►
From YouTube: Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 1/16/2018
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
All
right
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
Melissa.
Will
you
please
call
the
roll
Mary.
C
A
E
A
With
six
members
present
tonight,
we
do
have
a
quorum.
We
also
present
tonight
our
zoning
planner
Melissa
Klotz
Cloney
Planning
and
Zoning
Administrator,
Scott
Mangum
and
the
assistant
city
attorney
Mario
Trudeau.
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
the
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
seek
a
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
a
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
statements.
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
they
can
be
properly
recorded.
All
proceedings
are
subject
to
broadcast
at
a
later
date.
A
A
A
A
It's
been
moved
and
seconded
all
those
in
favor,
say
aye
aye
again
against
and
I
will
note
that
those
not
voting
were
not
present
at
that
meeting
now
back
to
26,
26
or
east
Avenue.
We
do
have
one
board
member
here
with
us
here
tonight
who
was
not
at
the
meeting
last
week.
Have
you
had
a
chance
to
review
the
testimony
in
the
documents
on
file
I
have,
and
so
you
are
fully
up
to
speed
and
capable
of
rendering
judgment
on
this
case.
I
am
thank
you.
Thank
you.
A
B
F
About
just
a
point
of
clarification
sure
to
process
this
evening,
my
understanding
is
the
intention
is
that
those
neighbors
that
did
not
testify
last
week
but
are
joining
us
this
week,
have
the
opportunity
to
testify,
as
well
as,
if
there's
any
new
testimony
from
those
that
were
testifying
last
week.
So
that's.
A
Correct
that's
correct
and
then
after
in
the
neighborhood
testimony,
then
we
will
give
the
applicant
a
chance
for
rebuttal,
and
then
we
will
close
the
record
at
that
point
and
go
into
deliberations
all
right,
everybody
comfortable
great.
So
who
would
like
to?
Is
there
any
neighbor
who
would
like
to
speak
this
week?.
A
G
My
name
is
Richard
horse
ting
I
live
next
door
to
the
property
that
is
being
looked
upon
here.
What
I
have
come
up
with
again,
if
I
have
to
remind
the
people
here
at
the
court
or
this
this
board
here,
I'm
one
of
the
oldest
family
members.
As
far
as
in
the
city
of
Evanston,
I
came
across
an
original
1925
plat,
a
survey
here
that
the
city
doesn't
even
have
this
is
before
the
houses
were
built.
G
It
shows
my
house
that
was
owned
by
the
Moore
family,
the
lot
without
being
built
yet
and
the
corner
lot.
This
plant,
a
survey
was
ordered
by
Cairo
building
material
in
1925.
To
give
you
a
little
history
of
Evanston,
which
probably
I
probably
have
more
than
most
people
here.
These
lots
are
sold
for
hundred
dollars
at
the
time,
and
most
of
these
building
material
companies
purchase
these
properties
because
they
use
it
as
not
only
a
dump
site
for
all
the
used
material,
but
I
also
have
six
photos.
Five.
G
My
attorney
has
right
now,
but
I
have
one
here
showing
the
mounds
and
mounds
of
debris
from
the
50s
that
still
existed
from
people
depositing
materials.
Now,
if
you
remember
anything
about
the
history
of
Evanston
all
of
our
pipes
and
that
infrastructure
they're,
mostly
lead-lined
I,
have
when
I
garden
there
I
gave
up,
because
in
2001
the
soil
can
samples
that
I
have
which
I
do
not
have
here,
but
I
have
on
record
were
tainted.
G
My
neighbor
and
I
Jeff
Clark
stopped
gardening
there,
but
he
will
also
testify
that
if
you
dug
four
or
five
inches
down
on
this
slide,
there's
nothing
but
debris
from
knob-and-tube
wiring
to
galvanized
pipe
to
glass,
and
if
you
know
how
lead
pipe
was
done
back
in
the
20s
30s
and
even
into
the
40s
is
usually
solder
to
Flint.
If
this
building
does
go
through,
which
I
absolutely
do
not
want
to
have
happen,
I'm
going
to
want
so
sample
stun
to
collaborate.
G
G
He
spent
over
a
quarter
of
a
million
dollars,
have
an
excavator,
spilled
oil
tank
and
I
I
know
what
would
happen
here
if
he
digs
down
he's
going
to
have
to
get
rid
of
that
soil
and
do
it
through
EPA
standards
and
the
disruption
of
that
will
be
a
complete
disruption
to
not
only
the
building
being
built
there,
but
my
safety
and
health.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank.
H
G
Not
core
sample
soil
samples
in
my
neighbor
and
mr.
Jeff
Clark
will
testify
that
when
we
gardened
over
there,
if
you
dug
down
four
to
five
inches,
you
had
to
stop
because
the
amount
of
shards
by
glass
knob-and-tube
everything
is
in
that
whole
entire
lot,
not
only
next
to
my
house,
but
basically
the
entire
lot
and
I
anybody
wants
to
dig
there
I'll
be
glad
to
let
him
go
and
dig,
but
you
have
my
sworn
testimony
that
I
gave
up
guarding
there
and
I'm
sure
mr.
Clark
will
collaborate
on
that.
G
As
far
as
when
he
garden
or
two
of
the
amount
of
issues
we
had
digging
up
debris.
If
you
look
into
the
records
of
Cairo
building
material
in
the
history
of
Evanston,
that's
what
these
corner
Lots
are
used
for,
because
it
was
only
a
hundred
dollars
as
a
25
foot
lot.
As
a
contractor
myself,
we
don't
have
the
excavation
materials
in
1925
that
we
do
today
earth
moving
equipment
and
everything
else.
G
I
Kathy
Miller
2831,
Hartzell
I
spoke
last
time
and
I
have
two
items:
I'm
glad
that
dick
brought
that
up.
Because
in
one
of
my
letters
that
melissa
has
it
mentions
my
concern
about
LED
levels
and
the
fact
that
there
should
be
sorting
oftentimes,
that's
required
in
certain
communities.
I
wanted
to
enter
into
the
record
neighbors,
who
have
not
been
able
to
be
here,
but
in
the
previous,
when
we
had
the
previous
owner,
who
would
through
her
application
three
hours
before
we
had
sworn
testimony,
we've
gone
around
during
the
cold
etc.
With
emails.
I
A
I
would
like
to
mark
this
as
Exhibit
C
I
think
we're
on
D
we're
on
Exhibit,
D
and
I
would
like
to
clarify
what
we're
actually
looking
at.
This
is
a
neighborhood
map.
For
all
intents
and
purposes,
some
of
the
houses
are
colored
in
blue
and
some
are
white.
