Good evening and welcome to the Monday, May 4th, 2026 meeting of the city summit zoning board of adjustment. My name is Scott Loitz. I'm the zoning board chair. Please rise and join us in the pledge of >> allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it
stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty, justice for all. >> Thank you. In accordance with New Jersey statute 10 col4-10. Adequate notice of the special meeting has been provided to a newspaper record.
It's been posted here in city hall. This meeting is a judicial proceeding. 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 decorum appropriate to a judicial hearing must be maintained at all times. For the benefit of the
interested public, this meeting is being livereamed on the city's YouTube page, and it's also being broadcast on Summit's government channel, which is Comcast 34 and Verizon channel 30. Transcript of this meeting is also being taken using video and audio. So, we need all speakers to utilize one of the
microphones throughout the room. Please note that the fire exits are to my right, your left, and the back of the room where you enter. City also has a listening system to assist the hearing impaired. If anyone needs hearing assistance, please obtain the system at the deis and return it thereafter. Miss Sans, can you please call the role of
members? >> Vice Chair Zan is excused. Mr. Yuko >> here. >> Mr. Malay >> here. >> Mr. Mullen is excused. Mr. Nelson >> here. >> Mr. Curran is expected but not yet present. Miss Chief >> here. >> Mr. Fes >> here.
>> Mr. Chantuli >> here. >> Mr. Bell >> here. >> Chairman Linkens >> here. >> You have a quorum. You may proceed. >> Thank you, Miss Sans. Annie Ball is a zoning ball zoning board's attorney. M Mr. Ball advises the board members on matters of law and is a key interface with the applicant's attorney. Mr. Ball
does not vote on these applications. Jessica Sans is a city employee and is the zoning board secretary. Board secretary works with the applicants on preparing their applications, planning our agendas, and keeping our meeting minutes. Board secretary also does not vote on these applications. Also present
tonight are experts who are hired annually by the board to provide input. Tonight we have Marie Refi Rafé from Kier's Engineering and instead of Ed Snikis we have >> David Novak with Burgess Associates. >> Welcome David. Thank you. Uh he'll act
as our board planner tonight. These experts seated at the table to the right of the board. The public's left. They also do not vote. Our board consists up to seven regular members and four alternates. All members can participate in the hearing tonight, but only a maximum of seven can vote. Most applications require a simple majority
to be approved before we enter into executive session to vote. You will be advised on how many votes are required for approval. Each case will begin with the applicants or their attorney giving an overview of the application process to date and the variances that are required. We then hear from any additional expert witnesses the
applicant may have to help explain the application, why these variances are needed. The board experts then followed by the board members may ask questions of the applicant, their attorney, and the expert witnesses. Due to recent cases running excessively long, we strongly encourage applicants and their experts to give brief and concise
testimony so we may get to as many cases as possible in a given evening. Uh especially tonight since we have four on the docket. Once the board members and the board professionals have completed the questioning, the public will have an opportunity to ask questions. This is not the time to tell us what you think about the case. That opportunity comes
at the end of the hearing. Please be careful as how you phrase your questions. They should not be proceeded with a statement about the case, but should be a direct question to the witness. Also, before you ask your questions, please clearly state your name, spell your last name, and provide us your address. It's important that our court reporter be able to keep clear and
accurate public record. After all witnesses have been heard, members of the public have their second opportunity to speak, and at that time, you express your you may express your opinion, positive or negative, about the application. Then the public hearing is closed and we enter into executive
session. This is where board members discuss the case and then we vote. You'll be able to listen into our executive session, but you will not normally be able to participate in our discussion. Now going to ask each applicant and their andor their attorney if present to come up and give a very
brief synopsis of their anticipated testimony tonight, including how many witnesses they have and whether or not they can finish within 30 minutes. So tonight we're going to start with 19 Ridge Road. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. James Weber of Alfonso Weber
on behalf of the applicants. We have three witnesses. I'm anticipating it will take an hour. >> Okay. Thank you so much. Uh can we have a representative from 35 Bedau, please? >> Good evening, Steven Joseph. for the
applicant. Uh we have uh three witnesses, but one of them will keep in reserve. We anticipate 30 minutes 30 minutes for the two witnesses that we plan on presenting. >> Okay, great. Thank you so much. Next, uh 36 Dale Drive. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of
