I'd like to call this meeting to order of the planning board of the city of Summit, Monday, February 9, 2026 at 7:38 p.m. I would ask if everyone who can please join me in standing for the pledge of allegiance.
I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> I'll read the adequate uh notice
statement. In accordance with New Jersey statute 10 col4-10, adequate notice of this meeting has been provided to the newspapers of record and has been posted here in city hall. For the benefit of the interested public, this meeting is being livereamed to the city's YouTube
page and also broadcast on Summit's government channel which is Comcast channel 34 and Verizon channel 30. Any hearings on applications and there will be one this evening uh for development in this meeting are quasi judicial
proceedings. Any questions or comments must be limited to the issues that are relevant to what the board may legally consider in reaching a decision and a quorum appropriate to a judicial hearing must be maintained at all times. Please note that fire exits are to my right,
your left, and at the back of the room where you entered. The city has a listening system to assist the hearing impaired. If anyone needs hearing assistance, please obtain the necessary equipment here at the DEIS and return it
immediately, please, after our meeting. Now, it's my privilege to give the oath of office to our new and returning board members. Class two board member Augusta Lamaso. Class four board member Ryan Felmet. Class four board member Dia
Hamlet. Uh class 4 alternate one John Stuntton. Uh class one mayor's designate Bonnie Morrison. Class three Councilman Dan Chrisully and
uh alternate two board member Benjamin Golden. If you'll all please stand. and raise your right hand and repeat after me. >> I state your name. I >> do solemnly swear
>> domly swear >> that I will support the Constitution of the United States >> I will support the Constitution of the United States >> and the Constitution of the State of New Jersey >> and the Constitution of the State of New Jersey >> and that I will bear >> and that I will bear
>> true faith and allegiance to same >> true faith and allegiance to same >> and to the governments established in the United States and in this state. the government established in the United States and its state >> under the authority of the people >> under the authority of the people.
>> And I do solemnly swear >> And I do solemnly swear >> that I will faithfully >> that I will faithfully, >> impartially, and justly >> impartially and justly >> perform all of the duties >> perform all of the duties >> of planning board member
>> of planning board member >> according to the best of my ability >> according to the best of my ability. So help me God. >> So help me God. >> Congratulations. Welcome and welcome back. And now that we have everyone having taken their oath, uh, if we could have a
roll call. Jessica, please. >> Ms. Balsson Alvarez is excused. Miss Bowen >> here. >> Council member Chrisully >> here. >> Mr. Delmaso >> here. >> Mr. Felman >> here. >> Mr. Golden >> here. >> Miss Hamlet >> here. >> Miss Morrison
>> here. >> Mr. Solo >> here. >> Mr. Stuntton is excused. Mr. Stern >> here. >> You have a quorum. You may proceed. >> Thank you. It's now my honor uh to call for nominations for chair for the uh
planning board for the city of Summit for the calendar year 2026. I'd like to nominate uh Miss Jennifer uh Balsson Alvarez. >> We have a nomination. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay. I'm going to ask Jessica to figure
out who got there first. Um any further nominations? Seeing and hearing none, um why don't we have a roll call vote nonetheless, even though I anticipate how it's going to go. >> I'm sorry. I just want to clarify this
is for vice chair. Um, no. This is for chair. >> This is for chair. >> Chair. >> It's my understanding, just for the record, that she uh is uh ready, willing, and able to accept, notwithstanding her absence, uh the uh
uh election as chair should she win the vote. So, we await the roll call. >> And who I'm sorry, who was second. >> Mr. Sp. Okay.
Miss Bowen. Yes. >> I'm sorry. Is everybody a ballot to vote? >> Uh yes. Everybody here we have seven regular members uh and who are here this evening. Uh we have two regular members who are out. Uh
so our alternate members are uh sitting as regular members in their absence. They are absent. So the alternate members sit in their in those regular members absences. There are no vacancies on the board uh as uh we have all 11
spots filled. So that's the long answer. That's the attorney's answer. The short answer is yes. Everyone can vote. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. Miss Bowen, I got you. Council member Christopher Fully. >> Yes. >> Mr. Domaso. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Felmmet. >> Yes. >> Miss Hamlet. >> Yes. Miss Morrison, >> yes. >> Mr. Solo, >> yes. >> Mr. Stern, >> yes. >> Mr. Golden, >> yes. >> The motion carries. >> Okay, we have a new chair. This is normally where I would hand the gavvel
to our new chair, but our new chair is absent this evening. Uh, so uh given that um we will I will now call for nominations for vice chair. >> I think Bonnie has a question. No, I'd like to nominate Dileia Hamlet.
>> Okay, we have a nomination. Do we have a second? >> I second. >> We have a second. Uh do we have any further nominations for vice chair? >> Seeing and hearing none. Uh nevertheless, as we did with the last, if we can have a roll call vote, please
again all members are qualified to vote. >> Miss Bowen, >> yes. Council member Chrisouly, >> yes. >> Mr. Dalmaso, >> yes. >> Mr. Felman, >> yes. Miss Miss Hamlet. Oh, right. Sure. >> Miss Morrison. >> Yes. >> Mr. Salah.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Stern. >> Yes. >> Mr. Golden. >> Yes. >> Now, I have the pleasure of handing the gavl over uh to our chair prom, our vice chair, Dia Hamlet. Oh, sure. Just
>> good evening everyone. Uh welcome to the planning board meeting uh today, February 9th. Um was really uh honored to nominate uh Jennifer uh to be the chair and once she comes back from vacation, I know she'll be very excited
to lead the planning board through um what could be an interesting year um with the housing element fair share plan. Uh Jennifer has a ton of experience. I think she's been on the planning board since 2012, although I don't think she's ever been chair. Um, but she uh does great work for the community. So, we're excited to have her and thank you for all of your support
for uh for nominating me as vice chair. >> Didn't think I'd be doing this today. >> And I believe our next item is the uh resolution to appoint a board secretary. >> You have >> and I have those the resolutions here.
Bear with me. motion. >> You can just do motion second and >> Okay. Like to make a motion to authorize 20. >> It's different. It's different. It's not that one. >> I'm sorry. Do you have the board secretary one, Jessica? >> Is it in there? >> It should be in there.
>> Not in order. >> It's okay. We can just just knock them all out. I got it. Sorry. >> There we go. >> Okay. Sorry. All right. Uh this is a resolution of appointment of planning board secretary. Uh whereas city of summit planning board must appoint a board secretary at the annual uh
reorganization meeting. This term is from January 1st, 2026 through December 31st, 2026. Whereas Jessica Sans has previously been appointed and has served as a planning board secretary. Uh I would like uh to make a motion to um uh
move this resolution. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> And uh with resolutions, we have a roll call vote for each. So, it's a good thing we just appointed formally for the year, Jessica, because she's going to be doing a lot of roll calls. So, >> roll call vote, please, Jessica. Thank
you. Vice Chair Hamlet, >> yes. Miss Bowen, >> yes. Council member Christophouly, >> yes. >> Mr. Domo, >> yes. >> Mr. Felman, >> yes. >> Miss Morrison, >> yes. >> Mr. Salah, >> yes. >> Mr. Stern, >> yes. >> Mr. Golden,
>> yes. >> Thank you. Uh the next resolution uh is authorizing 2026 planning board attorney services uh with the firm Savo, Shaw, Corsini, Warner, GP, Galpsy, uh O'Rnic, and Fischer not to exceed $50,000. I'd like to make a motion to
move this resolution. Is there a second? >> Second. >> And Jessica will take another roll call vote. >> Vice Chair Hamlet, >> yes. >> Miss Bowen, >> yes. Council member Chrisully, >> yes. >> Mr. Domaso, >> yes.
>> Mr. Felman, >> yes. >> Miss Morrison, >> yes. >> Mr. Salah, >> yes. >> Mr. Stern, >> yes. >> Mr. Golden, >> yes. >> Thank you all for your continued confidence and the privilege of continuing to represent the board. Appreciate it. >> Thank you, Mr. Warner. Uh thank you for
all your your leadership up here on the board as well. Uh the next uh resolution is authorizing 2026 planning board services uh to sorry uh to Kier's engineering. Uh they have submitted a proposal in response to a
public bid request for qualifications uh which said cost estimated by the board not to exceed $100,000. Um I'd like to move this resolution >> and just for clarification that's for engineer correct. >> Yes. Sorry I apologize. >> Engineering services for the planning board.
I'd like to make a motion. And do we have a second? >> Second. >> And Jessica will take a roll call vote on that one as well. >> Vice Chair Hamlet. >> Yes. >> Miss Bowen. >> Yes. >> Council member Chrisulloy. >> Yes. >> Mr. Domaso? >> Yes. >> Mr. Felman? >> Yes. >> Miss Morrison?
>> Yes. >> Mr. Salah? >> Yes. >> Mr. Stern? >> Yes. >> Mr. Golden? >> Yes. >> Thank you all very much. >> Thank you. Thank you, Marie. It's It's been a real honor to have your consistency here at the meetings. It's very supportive for the staff and I think even for the public to have a
consistent um face in your seat and it's Thank you. >> Okay. Up next, last resolution is authorizing planning board planner services uh to Burgess and Associates not to exceed $100,000. Uh the anticipated uh term again January 1st
through January 31st. Burgess Associates has submitted a proposal in response to a public bid request uh not to exceed $100,000. I'd like to move this resolution. Is there a second? Second, >> uh, Jessica will take a roll call vote on that one. >> Vice Chair Hamlet,
>> yes. Okay. Miss Bowen, >> yes. >> Council member Chrisully, >> yes. >> Mr. Domo, >> yes. >> Mr. Felman, >> yes. >> Miss Morrison, >> yes. >> Mr. Solo, >> yes. >> Mr. Stern, >> yes. >> Mr. Golden, >> yes. >> Mr.
Thank you for I think this is my 10th or 12th year here. Thank you, Joe. Thanks. Thanks for your leadership. Uh we spend more time with your firm probably than most and uh it's your your knowledge is is just amazing. So, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Uh I think we didn't even be this
amendment. >> Oh, I didn't see >> I didn't see that last >> Okay. Okay. Uh next is an amendment. Uh this resolution is an amendment uh for the 2025 attorney services for the planning board which is an additional uh
12,500 and uh the land use manager advises that due to significant litigation response um that the that this in increase would be 12,500. I would like to move this resolution.
>> Is there a second? >> Second. >> And this is for 2025. Just put that on the record there. Vice Chair Hamlet, >> yes. >> Miss Bowen, >> yes. >> Council member Chrisulloy, >> yes. >> Mr. Domo, >> yes. >> Mr. Felmet, >> yes. >> Miss Morrison,
>> yes. >> Mr. Solah, >> yes. >> Mr. Stern, >> yes. >> Mr. Golden, >> yes. >> I'm just going to take a a poll from uh my fellow planning board members up here. Did every everybody had a chance to review the bylaws or would you like would it be more appropriate to
>> I didn't get >> Yeah, if it's okay, Mr. Warner, I think we'll if we can move that to the next meeting. I think we'll carry that to the next meeting. Um, so one of the homework assignments will be just to review those and uh any input anything that doesn't make sense. Um, >> if you could do that, that'd be great.
>> Okay. And we are also going to um carry the committee liaison appointments. I would say if there's a committee that you would like to be involved in uh please send Jennifer myself that feedback and we will work on that at the next meeting.
>> And I think uh next Mr. Warner is adopting the official newspapers and the city website. >> That's correct on the resolution. If I may, Madam Chair, just for the benefit of the as the board members know and the benefit of the public, there was a statutory change uh to public entity
notice last year that goes into primary effect. I'll say the major change March 1, 2026 whereby public entities including this board which is a subsidiary agency of the city of summit uh will be posting notices on for the
open public meetings act on the website. uh given the uh circumstances surrounding newspapers of late uh and uh so uh that will the board will be consistent with that statutory change.
>> Thank you madam chair. >> Very good. Uh so this is uh resolution uh what's the actual number on that one? Do you have the number? >> We have a number for that one yet number one. Resolution 20026 number one.
Okay. Uh whereas the open public meetings act uh requires that certain notices of meetings be submitted to two newspapers, one of which shall be the official newspaper. And the law further requires that a second newspaper be designated by the city of the summit planning board to provide the greatest likelihood of informing the public
within the jurisdictional boundaries of this body of meetings of the city of summit planning board. I would like to move this resolution. Someone >> second. >> Do we need a roll call on this one? >> A roll call, please. All resolutions. >> Okay, we'll do a roll call on this one.
>> That's That's the board attorney's rule. >> Vice Chair Hamlet. >> Yes. >> Miss Bowen, >> yes. >> Council member Chrisully, >> yes. >> Mr. Domo, >> yes. >> Mr. Felman, >> yes. >> Miss Morrison, >> yes. >> Mr. Solo, >> yes. >> Mr. Stern, >> yes. >> Mr. Golden,
>> yes. >> Okay. I think we can move to the uh >> Okay. Now, at this time, we would like to move to the uh public hearing and find my agenda.
>> I believe we have applicants council. Madam Chair, with your uh permission, well, let me at least let you announce the uh uh the uh public hearing item. >> Sure. Uh so this is the Lynen Place RTR LLC, a New Jersey limited liability
company, and Steven J. Gianis, uh for 268 and 270 Ashlin Road. Uh this is block 5303, lot 2. Uh planning board application 25-281, which is a minor subdivision application with C variances
for lot area and rear yard setback to create lot to create lots 2.01 and 2.02. Uh this meeting was originally uh rescheduled from uh was it 126? >> I think it was 126. Yes. >> Some reason >> January 26th
>> I guess it was >> it was a stormy evening if I recall >> and it was carried one other time. Paul >> Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I'm sorry. Let let the record reflect that one of our board members, board member Marson will be recusing herself and uh if staying in
the room seated to the back uh will not be participating. Also, for the record, if I may, Madam Chair, I neglected to mention uh it's my understanding that board member Golden uh seated at the end of the day, he is not recused or because he is not disqualified. Um but he will
not be voting on the matter this evening as he has just been appointed uh and hasn't had an opportunity to fully prepare for saying um it's my understanding the balance of the board members on the deis uh full almost a
full compliment seven uh will be hearing the matter more than a sufficient quarum to hear the matter and uh if I'm not overextending my welcome I'll continue madam chair just to let the record reflect uh that uh I did have an opportunity to
review the notice uh found the content to be sufficient, found it to be timely served and published uh in the newspaper, official newspapers uh and that the matter was carried from January 26 this to this special meeting. The
special meeting was properly noticed pursuant to the open public meetings act in two official newspapers. And in that uh notice for this meeting uh it specifically identified in full as it appears on the agenda this the public
hearing for this minor subdivision. Uh so all the tees were crossed and the eyes dotted as they say with respect to notice for purposes of this hearing. So, it's my legal opinion the board uh continues to have jurisdiction as it did previously to hear and decide the matter
and I'll turn it back to the chair. >> Thank you, Mr. W. Uh, okay. So, I think we can uh begin the public hearing. >> Thank you, >> James Weber of Alfonso and Weber on behalf of the applicants. That's Steven
Gianis and through his uh LLC, the Lynen Place LLC as well. This is an application for a minor subdivision approval and it relates to the home office of Dr. Gianis who's passed.