There
is
okay,
so
the
legend
is
that
opposition
is
blue
and
that
white
is
either
non
opposition
or
no
response,
and
when
was
the
date
at
which
you
received
the
notification
from
these
neighbors
that
they
were
in
opposition.
C
I
C
L
I
Tom
suffered
and
I
live
at
23:34
Ridgeway,
so
I'm
not
nearby,
but
it's
relevant
because
I'm,
the
alderman
for
the
sixth
Ward
his
property
is
I
would
like
to
first
say
that
I
think
the
mr.
James
did
a
commendable
job
of
soliciting
neighbor
input.
He
reached
out
to
me
very
early
in
the
process.
That
being
said,
it's
also
pretty
clear
that
none
of
the
neighbors
support
this
project
I
haven't
heard
from
anybody
but
supports
this
project.
L
I
didn't
intend
to
come
up
here
before
you,
I
watched
the
meeting
last
Monday
and
kind
of
had
hoped
that
there
would
be
a
resolution
then,
but
I
feel
like
I,
have
an
obligation,
as
an
elected
official
representing
the
neighbors,
to
just
ask
you
to
take
into
account
to
the
extent
appropriate
the
fact
that
there
are
no
neighbors
who've
reached
out
in
support
of
this
to
me
and
nothing
but
vehement
opposition
from
the
neighbors.
Thank.
K
M
A
good
evening,
my
name
is
Andrew
netic
I
live
at
26,
19
Lincoln
would
drive.
Thank
you
so
much
for
these
proceedings.
I
wanted
to
underscore
a
point.
That's
come
up,
which
is
that
a
smaller
house
wouldn't
be
saleable
on
the
lot
on
this
councils
briefs.
We
heard
that
no
smaller
home
would
be
saleable
and
that's
patently
false.
M
On
December
22nd,
my
wife
had
a
conversation
with
the
Builder,
where
we
clearly
see
our
long-standing
desire
to
build
or
buy
a
sort
of
mother-in-law
or
12
foot
wide
New,
Orleans
shotgun
house
in
that
property,
which
wouldn't
require
much
of
a
variance.
We
were
preserved
most
lot,
which
would
preserve
the
line
of
sight
to
the
alley
where
my
young
children
and
many
people's
young
children
like
to
race
in
and
out
around
the
corner.
Looking
around
for
the
commercial
traffic,
that's
already
there,
I
lived
in
New,
Orleans
shopping.
M
I
did
my
training
in
New
Orleans
and
would
fit
very
well
in
the
property
we
and
we
reiterated
our
desire
to
buy
one
or
two
by
the
lot
and
build
one
ourselves.
So
the
idea
that
a
small
property
wouldn't
be
viable
and
wouldn't
be
saleable
is
pavely
false
I
stand
in
for
today
we
would
be
ready
to
move
forward
if
that
opportunity
were
to
arise.
M
I
was
not
previously
aware
of
the
issues
with
the
soil
as
presented
by
the
neighborhoods,
the
property,
as
a
professor
of
neurology
at
Northwestern's,
Medical
School,
very
Santas,
easy
that
once
you
start
digging
things
up
in
the
soil,
particularly
led
other
heavy
metals
and
other
divalent
cations.
This
leads
to
a
host
of
neurological
problems,
which
can
be
long
lasting,
take
years
to
develop,
are
difficult
to
test
for
and
have
long,
lasting,
sequelae
on
the
health
of
adults
and
children
leading
to
expensive
testing,
extended
evaluations
and
both
mental
and
physical
and
cognitive
disabilities.
M
M
N
Hi
there
I'm
Liza
Kirkpatrick
a
little
bit
too
9:04
Hartzell
street.
Thank
you
for
these
proceedings.
I
wanted
to
address
a
comment.
Mary
Beth
burns
made
On
January
night.
Thank
you
for
this.
What
we
heard
was
it's
not
specifically
against
the
rules
for
granting
a
variance
to
allow
somebody
to
make
a
profit.
However,
when
there
is
a
profit
to
be
made,
there
must
be
public
benefit,
so
the
burden
falls
on
him
to
prove
what
public
benefit
is.
N
So
we
went
back
and
we
looked
at
section,
6,
3,
6,
3
of
the
zoning
regulations,
and
it
provides
9
public
benefits
that
are
intended
to
be
derived
from
the
approval
of
planned
developments,
and
so
I
have
a
list
of
what
those
9
are
and
then
is
there
an
actual
public?
They
don't
benefit
in
this
case.
26
26,
Reese
and
I'll
go
through
a
couple,
and
then
I
will
submit
this
to
you
guys
to
look
at,
but
the
first
one
intended
public
benefits.
N
A
the
statute
says:
preservation
and
enhancement
of
desirable
site
characteristics
and
open
space.
No,
this
development
does
not
preserve
or
enhance
open
space.
In
fact,
open
space
is
virtually
eliminated.
Be
the
statute
six
three
six:
three:
a
pattern
of
development
which
preserves
natural
vegetation,
topography
and
geological
features.
N
No,
in
fact,
the
plan
considers
the
elimination
of
all
natural
vegetation
as
a
benefit
and
so
on
and
so
on
through
the
nine
different
points,
the
section
E-
and
this
is
one
that
I
want
to
point
out-
that
ladders
back
to
another
neighbors
comment:
provisions
of
a
variety
of
housing
types
in
accordance
with
the
city's
housing
goals.
If
we
look
at
proposed
2626
reefs
and
look
at
the
city's
2018
city
council
goals
include
expand,
affordable
housing
options
in
the
meeting
that
we
had
on
the
night.
N
The
Builder
testified
in
this
development
will
not
meet
the
definition
of
affordable
housing,
I'm
and
I
said
think
that
there's
a
real
willingness
to
look
at
a
some
development
on
that
site
granted
didn't
know
about
the
led
issues,
but
that
would
be
reasonable
and
in
keeping
with
the
rest
of
the
neighborhood
and
the
rest
of
the
immediate
neighbors.
What
has
been
presented
not
only
by
this
owner,
but
the
previous
owner
is
something
that
is
so
out
scaled.
That
is,
it
has
gathered
the
intention
of
the
entire
neighborhood,
so
I'd
like
to
present
this
document.
N
O
P
P
Week.
Last
week
we
heard
testimony
from
three
property
owners
directly
to
the
south
of
26
26
Reese
from
the
owner
directly
across
the
street,
to
the
east,
from
the
to
property
owners
directly
to
the
west
and
with
my
appearance
here
tonight,
now
all
five
property
owners
across
the
street
to
the
north
across
Hartzell
Street.
All
of
us
are
testifying
to
a
concern
that
our
use,
enjoyment
and
property
value
might
suffer.
P
However,
as
we
understand
it,
this
process
is
designed
that
we
are
not
required
to
prove
any
suffering
but
suffering
on
our
part,
rather
that
the
applicant
bears
the
burden
to
demonstrate
that
the
proposal
meets
each
of
the
standards.
