That's my roundabout to get home. >> It doesn't go it it doesn't like it's only got about 110 horsepower electric and then it has like >> 500 gas. What's the like if you're to charge it out here, what's the cost to charge? >> I think for the first half hour hour
here it's nothing and then after that I >> it would cost me like to do it publicly to do the whole charge would probably cost 20 bucks or something. >> It cost half in the end. I've done all this looking at it. It costs half as
much as it is. That's pretty much why I charge at home and stuff. I don't really I don't pay that much attention. It's very quiet when I run the electric. It's very It's very quiet. >> Is there like a switch? Like you just say I want to use the electric. >> Uh yeah, there's a button. I can do all
that. They had way back. They don't have side. eventually >> somebody must have put the wrong >> imagine that would Just
Yeah, that would be thorny. >> Testing. Testing. In compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act of 1975, adequate notice of this meeting has been provided. If any member has reason to believe this
meeting is being held in violation of this act, they should state so at this time. >> Please stand for the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it
stands one nation under God indivisibley and justice for all. >> [clears throat] >> Mrs. Werner >> here. >> Mr. Venudo >> here. >> Mr. Lewin >> here. >> Mrs. Notch >> here. >> Miss Sheen. >> Mr. Walsh
>> here. >> Mr. Mr. Zexer >> here. >> Mr. Jagger >> here. >> Miss Stevenson. >> Okay. Okay. Our first resolution is Michael Mortimer 4446
and 448 West Perry Street, Block 1031. >> Can we have a motion, please? >> I'll make a motion. >> Second. >> Mr. Bernudo motions. Mr. Lewin seconds. Mr. Lewin, >> yes. >> Mrs. Notch, >> yes. >> Mr. Walsh, >> no.
>> Mr. Zexer, >> yes. >> Mr. Joerger, >> yes. >> Mr. Venuda, >> yes. >> Mrs. Wner >> abstain. >> Thank you. >> Our next resolution is 420 Perry Street LLC, 420 and 422 West Perry Street, block
1031. And we have a motion. >> I'll make the motion. >> I'll second. >> Mr. Zexer motions. Mr. Jagger seconds. Mr. Lewin, >> yes. >> Mrs. Notch, >> yes. >> Mr. Walsh,
>> no. >> Mr. Zexer. >> Yes. >> Mr. Joerger. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bernudo. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Wernner. >> Abstain. >> Thank you. >> Our next resolution is for Christine Carlson Glazer, 107 Ocean Street, block
1057. And we have a motion. >> I'll make the motion. >> Second. >> Mrs. Notch motions. Mr. Lewin seconds. Mr. Lewin. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Notch. >> Yes. >> Mr. Walsh. >> Yes. >> Mr. Zexer. >> Yes. >> Mr. Joerger. Yes, >> Mr. Venudo. >> Yes,
>> Mrs. Werner. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Next, we need a motion to approve the minutes of the June 25th, 2026. >> I'll make that motion. >> Second. >> Mr. Renudo, motions. Mrs. Naj seconds. Mr. Lewin.
>> Yes. >> Mrs. Notch. >> Yes. >> Mr. Walsh. >> Yes. >> Mr. Zexer. >> Yes. >> Mr. Joerger. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bernudo? >> Yes. >> Mrs. Werner? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Our application tonight is Adam and Colleen Curtain,
911 Washington Street, block 1094. [cough] [clears throat] >> Good evening, Madam Chair, board members. Uh, John Amanhauser of the Dwiss Law Firm here this evening on behalf of the applicants, Adam and Colleen Curtain. Uh, as you mentioned, the subject property of this application is 911 Washington Street, block 1094,
lot 21 on the city's uh, zoning or tax map. It's in the R3 medium density zoning district. U, current use of the property is two separate uh, independent residential dwellings as well as an ingground swimming pool between the structures. And through this application, the proposed use is the
same with a bit of an expansion to the main building that fronts on uh, Washington Street. So just to give a pictorial image, we have a building that fronts on the Washington, a pool and then a rear building along the back of the line. Um there is also through this application in addition to the
renovations that you'll hear from Miss Fine about um we are also introducing per uh pvious driveway pavers and walkways in order to reduce lot coverage. Right now that is a non-conforming condition that we are proposing to bring into conformity through this application. Um, as I
mentioned, here to provide professional testimony in support of the application is Pam Fine. Pam's a licensed registered architect uh with her own firm. I know she's been before the board plenty of times, but uh happy to elicit credentials if necessary. And then I also have the applicants, Adam and Colleen Curtain here with me tonight. Uh
I do intend to elicit some testimony from Mr. Curtain. Um so if I can have them both sworn, that'd be great. >> You're also going to swear in the board engineer. Do each of you affirm swear affirm the testimony you about to give is the truth all truth and nothing but the truth of God. >> Yes. >> Yes,
>> I do. >> And I'll start with Mr. Kurt if that's okay. Okay. So, Adam, as I mentioned, can you confirm you're uh one of the owners of 911 Washington Street? >> I am. >> All right. And how long have you owned the property? >> Uh this is our fourth year. >> Okay. So, when you purchased the