Uh and as a result this property is now in the estate of the Gianises. Uh his son Steven Gianis is here and his uh grandson right John Gianis is here as well. So what had happened in 1956,
the Barka company had developed the property. It was that that time in the A10 zone. And if I can have a mark of the 1955 map as A1. And if the board is interested in the
April 1955 ordinance, we can have that marked as A2. And I'm sorry, did you say the map was 55 as well? >> Uh, yes. >> Okay. Uh, it and and just for the record, if I may, Madam Chair, the two things. One, counselor, you'll you'll decide what evidence you wish to present
and exhibits you wish to introduce to the board. Um, the board won't make that decision, of course. Um, but so should you wish to to do so, please uh uh introduce it. Um, and will there be any uh one testifying to these exhibits or
would it be based upon your representation as to the facts associated with them? >> It would be based on my representation and I think the board can take judicial notice of its prior ordinances. >> Okay. And uh will you be introducing
both uh A1 the 1965 555 map and A2 the 55 ordinance? We can do those combined as a one. >> Okay. Two. Uh, okay. That's fine. Two two document compendium. And under this
marked A1, you're looking at the 1955 uh transposed ordinance. And what that allowed was that >> if you don't mind, Madam Chair, if I can sit rather than going up. >> No problem.
>> That the uh properties were located in the A10 zone district. So they were designed at a level where 10,000 square ft was the permitted amount. Subsequent to that,
if you excuse me, the applications were then I'm waiting for the title to come up. And so we had a search done with regard to the property. Within that search,
if you'll excuse me, let me open this you have the current tax maps and that shows lots on the right hand side. One, two, three, and then there's four and five. Lot two is the property that's the
subject of the minor subdivision. That search also revealed the 1956 filed map number 453A and that's the property that we're
talking about where in the 1956 map the properties were loc uh designated as lots four and five consistent with the A10 zone. And just the title, if I may, Madam Chair, the title uh report, is that a
separate exhibit you wish to introduce in whole or in part? >> We can introduce it in whole. And if we could do that, A10 A2. And uh if you already said it, my apologies, but which uh pages of the report were you just referencing?
>> That would be pages six >> and seven. >> Pages six and seven. >> I have paper copies of >> that be great. >> I'm my computer. Just so paper copies of A1 in in its entirety and A2 in its
entirety or >> we have those as well for Miss Sans, >> but for now we have those on screen unless board members wish paper copies, but we would just present those to Miss Sans for preservation in the record.
>> Defer to the board. >> That's fine. Unless anybody needs this copy. And it's my understanding from John Barry who's the professional planner on behalf of the applicant that in the master plan the master plan says
let's not consolidate properties. Uh so we have here where there's actually a turn back to uh the original design that's existed. With regard to the variances associated with the property under the lot
averaging, you include not only the properties immediately adjacent, but you include the properties across the street. As a result, the lot area is 15,948. This is a 22,77
square ft lot. So, it's 50% larger than that uh established in the R15 zone where the property is currently located. The lots along Ashland average around 10,500 square ft. So, for those lots
that were created in 1956, these two properties that are proposed would be consistent with what was originally designed. And if I may, Madam Chair, just for clarification, uh I understand the representations that were made with respect to the title report and the map
and the ordinance. Uh this further testimony, I take it we're going to be hearing from Mr. Barry, the planner. Uh this is by way of profer by US council, not evidence. Correct. >> That's correct. Everything that I say is by way of a profer to introduce the evidence that will be presented uh to
the board. I would take the point though that the ordinance the ordinance map 453 which is a filed map uh are all uh subject to judicial notice and as a result are I would submit now entered into evidence
front yard setback. There's uh an average front yard setback again based on properties across the street where we're required to have I think 38 feet where 35 ft is the standard in the R15.
When you calculate the setback for those properties that were part of the 1956, which the average is around 31 uh ft from the lot line, there's also an additional 10 ft till you get to the curb of Ashland.
There's no other variances associated with this. We have had an opportunity for the applicants to speak with the four adjacent property owners, the four uh neighbors who were immediately abuing and they've been able to reach a
statement of agreement and they've been able to reach a list of proposed conditions. By proposed conditions, what I'm talking about is that the board retains its jurisdiction and it's not
subject to what neighbors and applicants agreed to. However, the neighbors and the applicants did prepare a list of proposed conditions that have been executed and agreed to by the four immediately adjoining neighbors and the applicants. So, that is being submitted
to the board. I believe that it would have been distributed. We didn't get the final signatures till last week. So, as a result, they came into uh uh summit. Uh I believe it was Thursday. As soon as we had the final signatures of everyone,
people were traveling even though there was a handshake. Uh we had to get that final signature >> forthcoming. Yes. and and counselor the the I have a stack here that was provided of copies provided to me by Miss Sans and the covers dated or the
letter agreement I guess is dated January 22nd 20 >> that would have been the uh list but the final finalizing the all the signatures took longer >> right no I understand that I'm just
before I distribute it to the board do you wish to have it marked as an exhibit are you making represent presentations with respect to it and I'm I'm just clarifying that what I have is what you're referring to. >> Yes, that would have a date at the top January 22nd, 2026. And yes, we would
submit this as an uh evidence for the board >> and uh it has attached to it uh after the signatures uh the uh November 21st, 2025 engineers report from uh Miss Rafé.
Correct. >> That's correct. It's part of it. Okay. And I'll >> if I could just ask the take a couple minutes just for the members of the board to review this. >> I guess you >> and these conditions of course are submitted
>> if the board approves the application. >> So this it would be a litany of those conditions that we believe the board will find acceptable. >> And are you marking these as A3? I think that's what we're up to.
>> I'm following your uh guidance on the numeration at this point. >> Can I just ask a question, Mr. Weber? Um, can we just identify which of the neighbors this is? It looks like it's 5303 lot 3
8 Rotary 5303. If you just want to go through that so that members of the public is that be appropriate, Mr. Warner? >> Sure. Absolutely. I think you mentioned the adjacent neighbors. It looks like it's 13 34 and
35. Um, it does not appear to include 33, lot 33 going from the tax map key map. But that uh if I'm reading it correctly, >> so it seems as though it would be the two next to or adjacent and the two
behind. >> Correct. It does not include I believe lot 33 which is number 20 Rotary Drive. Correct. >> Okay.
Thank you for clarifying. >> You know what? Actually, if I can get it if and I leave it to the board members, but if I can get a copy of exhibits A1 and A2 uh now, that would be helpful. >> Thank you. This is A1. This is A2. >> That's A1.
>> Yeah. Yeah. And this is obviously a portion of it because you put the whole title report in. >> Ju just for the record, I'm I'm getting a copy of exhibit A1, the map in the ordinance as it was introduced. And I'm
getting one page of the title report A2 that was introduced. It's the uh map page. >> Map 453A. The filed map. >> Filed map. 45 >> there is an enlargement of the 1955 map
just to confirm the A10's own district. >> Thank you. No, actually the conditions. Is there an extra copy of the conditions that we can? >> Sure. >> I have an extra >> Joe.
You got Wait, Joe. Everybody in the was gonna Everybody in the building was going to give you an extra questions about this >> chair to the >> Mr. Mr. Weber, are you okay if uh they
ask a couple questions about the uh >> Of course. >> Okay, go ahead. >> Procedural. Sure. This is an agreement between the neighbors and the applicant that will will it go will it live with whatever happens with our >> potential approval or deny like is that
or will it be just binding between the two parties or >> it references things that are already in the plan that are part of our >> you know things that that they submitted that we would be reviewing anyways. mismatch to me of things that they want to see from a neighbor standpoint and
just holding them to what's in the plan. So, how do we >> as board members, how do we digest per >> perhaps I can ask a few questions of uh the applicant council who submitted that document and sought to have it introduced uh to help clarify
>> what the applicant's intention is for the board to have that evidence before it. So when and maybe I'll I'll try to expedite it. M uh with what I suspect is the case. The the uh uh Mr. Weber, is it
uh your the applicant's intention in submitting this that uh you understand you have an agreement with four of the neighbors and that uh they are requesting that the board if it approve
the application at least have those conditions as part of any approval? >> That's correct. And is there a separate settlement agreement with those four neighbors? >> There is. It's a little bit more
detailed. Uh we had trimmed down the points that the neighbors found uh most uh important and we certain I certainly can have that introduced as well. >> Again, your choice what you seek to have introduced on behalf of your client, the
applicant. the the the um and from a legal standpoint, the board decides this is uh an exhibit that was introduced by the applicant as part of their case to meet their burden of proof for the relief
sought uh two lot areas and two front yard setbacks along with the minor subdivision. um to the extent it's relevant and perhaps even material to you, you you give it the way you give it in in in the context of your decision. Ultimately,
the board will decide yay or nay uh to grant the relief or not. And ultimately, if the board grants the relief, certainly we always have conditions mitigating any detriments associated with the variance relief sought. Um these may be all of them, some of them,
we will find out. Um, does that help you and the other board members understand the important context of why the applicant is giving you this evidence and this information? >> Okay. Do you have any
>> in nature to I think the application itself, but I guess looking for that. >> Well, and if I could say um to Mr. Weber, I think it's um I acknowledge that you were able to work with some of the neighbors. So, I think it was it's helpful for us as a board to at least resolve some of those um concerns from
the neighbors. So, >> and certainly we uh can we'll hear perhaps from any number of members of the public uh as to what their position is visav uh the application. Whether some of them are also those neighbors or
not, we'll find out. And of course, all members of the public have an opportunity, just like the board does, and perhaps the board professionals as well, to ask questions of each witness. We haven't yet gotten to a witness, per se. We're still getting uh uh profiters from council. >> Mr. Weber, you can proceed.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. One more uh exhibit >> if you would like to submit it. >> Thank you. Uh this is the statement of agreement that was reached with the neighbors and it consists of nine pages and on page four of nine is the
representation by those neighbors that they have that that they support the application and were able to make that representation. So if I can present this >> please do. you you certainly can have it introduced and and I would just say for
cautionary purposes that uh the document is I guess what is represented to be is is this just one copy for all >> we're going to need one for the >> several more copies. I wasn't actually planning on introducing the entire exhibit but
>> well before you do then what do you want to introduce? >> We can introduce it. >> Okay. Because it's going to get an A4 designation. Very good. >> Uh, and we'll need copies. >> And the point that I would suggest with that is again page four of nine.
>> May I? >> Yes, please. >> Okay. is the representation for the support. >> And again, my my well I was about to say my caution to the board and for clarification purposes is that this is not the same as hearing from someone who
is under oath and is subject to questioning uh uh which is an important fundamental principle due process and confrontation clause in the New Jersey state and United States Constitution. Um
but it does it is uh by profer represented to be an agreement that they signed and again we may or may not hear from some or all of them. >> Thank you. May proceed. Mr. >> Thank you. I would ask that uh John
Gianis and Steve Gianis be called in to be sworn in in this matter. Uh we have other exhibit uh experts will be uh Andrew Clark the civil engineer uh Ed Clark our landscape uh architect and
hike the architect >> and uh Mr. Barry as well planner or no? >> Oh and Mr. Barry. Thank you. >> That's okay. I heard his name earlier. The the >> uh and uh so you're going to have fact witnesses first. You said >> yes.
>> Uh and uh The is there a reason why we're having two gentlemen come at once? >> Uh John Gianis uh is the grandson and son of Steven Gianis J uh who was the owner of the property. John Gianis is the one who spoke with the neighbors uh
engaged in those discussions uh went back and forth. So he's been helping his father in connection with this entire matter and has individual knowledge. >> Okay. Well, they can both be sworn. They can both testify as fact witnesses. Um, I'll leave it to you how to present it, but if to the extent it could be
sequential one than the other, that might be helpful. >> Then, uh, let's call uh, Steve Gianis. Uh, it would be helpful to have John there as well. Steve has been relying on his son throughout this process.
>> As long as it's on they're both under oath, it's not improper. Okay, let's uh move forward then. >> We'll need to know which is which and your address, please. And then I'll swear you both in. >> I'm Steve Janice, 61 Lynen Place.
>> I'm John Janice, 268270 Ashlin Road. >> Okay, >> Mr. Uh >> before you do, I'm going to swear you in, but I'm also going to swear in our board professionals, as I always do for every hearing, uh our planner and engineer. So, if all four of you will raise your right hand, do all four four
of you swear to God or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Thank you all. With the chair's permission, please proceed. >> Do you mind if I you uh call you by your first names?
>> That's all right, Madam Chair? Yes, that's fine. >> Steve, do you own the property located at 268270 Ashland and you own it individually and also through your LLC? >> Yes. >> And you've brought an application before this board with regard to the minor subdivision of that property.
>> Yes. >> And I've referenced that you're the son of Dr. John Gianis and uh he had his medical office here since around 1960. >> 1960 or 61. Yes. >> Yeah. and uh he was a uh a noted
physician here in the city of Summit all during that period of time. When did he pass? >> 2017. >> And in terms of the operation of the medical office with the home at 268270
uh that also has passed as a professional office. There's no one using it for the professional office. >> It has not been used since the early 1990s. And you understand that if the board approves the application that you're going to forego uh that uh pre-existing
non-conforming use? >> Yes. >> And you're proposing to the board that you have two single family homes uh built there? >> Yes. >> And have you had a chance, John, to speak with the neighbors uh that uh have been the signitories to the file list
and to the statement of agreement? >> Yes, I have. And uh are any of them here now? >> Uh yes, there are uh three. So >> and in terms of the uh staff report
comments, have you had an opportunity to review those staff report comments as presented by Burgess Associates and Collers? >> Yes. >> And subject to the testimony of your experts, do you do you agree to be bound by those recommendations?
