don't
think
that
you
know
I'm
I'm
familiar
with
it
too.
C
I
I
don't
think
that
it's
obviously
everyone
knows
that
they're
not
allowed
to
park
on
a
bike
route
lane,
but
that's
not
to
say
that
is
not
ignored
on
occasion.
So
you
know
maybe
having
an
additional
fine
or
something
would
discourage
that
further.
I
Could
we
tack
on
to
that
in
the
same
vein,
a
condition
that
deliveries
be
received
from
the
rear.
E
C
Part
of
the
premises
that
mr
ali
is
leasing,
and
so
that
so
you
know
you
could
say
you
know
we
could
say
okay
if
the
landlord
wants,
although
mr
ali's
already
signed
this
lease,
but
that
would
be
something
actually
to
put
on
the
landlord
rather
than
on
mr
ali,
and
that
probably
should
have
been
done
before
the
lease
was
signed.
But.
I
C
D
Isn't
that
what
you
were
expressing
jill,
because
I
think
we'd
have
to
we-
don't
want
these
trucks
parking
and
tying
up
traffic
and
causing
backups
and
problems
with
the
bar
the
bike
lines
on
dodge?
I
think
that's
something
that
we'd
want
to
condition
before
this
be
before
this
comes
before
city
council.
A
Yeah
right
next
to
this
property
is
an
alley
in
between
the
the
insurance
place,
the
currency
in
this
store,
and
mostly
when
I
pass
there,
there's
always
the
truck
in
the
alley.
So
that's
where
most
deliveries
have
been
being
made,
whether.
I
D
So
I
have
a
question
for
staff
kade.
I
know
there's
an
issue
that,
if
more
than
50
of
the
revenue
of
the
store
is
with
tobacco
products
that
it's
actually
classified
as
a
smoke
shop
versus
a
convenience
store.
If
I
understand
that
correctly,
how
is
that
actually
monitored
by
the
city?
I
you
know
I.
I
am
noting
that
this
is
in
close
proximity
to
the
high
school
and
it
is
going
to
be
selling
tobacco.
We've
sort
of
talked
about
how
the
sales
of
that
tobacco
is
going
to
be
monitored.
D
But,
overall,
when
you
consider
whether
this
is
a
convenience
store
or
a
smoke
shop,
how
is
that
monitored?.
B
I'm
not
sure
how
they
would
come
to
a
specific
percentage
of
of
of
sales,
I
think,
is
what
it
is,
but,
but
certainly
on
an
annual
basis.
The
health
department
would
would
perform
some
kind
of
inspection,
but
I
guess
it
would
have
to
just
be
if
it's
a
concern
or
not,
I
suppose,
versus
the
actual
percentage
of
sales,
which
I
think
would
be
hard
to
determine.
C
In
convenience
stores
close
to
my
own
home,
so
I
think
that
mr
ali,
just
you
know,
has
to
be
cognizant
of
the
fact
that
they're
you
know
there
are
always
eyes
on
businesses
that
sell
a
lot
of
tobacco
product.
It
would
be
unwise
to
plow
the
laws.
D
I
think,
as
the
recommending
body
here
I
think,
based
on
what
I'm
hearing,
I
think
that
we
can
make
a
positive
recommendation
to
city
council
with
some
further
conditions
so
that
they
have
more
complete
information
and
the
case
can
can
continue
to
counsel.
You
know
with
some
further
conditions.
In
my
opinion,.
D
A
Although
the
staff
recommends
approval,
the
responses
to
the
standards
below
constitute
the
professional
opinion
of
the
planning
and
zoning
staff
determination,
whether
the
standards
for
special
use
have
been
met
shall
be
exclusively
afforded
to
members
of
the
board
for
the
zba
to
recommend
that
the
city
council
grant
a
special
use.
The
zba
must
find
that
the
proposed
special
use-
a
is
one
of
the
listed
special
uses
for
the
zoning
district
in
which
the
property
lies.
This
standard
has
been
met,
convenience
store
is
a
listed
eligible.
A
Special
use
within
the
c1
commercial
district
b
complies
with
the
purposes
and
policies
of
the
comprehensive
general
plan
and
zoning
ordinance.
The
staff
believes
that
this
standard
has
been
met.
The
use
is
compliant
with
the
zoning
ordinance
and
comprehensive
general
plan.
The
proposed
use
promotes
the
growth
and
development
of
a
business
and
commercial
area
and
strengthens
evanston's
economic
base.
A
Standard
c
does
not
cause
a
negative
cumulative
effect
in
combination
with
existing
special
uses,
or
is
a
category
of
land
use.
The
staff
believes
that
this
standard
has
been
met.
The
proposed
use
has
limited
potential
to
negatively
interfere
with
any
proximate
residential
or
commercial
uses.
Standard
d
does
not
interfere
with
or
diminish
the
value
of
the
neighborhood.
The
staff
believes
that
this
standard
has
been
met.