property or since you purchased the property, have you made any improvements um to the property development wise? We have it's it's primarily the pool that you mentioned earlier. We we the back was primarily gravel when we first uh purchased the property. So, we added a pool. The prior owners had rented the
property. We converted it back, you know, to our our family use and we added a pool. We've got um you know, two children and a large extended family. So, we we get a lot of use and guests in the summer. So, we added the pool. Um and then we are also in the process of renovating the main house. >> Okay. So, you just mentioned the prior
owner used to rent the property. Do you rent the property at all? >> We do not. >> Okay. Because how do you utilize it? >> We love it. Yeah, we're we're down. Um our our kids just did the uh the sailing camp for the summer. We spend all all summer down here. Um we have a large extended family, so we get a lot of
guests down. So, it's why we like the property. >> And what is the reason that you're seeking to to renovate and expand as we're proposing through the application? >> It's a um it's a beautiful property. We we love the street. We love the neighbors. We love the property, but it's dated. uh it has not been renovated
in a very long time. So our our primary goal is to just bring it up to you know current day standards. So like one of the items we're requesting is is to add HVAC so that there's not air conditioning in the house. So we want to add central air and we want to um get a
a variance, you know, to add those condensers on the outside. We also um we have five main bedrooms in the in the main house. We only have two baths. one of them is on the first floor. So, when we have a lot of guests down um and I've got a teenage daughter and bunch of you
know nieces and nephews and it's it's a challenge um having showers um you know with with a full house in the summer and we also don't have a master suite. So, we're part of that mix. So, we'd like uh my wife and I would like to have our own master suite, you know, in our own
bathroom. >> And Adam, I think it's important we're not seeking to add any new bedrooms or additional bedrooms to this application, right? >> Correct. >> You're just making the space more functional for your family. >> Correct. Yeah. We we have very limited closet space, very limited bathrooms, no
HVAC. That's primarily what we're >> we're looking to accomplish. All right. >> Have any other questions for Mr. Curtain right now? Is there any anything >> Yeah. What is the current use to the other structure on the property? Are you running that or is it >> We We are not. No, we're our family's at there. So, we got um
>> So, what what kind of fill me in? What's What's on that or in that building? How many bedrooms? Bathrooms >> right now? It's It's two bedrooms. There's a little kitchenette and and a bathroom. >> Okay. And it's two stories excluding the garage area. >> Correct.
>> Okay. Can you say the the unit above the garage is what? >> It's two stories above the garage, you said. Correct. >> Correct. >> Two stories above the garage. >> Yes. >> Correct. >> And it's two bedrooms in that building. >> Yeah. Two two small bedrooms and one
bath. >> And we don't rent that. We We use it for guests in the summer. >> I just want to reconcile something because I'm mostly a glorified notetaker is what I do. [laughter] Um Craig's report says I thought
um I thought it said somewhere hold on >> I called out as a two-bedroom dwelling garage. >> I thought somewhere it said they were adding >> a two two a bedroom and a living room. Am I making that up? So the addition
says in the second paragraph on page two or the first full paragraph on page two, >> a two-story addition is proposed at the rear of the structure that will contain a family room on the first floor and bedroom on the second floor. >> All right. So >> So we're going to get into that. We can
discuss that. But >> I just heard that testimony says there's no new bedrooms. >> There are not. Pam, do you want to address that? Well, I should ask >> the application itself says there's existing five bedrooms and proposed five bedrooms, >> right? >> Okay. It's an expansion of a bedroom space to make a room larger and that's
where the master suite master bath. >> Clear note on what we're adding. So they're not there's no new bedrooms. What is it that you're adding? >> And you want to address >> on the second floor. We're adding a bathroom and a walk-in closet basically. >> I will if Miss Fine's going to do that
then. >> Yeah. >> I just I only asked now because it went into the no bedrooms thing, but that's fine. You do your do your Okay. Do your presentation. I just wanted to clarify that. >> No problem. >> And madam chair is um it's fine accepted as a as
if you can Pam, can you just go over the existing conditions and then what we're proposing through? >> Sure. Uh I'm going to start on the SU1 sheet which are the existing floor plans. Um so you'll see we have uh three floors. Our first floor consists of basically your living, dining, kitchen.