>> Yes. I have nothing further. >> Thank you, Mr. Weber. >> Board members first. >> No, wait. >> At this time, I'd like to see if the board members have any questions for >> Did you say it hadn't been a doctor's office since the early 1900s? Wasn't it
only built in >> 1990s? I think >> 1990s. Sir, >> go ahead, Mr. >> Couple of questions. Uh, so what do you plan on doing with the two residential homes if it gets approved.
You're going to live in a >> building two houses and >> potentially would my fiance and I would like to live in one of the houses potentially. >> Okay. And so obviously there you have this agreement with the neighbors. What were the neighbors main concerns
over the project and and how did you work with them? And there's a lot in here, some of which was in from the reports just so the board can get clarity on exactly what their concerns were and how you're mitigating. >> Storm water was a major concern. Um that
was resolved. We did a thorough review of the existing pipe and also as the uh our engineer is going to show that we're going to enhance the site well beyond uh what it currently is. And uh the second was landscaping. um making sure that
we're screening. Each neighbor actually had their own um I'm going to say guidelines of what they wanted. Um so that reflects in the the updated landscaping plan. Some wanted more trees, some wanted bushes, some didn't want trees. And that's where I'm going
to the planning planner's questions. The uh updated application is what we agreed to with the neighbors from that standpoint. >> Thank you. Any other questions from the board? >> Are there any neighbors that are descending from the agreement?
>> We we haven't spoken to anyone that has that. Um, I believe I don't want to speak to the neighbors, but I guess there was, um, communication that went around and anyone that had questions or comments or wanted to see some sort of adjustment, um, they'd come forward and we had a meeting that we sat down, we
walked the property, um, and everyone came to an understanding and it took a a month to probably paper the transaction. >> I had a question. >> Go ahead, M. I might have answered it earlier, but there's uh I think to the right of the house there there's a
backyard that backs up to it and there's some tree line there. Is that one of the neighbors that's part of this >> for for what? For what? >> To the right of the property there's a corner house >> on the corner of Rotary. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> That's one of the neighbors. >> That's one of the neighbors. He's also
here this evening. He discuss what he um >> was looking for in terms of enhancement. >> Okay. There's also there's also dead trees on the property, so removing them um was of interest as well. >> Okay. >> To the neighbors.
>> Great. >> Any other questions from the from the board? >> Uh Joe or Marie, do you have any questions for >> I have no questions for this. >> Nothing for the witnesses. >> Thank you, >> Madam Chair. If I may, I just have one
or two if I may. the the the um if I understand correctly and as I think I clarified with your attorney uh if you look at the map uh lots
33 34 and 35 are parties to the agreement. Uh but lot 33 if I'm reading it correctly does abut the subject lot and it's not a party to the agreement. Did you seek to communicate with the
owners of lot 33? >> Mr. Warner, I went to every house multiple times that's in the circle. Um, I had a conversation with many of them. Um, and there was no further action or
questions from anyone else. the four neighbors that that had uh comments, concerns, issues came forward and we received notice from their attorney. Um Jim, our attorney um has advised us our rights, their rights and we went through
through that and came to an agreement of how to amend the site plan to make sure that the neighbors um that had any concerns there it was revenue. those four neighbors who expressed concerns. Okay. >> When you say you went and spoke to the neighbors within the circle, you didn't
go across Ashland Road, did you? >> I did. Yes. To the to every all all the all the houses that received notice of the application. >> Okay. And if and I could ask your counselor too because we just got it
here. Are those four property owners or groups of property owners? Um, are those the same individuals who signed the statement of agreement that you also submitted as an exhibit? >> Yes.
>> And no other individuals. >> And no other individuals signed that statement of agreement. Just the ones at lot 1, 35, 34, and three. Yeah, >> I just just want to make sure that everybody sort of refocuses on on the
the statutory criteria for which we're here and and although there may be, you know, public opposition for the way something looks or, you know, our job here tonight is is to identify the positive and negative criteria and um really determine, you know, whether or not this subdivision. So, I just want to
refocus the board on on what our requirement is here tonight. >> As set forth in Mr. Burgess's memo, as always, the criteria Okay. The the uh just wanted to get that clarification for those exhibits and uh
why we had some people but not all people. So that's all I had with respect to the fact testimony. >> Uh questions >> at this time. Any members of the public have questions for uh >> Yes, sir. If you could come up please and state your name and your address.
>> And that would be madam chair for either of the two or both ask you a question. >> Right. for the evening. >> Yes, sir. Good evening. >> My name is Aean Mal. I live on 271 Ashland Road >> just across the uh site. >> And uh I have a question.
>> Do you know your lot number by any chance or maybe we could just confirm that just so everybody on the board knows where you are in relation to the uh property? You said you're across the street. Across >> Yes. 271 Ashland Road. That is exactly
across the street. It would be I appears to be Lahi 5204 Lahi. Got it. >> Please proceed with your questions to m both one or both Mr. J. >> In fact, my question is for the attorney
because he his statement about the uh restoring the 56 1956 uh zoning status. That's what I am concerned about. And my question is at that time in the 1950
the health and safety ordinances zoning all of those are completely different and very very soft. They're not as stringent as summit today. I would like to know >> speak
>> if this is not a substandard going back to a reszoning it to the R10. That's my question. Thank you so much. >> So wait, you want an answer to the question, right? You don't want an answer to >> Okay.
>> Okay. The the Okay. And and by the way, if you wish to make any points later under oath during the public comment period that would have the weight of evidence, including something you might have been implying just now, you can do that. This was just for questions. >> Yeah, that was a question,
>> right? And but you don't want them to him to answer the question. Okay. >> Uh no, I do that the but I can do my comments >> unless I can do comments. >> Yeah, you uh >> if I may, Mr. Rubber. Um, it sounded as
though the question was, "Will this be reverting back to the zoning standards?" Correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Malay. Um, from the 1956, uh, zoning ordinance. Is that how I >> We have a professional planner, John Barry. Great. Who will testify as to
that? >> That's fair. Joe, would you like to appine? >> No, >> if you could just speak a little into the microphone, Joe, please. Thank you. >> This does not represent a reasoning. Uh the applicant is seeking as it as has been indicated a reduction in the
requirement from the lot area standards in the ordinance and but that does not represent a reasonzoning >> and front yard setback as well >> and the front yard setback. Correct. >> Are there any other questions from the public for these witnesses?
Uh hearing none. Uh next on the list, Mr. Warner is >> I would ask that Andrew Clark be called to this Dian to give testimony in this matter. >> Evening, Mr. Clark. >> Please raise your right hand when you're
ready. >> You swear to God affirm testimony about to give us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> Thank you. Your name and address. Business address is fine for the record. >> Name is Andrew Clark. C L A R K E. My business address is 466 Southern
Boulevard in Chattam, New Jersey. And and if I may, Mr. Weber, uh will you be seeking to have Mr. Clark uh accepted as an expert in the field of civil engineering, land surveying, or both? >> Both. >> Please proceed with it.
Uh, Mr. Clark, have you uh uh presented testimony before uh the planning board? >> Yes, it's been a little while since I've been in front of this board, this planning board. I uh appear with regularity it feels uh in front of the
zoning board of summit and uh most commonly in front of the zoning board of Chattam Burough Madison the planning board in Madison and recently I was in front of um Floren Parks planning board. >> And is your license in good standing? >> It is.
>> And you've been a civil engineer for how many years now? >> Um I'm supposed to remember that. Um since 19 95. >> And you're familiar with the city of Summit and its DRRO? >> I am.
>> And you're familiar with the site? >> I am. >> How did you achieve that familiarity? >> Well, I was uh contracted to conduct the survey. So, I conducted the survey. Um, as I'm a sole proprietor, it means I myself walked the property and collected all the field data. So, I'm very
familiar with the property uh on a firsthand basis. And did you also prepare the minor subdivision plan that's presented to the board? >> I did. >> Uh, could you I would ask that the board accept him as an expert in civil engineering and land surveying.
>> Yes, he's accepted. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Clark. >> Mr. Clark, uh, do you prefer to go through question and answer or do you prefer to present your uh, testimony? How about I'll go with the testimony and then you can filling in blanks as as I
miss things. >> And you'd like to use the paper. Am I not mistaken? >> Yeah, I'm I'm hanging on to >> my I prefer it. >> Then I'll try and follow along, but uh by my having it on the screen should not be constituted as the testimony, it's
really uh illustrative. >> Got it. and and this is just give us the date uh on the uh >> I have two plans. There's the uh topographic survey >> which was submitted which is dated January 14th, 2025
>> and that's the same one that was submitted with the application materials more than 10 days in advance evening. >> Correct. >> It doesn't have to be marked as an exhibit. Just be clear when you reference it. >> It's the same as the materials. That's right. and and likewise uh I'll be referring to the proposed minor
subdivision plan that I prepared which is dated uh July 7th 2025 and last revised through January 7th 2026 and again that was more than submitted more than 10 days uh from this evening as I recall. Uh so again does not need
to be marked just clearly referenced when you're dealing with the minor subdivision versus the top too. We'll do and I'll start out with the tobo to describe the existing conditions. >> Thank you. >> So, as was indicated previously, the the
address is 268 to 270 Ashlin Road. Uh the the building itself has 270 as the address. Um this is lot two in block 5303. It's in the R15 zone on Ashlin Road. um one lot
removed from Rotary Drive. The lot itself is 110 by about 201 ft wide uh 22,078 square ft in area. What exists currently on the property is as was described a
dwelling in the middle that was once uh bifurcated use for dwelling as well as a doctor's office. And accordingly, there are two driveways. is there's one on either side of the dwelling. Then in the rear of that existing
dwelling is a rectangular slate patio and running along the back of the property there's a storm drain. The drainage patterns for the site uh basically drains from the I'll call it the bottom left of the drawing as we
look at it the northeast corner down to the southwest corner or the upper right corner. So that's the general drainage pattern. In this case, the drainage flow from the street is a little bit towards the dwelling, which isn't uh preferred, but it's modestly graded in that regard.
So it's it's not problematic. Water still sheds to both sides of the dwelling. Now, there is no um formal storm water management that I was able to observe on site aside from the pipe that runs down the back line. Um, a note
on that pipe. It was raised as a concern by the neighbors and I think it may have been referenced in one of the review memos. That pipe has been inspected. So, we did a TV inspection of that line to verify its integrity and uh where it it
connects to. So, it definitely connects out to the catch basin and rotary as shown. The condition was um shown to be uh in good condition. So there's no uh displacements of the pipe, no apparent cracking or or penetrations of the pipe.