We
have
not
seen
any
actual
demonstration
that
this
first
standard
has
been
met,
standard
number,
two
keeping
regarding
keeping
with
the
intent
of
the
zoning
ordinance.
P
We
have
noted
that
the
intent,
as
stated
in
the
audience
and
the
ordinance
includes
minimizing
our
lessening
congestion
in
the
public
streets,
preventing
the
overcrowding
of
land
and
regulating
and
limiting
the
intensity
of
the
use
of
lot
areas.
We
would
submit
that
the
application
for
26:26
Reese
flies
directly
in
the
face
of
those
three
components
of
intent.
Standard
number,
three,
the
alleged
hardship,
are
our
practical
difficulty
is
peculiar
to
the
property.
P
We
can
agree
that
the
conditions
of
lot
width
and
size
are
peculiar
to
the
property,
and
we
can
agree
that
the
alleged
hardship
hardship
is
exactly
what
it
says
that
being
not
an
actual
hardship
but
a
hardship
that
is
only
being
alleged.
We
would
say
that
the
particular,
but
though
that
the
peculiar
characteristics
of
the
property
are
not
inherently
a
hardship,
they
can
become
a
hardship
if
the
ambitions
of
ownership
exceed
the
capacity
of
the
property
to
deliver
a
modest
ambition
for
an
unpretentious
strip
of
land
is
not
a
problem,
as
we
see
it.
P
Standard
number
four
regarding
how
an
owner
might
suffer
if
the
strict
letter
of
the
regulations
were
to
be
carried
out.
If
the
strict
letter
of
the
regulations
were
to
be
carried
out,
is
that
what
we're
talking
about
here?
If
you
want
to
reduce
a
thirteen
and
a
half
foot
requirement
down
to
one
foot,
it's
our
feeling
that
you
left
the
strict
letter
of
the
requirement
behind
a
long
time
ago.
P
We
would
ask
that
we
keep
the
discussion
of
this
standard
within
the
domain
of
this
strict
letter
of
the
regulations
which
allows
for
variations
minor
and
major,
but
not
unconscionable
standard
number
five
requiring
that
it
not
be
exclusively
about
extracting
additional
income
in
these
chambers.
Last
Tuesday,
we
were
informed
from
the
chair
that
you're
allowed
to
make
a
profit,
not
only
when
there,
but,
but
only
when
there
is
also
public
benefit
in
the
application.
We
find
three
different
claims
for
meeting
this
standard
one.
P
The
purpose
is
to
allow
the
lot
to
be
used
for
residential
purposes,
to
he's
only
going
for
the
minimum
financial
gain
and
three
the
proposed
house
is
the
smallest
practical
house.
We
don't
see
any
public
benefit
in
these
claims.
Certainly
not
his
public
benefit
is
described
in
Section
636
3
of
the
ordinance
standard
number
six.
P
But
as
late
people
who
don't
deal
with
these
issues
every
day,
nothing
looks
more
like
self
creation
than
to
buy
something.
You
know
you
can't
build
on
and
then
claim
that
it's
not
your
fault
and
then
demand
that
the
surrounding
community
underwrite
the
gamble
that
you
made
by
putting
their
use,
enjoyment
and
property
values
on
the
table
standard
number.
Seven
requiring
that
the
least
deviation
from
the
zoning
regulation
requiring
the
least
deviation
from
the
zoning
regulations
when
choosing
from
the
feasible
options.
P
O
Q
Jeff
Barclay,
26:22
Reese,
so
just
two
properties
to
the
south.
My
wife
took
the
petitioners
first
floor
plan
and
put
it
into
AutoCAD
to
look
at
the
numbers
that
were
the
building
lot
coverage
relation
to
the
front
porch.
That
was
much
talked
about
last
week
with
and
without
the
front
porch,
and
what
she
found
was
that
the
dapper
number
was
37.9%
lot
coverage
and
in
both
cases
with
or
without
the
front
porch,
she
came
to
38.5%
in
38.1
two
percent,
which
are
both
over
at
thirty
seven
point:
nine
percent
number,
if
I,
could
just
sure.
Q
The
only
other
thing
that
I
wanted
to
talk
about
was
was
property
values,
so
when
we
walk
out
in
our
back
yard-
and
you
look
to
the
north
and
we
look
to
the
south,
all
that
we
see
is
trees
and
backyards.
All
the
properties
along
reefs
are
in
line
with
one
another,
and
it's
clear
by
looking
at
at
the
plan.
That's
put
forward
that
that
this
new
property
is
going
to
extend
far
into
our
backyards
and
loom
large
over
our
properties,
and
so
I
can
say.
Q
Is
that
when
you
talk
about
something
having
a
negative
effect
on
our
property
value?
There's
no
question
that
if
this
property
goes
forward-
and
it's
built
that
we'll
just
see
a
large
wall
running
along
our
back
yard
property-
and
you
know,
there's
no
question
that
that
will
have
a
negative
impact
on
the
value
of
our
property
and
I.
Think
a
lot.
Other
people
have
covered
a
lot
of
other
things
that
I
wanted
to
talk
about
tonight.
So
I'll
just
end
it
there.
Thank.
A
B
G
B
A
Q
A
R
Hi
I'm
Beth
parody,
a
Leavitt,
2907
Hartzell
Street
I
realized
that
your
concern
is
with
ensuring
that
the
developer
meets
the
standards
for
a
major
variance
and
not
whether
he
does
high-quality
work
with
an
appealing
aesthetic.
So
tonight,
I
want
to
address
just
the
standards
for
a
major
variance
and
how
they've
not
been
met.
Sorry.
R
Points
absolutely
okay,
thank
you.
So
let
me
see
just
want
to
make
sure
so.
The
first
point
I'd
like
to
make
that
he
was
on
his.
He
proposed
multiple
options,
all
of
which
were
the
same
size,
specific
size,
configuration
and
one
that's
larger
than
almost
all
the
other
homes
in
the
area
and
on
the
smallest
Lots.
So
that
will
add
to
the
support
for
profit
motive
and
to
that
point
as
well.
It's
in
direct
conflict
with
rule
6,
3,
8,
12,
E,
item
5
regarding
the
no
valid
public
benefit.
R
Let's
see,
you
know
again
I'd
like
to
reiterate
that
I
do
not
feel
the
he
was
not
forced
to
buy
the
property.
So
the
heart,
it
is
not
it's
his
own.
He
created
his
own
hardship.
Another
point
I'd
like
to
meet
one
that
caused
me
to
come
to
speak.
Is
he
testified
that
the
neighbors
at
a
June
meeting
were
opposed
to
all
plans?