Uh we have a foyer as mentioned before. We have a full bathroom on this level. No bedrooms on this level. Um the area that we're discussing tonight is this rear portion of the house. So you'll see back here we have a teeny tiny kitchen.
So it's 8x10. It's smaller than a bedroom. And that is the kitchen for the house. Um we have a a landing and then we have a deck above. That's all that exists on the back of the house today. It's a one-story late edition. Um, on
the second floor is where we have all our bedrooms. Well, most of our bedrooms, I should say. So, second floor, we have three existing bedrooms. We have one hall bath and then we have a small room off to the side, which I noted as an office. Um, it really is
just too small to be a bedroom. Um, so, uh, and then in the back here, we have that existing deck, which will be coming off. On the third floor plan, it's basically in the attic. You're within the roof. There's sloping walls or sloping ceilings. Um, so it looks bigger
than it actually is. There's not a lot of usable space on that third floor, but we had two bedrooms up there, no bathrooms. Um, just and a a small closet area that you have to duck to walk into. Um I'll end on the SU1 with the site
plan. So you'll see this the primary residence is situated along Washington. You'll see the pool between which is a small area and then towards the back is that garage apartment space and that we are not touching. We're not proposing
any changes to it. No additions, no alterations. That's staying as is where is. So, I'm going to jump ahead to the P1 sheet, and this is showing what we're proposing to add and change. So, the P1 sheet, I'll start with the
first floor plan. What we're adding in the back is a living room, but basically family room. We have that nice pool. We have a beautiful backyard. We want access to it. >> So, the footprint of the house is being enlarged. >> Yes. So, we are enlarging the footprint
by 174 square ft on the back. So, we are removing that kitchen, adding a goodiz family room on the back, fireplace access with doors to a little landing steps down access the pool. We're taking that old kitchen and moving it where the
old living room was. So, it's a bigger footprint, more cabinet space, more usable space for appliances, storage. We have a pantry. Um, this is a really great location as it sits opposite of the dining room. So, it just makes sense
from a plan standpoint. And in the middle here, we have a powder room. So, we took away that that bathroom on the first floor. It didn't make sense. We don't need a full-size bathroom with a tub. So, we have a powder room instead. We gave a little bit of space to that
kitchen. Um, and then we have a co coat closet. And that basically sums up the first floor. second floor. This area back here, which was where the bedroom was, is now a bathroom and a walk-in closet with a hallway down the middle.
That gives you access into a new bedroom that we're putting over the kitchen. We sacrificed a bathroom or we sacrificed a bedroom for the bathroom and walk-in closet and then we just moved the bedroom so that it's a true proper
master suite over the the the uh family room below. Um other changes up here, uh we renovated that single hall bathroom, um closed up a doorway, so it was really minimal. We were just looking for
another bathroom and some more closet storage. uh for the three bedrooms that exist basically in in function. And then finally, if we go up to the third floor plan, we we aren't doing any additions. We're just basically moving some walls
around. So, we're making one of the bedrooms smaller in order to fit another bathroom on that level. Uh so, we end up with two bathrooms on the second floor, another bathroom on the third floor. Each floor has a bathroom. We have a master suite. We have a a proper
kitchen. We have a family room that connects you to the backyard for entertaining, for living, for for enjoying the backyard space. Um, so basically that is it in a nutshell. Uh, do you want me to run through the zoning? >> Not yet. I'll get >> the third floor expanding like the
>> No, there was a question about the footprint. The footprint is expanding on the first floor. Yes. >> Expanding on the second floor, not on the third. >> Right. We are working within the confines of the roof structure. So this house is a four square. So we have basically hip roofs. It's almost like a
pyramid um roof structure and it's historical. So it would be sacrileged to change the roof shape to try to add an addition and bump this up and add a dormer. So we're keeping the roof as is. We're working within the the oddities of
the roof and the the sloping walls. >> What's the square footage being added? uh all in all. So the first floor as I said was 174 and then the second floor was 282 for a total of 456. >> So Pam, what I was getting ready to ask
is you just touched on it. This property is in the historic district, correct? >> Yes. >> Contributing property in that in that zone. >> Absolutely. Yes. >> And this has gone through HBC already, right? >> Yes. >> Now when we talk about the contributing nature of the properties of both the main building that we're talking about renovating, I'll call it the main
building, right? front building as well as that rear structure that exists. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. >> What was that question, John? >> They're both considered historic. So, the main building at Washington and I'll call it the carriage building, the apartment in the back were on the 1909
Sanborn maps. So, they are just as old as each other. They were most likely both built in around 1900. So, they're over 126 years old. Um, >> stories back building. >> Yes. >> Stories of them. that was there. >> I I I got distracted. I was doing some
math and the total square footage you said was being added was 456, >> right? >> The four ratio calculations have 2743 and 3175. >> I didn't do that math, but I know that they that >> So, okay. So, if we
>> count ratio, >> so I was reading just including the walls. So if you want floor area ratio being added, it was 173 and 269 and that is a total of 442. And that's just basically the
measurement within the the interior faces of the walls themselves >> on P1. >> Before we leave that math, I'm sorry. I just want to get this math right because otherwise [laughter] >> if this plan doesn't match this chart everything gets messed up.