It's in good condition, good working condition. It also appears, while I couldn't determine this during the survey, that that pipe extends um to the east a bit onto lot three. So there's another catch basin somewhere on lot three. They determined by their
inspection and and runs down there. As far as we can tell, this is a private line. There's no uh municipal easement around that currently and we couldn't see anything in the title record or in the in the re deed research that I did that indicates there's an easement. So I
believe it was a private line that was put in to relieve some uh storm water issues along that rear line between Rotary and the Ashlin properties. But it does appear to be functioning. So that's the sum total of the storm
water management. Otherwise, the roof leaders discharge at grade um either in the driveway or at at adjacent to the dwelling and just flows overland towards that drain. Um and that summarizes the existing conditions. Of course, the trees are
shown. That'll get into more detail with the landscaping plan in terms of the trees and what's being removed and replacements and things of that nature. Um that summarizes the existing conditions. So, what we're proposing to do, I'm now
going to refer to the proposed subdivision plan. >> And so, as was indicated before, this property in was originally developed as part of a 1956 filed map. So, in 1956,
there were two lots that comprise what is currently lot 2. What we're proposing now is to effectively restore that old lot line and create the same exact two lots that were created in 1956 with the filed map. Um along with that, we have a
proposed development plan that uh takes those two lots and develops single family homes on each uh each with a driveway and a patio and a front walk servicing them. Um, lot 2011 that we're proposing would be closest to the Rotary
Drive intersection and lot 202 is on the left side, farthest from that intersection. These lots are sized at 11,000 square ft exactly on lot 202 and 11,78 square ft
on lot proposed lot 2011. Uh, one of the variances that we're seeking right now is for the lot area and that's because currently um this is the R15 zone. So the zone itself has a
15,000 ft² requirement but also uh Summit has a neighborhood average requirement as well which is tabulated on this subdivision plan sort of just to the left of the key map. So you can see what comprises that in Summit. It's the
three lots to either side of the subject property and the three lots across the street from the subject property. In this case, there's only one lot to the to the west because the corner is of Rotary Drive arrives and that breaks the
uh the averaging. You don't pass the road with the averaging. So, we have lot one, we have lot three, four, and five that are on the same side of Ashlin. If you look at those, those are the first four lots listed in the table and you
can see those average uh just shy of 11,000 square ft. 10,800 about square feet is the average for those four lots. So, we're um right in the consistent zone of those adjacent
lots. What pulls us to a non-conforming status and brings that average up to 15948 are the three lots across the street which are lots 7, 8, and nine across the street. And you can see that lot seven
itself is just shy of an acre. Um and and all three of those are substantially larger than the strength of lots that we have adjacent to us on on our side of the street. So what we're proposing is
very consistent with the lot arrangement that's directly adjacent and near our property on our side of the street. But because of that averaging, we do need that variance for the area. Similarly, uh the front yard setback is also
affected by that. So we have um one of the lots, the flag lots excluded from that average and you can see uh in the table. The other two are 44.8 and 59 ft across the street again because those are deeper lots and they're set back farther. But if you look at the front
yards of the four lots that are adjacent to us, we're entirely consistent with that. And it makes sense because they were all part of that same 1956 subdivision. And on that subdivision map at the time, uh, there was actually a setback line that was incorporated in
the subdivision at 30 ft. So these houses are were developed consistent with that 1956 subdivision and that setback line. Now we have 28.3 and 28.5 as the front setback. That's to
the porch specifically. the main body of the dwellings is at 33 and a2 feet and 33.3 feet. So again, that's very consistent with maybe a little bit better than some of the other houses that are directly in our streetscape on
our side of the street. So we feel that this is a a a very compatible um proposal and presentation for the development of these dwellings. It's very consistent with the neighboring houses. It's not as consistent with the
ones across the street, but also those don't relate visually as much to um to what we're developing on this side of the road. In terms of storm water management overall, we don't change the drainage patterns. We we haven't um altered the
grades much. Um there is a little bit of alteration, but it's not a significant restructuring of the grading. and the drainage patterns are the same. But what we are doing is adding storm water management where there is none. Um technically I think it was pointed out
in the engineering review memo that we're increasing the total lot coverage for this site from the existing condition to the proposed condition including both houses and both driveways and patios and walks less than 300 square ft. So it's very close to the
existing coverage profile. That said, we recognize that we're here uh seeking variance relief. So, we are trying to make uh a substantial improvement in this regard. So, what we're doing is we have a dry well for each property that
captures the roof area and the driveway of of of each property and then manages it with the dry well. And the overflow would effectively be at the catch basin itself. Now, the design I have established here is for those areas, the
house and the driveway, but it's a bit of an overdesign. So, in fact, these dry wells should handle much closer to a 4 in rain than a 3-in rain. It's about 3.8 in rain. Um, so we're going above and beyond even within the context of the design to make sure that we're not
leaving a bad condition for the future residents of the property and certainly not for the neighbors. In fact, I think the neighbors in the back, clearly they have some storm water issues that have existed over time. That's why this drain line is there. We're going to help with
that by reducing our commitment to and contribution to that drain line. So, there should be a net substantial improvement in terms of the storm water management. And you know, with that, that summarizes the proposed conditions. I'd be happy to
take questions from Mr. Weber if he has anything that I might have. >> Thank you, Mr. Clark. The setback from the rear of the house is 45 ft. >> That's correct. Um I think there was some reference to rear yard setback as a variance, but it's not. We're at 45 1/2
ft. So, we're respecting the rear yard 45 ft requirement. The um deviation that we do have in the rear yard, however, is to the patios. So the patios um are are permitted to extend 10 ft into the
required rear yard. So they would have to be 35 ft. We're at 27.7 or 27 ft is for the proposed patios. 27.7 is the existing patio setback. >> So we're very consistent with where the
existing patio was over on sort of this middle left side of the of the property. And we're respecting the 27 ft. were very close to what that setback was with the patio >> and the 27 ft. Uh does that require a variance for that setback? I
>> I believe that unless they changed it, the the ordinance always did stipulate that you could only extend 10 ft into that rear yard which would be a 35 ft set back and we're at 27. So it's an 8ft deviation. And in terms of the setback
that 27 was something that was agreed uh part of the agreements that was reached with the neighbors and one of the neighbors if I can see one of the lots has their house relatively close to the uh property. >> That's right. Lot 35. And I I surveyed
and indicated that house on there just for context so we could see where that was. And their their dwelling corner is 15.6 6 ft off which I believe is compliant because I think that's technically a sideyard for them ba based on the fact that they're a corner so
they have two sideyards >> but they are nonetheless proximate >> and in terms of the original plan that you had prepared for the driveways have the driveways been reoriented in response to the uh discussions between the applicant and the neighbors
>> that's correct initially the driveways on both sides came straight out and they were fairly close to the boundary. In this case, we added a little bit of a return in there to pull those driveways in from the boundaries a bit to provide landscaping opportunity and a little bit
of distance. >> I have nothing further, Madam Chair. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Um, go to the board. Questions for the board. What's the distance between the end of the driveway and the property line? I guess on both sides because it >> Yeah, it's a
>> I don't have exact number from you. It's about 10 ft. >> It's 10 ft over here. I do have it labeled and it's it's a little it's at least 10 ft on the right side >> and it that that 10 ft maintains all the way to >> till it starts to curve in a little bit. Yeah, you know, we we we had to curve in a little bit just because you need a
minimum backup space behind the garage. Mr. Cler, can you tell me what type of um what type of storm 100redyear what were the dry wells um designed for? >> So, Summit requires uh the design for the captured surface that you're
managing with a 3-in rainfall. And so, as I indicated before, the the sizing of these is for about a 3.8 3.9 inch rainfall. So, almost 4 in rainfall. So, it's a little bit more than what the standard is for Summit.
>> Okay. And then my other question is, you had mentioned that there was an inspection done of the pipe in the backyard, but when I look at the agreement with the neighbors, has that been done since um it it sounded as though when they came out to do the inspection, there was ice and they had to come back again. Has it been >> Yeah. And then they and then and then
things warmed up a bit. Okay. And um and cuz we had some conversation right before that and I said, "Well, looks like we got some warming coming. Maybe they can come back out." And they did come back out. and they were able to do their inspection. Okay, great. >> Initially there was there was too much ice and it was it was too uh blocked.
>> And then my last question is it looked like as though there was a change in the impervious coverage from the first time when um our professionals did the memo to the second time. is was >> Yeah, there was just trying to understand that. >> There was a little adjustment uh in coordinating with the landscape design because they weighed in on some of the
heartscaping and I had sort of a >> I'm not the most creative one in in the team generally. So, I had more of a rectangular boring patio and uh we added a little bit uh of difference in the patio. So, yeah, it did it did change a little bit.
>> Thank you, Mr. Good. Um, so the the pipe that is in the back >> that attaches to the the basin on rotary, >> that's right. Is there a reason why you wouldn't design the all the damage to get into that pipe as opposed to a
drywall which >> well we all know in Summit with the >> Yeah, I mean that could be an option if we find out that the soils are, you know, just abhorent out there if they're terrible soils. But I don't think we'll find that
because I actually just did a recent project on the other side of Rotary and the perk was not bad. So I think we'll be fine. But it's it's really to make sure that we're not overburdening um that system. >> And what's a perk?
>> A perk rate is the the rate that the water uh reinfiltrates back into the soil. So it's the the the frequency the the rate at which the water gets back into the soil. So we put that into the
dry well and then over a period of a couple of days the water soaks back into the soil. So that's the perk rate percolation rate >> and there is no drywall currently. So this this is a big improvement for >> big improvement. >> Can you tell me I'm looking at the
neighborhood average analysis? >> Um it seems to me if you added properties 6 10 33 and 34 you might get some marketkedly different averages. And I'm wondering why they're not included. >> 6 10
I'm not sure which lots you're talking about. >> Um, six is right next to seven. Um, six is one of the deep ones. So, you did one of the deep ones across the street which is seven, but you didn't do six or 10 which are
also right across the street and you didn't add in 33 and 34 on Rotary. And I'm just wondering if you can tell me why because I think that would change the data a lot. Well, the summit in the neighborhood average very clearly states that it it's
if you're facing the the the property, three houses to the left, three houses to the right up to an intervening street and then the three houses that are directly across the street. Now, in this case, >> so that would be >> and and and it comes up with some
frequency that even though it's clearly spelled out that way, when you start to apply it to the ground, um you could debate Um, I I use what seem to me to be the three most directly across, but you you don't add in extra ones
necessarily. It It specifically says the three across and the three. >> No, I'm just trying to figure out where it comes out in the average. And so if you saw the neighbors in the back, 33 and 34, and you saw two, if you added even one of these deeper properties,
your average would change a lot. >> Sure. Yeah, of course it would. Yeah, I mean the the averaging for a subdivision used to be taking the entire block. That's that's what we used to do before the neighborhood average was implemented
and and that posed a whole bunch of other challenges of its own. >> Yeah, I think in this case the average analysis just doesn't give you great output. Um that's just my opinion just looking at these. >> I don't disagree with you. I I feel like
that happens a lot. Um, I understand the intent with across the street, but a lot of times it causes more distortion than it does harmony >> and it doesn't do anything with anybody behind you. Lots 33 and 34.
>> Yeah. No, it doesn't. I mean that's because >> I think the philosophy is that it's the streetscape. >> That's true, but the ordinance provides that when you come up to an intersection, that's when you stop turning the corner for the other uh
properties in the back. So the ordinance is the area that says just as you've indicated, it's the streetscape is what you're looking for. >> Okay. >> It just doesn't it just doesn't give you good data is my point. It doesn't
>> it doesn't really >> I I don't disagree with you. That's why to me I revert back to the the the the lay person sort of reviewing this, you know. So to me that's why I lean back on the on the streetscape itself. And so I
look more at the houses that are on either side of us a little bit more than the ones that are across the street >> just to see if we're in context. >> And I I will say Mr. Burgess can we were probably talking about this before the meeting but um I I think it does it does
provide value that that these houses I went there today um the houses I think it's more appropriate to look at the setbacks for these particular two streets looking at the lot size on on Rotary Susan I understand lot size but when you when you're looking at the
house setbacks on Ashland it it's almost like they have to be consistent because it's >> right >> you know >> it starts to look visually >> it starts to look visually right Yeah. >> And the the lots across the street, like Joe and I were talking about today, are longer and deeper. >> Well, and because of the makeup of the
ones across the street, there's a variation in there, too. So, there isn't the same sort of like line of houses that you have on the other side because you got some of these are flag lots or set way back. Um, so yeah, it's it's a little interesting application.
>> Yeah. No, I just wanted for clarification purposes and never notwithstanding judgment views of how the ordinance impacts and and what the data it gives us in this particular circumstance. For
clarification purposes, you complied with the ordinance in measuring the neighborhood averages both for the lot area and for the front yard setbacks. Is that correct? >> That is correct. >> Okay. And Mr. If I may, Mr. Burgess,
would you concur or disagree? >> No, I I do agree that he did it correctly. >> Correctly. and the rest while it's an interesting discussion. >> Um you have to adhere to the ordinance. >> Okay. >> Thank you for that clarification. >> Question. Go
>> ahead. >> On the um on the front yard minimum setbacks. It was already non-conforming, right? The existing lot and now you're taking it in even a little tighter. Is that so what? existing the existing front yard is 34 ft
and the the the main body of the houses on here is 33 1/2 and 33.3. So it's very close to what the existing condition is. Part of that was we we could have better respected the the front setback in terms
of meeting exactly what was there or going a little farther back, but then we're bumping up against the rear yard setback. We felt like it was more important to respect the rear yard setback and the neighbors in the back and have a slight deviation in the front
but still fall in line with the existing streetscape that's there. >> Okay. And it's like this front yard steps there the front door steps that's taking it to 28. >> Correct. It's the portico. That's right. That's right. >> Any other questions uh for Mr.
from the board. >> Yeah. Well, I just wanted to go a little bit through my letter. Um, you know, you're going to make me work for my money tonight because you covered a lot of what I had in here. So, I appreciate that. Um, I did review his calculations for the uh seepage pit that's on the
property. I take no exception. Um, I think it is um above and beyond what needs to be done according to your ordinance. Um, I noticed that you have a driveway inlet in there. Um, is it possible to put some kind of clean out in there so that when
any leaves or debris >> my normal detail has a sump in there? >> Okay, thank you. >> Yep. >> Um, do is there a landscape architect who's going to >> There is. >> Okay, I'll hold off on that. Um, the other thing would be that I know the county had requested certain
>> Yeah, they had a few comments about the curving along the front and certain details that they like to follow and I knew that was coming. uh we'll certainly incorporate that into any final provision for permitting >> and I you know for the board's understanding that's it's really just a cut and piece that he needs to put on
the plan but um I just figured I' i'd point that out. >> Yeah, I bumped into it a few times in summit on county roads. >> Okay. Um and and I have other questions for the landscape architect, but that's it. >> Madam Chair, before we leave the engineering report, if I could get a clarification for purposes of a
resolution, I'll be drafting it regardless of the outcome of the case. the the um the uh Mr. Rupe, you were referring to the uh January 16, 2026 engineering review, the most recent one. >> Yes. So, yeah. And let me clarify, you
know, normally what I do when there is um there's extra um revisions that come out, I would normally take my report and highlight things and I'd put it in bold and I wouldn't normally change it. My understanding and I I assumed this incorrectly I should have asked was that
you had not se none of you had seen it and nobody was going to ever see my first letter and it was going to go in the trash and so now here it is an exhibit. Um so it is it is >> but this is with the benefit of the uh new the revised plans and revised landscape. >> Correct. Yes. My first my first letter
said something about they they had to have some seepage pits that there weren't any on there. it needed to be there and now that's not the case but they are putting it in. >> And just for clarification purposes the uh uh uh list of conditions that was submitted with respect to the four
adjacent neighbors had attached to it the earlier version of the engineers plans. Uh just so everybody understands that to the extent it has any bearing on anything. Um the >> certainly if I can following up with that as the applicant indicated they
have agreed to be subject to the board engineers comment subject to the testimony of uh their respective experts and I would expect that the current uh engineering report would be attached if the board approves the application to that resolution.
>> You anticipated one of my two next questions correctly. The the uh the other question being just for confirmation purposes, is the applicant uh uh agreeing with and stipulating to all the comments in the most recent January 16, 2026
uh uh engineers memo, even though we're going to hear a little more from a landscape architect and what have you. >> Yes. Subject to the testimony of their experts in response to the uh Ford engineers comments. >> Okay. So, generally we could assume a will comply as to all. Yes.
>> Okay. Thank you. Nothing further for Thank you for that opportunity. >> Uh any other questions, Joe? >> Uh more in the form of a comment. I propose of what I had said earlier about complying with the manner in which the ordinance mandates that you do the
calculation that he did and I had indicated that you have to comply. There is still the issue they are seeking variance relief. Uh, in large measure, this issue of lot size and front yard setback is a negative criteria case. So,
I guess I'm giving Mr. Barry a heads up in terms of what I'd like to hear when he gets up to speak on that issue. >> Thank you, Mr. Writers. Um, one final question. Go ahead, Mr. Clark. Yeah, there was one last thing I wanted to touch on on engineering because um as
has begun happening um the city engineer uh did issue Aaron issued some comments and one of his comments was indicating that this area is slated to have some sidewalks. >> Yep, that's exactly what I was >> incorporated in the 2026 plans. So I
will coordinate with him and find out, you know, what what that what their details are of that and make sure we incorporate what he's requesting in our plans. >> I'd like to recommend that that be a condition of um under consideration. >> Yep. Yep. They've stipulated to it that's Mr. Shrager's uh January 16th, I
guess it is, uh comment staff comment report. You're it's a will comply, correct? >> Yeah, it looks like January 7th is his the date. >> Um memo >> on the top. Yeah, I'm going with the bottom where he signed it. >> Oh, right. So, multiple dates.