I
was
one
of
those
neighbors,
and
that
is
not
the
case.
R
As
you've
heard
here,
we
all
oppose
appropriate
smaller
building
on
the
property,
so
he
has
not
demonstrated
with
rule
6
3
8
12
E
item
7,
that
he's
requested
variations
aren't
by
no
means
limited
to
the
minimum
change
necessary,
since
it
is
possible
to
build
a
smaller
property,
also
pointed
out
that
he
was
addressed
about
building
a
smaller
property
and
turned
down
as
mr.
Ned
it's
his
testify.
R
S
Hello,
my
name
is
Brody
Austin
I
live
at
26:20
Reese,
which
is
three
doors
to
the
south
of
the
proposed
development.
Just
in
the
interest
of
keeping
things
concise
and
to
the
point,
I
just
wanted
to
express
two
concerns
that
I
have
and
why
I
would
like
for
you
to
reject
this
proposal
and
why
you
know,
as
many
of
our
neighbors
have
expressed,
that
we
are
in
favor
of
something
smaller
and
more
modest.
That
doesn't
go
to
such
extreme
lengths
to
request
so
many
variances.
S
You
know
we
don't
live
on
a
sleepy
little
block,
that's
tucked
away
into
a
back
corner
of
Evanston.
We
are
about
half
a
block
away
from
a
fire
station
and,
while
my
children
thrilled
to
see
the
fire
trucks
going
up
and
down
our
street,
you
know
there
there's
a
lot
of
traffic.
We
also
have
a
lot
of
the
parking
from
local
businesses.
People
seek
parking
on
our
street
and
so
there's
a
lot
of
traffic
there,
and
so
the
reduction
in
sight
lines
that
the
variances
would
cause
at
the
corner
of
the
of
the
block.
S
Rfc,
sorry
are
a
serious
concern
to
me
and
my
family
I
have
two
small
children.
Inez
has
been
mentioned.
You
know
we
ride
our
bikes
on
our
sidewalks
in
street.
We
ride
our
bikes
in
the
alley,
and
so
the
reduction
of
sight
lines
is
of
serious
concern
to
us.
Another
thing
that
I
just
want
to
point
out,
too,
is
the
increase
of
impervious
surface.
On
that
block.
We
already
have
a
number
of
houses
that
are
very
close
together.
We
already
experienced
significant
drainage
issues
and
flooding
issues.
S
When
there's
a
lot
of
moisture
in
the
area
our
sump
pump
is
running
continuously
and
by
reduced
removing
even
that
sliver
of
land
I
am,
you
know,
don't
want
to
consider
what
the
environmental
impact
of
that
will
be
with
increased
drainage
problems
around
our
property.
So
again,
this
is
just
to
kind
of
highlight
some
of
the
adverse
effects
that
we
see
being
caused
by
the
extreme
variances
that
are
being
requested
by
the
developer.
Thank
you.
Thank.
O
O
Hi
I'm
Nancy
crane
I
live
at
2821
Hartzell
Street
I've
lived
there
about
30
years,
I'm
kitty-corner
from
the
proposed
construction
going
on
my
neighbor
previously
addressed
something.
So
what
I
wanted
to
bring
up
was
that,
in
fact
about
getting
water
in
our
basements
as
a
result
of
the
new
construction
and
as
a
result
of
less
drainage
in
the
area
right
now,
things
are
pretty
good.
Most
of
us
are
doing
pretty
well
and
not
getting
water
in
our
basements
I.
Don't
think,
there's
any
kind
of
guarantee,
but
I
would
love
it.
O
A
T
B
B
T
Right
so
I'd
like
to
talk
about
other
options,
other
designs
that
were
brought
both
by
the
neighbors
and
by
the
GBA
members,
the
impact
on
value
of
adjoining
property.
A
question
was
raised:
when
were
these
other
homes
that
I
made
reference
to
and
prior
presentation
when
were
they
built
I'd
like
to
address
the
financial
feasibility
of
a
smaller
house,
the
ones
that
the
neighbors
had
had
made
reference
to
and
impact
on
flooding?
Those
are
the
the
five
points
plus
the
summary,
so
you
know
as
a
designer
and
I
believe
so
architects
on
the
CBA.
T
You
know
that
there
are
a
lot
of
different
options.
There's
there's
not
just
one
way
to
do
anything
in
formulating
this
plan,
as
I
mentioned
before,
my
objectives
were
to
minimize
the
number
of
variances
and
the
degree
of
variance.
So,
for
example,
height
was
not
a
variance.
I
was
asking
for
it
was
not
something.
I
was
trying
to
minimize
interior
side
yard
was
a
potential
variance
that
I
avoided.
Asking
for
by
virtue
of
the
design
of
this
house
is
a
16
foot
wide
house.
T
I
also
wanted
to
have
as
much
Street
side
yard
as
possible,
and
so
all
of
these
things
factored
into
the
creation
of
this
design.
Now,
if
one
wanted
to
pursue
other
objectives,
for
example
the
question
of
well,
what
about
a
house?
That
was
a
story
and
a
half
high,
you
know.
Yes,
that
would
be
possible,
but
you
would
have
to
have
trade-offs,
so
the
house
would
have
to
be
wider
at
the
base
in
order
to
allow
for
a
roof
structure
that
that
came
in
to
the
second
floor
living
space.
T
Okay,
so
if
one
were
to
design
a
story
and
a
half
configuration,
it
might
look
something
like
this.
You
see
the
second
floor
space
above
here,
which
is
in
the
roof
structure
or
partially
within
the
roof
structure
and
the
ground
floor
space
which
could
be
smaller.
In
this
particular
instance,
the
house
is
51
feet
wide
at
the
base
and
it
has
overhang
some
two
and
a
half
feet
on
either
side.
T
The
east
and
west
elevations
shows
so
the
roof
structure
here
with
gable
structures
providing
window
space
into
the
bedrooms.
But
again
the
width
of
this
building
would
be
eighteen
and
a
half
feet
wide,
and
so
the
question
has
to
be
asked
if
one,
if
really
if
this
was
a
better
design,
then
with
the
CBA
prefer
less
corner
side,
yard
yard
and
a
greater
variance
of
the
corner
side
yard.
In
order
to
accommodate.
T
J
T
C
F
T
T
T
You
know
I
think
it
addresses
to
a
modest
degree
some
of
the
concerns.
For
example,
this
house
extends
further
back
on
the
lot
than
this
house,
as
you
can
see,
comparing
it
to
the
house
to
the
south
so
and
it's
also
I
think
there
was
some
concern
about
the
height
of
the
structure.
Okay,
so,
as
I
said,
I
am
open
to
reasonable
designs
that
provide
for
a
usable
house
that
meets
today's
demand
for
a
livable
house.
I.