The
proposed
use
would
occupy
a
currently
vacant
storefront
and
non-objectional
to
surrounding
commercial
uses.
Staff
has
not
received
any
public
comment.
Opposing
the
proposed
use.
A
Standard
e
is
adequately
served
by
public
facilities
and
services.
Staff
believes
that
this
standard
has
been
met.
The
building
is
served
by
adequate
sidewalks
streets,
trash
collection,
on-street
parking
and
is
in
close
proximity
to
cta
bus
service.
Standard
f
does
not
cause
undue
traffic
congestion
staff
believes
that
this
standard
has
been
met.
The
location
is
well
suited
for
customers
to
access
by
foot
or
bike,
and
the
staff
believes
that
there
is
adequate
turnover
of
on-street
parking
spaces
south
of
the
subject.
A
Property
to
accommodate
customers
who
wish
to
dry
standard
g
preserves
standard,
significant
historical
and
architectural
resources.
That
standard
is
not
applicable.
Standard
h
preserves
significant
natural
and
environmental
resources.
That
standard
is
also
non-applicable
standard.
I
complies
with
all
other
applicable
regulations.
Staff
believes
that
this
standard
has
been
met.
The
project
complies
with
all
other
applicable
regulations
to
move
forward
with
the
next
steps
in
the
special
use
process.
D
I
wrote
them
down
and
can
start
muffin
unless
you
wanted
to
no,
please
lisa,
all
right
I'll,
give
it
a
shot
and
then
chime
in
if
I'm
missing
anything.
Forgive
me
I'm
pulling
up
the
case
number
here.
B
You
could
also
add
conditions
on
on
hours
and
then
also
hours
for
deliveries.
If,
if
you
wish.
D
Yeah
hours,
I
had
thanks
for
the
note
on
the
delivery
hours
kate,
so
in
the
matter
of
zba
2
0
zm
jv-0057
at
the
address
of
1235
dodge
avenue,
I
move
that
we
make
a
positive
recommendation
to
city
council
with
the
following
conditions:
one
one
that
all
deliveries
be
all
trucks
that
are
there
for
deliveries
be
required
to
park
in
the
rear.
D
Two,
that
hours
of
the
store
be
maintained
from
the
time
I
believe
of
9
00
a.m,
to
9
00
p.m.
Is
what
I
heard
three.
C
I
don't
think
that
that's
a
condition.
I
don't
think
it's
it's
it's
staying
within
the
bounds
of
the
law.
So
it's
it's
really
not
a
conditional.
I
don't
believe
and
not
in.
D
So
to
kate's
point
about
hours
for
the
deliveries,
do
we
have
best
practices
to
what
that
would
look
like
kade
or
or
my
fellow
members?
Well.
C
I
I
would
simply
suggest
that
you
know
hours
of
delivery
might
be
in
non-rush
hour
hours,
so
if
he's
open
from
9
00
a.m,
until
9
00
pm
that
deliveries
take
place
between,
you
know
10,
30
and
2
p.m.
So,
before
the
kids
are
out
of
school
after
the
rush
hour
has
largely
passed.
That
seems
reasonable
to
me.
E
C
I
think
that
those
those
would
be
ideal
hours,
but
I
you
know
whether
whether
your
vendors
will
respect.
That
is
another
story.
Yes,.
I
I
I
would
just
think
over
time,
with
its
proximity
to
the
high
school,
a
nine
o'clock
opening
would
would
quickly
become
it
would
be
more
advantageous
to
have
an
earlier
opening
or
to
have
that
option
to
have
an
earlier
opening
to
get
the
high
school
kids
on
their
way
to
school.
So
do
we
want
to?
Are
we
comfortable
putting
instead
that
the
conditions
are
7am
to
9pm,
which
would
be
in
accord
with
his
lease?
I
C
A
So
we're
going
to
revise
the
condition
to
be
seven
to
nine
lisa,
that.
D
C
Go
ahead,
one
other
condition
that
I
thought
we
had
considered
was
that
mr
ali
would
collaborate
with
the
city
of
evanston
to
create
definitive
signage,
prohibiting
parking
in
the
front
of
his
store,
which
crosses
the
bike
lines
well,.
H
A
D
Kate,
did
you
capture
that
for
for
the
minutes,
the
other,
the
the
last
piece
is
that
you
know
that
the
you
know
that
this
be
developed
in
accordance
with
you
know.
The
testimony
and
documents
as
presented
here
does
melissa
or
kate
have
a
record
of
that.
As
we
spoke
through
it,
we.
B
E
A
D
A
K
B
Thomas
skidmore,
appellant
and
neighboring
property
owner
seeks
to
overturn
the
determination
of
the
zoning
administrator
permitting
construction
of
an
accessory
structure
less
than
200
square
feet
in
the
r1
single
family
residential
district.