>> Absolutely. >> Uh the other condition that I would like um on that same thought is um requiring or or uh going through the engineering department for that uh drainage uh ensuring that that's properly send that report through. >> Of course,
>> I've had a chance to confer with the uh applicants and they if the board approves the application would agree with those conditions. Okay. >> Any members? Are we Everybody's good here. Any members of the public who would like to ask questions? Mr. Mal,
>> you you were done with this witness, correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> You could state your name and your address again. Sir, >> Malle, 271 Ashland Road. I have a question regarding the elevation. >> Okay. >> Sir, if you could just speak into the microphone. I know you want to.
>> I'm sorry. I'm uh Okay. uh on your uh drawings we see that the floor elev uh finished floor elevation is uh given and you have a an assumed data. >> Yes. And the uh roof elevation or ridge
elevation is are these final or are they subject to changes accord with the uh uh if there is any ground uh >> I mean we're we're not proposing any changes to that. The architectural plans
are what the um the relationship between the floor and the ridge are based on the architectural plans. And of course, I've demonstrated here that we comply with the height requirements. Um, so I don't think there are any specific changes planned at this time.
>> Will there be a uh an architect testifying tonight? >> Yes, there's an architect. >> Okay. So that question will go. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> There are no changes proposed the architectural plans. >> Thank you. when I say that substantially similar in
terms of design. So in other words, there may be some changes to windows or something along those lines. So it be substantially similar, but in terms of the height, roof pitch, no, that was part of the points that was discussed
with the neighbors. So that's it. >> Perfect. And I think we can move on to Would you like to call your next witness? If I could have the uh landscape architect uh be sworn in to give testimony in this matter. >> Mr. Chairman, can I run for a sec to get
my water bottle? I'll be right back. >> And can I have a moment? >> Absolutely. I >> think we're taking a one minute break. >> Take a minute. >> We'll take a two minute or three minute recess. We're missing our board secretary. >> Oh, yeah. We'll wait for her.
>> Now I know why our city clerk needs an extra chair next to her to leave all of her people. Your next I could have uh Mr. Ed Clark sworn in. >> Certainly. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to God a firm testimony
you're about to give is a truth? The whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yes, >> thank you. And uh name again, please. And address, business address is fine. Good evening. >> Please just uh please just ensure the microphone's turned on. Should be a button there. >> Uh good evening. My name is Edward
Clark. Edward Clark, landscape architect, 362 Route 206, Flanders, New Jersey. >> Okay, you may proceed. >> Thank you. Mr. Clark, uh, have you, uh, presented any testimony with regard to landscape architecture before any
municipal agencies of the city of Summit? >> I have. >> And can you tell the board how many times you've spoken or testified before municipal agencies in the city or in around? >> Um, in Summit, maybe uh, three or four
times in the past two years. And, um, we provide testimony throughout northern New Jersey into New York State. um most locally and recently Summit New Providence, Mendum, Burnsville, Hobok, and Franklin Lakes. >> And you're licensed as a certified
landscape architect in the state of New Jersey. >> Uh I am it's in good standing since 1996. >> And how long have you been uh uh performing or engaging in landscape architecture? >> Licensed since 96. Um I I I grew up in
the business, frankly. >> I have nothing further. haven't asked that you be accepted as a landscape architect as an expert. >> Yes, that's fine. >> Would you be so kind as to uh go over your plan uh for the board and then uh
refer to the pl uh to the comments of John Linson and then I would expect that the planner and engineer would have their own questions. >> Okay. Um so I I've had the opportunity to visit the uh visit, walk and
photograph the site. uh twice and um I'm going to present the plan. I usually work from the road back, but I I feel like on this one I want to work from the back towards the road. >> Before we do, if I may, Madam Chair, this is uh is is this a new exhibit colorized version or was this submitted with the uh previously
>> the one that we have up on the screen was the one that was submitted? So, I think that in response to the comments of John Linson, uh the plan that uh Mr. Clark hat has up on the uh the screen is the
current one, but could you show a revision date on that? Clarify >> January 6th. >> Okay. >> 2026. >> Okay. And that was submitted to the board, I believe. So, we uh again we don't have to mark this as an exhibit. Uh you'll just be clear in what you're
referencing. And >> I think it would make sense to mark it as an exhibit. It's >> no harm. >> This is not the one that was submitted. uh with the correspondence to Jessica Sans even though the date may be the
same. Uh what we have is a uh uh a change in response to the comments of John Linson. So perhaps we can have Ed >> uh go through that >> u because when we see the one that's up on the screen, we're talking about
Emerald Arborite. >> So Mr. Weber um so we're going to clarify this. We're going to make this A5. Thank you. >> Yes. Can you explain why uh what we're seeing was submitted and what's the difference? Sure. >> Uh difference will be um page right on
lot 2011. Um as you can see here, originally we're proposing a a plant called Emerald Arbite where the driveway gets closest to the property line and that was driven by the amount of space we had to work with. It's a more narrow plant. Provides screening. It's a
conifer. It's evergreen. 12 months of foliage. Um not not um not a favor of Mr. Linson's for I understand his reasoning why. We revisited that section on this plan.
Um >> why why is it not a favorite of his? >> Primarily deer damage. I mean it's the right right tree, right place. And again it's a tight space. We wanted to provide some screening. It's not my favorite plant either, frankly. But again, it seemed like it was the right plant,
right place. The the the deer situation being what it is was a driver would lead to a maintenance commitment to the future property owner. And originally we provided for the rest of the screening the conifers the evergreens is a green giant
arbivide more deer resistant tougher tree um more storm more resistant to storm damage again we just switch to the emeralds in that section because of the space we had to work with. So in lie of um those narrow emerald green arrivites
with the deer damage and potential storm damage um we re design that section. We're providing a column >> section for purposes of the record that section being >> this section pointing to Yep. page right
directly across from the garage doors of lot 2011. >> Uh where the curb line is closest to the property line >> just for that width where the curb line is closest to the property line. We've replaced the emerald green arborites with a combination of three
um Armstrong maples which is a narrow very narrow crowned shade tree. So the branching height will start 6 foot off the ground. It's a deciduous tree but even in the offseason it's densely branch will provide some buffering. It
is underplanted with a hedge of skip laurels which is an evergreen. The install height on the skip laurels is four to five feet. It's planted in a hedge style and that selection it's evergreen. It'll obtain some height
to it so it'll fill into the bottom of the Armstrongs more deer resistant and um lends itself to hedging so we can maintain its width in that area we're working with between the curb line and the property line. So that's what drove
that switch uh directly across from the garage doors of the home at lot 2011. >> And the maples, how high will they be at time of planting? >> Uh the 14 to 16 foot. And at 14 to 16t in height, that's where it'll tip out at. The crown will be again, it's a
narrow street tree. It'll be a crown width of about 3 and 1/2 ft. >> I interrupted to go through the uh change. Uh can you continue with uh the remainder of the testimony with regard to the landscaping? >> Yes. Thanks. Um again, so usually you go
from the road back. I'm going to work from the back towards the road. So having visited the site, um my intent is always to keep when possible. Any good trees we can keep. And um you know, I get accused of keeping trees that shouldn't be kept more often that vice
versa. The existing trees again as per the summit ordinance shade looking at a shade tree is something 12 inches in diameter or greater. The existing trees are indicated in that light gray graphic you see around the plan. Okay. Um and
the red ones are live trees greater than 12 in that are going to be removed as part of the project. The ones that don't have a red X uh say these two in the back they're currently dead. There's one large hemlock here in this light gray
graphic. We're going to try to retain that. It's it's in in quite good condition and it gives us some screening higher up right out of the gate. >> Now, when you say you're going to retain one that even though it has an X back here, >> the No, the the hemlock, I'm sorry.
Center >> back corner of lot 202. These are dead dead spruces to be removed. There's a live hemlock in the corner of back right corner of lot 202.
Um so in in total uh there between the two lots there's a total of five trees greater than 12 in being removed. Um and between the two lots there's a total of 24 trees being replaced. Uh the ordinance would require five trees being
replaced. So what I'm going what I'm going for with the with the planting plan, we'll get to this. There's screening, there's canopy, there's a street tree presence, and there's the foundation planting with the overall canopy just because it's kind of
chronological order, too. So I've talked about the removals. The intent is to restore canopy. So there there's there's significant canopy coverage from these trees being removed. there's significant canopy coverage in most of the neighborhood trying to restore that. So
the throughout the property there are there's a series of street trees that will bring that in bring back the canopy bring back the shade and contribute what it does to you know slowing down storm water from hitting the ground. So it's the that's the canopy aspect the
screening aspect working from the back to the front. So, the primary screening tree is green giant arbivite. Very common tree. Even if you don't know a lot about trees, you probably have heard of that one. It's um kind of the go-to screening tree, the invoke tree best 15
years. They perform well between deer, storm damage, and um they can be maintained. They can be let go in terms of height. So that green giant arbivide treatment starts at the back corner of the residence of lot 2011
heads towards the back runs the entire back property line and then stops at the corner the back left corner of lot 202. Those will be installed at a 10 to 12 foot height the day of the install. in in terms of conifers which are cone
bearing trees uh spruces or hemlocks that kind of thing in terms of that height that gradient of a 10 to 12 foot height that is not where it tips out at that's like the last bit of the last whirl they call it the last bit of meat on the tree so that that's 6 foot on center and that's our primary screening
tree we just talked about why we changed our approach across the garage doors of lotsu 01. Once we get to the point where, as as Andrew Clark mentioned before, we put a a bend in the driveway to allow some room for
landscape treatment. There's an area here where we can go back to the Green Giant Arite, stopping them well short of the end of the driveway, so as the tree grows, we don't have a sighteline issue for cars leaving and entering the driveway. So, that's that's one aspect
of the screening. in the main aspect of the screening. Again, working from the back of the property forward, another added aspect of screening, you can see on the back of the house on the call the back side of the patios,
there's three three ornamental trees on this end of the patio. A tall shade tree here. Similar treatment on the back of lot 202 that will those trees of shade trees come in larger to begin with. Again,
tipping out 14 16 ft will provide some more another layer of screening from um the houses behind. A little buffering of the second sto story out of the gate in time. A little buffering of the roof in addition to providing some shade for uh
the proposed residences. Another layer yet of screening. We kept the p we patios and the walks. We pulled them off the house so there's an opportunity for a planting bed against the house. So there's some more screening of the construction from the
rear view to the proposed residences. So talked about the screening, talked about the canopy. Um I'm going to jump forward and talk about the street trees. So there is one existing street tree to be removed in front of um lot 202. Um,
if you had the opportunity to see the site, you can see over the years it's been severely and poorly heavy-handedly pruned by the power company and it's very misshapen and it also has a cavity in it. That tree is going to be removed.
It should be removed regardless. Um, it was planted >> that's a Norway maple, isn't it? >> Norway maple. It's an invas non-native invasive species. It's um actually state of New Jersey just um Governor Murphy
was heading out, passed an uh invasive species um regulation and Norway Norway maple is now banned in the state of New Jersey. >> And the summit tree ordinance also has designated it as what kind of tree? >> It's non-native invasive.
So um easy decision to remove that because of that just the condition it's in. So that one street tree comes out. In total, four new street trees come in in front of lot 202 where we we don't have a wire conflict. Uh we're proposing
um swamp white oaks native shade tree broad canopy long lived um in front of lot 2011 a a more narrow Armstrong maple which is a more narrow canopy to um avoid wire future wire
conflicts. So, canopy screening, street tree presence. Um, I just want to talk now about landscaping around the home itself and um that there's we provide a little bit
of height and form of evergreens at each corner of the house. So, the house is scaled down into the landscape. The edges of the house sort of are eclipsed by the evergreen material. Then the foundation plantings which are around the house and by the driveway. They're
not entirely native but to largest extent possible we rely on native plant material which I believe is one of the comments from the environmental commission. Something we like to do anyhow. Um and then the balance of the treatment the
lawn areas will all be solded. All the plantings and lawn areas will be irrigated. One more item on screening is the fencing treatment. So, running in the same uh same starting point as the Arbite back corner of lot back corner of
the driveway of lot 2011 starts a 6-foot board on board screen that will run to the back property line all the way all the way across and to the back corner of the driveway at lot 202 and then it stops
it also that same 6 foot high board on board fence and there's an image of it on the bottom left corner of the page runs down the property line between the houses and then stops at the front line of of the homes. That that
graphic where there's a square and a straight line, square and straight line, that's the board on board fence. When we get to the front line of the proposed homes, the fence treatment switches to a 4 foot high two rail split rail fence which runs from the front corner of the
proposed houses to the um front yard um front property line and then it's open lawn from there to the curb or edge of road. One more additional item of screening is we've provided a a a fence a um tongue
and groove fence around where the mechanical areas will be on each side of the house. So screen from the front, the back and each side. It's three side enclosure for the mechanicals and >> in the Yep. Go ahead. >> Sorry. If I could just talk about the
hardscape treatment. Um, so we, as Andrew Clark mentioned, we kind of late in the game redesigned the patios again to make these nooks where we can get that other layer of screening not only from the neighbors but from each house. Um, we are going to on the site now there's some great old blue stone that
was part of the original construction salvageable. It's dry laid. We're going to salvage that. There's also um handsplit old style Belgium block very easily salvaged. We're going to salvage those two existing materials
um to be reused in the new landscape, which was another comment from the environmental commission. Um so that those will be incorporated into the rear patios and the new driveways, the front walkways for the home, instead of doing conc instead of doing concrete or a
concrete PA, we went with a clay brick. It's timeless, holds its color well, and um we felt it was more in character with the architecture of the homes. There's no landscape lighting proposed
on either site. >> Nothing fair uh further. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh thank you very much. Uh does anybody members of the board have any questions? Yes, council member. >> Yes, thank you. Uh,
chair chairwoman, a question about any future sidewalks. Could they be accommodated with this landscape plan? >> They can. So, the um, and I think that was another comment from Mr. Linden. May that maybe these four street trees just
shift back a little to accommodate. >> Okay. The sidewalk would be in front of in front of where the trees are, but we have space. So we can move the trees back so they're uh they end up being a little further from the sidewalk. >> That's great because I was looking at some of the the photos sort of the
simulated uh appearance of the lot. It didn't really show that setback. So that that helps. >> Did you say that the patio is not going to be illuminated? >> There's no landscape lighting proposed on either lot. >> Can you um explain your reasoning for
putting I think the trees are going to be in the cities right away. Is there any opportunity to are they or >> they're just outside? They're on private property. >> Oh, they are. Okay. Sorry. My apologies. Further away. >> Okay. My apologies. >> Any other questions for I I do have one
more before we move on. Go ahead. >> Uh do you generally give your um your clients a rundown of regular tree maintenance that they could expect to help maintain their property? >> Landscaping maintenance. Tree maintenance came up quite a bit in our conversations and which was one of the
one of the things that led to that switch that we talked about in the beginning across from the garage doors. That's that's a a maintenance commitment I look for with a shade tree. I look for, you know, rule of thumb, we're trying to get 50 to 75 years out of a
shade tree. You're going to get maybe 15 years out of a foundation planting. Uh but with shade trees, that's what we try to do. deliberately selected particularly where the houses get close together things that have a narrow canopy. So what I've seen over the years
is 30 years down the road the the tree the branches are pushing up against the house and people either want to remove the trees or severely prune them back. So those things go into we consider those things when we're do when we're doing the tree selection.