the board. Steven Aelini representing the applicant. Uh tonight, I have three witnesses. Um half an hour, I believe, at most. It's a straightforward application. >> All right. Excellent. Finally, someone from Two Beakman. >> Hi, good evening. I'm uh I'm Magna. I'm
one of the corners of two Beakman Road. Um the application will probably take a half hour. >> Okay, great. Thank you so much. >> All right, 19 Ridge Road. Let's get started. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. James Weber of Al Fanso and
Weber on behalf of the applicants. This application was previously before the board in February where we made a brief introduction through Mr. Rosen's testimony as to the overall application that was being presented. We had interested neighbors who had retained
counsel in questioning if not opposition to this application. As a result, there's been the opportunity and we thank the board for the opportunity to have those discussions with the neighbor. At that point, we now have arrived at a plan through council for
the neighbor, Ailen Brennan, that they do not oppose this proposed development. One of the aspects that was previously presented was an attempt to reconfigure the greenhouse and the pool that really
uh had an idea that in concept made sense but in practicality did not. So we had uh Jared Kest who's revised the hardcaping and provided the landscaping which is satisfied the neighbors
with regard to the uh variances. Mr. Rosen will walk through those so we can uh accelerate this presentation. There is no variance for the retaining walls. Mr. Clark is going to uh eliminate that variance and that eliminates the request for the
interpretation as well. Unless the board has any questions of me, I'll call Mr. Rosen to the stand to give testimony in this matter. >> Thank you, Mr. Weber. That sounds good. >> And I'll just note Mr. Rosen was previously sworn at the last hearing. His credentials were accepted at that
time. So you remain under oath. Okay. Thank you. Uh we we discussed some of the variances last time and since then we've made some revisions to the um to the plans particularly with lot coverage and uh
the lot coverage and some of the other uh variances will be covered in more uh in greater depth by Jared Test the landscape architect and Andrew Clark uh the the engineer civil engineer. Um, so
last time I went over a few of the items and I'm just going to summarize them. This is a view of the front of the house uh on the Sorry, let me just get that off. Um, that shows the the existing house on
the top and the uh proposed on the bottom. As you can see, there's no change in the height of the building. Most of the building has remained as it currently is. within addition uh on the bottom
uh bottom left in this drawing the the rest of uh going around to the back you can see the addition back here which is essentially one story uh continuation of the first floor uh there is no addition
on the second floor uh or in the attic uh and I'm sorry there's a small addition on the second floor just over here is a dormer And then the uh then it goes down to the basement in the lower left where we have a garage. And these are relevant because
the first two variances that we'll talk about are were covered last time. And that is maximum building height. And as noted in the uh in the reports uh the allowable is 43 feet, the existing is
41.3 and the proposed is 45. And this one, as we talked about last time, is simply because the ground is a little bit lower at the back of the house, and that's where the addition is is going to be.
Um, there is no change to the height of the house from the front or from uh Fernwood Road. So, the streetscape, the perception of the height of the house is unchanged. But because the property slopes down to the back when we do our
uh the maximum height from the very lowest to the very highest is 45 ft. So that's a C variance. The uh the next one is the average where a point is taken 10 feet around every 10
feet around the perimeter. The allowable is 38. Currently it's 39 feet and that goes to 41. And the reasons for it are identical to the the maximum height. The building doesn't get taller, the ground gets a little bit lower. Uh the next one
that we discussed a little bit last time was the maximum accessory building height which has to do with the cabana uh and greenhouse. Um, we'll go with the greenhouse which has a limit of 15 ft and we have proposed 17.5
and you can see it in the lower corner over here uh lower right on the proposed uh at the rear. The issue here is that we're trying to get the roof pitch to be very similar or to match the existing so
we have that roof a little bit taller. Um, so those are the height variances. all due to the slope of the property. Then we have the position of the accessory buildings in the front yard and that'll be talked about a little bit
more by Jared and Andrew. Um because of the way the property is and where the house is positioned on the property, we put the you'll see on the board that's uh all the way to the side here in front of the TVs that we put the driveway so
that it would come around to the right. the uh the garage doors face away from both streets as uh as the ordinance requires. And so the pool and the greenhouse are sort of to the upper
left in this drawing. The pool is in blue and the greenhouse is the little rectangle uh below it. So the requirement for the principal building uh in the R43 zone is 50 ft and for an accessory
structure on a corner lot it's double that. So it's 100 ft is the requirement. If it was part of the uh if it the main house which is 57.5