Specifically,
the
palette
repudiates
the
determination
of
compliance
regarding
the
maximum
permitted
building
lot
coverage,
zoning
code,
section
6827
and
maximum
permitted
impervious
surface
ratio.
Zoning
code,
section
68210,
the
zoning
board
of
appeals
is
the
determining
body
for
this
case
and
then.
E
B
I
do
have
one
new
response
from
a
neighbor
at
2720
lawndale
carol,
wooten
she's
in
favor
of
the
zoning
administrator's
decision.
Okay,.
K
Certainly
and
good
evening,
and
thanks
for
everything
that
you
guys
do,
I
have
to
admit
I'm
not
a
zoning
expert
and
learning
a
lot
here
in
the
last
few
months,
so
bear
with
me
a
little
bit,
but
you
know
really
the
foundation.
I
guess
of
the
the
concerns
is
really
around
water,
drainage
and
property
value,
degradation
and-
and
it
relates
to
what
I
believe
is
non-compliance
with
zoning
ordinance,
as
it
relates
again
to
the
building
lot
coverage
and
impervious
service
slot
coverage.
K
You
know
I've.
I've
also
retracted
a
lot
of
information
from
the
freedom
of
information
act
and
also
have
just
looked
at
in
doing
that
really
trying
to
understand
what
has
been
a
lot
of
the
historical
activity
of
3038
isabella
and
what
kind
of
zoning
has
been
applied
for
and
what
has
actually
been
done
at
that
facility
or
home
I
should
say,
and
and
then
so,
in
during
the
permitting
process
as
well
and
working
with
kade
and
melissa
I
received.
K
Basically,
you
know
what
is
a
one-page
summary
that
talks
about
the
the
level
of
compliance,
and
I
can
show
that
if
you'd
like
it
didn't,
have
a
lot
of
detail
around.
What
I'd
say
is
the
background,
as
it
relates
to
impervious
surface
slot
coverage,
which
I
think
is
where
the
major
variance
is.
In
my
opinion,
the
building
lot
coverage
honestly
is
fairly
close.
You
know
from
the
data
so
and
where
the
discrepancies
really
lie.
K
There's
three
major
areas,
I
would
say
from
my
opinion
and
the
first
one
is
there's
a
series
of
things
that
have
been
done
at
the
that
3038
again
really
around
applying
for
permits
and
either
doing
something
different
than
the
permit
was
designed
for
or
not
applying
for
permits
like
an
outdoor
porch
covered
porch,
for
instance,
and
there's
no
data
to
make
a
foundation
of
what
size
that
porch
is
and
how
much
surface
area
it's
covering
and
even
on
the
the
most
recent
sort
of
application
for
a
permit
which
didn't
exist
until
I
complained
by
the
way
there
is
a
a
a
plat
drawing
that
shows
it
as
a
10
by
12..
K
K
So
it
raises
a
lot
of
questions
is
even
that
structure,
meeting
compliance
or
designed
to
attend
by
eight?
Maybe
it's
a
10
by
14,
no
telling.
So
all
of
that
rolls
into
a
lot
of
questions
around.
A
E
A
We
can
talk
about
the
other
stuff,
but
we
can't
really
talk
about
the
permitting.
We
have
a
permit
department
and
they
would
have
to
discuss
that
with
you.
C
E
C
The
other
thing,
mr
skidmore,
that
if
I
may
add
to
that,
I
think
I
there
there
have.
I
know
that
you've
done
an
incredible
amount
of
research
and
you
know
I
applaud
you.
C
So
thorough
in
in
doing
that,
I
don't
know
that
we're
here
to
discuss
previous
permits
that
should
or
should
not
have
been
pulled,
we're
here
to
determine
one
issue,
and
that
is
whether
or
not
the
zoning
administrator
for
the
construction
of
this
shed
or
urban
studio
is
in
in
compliance.
Otherwise,
and
so
just
given
that
that
that
it
narrows
the
scope
a
little
bit
of
what
we're
focused
on.
K
So
the
specific
issue,
then,
is
the
the
amount
of
surface
area
covered
at
his
his
his
lot
correct.
K
K
Yes,
okay
and
so
then
I
would
have
to
ask
kade:
how
did
he
determine
where
where's
the
fact
base
to
determine
how
you
or
or
melissa
or
you,
I
should
say,
k
determined
that
do
you
have
the
appropriate
amount
of
impervious
surface
lot
coverage,
because
I
was
never
provided
anything
in
the
freedom
of
information
act.
Nor
was
I
provided
any
calculation
from
you
after
multiple
emails.
B
All
correct,
okay,
it's
it's
usually
typical
for
because
it
was
her
determination
for
her
to
not
to
somewhat
recuse
herself
from
the
conversation,
but
to
speak
to
his
his
point
about
impervious
surface
really.
The
bulk
of
where
that
comes
from
is
from
a
2016
zoning
analysis,
which
was
performed,
which
we
often
use
as
a
baseline
for
properties.