That's why there's oaks in front of 202 and then there's narrow Armstrong maps in front of 2011. wire conflicts, building conflicts, that kind of thing. >> Uh, I also apologize if you covered this, but there is a uh 24in red maple towards the back of 202.
>> Mhm. >> Um, did you have any conversations about trying to preserve that tree? What's the current condition? >> That was my first thought was to keep that. >> Okay. >> And um this is this is the reality I find. Again, I stand guilty of keeping trees that shouldn't be kept more often
than vice versa. In reality between the grading construction that tree had what's called a co-ominant stem where there's multiple stems like that in time where where all those called the crotch where they come together those get weak in storms they go like this and usually
one goes if it was a better tree I would have pushed harder to keep it better in terms of its structure it's got a nice can it's got a really nice canopy so at first I was keeping that I later came to remove of the trees that you'll be keeping. Do
you have any root protection that you intend to keep? >> Um, it's I don't know if it's on the civil plan. I don't have a tree protection detail on this sheet. When we do a set of CDs, that's part of it for this presentation. I don't have those
details on there. >> When you say CD, are you referring to a construction drawing? >> Yes. >> Yeah. Uh you intend to have that confirmed with the forester John Linson just so that he's aware at the time if your application proceeds. >> Yes. >> Okay.
>> That would be an appropriate condition to uh consider. >> I concur. >> Uh I had a question around the split rail fence. What was the thought process behind that versus trees? And then can Mr. Weber
when time permits. Can you just um or maybe our planner can you just talk a little bit about how that conforms to what's in our what's in our ordinance? >> Okay. >> Because I don't know anything about where these fence I just >> No, it does conform. >> It does. Okay.
>> Yes. Um but I do have one or two comments. Um first off, our landscape architect took a look at the plant material and he was satisfied with that. He did raise one question. and it's in our memo and that's on the left lot. I
guess it's lot 202. >> Mhm. >> Um the same treatment that you provided right there. The same treatment that you provided on the lot 2011 there. Could you duplicate that on the other lot? >> Thank you for mentioning that because I
forgot to bring that up. So, at the request of the neighbor who lives in this lot, there is no at first there was that same treatment over over on lot 202 at the request of the neighbor that's
been removed. They wanted it open. They didn't want landscaping here. They wanted it open. Uh they didn't want to interrupt the afternoon sunlight that hits their house. So, that's why we stopped the trees in the back corner. And um it's just shrubs
down the side and no landscape in front. >> But could you provide shrub lower shrubs in that area to provide some additional green space? >> We could. I I thought the comment was a request for no landscaping. So the answer to that is yes. But if if I
remember the way that comment was worded, it was no landscaping. >> That's correct. The uh neighbor to the east uh had requested more sunlight than landscape. >> Is that lot three to the east?
>> Go ahead, sir. >> It's lot three. >> Joe, any further questions? >> No, that covers it. They just don't understand how the shrubs affect sunlight for that adjoining house.
>> Marie, any question? I >> I do just have one uh request to make that um the none of the trees appear to be um encroaching on the dry well that's supposed to be in the yard. I know we're kind of, you know, I just want to make
sure that none of the roots are going to be climbing into that seepage pit that's there on either property. >> That pit was proposed out here. >> Yep. >> Okay. Thanks. >> I didn't answer your question about the fence, the 4ft fence, the reasoning for it. It's just a design element. I wanted
to provide a little bit of a separation, a little bit for for the two homes to have a little bit of their own identity so that it wasn't like like you know just a stamp of one or the other. So the foundation plantings are slightly different. The fence provides a little
visual. It's very open but provides a little visual separation different tree street tree planting for I just wanted them to have a little bit of their own identity. That's where that came from. Just a design element. I think my my only comment around that is just the attempt to make it not look
like a subdivision is is obviously important. So to what extent that does or doesn't, you know, I but I understand why that would be, you know, important to delineate those properties. >> Steve, do you have anything? >> A few quick ones if no one else has any.
I guess one one question. Uh uh we're working with a slightly revised landscape plan since the one that was uh incorporated in a list of conditions I guess maybe for council that has no impact on the list of conditions that uh
was submitted to the board. >> There is a uh clause within that statement of conditions that allows for adjustments to should the board choose to have that adjustment. >> Right. And and by that adjustment, you
mean any adjustment, correct? >> Any adjustment, >> right? Which is a good segue. That's why I asked the first question. The the uh just as a reminder to the board and while you've heard things visav what lot 3D East would like and not like with
respect to landscaping, um I've been told that none of us are going to be here forever. Um I'm going to keep fighting that one personally, but that's up to you individually if you wish to do so. But uh variances run
forever. Uh so as our board knows. So uh again the conditions are submitted to you as evidence on behalf of the applicant. Ultimately the board will decide if the board grants and if so what the
conditions uh of approval are that the board associates with such grant may or may not match. Um couple other quick questions. The uh there were two other items in the city forers Jan uh January
8th report. Um, one was a I don't know if it was a recommendation about deer protection sprays if I'm reading it correctly. >> So that was with the prior, >> right? >> Okay. The emerald. Okay. So that's not applicable anymore, >> right?
>> Okay. And the other is the uh the center of all trees planted on Ashlin are beyond the rights of way. I guess we just did that. uh you your testimony in response to our board chair's question. Uh the environmental
commission they had some recommendations as well. to be uh on in their September. >> I believe that one of their recommendations was incorporating native plant material, which is something we we do anyhow, >> right? >> Though the list isn't and can't really be entirely native and accomplish some
of the things we need to accomplish to the greatest extent possible, we naturally defer to native material. >> And as far as reuse and recycling of the structure, maybe you spoke to that already with the blue stone >> and the curb material. >> I didn't find any else we could. >> Okay. And I take it we're not going to
Well, you tell me. Uh, we strongly encourage the use of solar panels. >> We're outside the landscape architects. >> I don't think we have any solar panels. No. >> Okay. Just for clarification when
there's a resolution. Um, and I think that's all I had. Thank you. >> Any members of the public? Any questions? Uh, hearing none. Who's who's next up to
bat, Steve? Where are we? >> We have the uh >> architect. >> Architect or we have John Barry. If there's specific questions, Madam Chair, uh to the architect, then the representations have been made that the plans have been submitted.
The construction will be substantially similar. >> If we could provide testimony from the architect, that'd be great. >> Very good. I would ask that Hike Egg Chian, if I pronounced your name correctly, be called to the stand to be sworn in to give testimony in this matter.
>> Sure. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to God or affirm testimony you're about to give as a truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. Name and address, business address. Fine. For the record, >> my name is Hike Eshian. E K I A N. Uh my
office is at 42 Maple Street, South New Jersey. >> If you don't mind, uh what's the name of your architectural firm? >> Uh SP I'm the principal owner of space architecture. Been in business over a
decade. Um I've been in architecture in some form for almost 20 years. Um Summit before >> and your license and your license is in good standing in the state of New Jersey.
>> Yes, it is. >> Is your microphone working? >> Yes. >> Is it working? >> No. I'll get new voters. >> Sorry. >> Oh, it might be working now. Try. >> Is it working now? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Just
>> All right. >> Okay. >> All right. So, >> are you familiar with the application that's currently pending before the board? >> Yes, I am. >> And how did you achieve that familiarity? >> Uh, I designed the two homes that are going on this um >> Can you put it a little closer, Pet?
>> Uh, I can hear. I just want to make sure the >> I designed the two homes that are going to we're proposing on this on this lot. Uh when uh Steve and John Gianis uh came to me um they were looking to subdivide the land into two smaller properties and
have u a modest size home. Potentially they may live in one of one of them. And so we designed it to their specifications. and um being um um residents of Summit for multiple
generations, they love the u old traditional uh colonial style home that and so we designed it for that. So I'll uh speak about the >> what's up right now is a perspective for lot 2011 and that's the lot that's furthest to the west closest to Rotary.
>> Correct. All right. And is that uh might not be exactly what was previously submitted. Correct. I think we're up to an exhibit. >> We did not change the renderings. They're they're the same renderings >> as submitted.
>> Just hold on a second, please. Mr. We're checking to see whether or not this >> uh the same. >> Okay. >> Perspective was included as part of the It was. >> Yeah. Lot 2011 and 202. I don't know when it was provided but more than 10
days in advance. Chess. >> Okay, we can proceed. Just referencing uh uh the two perspectives lot 2011 first and then I guess 202. >> We're proposing a colonial um style home
uh that's um modest size appropriate for um this uh streetscape. Uh as you can see it consists of two volumes as most uh colonials do. Um everything is symmetrically divided uh on the entrance
door. Uh we have um dormers uh proportional to the house. Uh we're proposing uh Hardy um the colors and uh >> what's Hardy? >> Hard Hardy is a cementitious uh lap board that you see around a lot of the
new homes that are being uh built in Summit. And um we're we're proposing a off-white color, but those those colors and little details may may change uh at a later time. We're proposing uh crown molding, shutters, uh and a a little
portico that's um less than I believe 35 square ft, which is integral to a colonial style home. Uh usually you'll find a a sun room uh another room that's um to the right or left of a colonial. And here we're also mimicking that a
twotory volume that's more than uh one/ird of the building width that's set back further from the main facade of the building. And we decided to do this because of our proximity to the um to the street. And as you can see the the
garage door is facing to the side. Uh so from the street the house is going to look like a home. And um the reason we um placed the houses the way we did was we placed the garage to uh to the right
and left to give the neighbors more open space, light and air and we um kind of took care of the privacy issue with screening as as they uh as they agreed to uh between the >> Can you refer to now lot 202? Lot 202 is
the mirror image of 2011. >> It's not a mirror image, is it? >> It is in in terms of volume and um uh floor plan, but we are changing the materials to make it significant look
significantly different than the others. So, you're not going to drive down the street and looking at the same house over and over again. As you can see, the colors are completely different. It's a different material, brick versus um
hardy. And uh even the even the um the white materials at the dormers are a little off off white, a different color. >> In the in the bottom leftand corner, you should put the two homes side by side. >> Correct. You can see two versions of it.
One is during day on shown on 2011 and one at night how it would look. Um and then at this image at the bottom right corner of 2011 we're looking towards um lot 264
and and you can see that the house we modeled it as close to reality as possible. As you can see they're about the same size as what we're proposing. They're the same similar style. uh a traditional home. Um and then at the
bottom right corner of um lot 202 you can find the two houses. We're looking now towards eight rotary and we did model the um model it to reality as as closely as possible. And there was a lot
of vegetation. So you can't see the house behind the vegetation. We actually modeled the vegetation in. And the landscaping that you're seeing is one of the versions, a previous version. Uh we haven't updated it since then of what we were proposing I believe, but it's close
close representation is not exact. Um now I can walk you through the one of the floor plans to show you what what we're proposing inside the house. Madam Chair, do we uh is the board interested going through the >> I think we can I think uh as long as
there's not any questions from the board, I think we can move forward without that. >> Okay. >> Well, that concludes my testimony. >> Well, thank you. >> I believe that there would be questions that have been posed by the respective uh experts and I'm sure that there may
be questions from the board members. >> Thank you. I just have one question. Can you just confirm that the attic space will not be liveable? uh it will not be livable. The at the highest point it will be less than 7 ft. Uh it's it will be full of insulation mechanical equipment. There will not be
any stairs going up there except for a pull down stair to access the attic unfinished attic space. So it won't be even be able to convert it to a little >> Thank you for that. Thank you for your uh presentation. Any questions from members of the board? >> Uh Joe or Marie, would you have any
questions? >> No. None. Just one point of clarification for everybody's benefit and that is that uh there were floor plans for and elevations submitted for both proposed residences 2.01 and 2.02
and I I take it your testimony is that they remain as proposed. >> Yes. >> Uh as they were submitted. >> Mhm. >> Thank you. Nothing further. >> I would ask >> Go ahead. Go ahead, Mr. Robert. >> I think we just have public first. >> Oh, right. Yes. Sorry. Members of the
public with any questions hearing none. Um, Mr. Weber, would you like to bring the planner? >> Yes, please. >> Thank you. >> I would ask that John Barry be called to the stand to be sworn in to give testimony in this matter.