D
T
I
can't
really
do
that,
because
this
hasn't
been
reviewed
by
the
city
staff.
They
haven't
looked
at
it
in
terms
of
the
total
of
variations
requested
I,
throw
it
out
there
as
a
as
a
point
of
comparison,
and
if
you
know,
members
of
the
CBA
indicated
a
preference
for
this
kind
of
thing
that
made
a
difference,
I'd
be
willing
to
modify
the
design
and
come
back.
Let.
C
Me
ask
another
question
you:
at
the
last
meeting
you
told
us,
you
held
a
community
meeting
with
the
neighbors
at
which
you
presented
three
plans
and
we
saw
them
last
week
right.
This
alternate
plan
is
not
one
of
those
correct.
This
is
something
new.
It
is
not
one
of
those
okay,
and
so
this
alternate
plan
is
an
attempt
you
made
in
the
last
week
to
design
something
that
you
felt
was
responsive
to
the
neighbors
concerns.
Well,.
T
He
said:
did
you
consider
a
story
and
a
half
and
I
said?
No,
because
you
know
it's
not
wide
enough
to
consider
story
and
a
half
in
it,
and
and
if
you
maintain
a
16
foot
width,
it's
not
wide
enough,
but
if
you
want--if-
and
so
the
question
is
what's
more
important
here-
is
that
minimizing
the
yard
variances
or
is
it
you
know
reducing
the
vertical
bulk
of
the
building?
T
You
know
so
if
if
more
latitude
would
be
granted
in
terms
of
say,
the
corner,
side
yard
and
frankly,
I'd
be
willing
to
ask
the
city
if
I
could
pour
a
new
sidewalk,
that's
two
feet
further
in,
so
that
there
would
be
green
space
in
front
of
the
building,
even
though
there's
not
actually
an
increase
in
the
yard.
Technically,
that
is,
a
creative
possibility,
would
result
in
a
green
strip
along
reefs.
That's
only
one
foot
less
than
the
green
strip
along
just.
T
So
the
second
floor
plan,
obviously
one
has
to
look
and
make
sure
that
it
works.
It
would
be
14
6
on
the
second
floor
instead
of
18
6
on
the
first
floor,
so
it
you'd
have
to
step
it
back
in
order
to
place
some
of
the
livable
space
underneath
the
roof
structure.
And
so
that's
how
you
get
the
reduction
in
bulk
vertically,
but
the
second
floor
space
would
work
three
bedrooms,
two
baths
again,
not
huge
bedrooms
but
serviceable.
T
You
know,
I,
don't
have
a
walk-in
closet,
I,
don't
have
a
big
master,
but
those
are
compromises
that
you
know
I'd
be
willing
to
make
so
impact
on
value
to
adjoining
property.
So
there's
been
a
number
of
comments
by
neighbors
indicating
that
they
think
it
would
have
a
negative
impact
on
value
of
their
property.
Obviously,
if
they
don't
like
the
idea
of
building
on
the
lot
and
don't
want
to
look
at
a
house,
there
they're
likely
to
think
that
it
would
impact
their
property
values.
T
I
thought,
frankly,
the
opposite
that,
with
a
higher
value
new
home
on
the
block,
it
would
support
property
values
and
because
none
of
the
conditions
that
I'm
proposing
for
this
property
are
unique
to
the
neighborhood.
They
all
exist
on
other
non-conforming
corner
Lots,
that
there
is
not
a
a
new
standard
being
set
here
by
this
house
that
is
below
that
already
existing
in
the
neighborhood.
But
that
was
just
my
opinion.
C
C
T
C
T
H
This
letter
says
that
that
the
appraiser
is
not
offering
a
value
of
the
property.
He
is
simply
saying
that
the
proposed
development
has
no
adverse
impact
in
his
opinion
on
the
adverse
impact
on
the
value
of
the
neighbor's
properties.
So
you
know
I
think
that
that
is
just
a
generalization
that
that
your
appraiser
has
made
in
his
letter
based
on
square
footages
of
new
homes
and
what
they
go
for
in
Evanston
etc
and
is
not
addressing
what
we
have
seen
in
the
outpouring
here
of
the
particular
aspects
and
character
of
this
neighborhood.
H
That
would
be
adversely
impacted
by
the
home
so
that
it's
it's
those
it's
those
very
peculiar
characteristics
that
I
think
Scott
is
referring
to
that
your
appraiser
has
not
really
been
able
to
evaluate,
because
he
hasn't,
he
hasn't
made
an
inspection
of
the
neighborhood
or
had
a
chance
to
hear
this.
Testimony
well.
T
I
believe
the
letter
says
that
he
has
conducted
a
reconnaissance
of
the
neighborhood
via
Google,
Earth
and
other
satellite
technology
and
has
ascertained
that
the
conditions
I'm
proposing
on
this
property
exists
elsewhere
in
the
neighborhood
okay.
So,
in
terms
of
these
being
peculiar
and
unique,
they're
not
peculiar
and
unique.
The
setbacks
that
I'm
proposing
exist
on
other
corner
Lots,
the
height
of
mud.
My
building
exists
another
corner
lot.
The
positioning
of
my
garage
exists
as
well
in
other
corner
Lots,
so.
T
H
T
H
T
T
So
there's
a
question
by
a
member
of
the
DBA
who
asked
when
the
property's
referenced
in
my
presentation
were
built
based
on
data
from
the
MLS.
These
are
the
dates
built
of
the
following
properties.
There
are
certainly
other
properties
that
were
built
subsequent
to
the
establishment
of
the
Evanston
zoning
ordinance
in
1921.
T
Pictured
here
is
3003
Park
Place,
which
is
on
a
corner
lot
of
similar
size
to
mind
that
it
was
built
in
1950.
Obviously,
there
was
an
accommodation
made
for
that
property
to
build
this
two-story
house
on
that
lot
and
I
believe
there
were
other
accommodations
made,
certainly
in
terms
of
expanding
non-conforming
structures,
adding
a
second
story
to
a
non-conforming
structure
and
other
accommodations
made
on
corner
Lots,
similar
to
what
I'm
proposing
for.
A
Those
on
the
board
who
weren't
here
3003
Park
Place,
was
a
case
before
the
CDA.
It
was
a
one
and
a
half
story
house
and
they
came
to
us
for
a
second
floor
variance
in
addition
to
some
other
variances
to
increase
the
size
of
the
of
the
house
and
we
denied
the
increases
to
the
size
of
the
house
and,
as
is
our
current
standard
right,
we
approved
the
extension
of
second
floor
walls.
So
that
house
was
not
built
as
a
two
storey
house.