If
they
have
a
plat
platter
survey,
that's
out
of
date
or
if
the
platter
survey
doesn't
accurately
accurately
depict
the
existing
condition
of
the
property.
C
May
I
ask
you
a
question
mr
skidmore
is
suggesting
that
that
the
size
of
the
shed
is
is
could
potentially
be
10
by
14.
It
could
be
quite
a
bit
larger
than
what
has
been
presented
in
the
documents
that
that
the
zoning
administrator
received.
C
Is
it
not
in
the
city's
power
to
actually
go
and
measure
the.
C
B
Yes,
yeah.
We
have
no
reason
to
believe
that
it's
larger
than
than
10
by
12,
and
then
it
has
a
small
deck
portion
on
the
front
and.
C
B
The
deck
doesn't
count
towards
impervious
surface,
because
its
size
is
less
than
three
percent
of
the
lot
size
that
that's
something
that
it's
an
exclusion
that
all
property
owners
receive.
Okay,
I.
A
B
Well,
the
shed
itself
is
is
built
on
piers,
but
regardless
it
still
counts,
100
towards
impervious
surface
right.
Okay,
I
mean
so
it
so
as
a
practicality.
It's
probably
it's
better
than
if
it
was
flush
with
the
ground,
but
as
far
as
our
calculations,
it's
counted
at
100,
okay,.
K
K
If
that's
possible,
I
don't
know
I'm
just
a
citizen,
but
my
understanding
is
that
physical
observation
did
not
occur.
There
was
supposed
to
be
a
meeting
and
it
never
occurred.
Can
you
confirm
right
now
that
it
occurred.
B
B
Name
right
now
with
gary
I
can.
I
can
confirm
with
him
the
last
that
I
knew
is
that
they
were
able
to
confirm
that
it
was
what
he
said
it
was.
I
don't
I
don't
deal
with
the
inspectors
personally,
so
I'm
not
certain
who
the
inspector
was
that
went
out
or
when
that
occurred
they
usually
don't
present
any
kind
of
written
report.
L
Just
for
a
second
to
confirm,
along
with
cade,
an
inspector
did
go
out
to
the
property,
did
walk
around
the
property
and
measure
some
things
and
and
did
confirm
those
those
measurements
for
us.
L
L
Or
both
of
the
shed
the
deck
received
the
debt
credit.
So
regardless
that
one
wouldn't
matter
but
did
confirm
the
size
of
the
shed.
K
I
I
just
fundamentally
I
I
don't
know
I'm
an
engineer
by
background.
Just
so
you
know,
and
I'm
a
civil
engineer
and
mechanical
engineer,
I
can
look
at
a
plot
survey
pretty
quickly
and
and
size
up.
You
know
how
much
service
coverage
is
being
taken
up
and
kate.
I
don't
know
about
the
the
you
know,
satellite
views
and
things
like
that,
but
it
clearly
you
know
the
driveways,
it's
an
entire
basketball
court.
I
can
show
you
the
whole
thing
of
what
was
permitted.
K
It's
a
18
by
14
permitted
patio
that
I
think
you're
running
off
of
and
that
patio
is
in
the
back
and
there's
a
little
bit
on
the
side
yard
and
there's
an
entire
piece
of
this
is
taken
up
in
the
front
yard,
and
all
of
that
is
in
question
to
me
whether
that
is
impervious
surface.
I'm
I'm,
you
know
again,
it's
just
not
me.
That's
complaining,
there's
other
people.
I
see
rosalie
and
paul
on
here,
but
so
the
concern
is,
is,
is
the
amount
of
impervious
surface
really
being
represented
the
right
way?
K
And
then
you
know
I
didn't
know
again.
I
you
know
I
I
haven't
got
a
lot
of
communication
from
the
team
here
on
hey,
listen,
we
did
measure
it,
and
you
know
this
is
this:
is
the
numbers
we're
getting,
and
so
that's
led
to
a
lot
of
me
trying
to
just
figure
out?
How
do
I,
as
a
a
neighbor,
try
to
understand
what
is
going
on
in
the
permitting
process?
K
And
what's
the
data
that
you
have
not
a
lot
has
been
provided
to
me
again
either
by
you
know
the
freedom
of
information
act
or
from
the
zoning
group
around
you
know
what
level
of
detail
they
have?
All
I've
done
is
try
to
ask
what
the
data
do.
You
have
to
support
this,
and
this
is
the
first
time
I'm
hearing
that
a
there's,
an
inspector
went
out
b,
the
level
of
d,
the
detail
there.
That's
there,
so
it's
kind
of
disappointing
as
being
a
25-year
evanston
person
that
pays
a
lot
of
taxes.
B
To
if,
if
I
can
speak
really
quickly
to
tom's
point,
those
numbers
are
estimated,
it
he's
he's
right
when
saying
you
know.