>> Come over here. J, >> please raise your right hand. Do you swear to God or affirm testimony about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. >> And name and address, business address. Fine. >> Sure. John Barry, B A R E, um, PO Box 45
in Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey 07716. >> Mr. Barry, have you testified before any municipal agencies of the city of Summit? >> Yes, I've been before the planning board one time. It was while we were on Zoom, so it's some years ago now. And I've been before the zoning board probably half a dozen times over the last few
years. And you're a licensed professional planner and your license is in good standing in the state of New Jersey. >> I am. Yes, it is. >> How and how long have you how long have you been a planner? >> I've been licensed planner and a member of the American Institute of Certified Planner since 2014 and I was practicing
for several years prior to um receiving my license. >> I would ask that you be accepted as a professional planner. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> You're familiar with the application that's before the board? >> Yes, I am. And how did you achieve that familiarity?
>> I was retained by the Giannises to provide a planning testimony, prepare background and and provide the testimony this evening. I visited the property twice now. And I've met with the team on several occasions and reviewed all of the plans that were submitted, the
revisions over the course of the application, the professional reports, and so forth. Can you uh provide uh to the board your opinion as a professional planner as to the minor subdivision and the variances associated with it? >> Sure. So um what we've heard from the
other witnesses and the initial um evidence that was that was profered this evening is that this application is proposing to essentially unwind the lot merger that happened um after a series of lots were originally created along Ashland Road in 1956.
The subject property is is an oversized lot compared to its neighbors along Ashland that um were created at that time and it was used for a combination of home and and medical office for a number of years which which is um currently a non-conforming use that's
proposed to be extinguished as part of the subdivision at which point only the residential use on each lot would remain. the um we've heard the the parameters of the site the lot averaging we went through with with the um
engineering engineer and surveyor so I won't belabor that point but just the reiterate that the lot itself the the the two lots that are proposed are very consistent with the other lots that front along Ashland on this same side of
the street and the flag lots and the other lots across the street have very different characteristics that change the calculations for um some of the averaging purposes. The properties in the R15 single family residential zone and the purpose of the
zone is similar to all the other single family zones in Summit of preserving the integrity of single family areas and having a compatible relationship between new or expanded houses and traditional neighborhood houses that reflect the best of neighborhood character. And I think that's particularly relevant here.
And we'll talk a little bit about the master plan as well. The relief that's being sought deals with the insufficient lot area based on the the averaging 15,948 square ft would be required. Lot 2.01 is
proposed to be 11,78 square ft. Lot 2.02 11,000 ft. So nearly identical, slightly slightly larger for lot 2.01. And again, that's um the line is proposed to be drawn as it was in the original 1956 map.
We're also seeking relief for insufficient front yard setback. Based on the average, 38.1 ft would be required. The setback to the front portico entry steps is 28.3 ft for lot 2.01, 28.5 ft for lot 2.02, and then the
main dwellings are 33.4 4 and 33.5 ft respectively. >> You also heard that Andrew Clark had brought up the fact that when you have patios, if they're attached to the single family residence, uh they can extend into the required rear yard by 10
ft. So, at that point, we would be amending the application to include a variance to allow for those patios to be uh set where they're shown on the plans as long as they are 27 ft from the rear lot line. >> That's correct. So, that um location of
the patio mimics what exists today with the patio, the setback for the patio of the existing home. Hey, I'm sorry. I lost the uh min the minimum required setback for the patios was. >> So it it would be 45 ft is the required rear yard setback. The patio can go 10
ft into that. So 35 foot setback where 27 >> and is it 27 versus 35 in both on both lots? >> Correct. >> Same amount. Okay. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Um, and as I said, that's um taking the setback line for the patio that exists
today essentially um and replicating that for the new new build. Um, the shape of the lots play into some of our testimony as far as the uh justification for the variances. There's an element of C1 hardship due to the shallowess of the
lot. Um the property is 110 feet deep. By the time you take the 38 foot front yard setback and the 45 foot rear yard setback, you're only left with a building envelope of about 27 ft in depth, which is tight for a for a modern
home. So um we're using the space as best we can with the design. The encroachment is relatively um moderate compared to what it could be with a much larger house. But um I would offer that any new build on this lot would be likely to require either a front or a
rear yard setback regardless of the subdivision because of that that shallow nature. The existing condition of the of the the home that exists today and has for 70 or so years um is is non-conforming. The other aspect of the relief that u we
could look to is a C2 benefits versus detriments test. um looking at the purposes of zoning as the positive side of the ledger essentially would offer that purpose a of guiding the appropriate use of property to promote the public health, safety, morals, and welfare is met here. We've got the
removal of an older property that's falling into disrepair, replacing it with with two new modern houses with modern amenities, storm water management enhancements, landscape enhancements that are certainly um improvements over the existing conditions. purpose E also
of providing location for appropriate population densities. The two proposed houses fit better into the context of this neighborhood in my opinion than one much larger I would call oversized house would fit if uh the lot were being
developed as a single dwelling. The houses that are proposed are 2700 square ft give or take. So, if you were developing this as a single lot, you'd probably be looking at 5,000 plus square foot house, which would dwarf the neighbors in the along the street here.
Um, purpose I encouraging a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques. I think we've got the setbacks are matching the neighbors which is is promoting a desire desirable visual environment despite the relief that's sought and certainly not
out of character and the enhancements with the landscaping and new architecture uh provide a a handsome dwelling along two two handsome dwellings along Ashland. And then on the other side of the ledger we have the negative criteria talking about if the relief can be granted
without substantial detriment to the public good. Um, normally we're looking at impacts to the adjacent properties as has been discussed extensively this evening. The applicant went to great lengths to try to meet the neighbors, figure out what the condition concerns
might be, address those concerns prior to coming before the board. So, just with that context, there's um certainly uh an element of removing any detriments or mitigating the detriments that may be um perceived. The storm water management
improvements will be uh enhancement over existing conditions. Same with the landscape enhancements and all the setbacks to the neighboring properties will be met from for the structures. So there's adequate light air and open space being preserved. So I don't see any detriment to the surrounding
neighbors. Obviously some of them are here this evening and they can share their their concerns as they like. And then lastly um that the relief can be granted without impairment of the zoning ordinance and master plan. The use that's proposed is permitted in the R15 zone. The bulk relief is not extreme in
my opinion. Um fits in well with its context, its historic surroundings. And then looking at the 2016 re-examination and master plan for the city, um Mr. Weber brought this up at the beginning of the meeting, but there are several objectives that reference. Objective
1.04 talks about maintaining the prevailing character of neighborhoods and objective 4.01 101 talks about promoting the development of a variet variety of housing types. And both of those include language that talks about discouraging the consolidation of lots
and building houses that are larger and out of character with the traditional development patterns. And this lot is already consolidated and if we were building a single new house on it, it would be directly contrary to what the master plan is looking for in that case.
So the subdivision and the development of two smaller homes is right in line with what the master plan looks for. So in that context, I would say not only is there no substantial detriment, it's actually a preferred alternative based on what the master plan is seeking for development purposes here. I think
that's all I've got. >> When you mention the impairment of the uh intent and purpose of the master plan and zoning ordinance, that's a substantial standard as well. >> It is. >> Nothing further. >> Thank you very much. Thank you. Any questions from the board for uh
testimony here? >> Questions? >> Mr. Burgess, >> actually just a few observations because I actually liked what Mr. Barry had said. Uh um and earlier I had talked about how this is really a negative
criteria case. Um and the reason why I said that is when one drives down the street, you know, it's not that you see the long the the excessive depth of this prop properties across the street, you see the lot widths. And the lot widths I did
a a calculation. The average lot width along that street is about 70 or 75 ft. Here we have two lots, each of which are 100 ft. So, they're still going to look larger in dimension than some of the lots in the area, even
though the ordinance calculation that was mentioned earlier talks about an average of 15,900 ft. You don't see a lot of that because it's most of it is the depth of the property rather than the width. Um, in terms of the positive
criteria, you know, these four or five lots on the same side of the street are all about 100 110 ft at depth. So, they are rather shallow. I would agree that given the front yard requirement and the rear yard
requirement, you are limited in terms of the size of the depth of a house that you could place here. Um then in terms of the second prong of the positive criteria is there a public benefit uh in terms of storm water
management in terms of landscape amenity I think there are certain public amen amenities that acrew from the the application. Um, so when you're debating all of this at the end after we hear from the public, I would just suggest you keep
some of those points in mind if you're of a mind to uh look at it that way. >> Thank you, Mr. Burgess. Marie, would you have any No, I any members of the public may Thank you. No, and maybe to dovtail off Mr. Burgesses, but just a a couple
of quick questions for clarification with respect to the C1 undue hardship criteria that was argued as being part of along with the C2 criteria. uh this I assume, correct me if I'm wrong, that your
C1 undo hardship argument uh would play primarily into the front yard setback deviations for the two lots. Uh and uh maybe the patio setback deviations on the rear from the rear yard for both
those lots, but not the lot area deviations because you're subdividing the lot. your client subdividing the lot and hence that might constitute a self-created hardship with respect to lot area. >> Would all that be close to accurate?
>> Yes, the the depth is the hardship I'm referring to. So that would play into both the front yard setback and the patio setback. >> So not the lot area as as any hardship. And just to further clarify my understanding and everyone else's of your testimony though, uh the C1 you're
saying would apply to both front yard setback and patio rear yard setback for both lots. Um but are you're also arguing C2 benefits substantially outweigh the detriments with respect to all six deviations I take it.
>> Yes. And we look at the application as a whole when we're thinking about the the benefits of the project. So we're not necessarily tying those benefits to the one of the specific variances, but as as the benefits that would acrew from the overall project. >> Good segue might be then uh with respect
to the C2 argument and all six variances, are you also as part of your opinion uh under the Kaufman standard viewing this proposal as a better planning alternative uh than either what presently exists or
what could exist? with respect to I think you said a 5,000 square foot building on one lot. >> Yes, I I would think so. Both the neighborhood context, the historical context, what the master plan calls for, all of those aspects lead us to a better
planning alternative with two smaller lots and two smaller homes. And would I be uh safe in the assumption that your opinion would be that all the conditions stipulated to by and on behalf of the applicant would further
mitigate detriments and be have a reasonable would relationship or nexus uh to the variance relief sought? >> Yes, that's certainly my opinion. >> Nothing further. >> Any members of the public have any
questions? >> Mr. You can't leave yet. You're going to >> 271 Ashland Road. So I see that you have two uh issues. Uh the uh benefit is just to
>> Mr. Mal, if you could just speak into the microphone so the public can hear. Sorry. Just so the folks at home in case they're >> So we're uh that you're removing the aspect that this is a professional use. Uh I live across the street and the uh
the house is in good shape. Uh it is a uh it needs some uh keep up because it has been there for many years. It is a nice house, well built. The structurally is sound. ask whether or not there's a
question pending. >> It's a question. >> It's a fair question in my opinion. Madam Chair, you're going to be asking Mr. Barry a question. This is the predicate to get to the question. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So, the question is >> in fairness to the applicant. Maybe you can
>> get to that question. >> Is the is the removal of this aspect that a home office is the problem? is the negative that you are removing and is this a
benefit or a I see it as a benefit to have a home office nowadays it >> that perhaps you wish you can allow him to answer your question. >> Okay. >> Okay. So the not not from a zoning
standpoint, the medical office that has existed that was in operation on the site is non-conforming currently. And so the removal from a a zoning standpoint of a non-conforming use does does tend to have some benefit. Um in this context, the office is not being used.
It's my understanding and this was from conversations with the applicant that there's no particular you know they they weren't able to find anybody who was interested in it or it's not doesn't lend itself to a modern doctor's office at this point. So um removing the use
that's not being used there does have some benefit. >> Okay. The other question wouldn't be uh uh the nowadays everybody want to work from home having a home office ha having
a home office is a an advantage everybody's looking to have a home office I don't see this as a negative >> I'm sorry is is your question isn't that correct Mr. Barry, what is that? >> So, I I believe there's a difference
between a home office for someone who is working out of their home in a professional capacity the way I do myself. Um, I have a a room in my house that I use as my office is different from an office that requires people coming and going all day to be seen by a
doctor or another professional. And I don't know that there's really demand for that type of home office today the way there is for you know a single professional to work out of their home like you're describing certainly that's that's in demand. Um so I would agree in
part to what you're saying but not necessarily in this context. >> Okay. In the uh in 1950s things were different and haven't they changed? They are very stringent now in the town in the city of Summit. They
can't use that feature. The only feature they can use in this house is to have a home office which is a benefit to the building. And the other question I have another question I'd like to ask you
uh what is the very specific issue that is related to this specific lot that prevents the use of this building in compliance with the R15 zone. Is
there any >> as I as I described, the lot is is shallower than what the setbacks would typically call for. So, if you were going to build a new structure on this lot that would be permitted to be over 5,000 square ft based on the permitted
floor area and coverages, the shallowess of the lot creates a hardship for orienting the house. The existing house is non-conforming. It's not it does not meet the current R15 standards. And so it's very very challenging to develop this lot in any
way that would would be fully conforming. >> How it is conforming? >> No, it is not. >> It is not conforming. >> In what way? >> The setbacks. The current setback does not meet the required standard.
>> Uh I don't think that we have heard that uh during the testimony tonight. I don't think this is a >> what in in a moment you're going to be able to make public comment under oath. So perhaps you wish to save that. >> Okay. So which setback is that
>> front setback in 19 in 1956 when it was built or when the subdivision was filed there was a 30foot setback line required on the map at that time. The current setback that we heard in testimony tonight is required is 38.1 ft.
>> No. I mean >> sir sir we can't technically and I apologize but if I may with the chair commission we have to follow as as you may know the rules for a quasi judicial hearing you can ask questions and have
them answered but you'll have to give your own comment under oath later >> but you can continue to ask relevant questions if you have them of the plan >> isn't the R15 zone front setback in summit 15
35. >> No, the it's based on an we we heard testimony from the engineer and surveyor earlier. It's calculated based on a neighborhood average. So we look at the lot. We look at three lots to one side, three lots to the other side, and then the three lots across the street, and we
average them all together. So the lots across the street, some of them are much deeper than this lot, and they have much greater existing setbacks. And once you average all of those together, that's the number that applies based on the neighborhood average. In this case,
that's 38.1 ft. >> Okay, that's what we >> Thank you, Mr. Le. >> Okay. Any other members of the public? >> Right. And what's that? >> Sorry, we might have some.