>> All right. So that means that 3175 plus whatever number you just said which is what? >> What was the 3175? >> 3175 is what Mr. says is the proposed square footage. >> Yes. >> For the addition >> for
>> the total >> he's got exist. >> I just want to make sure the difference on this chart. Oh, 31 said or everything gets messed up and I wasn't sure it was when I first heard it. So, I just want to >> Oh, that is with the rear dwelling added in >> that. So, the front house
>> difference should be the same, right? 3175US 2743 Craig's two numbers should be what you're saying is the area being added for the floor ratio. So, I just if that doesn't match up and something's something's wrong, we just want to get them.
>> Um, yeah. I'm not sure where those numbers came from. Um, they weren't what I calculated. Maybe it was just a different way of calculating that 354. >> You use a calculator, John. That's [laughter] what's >> Hey, I >> got to do in act in your head like me
and then [laughter] >> 2743. So that's 432. 432. It's close. I had 442 that we were adding. So, it's off by 10
[laughter] off a house. >> I'm asking for more. [gasps] >> All right. Well, I copy and pasted this chart. So, right. >> I can I can >> Now's the time to >> I can update to match. My number is the same number that she
has in her zoning schedule for both existing and proposed >> and Hershey has a table below that where she calculates the floor area ratio under uh number four as 2354 for the
front dwelling and calculates 821 for the rear dwelling and that comes out to 3175 which is what is in my chart. >> Right? >> So I'm consistent with her. >> All right. I wrote it down 442 in my notes and now we say 432.
>> 432. >> Okay. My math was off. [laughter] >> Is that what it is? >> 432. >> You got to change it. Yeah. 432. >> All right. So, as long as the um if you do succeed, it's going to say what this chart says and then that's what the zoning officer is going to look when he does the
>> right. Understood. >> All right. Thank you. Just now's the time. [laughter] It's better when it's built and then they're not right. And thanks. Uh Pam, in addition to um what we just went over, there are a couple pre-existing non-conforming conditions that exist, right? Right. Can you confirm of of those and I'll I'll name
them. Lot size per dwelling unit and sideyard uh set back to the AC platform. Right. or no, I'm sorry. Reard setback and building setback line are the two existing non-conforming conditions. Correct. >> Uh let's see. Uh existing non-conforming to the front building. >> Yep.
>> Uh I have the front is a non-conforming and the side >> and we're not exacerbating those in any way. Right. >> The side we're asking for uh for the units. >> Okay. So let's the AC units >> get into that in a second. But building setback line to the front building right
along Washington Street. Yes. >> And the rear yard setback that exists. We're not exacerbating those two in any way. >> No, not at all. >> Okay. There is also an existing non-conformity as it relates to lot coverage as it's presently situated. Is that right? >> Yes. >> Okay. And are we going to be bringing
that into compliance if this application's approved? >> We are. Yes. >> Okay. Can you go over those numbers and explain how we're doing that? >> Sure. Um, so lock coverage, we're allowed 45% maximum. That equates to 3,241 that we're allowed to have currently.
What I calculated was 3,49 which is actually 47.3%. So that's 2.3% higher than what's allowed. What we're proposing by way of changing out concrete um walkway
driveways, things like that. We're changing it out with uh pvious pavers. So, we're bringing it actually below and well below what's allowed um to 3,028. So, that ends up being 42%.