Typically,
we
would
look
at
a
plat,
a
survey
that
accurately
depicted
the
existing
condition.
We
didn't
have
that
for
accession,
accessory
structures
that
are
non-habitable
and
under
200
square
feet,
there's
no
building
permit
that's
required,
so
the
review
is
not
as
stringent
or
it
hasn't
been
really
as
we
don't
nitpick
everything.
B
So
it
is
often
that
someone
might
come
in
for
a
shed
and
they
don't
have
an
accurate
plat,
a
survey,
and
so
we
will
estimate
lot
coverage
impervious
surface
ratio,
and
that
is
what
we
did
here,
but
we
do
have
a
better
baseline
than
typical
because
of
that
2016.
analysis.
B
K
E
H
All
right,
I
have
a
question:
if
I
may
interrupt,
is
there
any
damage
to
the
adjacent
properties
from
standing
quarter
or
any
any
other
consequences
after
the
shed
was
built
or
even
before
that?
Is
there
any
slope
that
leads
the
rain
water
to
the
adjacent
properties
from
this
property.
K
I
would
say:
there's
definitely
concerns
with
the
rain
runoff
and
I
don't
know
rosalyn
paul
if
you
want
to
comment
on
that.
But
definitely
there's
concerns
about
that
enough
as
far
as
like
going
in
with
damage
and
and
so
on,
but
you
know
the
patio
has
been
in
place
since
I
think
2016.
F
Hi
hi
we're
both
here
we're
at
hello,
we're
at
2751
lawndale.
So
we
are
next
door
neighbors
with
the
skidmores
and
then
the
yard
in
question
is
on
isabella
and
it
backs
up
to
the
back
part
of
our
yard.
If
you
can
kind
of
picture
that,
is
there
an
alley.
F
The
alley
is
way
way
behind
where
both
of
our
yards
ends
up.
We,
we
have
no
access
to
the
alley.
Okay,
so
we
have
over
time
had
a
lot
of
in
the
past
few
years,
and
I
don't
think
we're
alone
in
this
as
evanstonians
are.
The
back
of
our
lot
is
in
the
past
few
spring
times
with
all
the
rain
we've
had
it
is.
F
It
it's,
and
that
is
of
concern
to
us.
The
issue
for
us,
though,
is
that
the
way
our
lot
is.
F
We
are
kind
of
we're
sort
of
boxed
in
on
all
sides
so,
and
we
see
the
back
of
our
yard,
not
the
front
of
the
yard
or
not
the
house,
but
the
back
of
our
yard
is
kind
of
a
low
point
between
it's
like.
F
It's
a
yeah
it's
at
least
yes,
three
lots,
not
really
counting
the
skidmores
so
much
because
their
their
their
lot
is
doesn't
go
back
that
far
so
so
we
do
have
concerns
about
water.
F
But
well
I
I
think
we
can.
I
I
I
will
say
I
when
this
was
I
had
not.
We
had
not
intended
to
talk
tonight.
Well,
I
think
we
can
say
we
talked
to
him.
We
we
spoke.
We
paul
spoke
to.
F
C
F
I
I
like
this
I'd
almost
like
to
say
it's
kind
of
a
city
concern.
I
think,
because
there's
just
there's
lots
of,
I
think
everywhere.
There's
a
lot
lots
and
lots
of
people
that
have
added
to
their
properties
and
over
time,
there's
less
place
for
the
water
to
go.
M
So
and
as
I
say,
we
get
a
big
lake
back
there
in
our
yard
because
we're
the
low
point.
So
it
isn't
to
answer
the
members
question.
Yes,
it's
an
issue.
C
C
Yeah,
I
the
the
question
that
I
have,
and
I
because
I
I
have
been
detecting
in
the
data
that
you
presented
to
us,
is
that
this
I
understand
that
lot
coverage
is
certainly
the
underlying
issue
on
which
the
approval
of
the
zoning
administrator
may
hinge,
but
it
seems
to
me
as
though
a
big
concern
to
you
was
actually
the
use
of
this
structure.
C
K
I
would
say:
that's
completely
accurate,
I
mean
you
know
it's
it's,
you
know,
there's
a
series
of
things.
I
guess
you
know.
I
personally
feel
like
you
know
the
owner
of
3038
isabella
has
been.
K
You
know
that
there
wasn't
a
permit
for
the
you
know.
I
want
to
get
into
all
that,
but
anyway,
so
there's
some
concerns
on
how
permitting
has
been
handled
in
the
past.
Let's
say
that
and
then
the
second
piece
of
it
is
there's
a
new
structure
going
up.
I
actually
asked
chris.
I
asked
you
about
what
that
was,
and
you
basically
said
it's
I'm
building
a
big
structure
or
something
you
gave
me
a
real
vague
answer.
K
It
has
two
doors,
one
for
egress.
I
assume
it
has
three
windows:
it's
a
summer
wind
product.