feet sorry 7 feet from the uh from Fernwood Road. The accessory buildings are very similar. They're essentially the same. 57.6 for the greenhouse and 60 ft for the pool. So they are closer to
the street to Fernwood Road than an accessory building could be. Although they're in the area, if it was part of the principal structure, they would be conforming. Uh next we go to lot coverage. Um the
lot coverage, let me just see. This just shows the uh the garage doors um around the back. And uh Mr. from Malay had asked a question at the toward the end of the last hearing about
whether that would block sunlight. Uh we did a study to see where the sun is. It turns out that the the front of the house faces directly south. So as the as the sun goes over, uh the sun is almost
almost perfectly vertical, varying between summer and winter, but the shadow never leaves the property. Um, so thank you for that question last time and that covers it. So there's no shadow that's that extends over to the
neighbor. Okay, a couple of other ones. Uh, coverage, the maximum lot coverage permitted is 30%. Last time we were 37.9. uh in the interval between the last
meeting and this one, we went at this around and around and kept uh finding ways to cut the lot coverage. So that in the the documents that were submitted, it says 30.8. Uh we've been able to further reduce it
to 30.4. So, we went from nearly 38% almost all the way back to the allowable 30%, but we're actually at 30.4 and Andrew Andrew Clark will cover that
in a little bit more detail. Maximum building coverage is permitted to be 12% and the existing is 9.4%. With the addition, we're at 13.9. So, it's a 1.9%
um uh 1.9% variance and that has to do with the addition that goes off you can see going off to the right. Uh we did remove some other aspects of the house that would cause um the count and building
cover. So, we've removed and we've added and the net increase. Let me just go back to this because of the addition on the lower left there. Uh is we're at 13.9 >> previously. What was the number that was
presented to the board in the original application? >> 37.9. >> I'm talking about for the building >> Oh, building coverage. Uh that was 14.4. >> Yes. >> So that's been reduced by.5. >> Yeah. By half a percent. Yes. Um
the and and if anybody has any questions or any comments, just just >> call out. I I don't mind being interrupted. I'm nearly done anyway. >> Yes. >> Before I forget. So what did you say about the building coverage? It's actually going to be what now? >> 13.9.
>> 13. So the planners report says 14.4. You're reducing that to 13. We reduced that further because once we got once we had proper statistics for for everything, we went at it uh one or two more times in order to see where we could further reduce and that reduction
happened. Um when you go out of out a doorway, we had a larger platform there. We cut some of the platforms back so that um if it's more than one foot above the ground level then it uh it counts.
We we reduced some of those. >> And is that that that does that make the same change in the lot coverage what you said the lot coverage went down to or is that a different change? >> No, that was those were some different changes that that'll be described by by Jarrett and Andrew. >> Okay.
>> Okay. But these two are a little different than what we had submitted in the revision. So the drawings in front of you >> one more but just point for clarification. I believe in our planners report we have a max height of 41 but you indicated it's 45 ft is the proposed
variance for that. >> Uh there are two statistics there. Both are correct. 45 ft is for the maximum which is the very lowest point which is at the garage the bottom of the garage doors up to the top of the ridge. That's
45 ft. It's allowed to be 43. And the other one, the 41 ft that's mentioned in that report is for the average building height going around the whole perimeter of the house allowed to be 38 and it's 41. >> Got it. >> So, thank you. Those are both correct
numbers, but for slightly different uh statistics. Okay. So, building coverage 13.9 uh down from the 14.4 four that we had uh previously thought and then
>> Ken I'm sorry to interrupt Mr. Rosen, the items that uh are necessarily uh attributable to the architecture of the property include the roof eaves. >> Yeah, the roof eaves in summit roof eaves. So the extension of the roof
beyond the perimeter of the building, the roof is allowed to overhang by two feet and if it does, none of it counts. Two feet and and and less, none of it counts. when it goes over two feet, the
entire overhang counts. And in this case, we have overhangs of I'll round off, but four feet. So, there's a lot more coverage that occurs and it's counted as building coverage even though it's just the extension of the roof. Those statistics will be covered by
Andrew Clark um just to to make sure that we know where the uh where the additional coverage is. And the other thing I just wanted to mention is the front porch which also extends
uh the the front porch. It has a big roof that hangs out, but we're extending it a little bit more, adding columns, putting solar panels on on the top that'll be hidden, but that also contributes to the building coverage. So
those those elements are you would not perceive as mass of the building but they're within the statistic. >> Um >> and I'm going to ask a question uh that may have come up. Why not cut the roofs back? Why not? >> Well, it's the character of this house.