So, we went from 47.3% down to 42%. So, we're uh 3% below the max for lock for >> lock. >> Lock coverage. Yes. >> Okay. Um the additional variances we're
ask first I'll go over we're asking for a D2 variance right for an expansion of the an pre-existing non-conforming use right >> yes >> that non-conforming use being two principal dwellings on one lot right >> yes >> okay um in terms of that specific variance um is it your professional
opinion that this site is is suitably situated to enhanced intensity of use >> I I definitely think so um first off I really don't see us increasing the intensity of the use because we haven't added bedrooms. We stayed with the
number of bedrooms. The inhabitants, you know, the number of the inhabitants stay. Um all we're proposing is a a decentiz family room and a master suite. Um in place of the old smaller bedroom. So um I feel like the intensity of the
site really isn't changing at all. Um, but I feel that everything that is situated on this site right now works and I think it functions well. It's been here for over a hundred years. Um, we have plenty of off- streetet parking uh
that accommodates the number of bedrooms in both dwellings. So, I really don't see what we're asking to be um exacerbating anything. And then in terms of the the special reasons, right, purposes zoning that you
believe might be uh promoted, this would be [clears throat] granted. Can you go over those as a place D2 variants? >> Let me grab my notes. Okay. So, I'll touch on a C1. Um I don't know if that was asked for tonight or not, but I feel like it um definitely
pertains to this location. uh C1 is basically the narrowness, shallowess or reg or irregular shape or an exceptional topographic condition or other unique conditions to uh or or physical features
affecting the property. So I think what strikes me in this is the unique conditions and I think what we have here is a unique condition because we have two single family homes. It's not a duplex. um they're they're not a a there's
nothing in the zoning that even would apply. So we definitely have a unique condition in this project that we have to work with and it's historic. So we can't change it. So all we can do is work with it. So that's why we're here
and I think that definitely applies. >> And in terms of other purposes of zoning under section two of the language law, do you believe any others are promoted? I do. Um I have a few highlighted highlighted. I'll go through um I have B which is to secure safety from flood,
fire, panic, and other natural and man-made disasters. Uh what we're proposing and what is actually currently underway. We are fixing this house. As Adam had mentioned before, the house hadn't been renovated in decades. Who knows what the existing electrical
looked like, the HVAC, the plumbing, um, uh, any other issues with utilities. Uh, we have a basement. So, we are going through this house with a fine tooth comb and updating everything so it complies. And what we're proposing here
is just adding to that. Um, it brings this house into the the current situation of what families expect when they come to Kate May and how they live. Um, so I think that this that that applies uh letter C to provide adequate
light, air, and open space. Uh what we're asking for, we besides the AC units, which I can touch on, but we're not asking for setback variances. We're not too close to neighbors. Uh we're not too tall. Everything's situated in the back. Nobody will actually see it from
the street. Um so I feel like that that applies. Um the letter I, which is to promote a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good civic design and arrangement. Again, everything that we're proposing
was approved by the HBAC. They thought it was a very fitting addition. They thought it complemented the the home. We had unanimous approval. So, I feel that that uh addition definitely um belongs to this to this home. And then finally,
to promote the con conservation of historic sites and districts. I don't think I really have to elaborate much on that. We're we're saving this house. We're making it so that it it has a life into the future from from beyond today
into generations their curtains children's their grandchildren their great grandchildren I think that what we're proposing here will give this house longevity into the future >> and Pam in addition to the positive criteria you just went over those four points uh is it your professional
opinion that if this were to be granted it wouldn't lead to any substantial detriment to the public good the neighborhood or his own plan. >> Absolutely not. No substantial detriment. >> Okay. Um so Pam, that was we talked about the D2 criteria. We're also also asking for floor area ratio variance,
right? Under D4. >> Yes. >> Language law. >> So in terms of the D4 relief, we're asking for I'll ask again. Do you believe when you consider that variance that we're asking for that this site in the increased space that we're talking about this site can accommodate that that it's suitable in size?
>> I do. I do. um you know we have two separate dwellings um we have to factor in the floor area ratio for both dwellings when we calculate um everything that we're proposing the rear dwelling is situated so far in the back
it's almost like its own property uh disconnected from the front unit um the front unit what we're proposing um in floor air ratio as a result is 2354 um where 28 881 is allowed. So if it was
just the front unit and we had no carriage house, we would easily meet the the criteria. Um so unfortunately we we can't demo the carriage house. I wouldn't want to anyway, but I'm just saying from a numbers standpoint. Um you know, it's definitely hard to work