It
is
a
urban
studio,
it's
classified
and
it's
marketed
as
very
much
a
home
office
and
everything
else
like
that.
So
I
think
it's
going
to
be
an
inhabited
structure,
although
all
the
permitting
and
references
and
all
communications
suggest
it's
a
shed
so
that
that
is.
K
That
is
a
concern
for
me
because
it's
like
okay
and
now
we
have
an
inhabited
structure
and
it's
a
small
lot,
and-
and
you
know
so,
this
can
be
lit
up
at
all
night
and
everything
else
like
that.
What
else
is
going
to
go
on
in
that
that
particular?
I
don't
know
what
I
guess.
We
just
call
it
an
accessory
structure
that
covers
everything,
although
I
don't
even
see
urban
studio
as
a
permanent
thing
under
excessive
structure.
So
all
the
engineering
drawings
are
laid
out
that
way
too.
K
They
all
say
every
bottom
right
of
the
engineering
drawing
says
it's
a
urban
studio,
so
I
think
it's.
I
think
it
would
be
helpful
to
know
exactly
what
it
is
and
why
you're
permitting
it
I
I
would
find
it
really
hard
to
believe
somebody
would
drop
7k
on
a
on
a
a
shed.
I
would
never
do
that.
I
don't
know
it's
just
so.
I
think
there's
yeah
and
I
know
it's
not
your
your
purview
to
look
at
that.
So
that'll
be
the
next
issue
that
I
need
to
deal
with
with
the
next
building.
K
I
guess
authority
as
to
you
know
what
was
the
appropriate
use
and
for
this
particular.
But
I
guess
it's
just
a
trail
of
there's
been
a
history
of
hey,
I'm
going
to
permit
an
18
by
14
patio
and
I'm
going
to
turn
it
into
an
entire
basketball
court
in
the
front
yard.
And
then
I'm
going
to
not
even
tell
you
I'm
building
a
backyard
outdoor
porch
and
then,
oh
by
the
way.
I'm
putting
this
thing
in
in
the
backyard
and
it's
actually
a
it's
gonna
be
an
urban
studio.
K
But
I
said
it
was
a
shed
so
that
so
to
me,
like
I
part
of
this,
is
a
little
bit
of
making
a
point,
taking
a
stand
and
and
getting
something
in
public
record
to
say.
Okay,
this
is
what
you
said.
It
was
and
and
it's
pretty
frustrating
being
a
neighbor
not
knowing
or
seeing
people
just
doing
things
and
not
I'll
just
say
complying
with
the
law
or
taking
advantage
of
others,
potentially
flooding
or
whatever
the
case
may
be.
So
there's
a
reason.
K
There's
zoning
ordinances
and
there's
really
reason
you
all
are
here
and
serving
our
community.
And
it's
to
me
it's
there's
just
an
underlying
issue.
A
Okay,
well,
staff.
I
don't
know
if
you
want
to
speak
to
what
he
had
to
say,
but
I
think
our
decision
here
tonight
board
is
to
talk
about
the
things
that
we
can
talk
about.
The
zoning
the
impervious
surface
cover
the
light,
the
light
covered.
I
think
that's
all
we
can
talk
about.
We
can't
even
talk
about
the
permitting
and
we
really.
E
C
That
that
is
true.
I
understand-
and
we've
had
this
problem
before
mr
skidmore,
which
is
defining
you
know
what
constitutes
a
patio
next
to
somebody's
house,
as
opposed
to
you
know
a
rock
garden
where
they
happen
to
have
a
chair.
What
constitutes
a
shed
as
opposed
to
a
habitable
structure.
C
Many
people
do
work
in
sheds.
You
know,
albeit
generally
speaking,
you
would
consider
it
to
be
lawn
care
type
of
work
or
some
some
type
of
thing
like
that.
But
I
don't
know
that
that
we
can
create
a
definition
for
this
as
long
as
its
size
falls
into
the
definition
of
what
a
shed
is
so
again,
that
might
be
that
that
might
be
one
of
those.
C
The
zoning
laws
need
to
be
updated
to
accommodate
how
structures
are
used,
but
I'm
not
sure
that.
A
I
agree
with
mary
when
she
says
that,
but
in
our
zoning
ordinance
we
have
no
definition
for
shed.
We
just
have
we
just
deal
with
accessory
structures.
So
that's
where
we
are.
I
don't
know
that
we
can
create
a
definition
for
this
meeting
tonight.
A
E
A
Yeah,
so
our
only
hope
is
to
either
uphold
or
cast
down
the
decision
of
the
zoning
administrator.
That's
what
we
are
here
to
talk
about
tonight.
K
If
I
may,
can
I
ask
just
one
question
again:
you
know
the
what
I
was
hoping
to
get
out
of
this
was
to
have
a
more
thorough
review
of
the
plot
done,
because
I
kate
I've
seen
the
2016
plot
and
there's
a
lot
of
a's
and
b's
and
circles
around
and
and
but
there's
no
data
behind
it.