T
T
However,
one
has
to
weigh
the
risks
and
determine
if
you
know
such
a
proposal
would
be
financially
feasible
and
what's
the
evidence
for
that,
so
in
one
of
the
attractions
of
a
two-bedroom
one-bath
house
is
a
lower
sales
price
and
I'd
like
to
submit
this
printout
from
the
MLS,
which
looks
at
recently
sold
two-bedroom
one-bath
houses
in
the
area,
and
one
can
see
that
the
closing
price
varies
between
260,000
and
$350,000.
So
I'm.
T
However,
to
build
a
new
house
of
that
size,
you're
gonna,
be
at
a
much
higher
price
point
and
yet
competing
with
smaller
older
homes
that
have
a
much
lower
sales
price,
and
so
it
is
really
not
feasible
to
build
a
smaller
house.
It's
gonna
be
a
much
higher
price
point
that
compares
with
older
homes
in
the
area
can.
A
A
Yes,
okay,
so
when
these
houses
are
closing
at
two
hundred
and
sixty
thousand
dollars
or
two
hundred
eighty-five
thousand
dollars,
you
don't
know
if
they
have
a
an
updated
bathroom
or
an
updated
kitchen
or
new
double
pane
windows
or
full
insulation.
All
the
amenities
that
your
house
would
have
that
these
may
not
have
lighten
by
ballot
by
virtue
of
not
having
been
remodeled
I'm.
A
A
Think
a
full-height
basement
versus
a
six-foot
deep
basement
is
that
is
a
major
impact.
I
think
having
energy
efficiency
versus
non
is
a
major
impact.
H
Additionally,
if
I
can
just
point
out
to
you,
I
wish
that
it
were
not
so
but
price
of
homes
per
square
foot,
for
example,
in
southeast
Evanston,
where
I
live,
are
considerably
lower
per
square
foot
than
they
are
in
Northwest
Evanston,
where
your
home
is
proposed.
So
I
think
that
you
really,
if
you're
going
to
give
us
comparables,
they
need
to
be
comparing
apples
to
apples.
You
know
what
what.
T
I
would
say
is
that
new
construction
price
is
very
much
less
than
resale
prices,
because
the
cost
structure
of
new
construction
is
going
to
be
the
same
in
Northwest
Evanston
as
South
Evanston.
Ok,
2x4
costs
the
same
in
south
Evanston's.
It
doesn't
Northwest
Evanston.
The
only
variable
is
really
the
price
of
the
land,
which
typically
and.
T
T
C
T
C
T
There
are
other
Lots
in
this
neighborhood
on
corner
Lots
were
houses
of
the
size
I'm
proposing
our
bill
that
exists
and
we're
allowed
by
the
city
back
was
done.
Okay,
so
what
I'm
seeking
is
a
house?
That's
about
1,700
square
feet
in
size,
give
or
take
certainly
less
than
1,800
square
feet
on
two
floors:
1st
floor,
2nd
floor
and
I
have
built
one
such
home.
It's
at
623,
Oakton
under
25
foot
wide
lot
that
I
needed
no
variances
for
because
it
was
in
an
interior
a
lot
and
was
in
the
r5
zoning
category.
D
T
T
So
the
presence
of
inadequate
drainage
on
older
homes
that
were
built
before
grading
plans
were
required.
Should
not
be
a
basis
for
denying
this
petition
and
my
property
will
not
have
a
any
material
impact
on
the
drainage
or
the
flooding
of
other
property.
My
runoff
will
be
directed
onto
the
site
and
surplus
runoff
will
go
into
the
city
sewers
where
it
belongs.
T
C
Before
you
give
your
summary
one
issue,
that
was
weighing
on
my
mind
a
lot
after
the
last
meeting
and
I
heard
it
reiterated
tonight,
but
you
haven't
addressed.
It
is
the
proximity
of
that
garage
to
in
the
alley
to
the
corner
and
the
sidewalk
and
the
safety
issue
that
it
potentially
presents.
Have
you
given
any
thought
to
that
or
come
up
with
any
solution
or
or
not.
T
You
know
the
width
of
the
lot
is
a
major
constraint,
so
I've
conformed
to
the
3-foot
interior
side
yard.
The
street
side
yard
is
non-conforming
three
feet.
If
we're
talking
about
sight
triangle,
essentially,
one
kind
of
mitigating
proposal
would
be
to
increase
to
setback
off
the
alley
so
that
there
is
more
sight
triangle
from
the
alley
onto
the
sidewalk
and
onto
the
the
street.
T
So
I
think
back
to
basics.
Here
the
city
has
stated
they're
on
record
as
saying
that
a
house
should
be
built
on
this
property.
That
is
not
an
unbuildable
lot.
So
it's
a
question
of
whether
this
proposal
is
reasonable
in
terms
of
minimizing
the
number
of
variances
asked
for
an
degree
of
variance,
that's
being
being
sought.
I
would
suggest
that
this
is
a
balanced
approach.
It
is
a
much
smaller
house
requires
much
less
variance
than
the
prior
application
on
this
particular
property.
It
is
not
inconsistent
with
other
existing
homes
on
corner
Lots.
T
T
The
city
has
allowed
the
expansion,
the
building
and
expansion
of
other
non-conforming
structures
and
other
non-conforming
Lots.
It
is
frankly
unfair
to
hold
this
property
to
a
higher
standard
than
that
you've
held
other
properties
to
I
would
like
to
add
one
point
here,
which
was
this
question
of
public
benefit
and
I.
Believe
I
heard
testimony
from
the
neighbors
make
reference
to
the
standards
for
public
benefit
of
a
plan.
Development.
Is
that
correct.
A
H
T
To
understand
what
the
requirement
for
public
benefit
is
when
seeking
a
major
variance,
I,
see,
okay,
I
would
say
that
one
of
the
public
benefits
is
frankly
reinvestment
in
property.
If
nobody
reinvested
in
property,
the
neighborhood
in
the
city
would
go
downhill,
I
happen
to
live
in
a
neighborhood
that
has
received
very
much
needed
reinvestment
in
property.
Frankly,
something
that
I
started
years
ago,
brought
nine
new
homes
with
homeowners
into
an
area
that
frankly
needed
homeownership
needed
reinvestment.
T
A
A
A
public
benefit
alternative
to
standard
five,
yes,
okay,
so
a
is
the
preservation
and
enhancement
of
desirable
site
characteristics
in
open
space.
B
is
a
pattern
of
development
which
preserves
natural
vegetation,
topographic
and
geological
features,
C,
preservation
and
enhancement
of
historic
and
natural
resources
that
significantly
contribute
to
the
character
of
the
city.
D,
use
of
design,
landscape
or
architectural
features
to
create
a
pleasing
environment
or
other
special
development
features.
U
Clarify
Sherbourne
applicant,
the
Code
section,
six
3
6
3
is
referenced
within
the
standards
for
major
variations
that
six
three
six
three
is
found
within
the
plan
development
section.