>> Oh, sure. >> And this is for questions of Mr. Barry. >> No, >> comments. >> Okay, we haven't We're about to move. We're about to move to that shortly. I >> I have a question for Mr. Barry. Just a quick one. You had said something and I think somebody said over here there was
no interest in the property. Has was the property marketed after Dr. Giannis died before that they decided to split it? >> I may have I may have overstepped with that statement. It was more a matter of general um idea that a home doctor's office is uncover
market for this property as it is right now. >> If I could recall >> uh John Gianis answer that question >> that is fine. >> Thank you. >> Can you repeat your question then? >> Um he had said something very briefly about there wasn't any interest. So I'm
wondering how how was that established? Was the property ever marketed before you decided to do the lot split? It it was >> and this is as a home office or doctor's office >> as somebody wants to buy it. Yeah. >> Right. Just for clarification. >> No, it it it was marketed. Interest was
very little for Summit. Um and going back to Mr. Malay's uh I want to say his opinion that the house is in good condition. The house is in poor condition. So just going back to that, I mean the house is not livable. It's basically falling down at this point.
So, um, and going back to the doctor's office, over half the house is a doctor's office at at the current. >> No, no, no. I was just wondering if if if I wanted to buy it. I'm not a doctor. >> It was I could have an ending store, I guess. >> Was on the market for about six months. >> Okay, that was my question.
>> Correct. Yeah, there you go. >> If all of the people that were looking at it were looking to develop it, no one was looking to move into >> Okay. >> Correct. I just run >> if if that picked up that testimony we just heard from both Mr. Janice's um so
the the uh if you have nothing there's no further questions for him if I may madam chair and you have no further direct for them in fairness uh well we should see if any members of the public have any questions >> yeah at this time any members of the public any questions
>> any further questions >> going to ask one more time any further questions from members of the public I think there may for just for the entire >> No, we're going to get to comment momentarily. This was just the question, just the additional testimony from the
gentleman who just spoke, the two gentlemen. >> So, uh, do you have any further with the chair's permission? Any further witnesses? >> No further witnesses. >> Okay. And guess we can move to public comment, right? So, at this time, we will take public comment.
>> Sure, Mr. Mle. And one last time, if you'll give your name and address, please. >> My name is Aean Malle. I live at 271 Ashland Road. Uh just across the property. >> We can just ask you to keep your
comments to around 3 minutes. Mr. Malay, if you could try to keep your comments. >> Be less than four. >> Perfect. >> Okay. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to God or affirm testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, or nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. Please proceed.
Uh madame chair, members of the uh planning board, uh this uh application proposes to dismantle
a code compliant property that has functioned as such over 60 years and to replace it with two undersized non-conforming lots that don't meet the
minimum requirement of the R15 zone. Summit master plan defines R15 zone as an upscale suburban community requiring at least 15,000 square foot lots. This application
proposes two lots of approximately 11,000 each. That's like 73% of the uh 73.6 of the required lot. That is way too low. Approving this would
effectively reszone the block to an R10 standard. ignoring the intent of the city ordinance and the NJ MLUL
land use municipal law. To grant a variance, the applicant must show a hardship unique to this physical land. There is none here. I don't see any.
Just having a home office in the building. This lot is a standard mostly rectangular parcel that's perfectly usable as currently configured. The need for these variances is a self
created hardship driven by a desire to increase density for profit. Uh which is not a valid legal reason for the board to grant uh any relief.
the the character of our neighborhood is defined as secluded homes with ample setbacks and mature trees. We're seeing now seven uh mature trees being cut and replacing them with
uh with a new canopy will be over so many years and also dry well two dry wells are not going to do it because dry wells you all know we all know they have a
diminishing efficiency with time and they have a kind of time life. They are not there forever despite any. So the applicant argues that removing professional office is a
public benefit but it's today a work from home environment a home office is in a very high demand and it's a high uh demand feature not a detriment. The negative criteria of this
application, the permanent damage to the streetscape and violation of the master plan far outweigh any private benefit to the applicant. I urge the board to protect the integrity of our neighborhood and
deny this application. Thank you all. >> Thank you for your comment, Mr. Malai. Okay. >> Are there any further public comments? >> Question. >> Good evening. Uh my name is Alex
Caripedian and um my family and I live >> your address. Yes, sir. >> At 8 Rotary Drive. We are lot one um directly adjacent to 2011, I believe. Uh right on Rotary. >> And you just raise your right hand. >> Yes. Do you swear to God or affirm the testimony you're about to give is the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. Please proceed. >> And um I' just like to say uh for the record that the applicant, Mr. Giannis, uh has spoken to the neighbors in question um at least the four of us
definitely who are on uh the signed uh uh form that you have in addition to a few other neighbors in the neighborhood that were able to. We've hosted them at our home with the applicant who has taken the time to meet with us several times actually. Um listen to our
concerns. We had very constructive and productive conversations, extremely transparent and um we thought it was very collaborative. We voiced all of our concerns and they addressed each and every single one of them. We were very satisfied with their response how it was
negatively going to impact um especially the four of us who are adjacent to uh this development and we were happy with what we came out with together. So I I just want to say that for the record. >> Thank you very much. >> Are there any further public comments?
name and address. >> Good evening. Rich Leven. I live uh with my wife and son, 16 Rotary Drive. >> And if you Okay. Do you swear to God a refer testimony about to give us the truth, all truth, or nothing but the truth? >> Yes.
>> Do you recall which lot you would be? >> Uh 30 34 >> immediately behind. >> Correct. >> To the rear. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Uh, I just want to echo everything Alex just said. I was part of
those discussions. >> Thanks. >> Okay. Thank you very much for your comment. >> Any other public comments, >> Madam Chairman? Am I allowed to ask a question from either of the neighbors? >> I'm happy to answer that question from a
legal perspective, Madam Chair, with your permission. >> The answer is yes. Um, can >> they're they're they're providing testimony when they comment. >> Can either of you tell me that how you came to paragraph five on the letter,
which is the one about lighting, >> how you guys came to that agreement. >> Um, well, >> I'm sorry. Whoever's answering, I'll have to come back. And and of course, you remain underwrote. >> Sure. >> Yeah. So, you're referencing the paragraph or essentially >> and I'm sorry, for the record, if you
could identify again who you are. >> Yep. Rich 1116 Rotary Drive. >> Thank you. >> So you're you're just to clarify, you're talking about the paragraph where it talks about the lighting not pointing towards other properties or pointing down. >> Right. Cuz I'm I'm what we heard earlier this evening is that there not going to
be any exterior lighting on the patio. And I don't know if you have a grill, but at some point you're going to need to have lighting. >> I think it was landscape lighting that there wasn't. This is off the house, I think. >> Right. So, are you are when you guys were thinking through this paragraph five, were you thinking of the sort of
lighting that might be on the going looking down on the patio or were you thinking about um I know fancy people have tree lighting. Were you thinking about those things? I just want to figure out >> No, not so much tree lighting. We were thinking about lighting that would be aixed to the house uh pointing towards
neighbors yards like flood lighting, stuff like that. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Okay. Any other members of the public wish to comment?
All right. >> Uh Mr. Weber, at this time, would you like an opportunity to uh make a brief submission before the board deliberates? >> I would submit the application to the approval of the board. Thank you, Mr. Weber. >> That was brief. >> That was brief. And then, Mr. Warner, if
you could uh tightly wrap up with the uh regarding the deliberations and the uh the positive and negative criteria that we should be looking >> now that we've compo uh closed all testimony, I'll try my best to uh list as what I understand to be the relief
sort and please correct me if I'm wrong. The uh the applicant is seeking minor subdivision approval, one lot to two uh as well as six bulk variances uh lot area for 2.01 being 11,78
per this is all per the neighborhood average. Uh uh the 11,78 versus 15,948 square ft minimum. Uh and lot 202 11,000
square feet uh lot area versus 15,948 square feet being the uh neighborhood average lot area minimum. a front yard setbacks of 28.3 for lot 2011 and 28.5
for lot 202 whereas the neighborhood average minimum front yard setback is 38.1 ft for each uh and the uh rear yard setback uh specifically with respect to the
patios in each lot uh would be approximately 27 ft. F feet uh versus the minimum required rear yard setback of 35 ft. Those are the six bulk variances along with the minor subdivision approval as I understand it.
Uh how' I do Mr. Burgess and Mr. Weber? >> If I can Mr. Burgess uh the uh front yard setback to the porch is at the 28 to the main portion of the body it's 33. >> Correct. Um I believe though the 28.3 is
what counts but but they both >> technically it does. >> So but uh so be it the uh uh otherwise I was correct Mr. W. >> Yes. >> Okay. Mr. Burgess. >> Yes. >> Thank you. the um uh the conditions of approval should the board grant and by
the way the board will decide what the conditions are but as I understand the stipulated two conditions they're effectively everything in all the reports uh uh of all the professionals uh with the exception of the solar panel recommendation from the environmental
commission uh as well as uh what was stipulated to would be uh the list of conditions as set forth in exhibit A3, the February 4, 20 thou, 2026, uh, uh, uh, list of conditions, uh, that
was submitted by the, uh, applicant, uh, as well as a few additional, uh, conditions of approval that were identified this evening. One or two of them, frankly, may have been in the aforementioned, uh, but nevertheless,
uh, I'd rather have them twice than not at all. uh root protection uh conferring with uh the forester Mr. Linson I think there was something >> yes that's is acceptable >> uh the uh
maybe I should have been a doctor not a lawyer with this handwriting but uh the the the um lower shrubs oh that was Mr. Burgess's my suggest >> comment with respect to lower shrubs on the but the uh
>> uh the applicants uh uh the neighbors set forth their respective landscape plan desires. The board will decide if uh what they wish to do with respect to conditions visa v same should there be
an approval and I understand that the nonconforming the pre-existing non-conforming use of a home office/med office or at least medical office would no longer uh exist
should the application be approved. So that would be a condition of approval as well. Uh the attic space is not livable space. I believe I saw that in the list of conditions, but nevertheless, that was
clarified and reiterated this evening. And that is all I had for additional conditions, but applicants council's going to be kind enough to stipulate to or let me know one or more that his client stipulated to that I left out.
The sidewalk would be subject to the review by the city engineer >> and the street trees would be relocated to accommodate the sidewalk. >> Thank you. >> And finally, the the one that we missed was the uh the pipe being
>> the the rear the rear yard. Um >> to the extent that the uh dry wells will not function that the uh alternative subject to the uh uh city engineer would tie into the 12-in reinforced concrete pipe.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. >> Uh is that all we have? >> I think so. So with that you have the the board has the relief reiteration of what the relief saw is and confirmation of it as well as all the conditions as stipulated to buyer on behalf of the
applicant. Now is the hard part. Uh this is where you deliberate and make your determination. We have seven board members qualified to vote this evening. Uh six seated to my left, one seated to my not immediate right but one over. uh and uh you will deliberate and you will
decide it is uh with everything we do as a planning board majority for approval. >> Uh thank you Mr. Warner. So um board members uh please limit your deliberate deliberations. It's late uh to the statutory criteria uh for these
variances and the subdivision impacts uh provided and discussed in testimony. U would anybody like to comment, ask questions? Nothing. Nothing. >> Okay. >> Does anybody wish to make a motion and
explain why? >> Um, okay. So, >> if I if I could. >> Yep. Uh I would like to just bring up the fact that removal of the uh pre-existing non-conforming use uh I see
it as a benefit. I also recognize that while it may not be in conformance with the uh properties on the opposite side of the street concurrently on their side, the even numbered side of the street. Uh the lot sizes do uh are they
are similar. Um they did take reasonable consideration to the design of the area and what is similarly seen around the neighborhood. Um and I think that the lot is constrained by depth as uh was provided in
testimony. Uh I don't see that there is a significant enough reason to deny this application unless someone thinks otherwise. Thank you, Austo. Um, and I I would say that I really give a lot of credit to uh
Mr. Weber and and the folks there for working with the community. Uh, it's important, especially as you drive around that area. Um, it does seem, in my opinion, uh, if I were to provide some guidance, it does seem like getting that lot back to what it was originally,
uh, makes a lot more sense than putting a really large house that probably is going to, um, potentially could, you know, maybe not fit within the community. So, I think this kind of gets it back to the area where it was. and I
I think it would be uh certainly appropriate and and I I would certainly um move to approve this subdivision application. U so with that being said, uh does anybody else have anything that they would like to say? If not, >> I just have one comment. I agree with um
both the comments so far, but uh also just wanted to thank the applicant and the um the witnesses that brought forth the material specifically laying out the architectural plans of what they're going to do and bringing these
renderings um with the the split and the the two dwellings. In the past, we've seen um applications come forth and they just kind of give us a postage stamp with nothing on it and then and then we're left to try to imagine what's
going to be on it. So, I just wanted to add that we'd like to see that going forward, but otherwise I'm in support of it. And I would just say that um last year on city council or maybe it was the year before that there was a big push from the residents over there to get the sidewalks and it's it's a really great
community to walk to elementary schools and uh so I think it's it's going to be a nice um a nice ad to the community if the board uh decides to approve this application. So I would also like to add one more point. Uh given that uh if the property
were to be subdivided and two new dwelling units were to be placed there that the applicant take special consideration to any residential development fees that may have to be paid preliminarily and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
>> That's important. >> Thank you. >> That and that's a standard condition in all our resolutions. Okay. So, do we take >> I don't know if we we got a motion. I don't know if we formally got a second. >> Second. >> Okay.
>> Vice Chair Hamlet. >> Yes. >> Miss Bowen. >> Yes. >> Council member Chrisully. >> Yes. >> Mr. Domo. >> Yes. >> Mr. Felmmet. >> Yes. >> Mr. Salah? >> Yes. >> Mr. Stern? >> Yes. >> Thank you, madam.
>> Thank you very much. Thank you everyone. Thank you. It's really Okay. Yep. We have the minutes from September 9th, 2025 for memorialization. Oh, September 29th, sorry. September 29th, 2025.
The eligible voting members are Vice Chair Hamlet, Miss Bowen, Mr. Domaso and Mr. Stern. Could we get a motion to approve? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Got a fair number of abstensions, but
you'll take care of that. >> Okay. >> I believe we need a motion to adjurnn. >> Yes. I would like to make uh would anyone like to make a motion to adjurnn? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Second. Thanks for coming everybody.
Appreciate it. Thanks for drive safe.