That's
been
provided
to
be
fair,
so
I
haven't.
C
C
But
well
I
you
know
if,
if
if
if
there
has
been
misleading
or
in
fact
false
information
provided
to
the
zoning
department
which
affected
the
decisions
that
the
zoning
department
made,
then
you
know
I
I
I
yeah,
I'm
I'm
I'm
I'm
feeling
the
issue
here.
I
don't
you
know
I
can't
dismiss
mr
skidmore's
concerns,
he's
right.
C
On
top
of
it
he's
a
mechanical,
and
you
know
electrical
electrical
engineer
with
a
pretty
good
sense
of
of
what's
before
his
very
eyes,
but
I
do
think
that
that
is
a
rather
onerous
ask
I
what
other
board
members.
D
Could
we
not
if
an
inspector
went
out
to
to
review
the
measurements
and
compare
that
to
the
2016
survey
that
you
had
did
that
inspector
not
validate
both
the
measurements
of
the
shed
and
other
measurements
as
compared
to
the
2016
survey.
B
B
The
the
porch
that
he's
talking
about
the
screen,
porch,
I
believe,
is
included
in
the
2016
zoning
analysis
and
that
that's
because
the
number
for
building
lot
coverage
matched
my
number
for
building
lot
coverage,
which
is
also
why
I
believe
that
that
was
a
good
baseline
for
the
impervious
surface
ratio,
with,
with
the
exception,
being
those
improvements
in
the
front.
D
Well,
I
I'm
sympathetic
to
the
concerns,
as
it
relates
to
impervious
surfaces
and
certainly
issues
of
standing
water.
I'm
also
hesitant
to
be
an
arbiter
of
issues.
I'm
also
curious,
I
guess
mr
skidmore,
what
conversations
you've
had
with
your
neighbor
and
where
those
conversations
have
gone.
That
brings
you
to
you
know
feeling
that
you
needed
to
bring
this
to.
You
know
a
third
bot.
You
know
an
independent
body
to
review.
Have
there
been
conversations
with
the
neighbor
through
these
discussions.
K
K
Here,
so
no
so,
and
then
we
had
a
conversation,
I
guess
in
june
I
travel
a
bit
too
just
so
you
guys
are
aware,
but
not
for
sure
as
much
but
so
in
june.
I
think
not
june.
It's
like
late
july.
I
guess
when
everything
started
happening
and
it
started
going
up.
That's
when
I
I
saw
I
think
chris
out
in
the
backyard,
and
I
looked
over
the
fence
and
said
what
do
you
what's
going
on?
K
What
are
you
building
and
I
got
a
pretty
in
sincere
answer
so
at
that
point
it's
kind
of
like
okay.
Well,
I
guess
he's
they
did
have
a
really
small
shed
at
one
point,
and
so
you
know
I
just
kind
of
let
it
kind
of
go
and
then,
when
it
started
turning
into
this
much
larger
I'll,
just
call
it
an
office
building
sort
of
looking
thing.
K
K
But
I
I
felt
sort
of
helpless
honestly
too,
because
it
was
like
already
you
know,
constructed
at
that
point.
So
what
are
you
gonna?
What
are
you
gonna
talk
about
really.
D
So
chair
cullen,
if,
if
all
you
know,
if
the,
if
mr
skidmore
should
we
offer
mr
skidmore
the
opportunity
to
make
any
closing
remarks
so
that
we
can
close
the
record
and
begin
deliberating.
K
K
A
A
To
staff
is
going
to
be,
if
we
vote
on
this
tonight,
does
it
close
the
book
on
this,
or
can
he
get
this
information
that
he
wants?
Is
it
possible
for
him
to
even
get
this.
C
Well,
there
are,
there
are
always
other
avenues.
If
mr
skidmore
chose
to
you
know
pursue
litigation,
he
he's.
Obviously
any
citizen
can
do
that.
C
L
C
C
You
know,
professional
capacities,
and
so
you
know
that's
the
only
thing
that
would
really
tell
the
tale,
and
so
I
think
that
you
know
what
really
is
before
us
is
that
we
we
accept
that
the
2016
survey
was
essentially
correct
and
that
the
city
inspector
did
go
out
and
inspect
the
new
structure
and
that
the
zoning
administrator
did
use
that
to
reach
a
decision
and
that
you
know
that
a
big
part
of
the
problem
we're
having
here
is
because
of
how
this
structure
may
be
used
and
and
once
again,
unless
there
is,
you
know,
conduct
in
that
structure
that
raises
red
flags
at
the
city.
A
E
B
B
E
E
E
H
A
B
I
just
received
one
additional
letter
right
before
the
meeting,
which
just
says
that
they're
supportive.