So
it's
a
cross-reference
to
cross-reference
there.
It
does
state
in
that
section
that
the
public
benefits
include
are
not
limited
to
any
of
the
standards
in
six
three.
T
T
T
There
is
no
reference
to
neighbor
objection
in
the
variances,
the
standard
for
variance
frankly
I'm
working
with
an
ordinance
now
that
does
make
reference
to
neighborhood
opposition
such
as,
if
there's
opposing
neighbors,
that
it
requires
a
supermajority
vote,
but
this
is
only
for
rezoning
that
for
variations,
so
but
your
ordinance
doesn't
speak
at
all
to
neighbor
opposition
and
I.
Don't
think
that
is
a
direct
frankly
consideration
in
this
on
the
technical
merits,
so
I
guess.
That
concludes
my
closing
comments.
I'm
available
for
any
additional
questions
you
may
have
thank.
J
A
H
One
thing
that
I
will
say
is
that
there
was
a
lot
of
reference
to
this
should
be
zoned
r2
and
that
if
it
was
owned
r2
you
wouldn't
have
to
request
the
major
variances
that
you
are
requesting,
but
in
fact
it
is
owned.
R1
and
I
think
that
part
of
the
zoning
plan
in
putting
the
this
area
in
that
zoning
designation
is
that
they
are
single-family
homes
and
and
is
and
I
think
that
there
is
a
special
quality
that
is
expected
in
an
r1
neighborhood.
H
That
we've
seen
exhibited
here,
basically,
is
that
you
know
people
form
a
neighborhood,
a
community
and
the
r1
zoning
designation
Foster's
that
it's
a
little
bit
different
than
the
higher
density
that
you
would
see
in
an
r2
or
an
r5,
neighborhood,
and
so
I
think
that
it
is
important.
The
the,
although
you
don't
want
us
to
consider
the
the
testimony
of
the
neighbors
or
their
perception
that
this
is
impacting
their
values
and
their
enjoyment
of
their
neighborhood
in
a
negative
manner.
H
We
would
be
irresponsible
to
do
anything
less
because
it
is
that
is
part
of
what
the
impact
of
value
is.
Value
is
not
just
the
the
resale
price
of
their
properties,
but
their
current
enjoyment
of
their
properties
and
their
ongoing
enjoyment
of
their
neighborhood
overall.
So
that's
the
problem.
I
have.
It
is
r1.
I
do
think
that
if
the
neighbors
were
presented
with
a
sweet
starter
home
that
would
draw
to
their
community
somebody
that
would
have
their
same
sensibilities,
that
that
that's
a
saleable
property
and-
and
that
would
be
something
that
they
have
stated.
C
Just
in
thinking
about
some
of
the
standards
themselves,
the
applicants
summary
is
that
the
proposed
house
would
not
impact
the
value
of
the
adjoining
property
or
nearby
properties.
The
standard,
as
I
pointed
out
last
week,
is
that
the
variation
would
not
have
a
substantial
adverse
impact
on
the
use,
enjoyment
or
property
values
of
adjoining
properties.
I've
been
on
the
Zoning
Board
for
eight
years.
I
can
only
think
of
one
or
two
cases
that
had
a
larger
turnout
of
negative
feedback
for
the
project
from
the
neighbors
than
this.
C
Certainly,
the
safety
aspect,
I
think,
is
concerning
and
has
a
concern
about
the
value
in
the
neighborhood.
So
I
don't
know
if
a
way
that
I
could
find
that
that
standard
technically
has
been
met.
I
also
have
a
problem
with
the
standards
that
are
tied
to
the
hardship.
I.
Do
think
this
is
a
very
small
piece
of
land
and
the
size
of
the
land
presents
a
form
of
hardship
generally
to
development.
C
That
said,
I
think
there
is
a
way
to
develop
the
land
with,
what's
been
described,
to
start
as
a
starter
home,
it
certainly
wouldn't
net
you
the
profit
that
you're
looking
for
with
your
current
project,
but
really
the
hardship
you're
talking
about
in
your
application
is
entirely
created
by
the
ambition
of
the
project
you're
trying
to
build
it's
the
size
of
the
building.
That
creates
the
scope
of
the
variations
you
need.
C
So
the
standards
that
are
tied
to
hardship
that
are
tied
to
the
person
having
an
interest
in
the
property
and
certainly
that
are
tied
to
the
applicants
desire
to
profit
from
the
project
as
opposed
to
whatever
public
benefit.
You
believe
it's
created,
I,
don't
believe
any
of
those
standards
are
met.
I
do
think
there
is
a
reason
you
were
able
to
acquire
an
empty
lot
in
Evanston
for
$75,000.
It
is
a
lower,
valued
piece
of
property
for
a
reason.
C
K
D
D
There
has
been
many
references
during
this
presentation
to
alternative
plans,
not
that
they
were
different
in
square
footage
or
anything,
but
is
that
well
weird
to
consider
because
I
keep
reading
on
his
stuff
that
it
says
if
we
don't
agree
with
it,
that
he
would
present
an
alternative
plan?
But
that's
not
what
he's
presenting
here
tonight.
It's
the
plan
that
we
got
last
week
period
right
I
just
wanted
to
be
clear.
Thank
you.
J
E
Here
is
my
thinking:
I
I
will
disagree
with
some
of
the
comments
that
this
lot
is
unbuildable.
It
is
buildable
and
it
is
buildable
with
variances,
that's
for
sure.
Otherwise,
it's
not
so
I
think
that
at
some
point
of
time,
this
board
and
the
Zoning
Administrator,
we
will
have
to
make
a
decision
about
the
variances
that
are
applicable
to
this
lot.
E
So,
following
this
line
of
thoughts,
I
would
say
that
variances
are
inevitable,
but
then
the
applicant
has
to
show
how
he
will
be
using
these
variances
with
the
building
that
will
be
built
on
the
lot
and
I
think
that
in
this
regard,
the
proof
is
not
sufficient.
In
my
opinion,
the
building
that
is
proposed
uses
the
variances
and
after
that
proposes
volume
of
a
building
as
if
there
are
no
variances.
So
this
is
the
problem
that
I
am
facing
with
the
proposed
development.
E
I
really
am
pleased
that
applicant
starts
thinking
a
little
bit
in
the
direction
of
a
small
building,
probably
with
less
number
and
extent
of
variances,
which
I
would
not
say
that
this
is
the
variances
I
I
need
to
be
well
understood.
I,
don't
think
that
the
variance
is
I
imperative
here.
I
think
that
the
result,
the
architectural
product
is
imperative.
In
this
case
it
has
to
be
in
compliance
with
the
surrounding
neighborhood.