around and and get a a a home that you know works for this family >> and even considering that right. So we have two separate structures. as we just talked about of the the front if it only existed itself independently it would be well under the floor area ratio number right >> yes >> but even combined right now
>> uh can you go over what the percentage that we're going to is under floor ratio and what is permitted >> sure so permitted we are allowed 40% max um and that comes from the single family dwelling criteria and that equates to
2881 currently where we stand we're at 2743 so about 100 square ft less. Um, and we're at 38%. What we're proposing is 3175 and that equates to 44%. So, we go
up 4% from what is max allowed. Okay. And when you consider the situation on that lot, the the location of the buildings and how they exist, do you believe, even though we need the variance, which we're not arguing, that this equates to any form of gross overdevelopment? >> No. No, not at all. there. There already
is uh a room in the in the rear here. We're only expanding that bottom floor, 173 square ft. So, it's really it's it's not a huge expansion on the back room. Um and then everything uh that we're
proposing is just above that. So, um it's not like our footprint is, you know, grossly um being overdeveloped. We we kept it really small, really compact along the back. I really don't feel like it it um substantially uh impairs
anything. >> Um so Pam, there was a those were the two Dvarianes that we need, right? We also need a variance that we're asking for the C2 criteria, right? Related to minimum required sideyard setback. Is that right? >> That's correct. >> Okay. And is the the reason for that is
um the setback to the proposed AC unit discussed, right? >> Yes. >> Okay. Can you go over that a bit? >> Sure. So right now the house has no air conditioning. Um, so we we were doing our best to try to find a suitable location for two air conditioning condensers outside. Um, if you look on
the site, we don't have any space along the left of the house because we have the driveway and it's important to have that open for parking. Um, along the back we have the backyard, we have the pool, we have the family room, we have a really nice entertaining area. doesn't
quite make sense to have noisy air conditioning units along the back. On the right side is where we ended up. Um, not shown on here, but there is a basement stair that goes down that we
can't really move. Uh, that is the only access to the basement. Um, so that eliminates this area over here for a possible AC unit location. What I did here was uh locate it on this back
corner. So what we're proposing the AC unit would be 5'5 from that side property line. Um where let me see 8 ft is required. So we are about 2 and 1/2
ft into the setback. Um again it's only AC unit. I know it makes noise. Um but uh the distance to the neighbor on the right is quite large on that side. So um we do have a bit of of space between
these two properties. So um we did discuss other options though if that becomes a point of contention tonight. We can move it. We were discussing possibly putting it over the basement stair. Um wouldn't look as great. You
couldn't camouflage it as much. Um, so that's why we've really didn't go in that direction, but we we could come up with alternatives if that has to happen. >> For just for illustration purposes to to the board, it the photographs uh that were provided, the color photographs in
the application, I provided four of them. The third photograph does show that that rear staircase going down so that you have a visual of that. Um, Pam, related to that variance, in terms of purposes of zoning that would be promoted, you did go over four already as it relates to the the devariances. Do
you believe those same um promotion purposes be promoted through the granting of this variance as well? >> I do. Yes. >> Okay. And um in terms of the negative criteria, any substantial detriment to the zone plan of the public good if the board went to grant that relief?
>> No. If if I had thought there was any substantial detriment, I wouldn't have proposed the location where we did. >> Okay. Um Pam, in terms of some waiverss, we did ask for a few uh through this application. and Mr. Hurles highlighted
them in his review letter. Um, specifically they were related to number 8, 19, 23, and 33 of the checklist requirements. Uh, which I can provide you. >> Okay. >> Um, but in terms of these here, got >> in terms of those waiverss that we requested, is it your professional
thinking that each would be justified in this application? >> Uh, a key map uh topography. Yeah. Yeah, I think so. >> Okay. And then in relation to number 23 and number 33, they deal with more landscaping features.
>> Yes. >> Can you Mr. Holless asked that we provide some testimony that we're not going to affect the existing landscaping? Correct. >> Uh right. Yeah. There is no landscaping where we're proposing that rear edition. Um right now it is mostly just gravel
and concrete. No trees, no shrubs, no flowers, no grass. >> Okay. And um just uh earlier today or maybe it was yesterday, the shade I received a notification from the shade tree commission in terms of their recommendation. >> Okay. >> They did note that there was one large tree on the right side of the rear yard
and we just need to provide a temporary construction net around that during construction. Okay. >> See any issue with that? >> No, not at all. >> Okay. >> I would just ask that you revise the plan to show that >> where that location is. Okay. >> Don't show that lo the tree location. >> We'll do.
[clears throat] And Pam, in terms of the other uh general comments, Mr. Ellis's review letter, you take any exception to those? >> No, not at all. >> Okay. Pam, anything else uh else you'd like to add at this time before we turn it over to >> Oh, happy to answer any questions. >> Any questions, Miss Fine?