C
I
think
that
this
is
a
difficult,
a
difficult
case,
because
a
lot
is
presuming
that
the
2016
administrator,
who
was
going
off
of
an
old
survey,
was
able
to
provide
the
current
staff
with
very
accurate
information,
and-
and
I
think
that
typically
the
zoning
department
has
been
conscientious
and
but
I
you
know,
I
do
I
I
feel
for
for
mr
skidmore
in
that,
when
you,
when
somebody
says
they're,
going
to
be
putting
up
a
small
shed,
you're
thinking
of
something
that
they'll
be
putting
their
rakes
and
shovels
in
and
not
something
that
you
know.
C
That
looks
like
a
small
guest,
a
very
small
guest
house,
but
I
would
also
say
that,
even
though
it
may
be
a
really
attractive
shed
that
that,
if
that
shed,
creates
a
nuisance
to
the
neighbors,
including
you,
mr
skidmore,
then
you
you
you
can
take
that
to
the
next
level,
so
so
for
your
neighbor.
To
keep
that
shed
as
a
low-profile
structure
on
his
property
would
probably
be
in
in
his
better
interest.
D
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
what
I
call
you
in
the
in
the
case
of
this
I'm
curious
from
your
perspective,
so
you've
gone
beyond
lack
coverage
and
now
you're
talking
about
use
to
me.
Why
is
why
do?
Are
we
concerned
whether
somebody
is
using
this
as
their
yoga
studio,
storing
their
rakes
or
sitting
there
writing
a
proposal
beyond
lot
coverage
and
impervious
surface?
D
D
I
think
people
should
be
allowed
and
encouraged
to
use
their
lots
in
in
in
innovative
ways
and
in
ways
that
ex
are
reflecting
the
needs
of
families
today,
during
these
times
at
covid,
who
doesn't
need
another
space.
I
understand
that
it's
not
in
our
purview
to
talk
about
that,
but
I
am
not,
in
support
of
of
you,
know,
sort
of
restrictions
around
how
we're
defining
this.
This
use
and
really
think
that
I
am
only
comfortable
in
looking
specifically
at
the
impervious
surface
here.
C
It
goes
back
to
the
the
case
that
I
referenced
earlier
that
we
all
heard
on
whether
or
not
the
rock
garden
with
chairs
in
it
was
a
patio
or
whether
it
was
a
rock
guard
with
chairs.
It
was
a
matter
of
definition
and
the
it
it's
about
impact,
it's
about
impact
on
the
neighbor
and-
and
so
you
know,
if
somebody
is
going
into
a
shed
now
and
then
to
pull
out
rakes
or
whatever.
That's
one
thing.
C
But
once
again
this
falls
into
some
definitions
of
use
and
right
now
we
don't
have
any
definitions
of
use
for
sheds,
and
this
does
fall
into
the
legal
definition
of
a
shed
and
and
from
the
best
that
we
can
determine
from
all
of
the
data
that's
been
presented.
It
also
falls
under
the
acceptable
lot
coverage
for
impervious
services,
so
I
just
don't
you
know.
C
We're
operating
on
the
same
data
that
you
have,
mr
skidmore,
but
that's
that's
what
I
would
say
right
now:
okay,.
A
I
I
can
I
can
empathize
with
mr
skidmore,
because
I
I
think
he
has
legitimate
concerns
as
a
neighbor
and
I
think
that
he
is
raising
them
in
a
reasonable
way.
I
I
can
also
share
that,
even
in
my
position
professionally
in
my
provision
position
on
this
board,
what
you
see
does
not
always
sometimes
the
numbers
can
surprise
you.
Sometimes
I
can
look
at
a
lot
and
think
that
the
hot
coverage
is
not
matching
with
the
numbers
and
then
you
know
you
do
a
quick
calculation
and
you
see
that
what
you're
visualizing
is
actually
not
perfectly
correlated
with
the
facts
of
the
numbers,
so
I
can
understand
being
confused
or
challenging
or
suspicious
of
the
numbers.
I
I
take
kate's
point,
though,
that
you
know
we
make
these
decisions
with
the
best
information
that
we
have.
I
trust
that
kade
used
his
best
judgment
that
everyone
in
the
city
used
their
best
analysis
and
the
tools
that
we
have
and
the
historical
data,
and
you
know
in
some
instances
it's
quite
close,
but
I'm
comfortable
staying
with
the
decision.
H
I
will
be
very
short
in
the
absence
of
new
platf
survey.
We
as
zoning
members.
I
believe
we
have
to
trust
our
staff
with
the
calculations.
I'm
just
wondering
during
this
period
of
time.
Even
before
july,
and
now
an
update
of
the
previous
plot
of
surgery
probably
was
possible
for
a
reasonable
price
if
this
company
is
still
in
business.
A
A
C
So
I
I
would
make
a
motion
in
the
case
of
3038
isabella
street
20
zm
jv0070,
that
we
find
that
the
zoning
administrator
did
not
er
in
finding
that
the
proposal
was
compliant
with
zoning
regulations.