Oak Park board denies request to convert Harding Avenue house to two‑family use for caregiver suite

The Oak Park zoning board on an unspecified date denied three variance requests tied to Case 26‑01, rejecting a petition to allow a two‑family dwelling at 2025951 Harding Avenue and to alter two dimensional requirements needed to add a caregiver suite for two wheelchair‑dependent residents.

Agent Zach Ostroff, representing the owner, described the proposed addition as intended to house hired caregivers and provide an accessible bedroom and bathroom. “This is not a full cooking kitchen. This is kind of like a warming kitchen,” Ostroff said, describing the space as a refrigerator, microwave and sink and not a full household cooking kitchen. Ostroff also said the existing structure is a pre‑existing, nonconforming building and that the requested lot coverage and setback adjustments were driven by the need to accommodate wheelchair circulation.

The board and staff focused on the use variance question — whether the new space would constitute a separate, legally recognized second dwelling unit under the zoning code. A long‑time board member (Speaker 8) told the room approving a two‑family use in an R‑1 zone would force the board to apply the same change to all R‑1 properties: “You can’t have a 2 family residence in an R‑1 zone. Once you turn this into 2 families, that’s where the problem becomes,” the member said, arguing the board could be compelled to alter how R‑1 zoning functions.

Staff and other board members pointed to two features that typically determine whether a second unit exists: the presence of a separate entrance and whether the space contains a full kitchen. Board members advised that removing or substantially reducing the kitchen and presenting a different entrance configuration might lead to a different determination but would require a redesigned plan and a new application.

Family members spoke in support of the request. Arthur Weinrich, the prospective occupant, said he and his wife had moved from out of state and that assisted‑living options on short notice were inadequate: “It would give us great pleasure to be able to live next to our children,” he said. His son and property owner, Jonathan Weinrich, urged the board to weigh the caregiving needs and family support in their decision.

After discussion, the board considered motions on the use variance and on the dimensional variances (side‑yard setback and lot coverage). Speaker 10 read the motion language for the three requested approvals, noting the zoning citations: Article 2, Division 2, Section 2.11 (use limitation on two‑family dwellings in R‑1) and Article 2, Division 2, Section 2.14 (minimum side‑yard setback and maximum lot coverage). The board held separate votes because the use variance requires a higher affirmative threshold than dimensional variances.

The roll call recorded at least two members voting yes (Member Seidenberg and Member Brown) and at least three members voting no (Members Seidenston, Anderson and Houston). The motions to approve the use variance and the dimensional variances were denied; the case closed without approval. The applicant indicated intent to redesign the plan and resubmit; staff offered to meet with the applicant to discuss specific changes that might address the board’s concerns.

The meeting concluded after the board conducted officer elections, retaining the incumbent chair, vice chair and secretary.

What the board decided

• Variances requested: allow a two‑family dwelling in an R‑1 district (Article 2, Div. 2, Sec. 2.11); side‑yard setback reduced to 13 feet where 14 feet is required; lot coverage increased to approximately 37.6–37.8% where the maximum is 35% (Article 2, Div. 2, Sec. 2.14).
• Outcome: motions to approve the use variance and the dimensional variances were denied. The applicant will resubmit a redesigned plan.

Next steps

Staff offered to meet with the applicant to review revisions. The applicant said they would return with redesigned plans that could remove or shrink the kitchenette and address the entrance configuration to avoid creating a separate dwelling unit.