Shoot. The stairs that are aren't shown on the drawing, they were included in lot coverage, though. >> Yes. Yes. Because I'm sorry, >> how big is that space again? Um, so if you look at at the site plan, I have them drawn in there. So, um, it
basically starts at that, uh, corner of the existing house and it goes almost to the end of where we're proposing the addition. It's about 3 ft shy, >> but that's it was added into the lock. >> Yes. >> Yes. Yeah. It was uh counted as 100%
since it's concrete. There's no other questions. That's all we have at this time. >> Okay. Go into price report. >> Good evening everyone. [clears throat] I would like to summarize my May 27th, 2026 review
memorandum for this application. It is located in the R3 medium density residential district. Um you've heard testimony from the applicant indicating what they're proposing. Um, in addition, they're not increasing the bedrooms. There's five bedrooms in the existing condition. They're proposing five
bedrooms. Um, I'm going to roll right into my completeness review. Uh, they uh just testified with added some of the additional information that I requested. Um, they've indicated that they're not impacting the trees and not uh impacting
any of the existing landscaping. Therefore, I supported the waiverss from items 81, 19, 23, and 33 and recommended deeming this application complete. On page three of six is my zoning table,
um, which summarizes the variances that have been requested and based on the testimony you've heard tonight, uh, my information is consistent with theirs. There is a request for a use variance. Um there are two single family dwellings
on the lot. Um based on our definitions of single family dwellings. Um so there's two. Um our ordinance only allows one use per site. Okay. Now, that being said, um I had a little different
take on the evaluation of whether this expansion is appropriate or not because within the R3 district, um the ordinance contemplates as a permitted use, two family detached units are permitted on lots of 7,500 square feet, which is
almost what this lot is. Um, so one could reasonably contemplate that in the R3 district, you could expect two units on a lot this size. Okay. Um, so it's not to if it was in the R1 or R2 district, I couldn't make that argument,
but in the R3 district, we can make that we can understand that in that neighborhood, we could expect two family units on a lot of similar size. >> What's the floor ratio on on that two family? >> I was going to get there. >> Sorry, buddy. >> That's all [laughter] right.
Um so uh and once again the menu for floor area ratio changes with our uses. So two family detached and attached dwellings both of which have two units in them have a permitted floor area ratio of 0.45.
This is under that. So, it's reasonably to assume that this was a similar massing and size is appropriate in that neighborhood for a lot with two units on it if it was a permitted use. So,
[clears throat] so my take on this is that this is not a huge departure from what's permitted in the in the district based on that rationale. Okay. So there were use variances um that applied for the expansion and non-conforming use. Um
once again uh single family dwellings are permitted use. However, you can't have two on the same lot. The floor area ratio um uh is a what's permitted for single family dwellings is 0.40. They're under in the existing condition
at 0.38. They're proposing 0.44. Um, normally, you know, we would raise a huge eyebrow with with something like this, but in this case, because of the district that it's located in, um, I
think the fact that the HPC has reviewed this and where the massing of the structure happens on this lot, um, the test for the board to look at floor area ratios is whether the lot can accommodate
the problems associated with the increase in floor area ratio. So normally we look at are there additional bedrooms that increases parking? Is the parking demand met? In this case there's no increase in parking demand. There's
no increase in bedrooms. The park the site is well parked. Um does it create lot coverage issues? In this case, they're reducing the lock coverage from a non-conforming situation to a conforming situation. They're bettering that. Um, so there's I I would assume
that there's no problems associated with lock coverage. And therefore, what's associated with lock coverage? Drainage. You know, so there wouldn't be no no negative impacts with that. And then the finally, the last test that I look at when dealing with this is, is there an impact to light air and open space? Um,
for the most part, we there's some existing non-conformities that are not being touched or not being increased either vertically or horizontally. Um the only impact to the light air and open space is the sideyard setback and
that goes from a 7 foot existing non-conforming situation to a 5 foot 5 in non-conforming exist situation proposed situation only for the air conditioning platform.
Um the main portion of the additions fall entirely within the permitted setbacks. Okay. Um, so I talked about the sideyard setback variance. That's a C variance, by the way. Um, the lot size per dwelling unit because we have two
dwelling units. And because we have single family dwellings, um, the requirement for lot size per dwelling is 6,250 ft where 7,204 square foot is existing with two units.
um there's no area obviously all lots are developed around it we can add to that that's an existing situation so that's my analysis of the variances certainly if you have any questions you can ask ask me after I finish up my
report and I'll roll right into my general review comments these all should be conditions of approval should the board grant approval >> [snorts] >> um I've asked under item number one to provide construction details they are changing some imperous areas surfaces to
uh pvious areas and therefore taking care credit of the 50% lot coverage credit that we have in our code. So I'd ask for construction details to verify that those materials are indeed pvious. Uh item number two is our standard
requirement that they have to comply with the minimum stormwater management requirements of chapter 525. Item number three, um they already addressed this and they've indicated that the existing landscaping will be preserved. I would ask that a note be
added to the plan for that. Uh four is our standard condition that we evaluate the sidewalk after construction and there and uh replace the sidewalk to the satisfaction of the board engineer after construction has taken place. Five is our standard [clears throat] condition
that we tie the issuance of the certificance of occupancy to the acceptance of the improvements and verify that they conform with whatever conditions the board sets. Six is uh comply with the requirements of the shade tree commission, fire department
and public works department. We did receive reports from the fire department uh dated 6926. They recommended approval with no comments. Public Works Department recommended approval with no comments dated 61826.