E
Technically
speaking,
I
am
having
problems
with
our
standards
number
one.
Five
and
seven.
This
is
the
diesel
things
that
I,
reviewed
and
I
think
that
there
is
no
proof
that
these
standards
are
met.
So
this
is
my
opinion
and
I
would
encourage
the
applicant
to
provide
a
better
solution
for
this
locked.
Thank.
F
You
thank
you.
I
agree
with
many
of
the
comments
presented
by
Scott
and
by
Carol
and
I
would
commend
mr.
James
on
the
very
extensive
presentation
in
your
consideration
of
the
comments
that
you
heard
last
week,
of
both
the
Zoning
Board
and
and
the
neighbors,
and
certainly
and
meeting
early
on
with
the
neighbors.
It's
clear
that
you
have
been
working
very
diligently
in
trying
to
develop
this
lot.
That
said,
I
would
agree
in
considering
the
way
we
have
to
view
major
variations
and
looking
at
the
standards
that
have
to
be
met.
F
I
also
take
issue
with
the
standards
that
Carol
mentioned
in
1
5
and
7
in
particular,
and
looking
at
number
seven
I.
Don't
think
this
is
the
least
deviation
from
the
from
the
you
know,
applicable
regulations
that
have
been
considered.
That
should
be
considered
for
this
lot.
I
think
when
we.
Obviously
this
is
a
problem
site
and
we're
when
we're
starting
to
shoehorn
a
building
on
there.
That
requires
us
to
consider
moving
the
sidewalk
further
into
the
public.
A
Thank
you
so
I
again
to
be
brief,
because
you
know
we've
all
had
so
much
fun
with
this
I
generally
agree
with,
has
been
what
has
been
said
by
my
colleagues
here.
They've
made
excellent
arguments.
The
two
components
that
I
will
just
add
to
are,
as
an
architect,
I
firmly
believe
more
strongly
than
anybody
else
here
on
this
board.
A
A
There
are
changes
to
the
plan
that
can
be
made
that
meet
that
that
have
fewer
deviations
and
require
fewer
variances
or
less
variances
and
those
sorts
of
things.
So,
with
that
being
said,
we're
gonna
go
through
the
seven
standards
of
variation
for
a
major
variation
feel
free
to
jump
in
anytime.
You
want
to
add
to
feel
that
I've
missed
something
or
you
disagree
with
me
all
right
number
one.
The
requested
variation
will
not
have
a
substantial
adverse
impact
on
the
use,
enjoyment
or
property
values
of
adjoining
properties.
A
We've
had
testimony
from
the
neighbors
that
and
quite
frankly,
a
lot
of
neighbors
more
than
we've
seen
in
almost
any
other
case
that
there
will
be
adverse
impact
on
their
use
and
enjoyment,
and
now,
although
that
is
not
a
defining
standard
for
for
having
this
condition
not
being
met,
it
certainly
is
an
important
one
to
be
considered.
I
do
think
that
having
a
such
a
large
footprint
on
such
a
small
lot
does
have
an
impact
in
the
neighborhood,
so
I
believe
that
that
standard
has
not
been
that
I
agree.
C
It
but
I
would
also
add
I.
Think
there's
also
been
testimony
that
the
impact
extend
to
safety,
and/or
potential
flooding
problems
which
I
agree
with
the
applicant
you,
you
can't
point
to
flooding
problems
on
a
separate
lot
as
a
reason
to
deny
the
variation.
However,
when
the
applicant
is
seeking
to
expand
on
the
lot
coverage,
when
there
already
is
testimony
of
flooding
problems
in
the
neighborhood,
that's
certainly
something
to
consider.
Thank.
A
A
So
I
do
believe
that
standard
has
not
been
met.
Number
three,
the
alleged
hardship
or
practical
difficulty
is
peculiar
to
the
property.
We
do
know
that
this
is
a
plaited
lot
and
it
with
you
required
side
yards.
It
is
only
five
feet
wide
of
buildable
area,
so
I
do
believe
that
there
that
there
is
a
peculiarity
to
this
lot,
so
this
standard
has
been
met.
A
Based
upon
your
comments
from
earlier
number,
four,
the
property
owner
would
suffer
a
particular
hardship
or
practical
difficulty
as
distinguished
from
a
mere
inconvenience
if
the
strict
letter
of
the
regulations
will
be
to
care
were
to
be
carried
out,
I
think
that
there
is
a
hardship
and
a
practical
difficulty
if
we
try
to
limit
this
to
being
a
5-foot
wide
buildable
lot.
I
think
that
is
inconceivable,
and
we
can
all
agree
that
that's
sort
of
ludicrous,
so
I
do
believe
that
that
standard
has
been
met.
Number
five.
A
It's
not
their
sole
goal,
but
their
primary
goal
is
to
make
a
profit,
but
from
those
projects
we
generally
have
a
side
benefit
and
it's
usually
in
the
form
of
taking
a
blighted
structure
or
something
that
is
too
difficult
for
a
regular
homeowner
to
handle
and
to
be
able
to
modify
that
for
somebody.
It's
a
project
that
needs
somebody
with
with
a
little
bit
more
sophistication
and
some
more
resources
to
be
able
to
handle
those
things,
and
so
those
are
some
of
the
benefits
that
we
see
here.
A
We
see
in
a
typical
development,
unfortunately,
for
me,
I
don't
see
that
there
is
a
public
benefit
in
this
particular
instance.
One
of
the
reasons
I
don't
see.
That
is
because
the
neighborhood
is
so
against
the
piece
of
property.
I.
Don't
think
that
there
is
that
that
the
neighborhood
sees
a
public
benefit.
A
Thank
you
number
seven.
The
requested
variation
requires
the
least
deviation
from
the
applicable
regulation
among
the
feasible
options
identify
before
the
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals
issues,
its
decision
or
recommendation
to
the
City
Council
regarding
sub
variation.
There's
been
a
lot
of
discussion
about
the
size
of
this
of
this
project
and
and
the
required
variances
based
upon
that
size.
I,
certainly
think
that
there
is
room
for
this
project
to
certainly
get
smaller
and,
quite
frankly,
I
think
that
there
should
be.
A
It
should
be
a
one
car
garage,
because
I
think
that
10-foot
site
triangle
at
that
corner
is
critical
and
I.
Think
that
the
that
that
that's
probably
a
variance
that
would
be
gettable
given
that
argument,
because
that's
a
pretty
darn
good
argument,
if
that
goes
up
to
that's
right
up
there
with
stairs
and
Headroom
at
stairs
and
life
safety
and
all
that
good
stuff.
So
that
was
my
little
piece
on
the
side,
but
so
I
think
that
the
bulk
of
the
of
what's
being
asked
is
not
the
minimum
change
necessary.