Shade Tree Commission recommended approval with one comment and I believe the applicant indicated that they will address that and comply with that um and provide a tree protection zone noted on their plans. And that report was dated
June 4th, 2026. And finally, we did receive a resolution number 2025-32 from HPC um indicating that they are granting I think that's conceptual approval. Is that >> is that
>> so? Oh, >> we um we went for final thinking that this was a detached duplex. >> Okay. >> So, everything complied um and so they had no issue with that. We have not
changed the massing of what we had approved. Um the look, the roof lines, everything are asis. Um but we did have to come back and obviously get a variance to make this happen because of how it was ruled two separate single
family homes instead of a detached duplex. >> Ahead of the game. >> Yes. Unfortunately, not the plan, but >> then um item number nine, uh compliance with any affordable housing requirements. And finally, should the board grant approval, uh, the applicant
is required to revise the plans consistent with the conditions that the board sets and submit those to the board engineer for review and approval. That's a summary of my report. I'm happy to answer any questions the board has questions.
>> All right. So at this time we can open it up for public comments within 200 feet of the property. If anyone wishes to speak they can come up to the podium here. Okay.
Anyone beyond 200 ft wish to speak? So we're closing to the public. Any other [clears throat] questions? Okay. Okay. If there's no discussion, u the motion I'd recommend being made. Let me start by saying that the the um
applicant has set forth the appropriate standard as did your board engineer. This is a D2 variance and expansion of a non-conforming use. So, you have to find that the lot can accommodate the deviation from the floor ratio. And everyone did a nice job outlining the um
the considerations. Uh we are very strict about F. It's our way of limiting mass. But you also heard your board engineer talk about that this property, although it's being presented as two principal uses, it could sort of function like a detached two family
dwelling. And in such an instance, in this particular zone, that maximum flare ratio would be 45%. Which is an indication to you that uh a lot of this similar size um I know it's not this as big as the 7500. It's like 72 something,
but it's also not 45%, it's 44%. So, it kind of works out that perhaps this uh structure can be accommodated by a lot this size because whoever did your ordinance seem to think so with regard to detached two family dwellings. Um, and the other indicators of parking and
lot coverage also are in favor. But then again, it's also a very intensely used lot. There is a second principal structure that's three stories, a pool, and they're adding space to an existing structure. Um, so you know, you you sort of have your discretion here. This one of those ones you I think you have
discretion to vote either way. Remember that they need five out of seven uh to succeed. So every vote is critically important. So if you're going to be one of the no votes, if there are going to be any no votes, please express your reasons why. Um because the applicant
has done a nice job putting all their good reasons on, but there hasn't been an objector. That doesn't mean the automatic will win. It just means that I need your help if you're going to say no to articulate clearly why you're saying no. Okay. Um and I'm not saying that I'm not trying to put extra burden on you, but I just want to make sure we have a
record that can sustain appeal. All right. So, the motion I I recommend being made, but how you vote is up to you. Remember, we do it in the positive. I'm not saying you have to vote yes. I'm just doing the positive. Yes approves the project. No um denies the project.
Uh so the application is an application to um grant variances uh one through four as outlined by the board engineer on page three of six of his report subject to the conditions uh one through
10 on the engineer's report and consistent with the waiverss as recommended by the board engineer and discussed in the report. That's the motion I'd recommend being made, but how you vote is up to you. Okay. Can we have a motion, please? >> I'll make the motion.
>> Second. >> Was that Mr. Joerger? >> Who motion? Mr. Joerger. >> Yes. >> Okay. Mr. Joerger motions. Mr. Lewin seconds. Mr. Lewin. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Notch. >> Yes. >> Mr. Walsh.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Zexer. >> Yes. >> Mr. Joerger. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bonudo? >> Yes. >> Mrs. Werner? >> Yes. >> Thank you. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Good luck. >> Okay, we need a motion to uh for the
payment of bills. >> I'll make the motion. >> I'll second. >> Mr. Venudo motions. Mrs. Naj seconds. Mr. Lewin. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Naj. >> Yes. >> Mr. Walsh. Yes, >> Mr. Zexer. >> Yes, >> Mr. Joerger.
>> Yes, >> Mr. Bonudo. >> Yes, >> Mrs. Werner. >> Yes. And can we have a motion for adjournment? >> No. >> I make the motion. >> A second. >> Uh, Mr. has extra motion. All in favor? >> I. >> All right. Thank you everyone. Have a
good night. >> All right. So, [laughter] >> what's your date? You were a little bit aggressive. Getting there.