We're trying to do three things on this property. One is restore. Um and that means uh a lot of the components of the house. The house is about 120 years old. things like we we have already replaced the slate roof. The the siding on the
front uh has been replaced. It was in need of considerable attention for paint and so on. The overhangs are part of the character of this house and we didn't want to remove part of that character. So, we're restoring, we're renovating,
uh, all of the utilities of the the plumbing system, electrical, uh, HVAC, all of that is being uh, it has already been replaced within the existing house and obviously the new part will be all new as as well. Um, anyway, so there are
a whole lot of things. We replace the windows, but they're the same size or um comp perfectly compatible with some of the existing windows. Anyway, so on building coverage, um there are these other elements that
go into that statistic. Andrew will summarize those. So you'll see that for the mass of the building the uh the existing and the proposed um the perceivable number is lower than what we're uh what we're presenting here
because of the overhangs and the front porch. Uh there's also steep slope disturbance as a variance. Obviously, this piece of property, the the way to add on to it while retaining the original character is to add to the back and away from the intersection so that
the streetscape remains uh much more comparable to what it is now. Andrew Clark will address the amount of uh area that is affected by steep slope and the size of that variance. The last two are uh Jim just mentioned the retaining wall
height in the front yard on the drawings that you have. there's a very small area one foot deep um one foot if if the wall was moved one foot back we eliminate that variance and so I assume that that's the way that it's
going to be resolved >> that will comply and if the board were to approve the application for development the retaining walls that uh were within or over the 4T will be brought into compliance >> right um and the last one is we had a
variance for the width of the driveway originally at 18 ft. That was for the parking area out near the front door. That's been eliminated. The driveway is conforming. Uh the allowable in the front yard is 12 ft and this driveway
will be 11 ft. So that was also one of the ways we we reduce lot coverage. And these are all um they're all connected. But most of this so the uh the building height those two calculations that uh
you just mentioned are due to the slope of the property the accessory building in the front yard to some extent is also due >> if I can it's not in the front yard it's that the established a setback that's double I'm sorry the front yard
>> yes okay uh those are for the pool and the and the greenhouse those are there because it with the slope we didn't want to disturb more of the property and we wanted to um put them in a position that
makes sense for the uh for the renovations and so on on this property. So um and for the building coverage we wanted to m maintain the original building. If it was a new piece of prop if it was a new house on this piece of
property it would be configured a little differently. it might not have as big uh of a space on the first floor that that causes the building coverage. Anyway, I'll take any questions and then we can move on to uh to Jared Test.
>> Okay. Board experts, what questions do you have for this? >> So, has this been submitted to the board? Are these revisions since the last plan that the last meeting that we had? >> Yes, these were uh submitted to the board. Okay. Uh what you'll see is that
in terms of the plan submitted to the board, for example, the lot coverage in that initial came in at 30.8. Mr. uh Clark has looked at his plans again, studied them, and he's able to bring the number down to 30.4,
but that point4 difference is not going to be really recognizable. So the plans will be substantially the same as presented to the board just that there's been this constant refinement if you will. >> Okay. So nothing no numbers or anything
were changed on this. >> Uh not on the architectural drawings and Andrew Clark will address it but it it the that last reduction happened very recently. Um the main
reduction from 37.9 to 30.8 happened a while ago and is shown on the drawings, but since the submittal of those drawings, as Jim just said, we've reduced the lot coverage by an additional 0.4%.
And the building coverage was reduced by 0.5% when Andrew uh went through all of the calculations and made sure that everything was counted. But so just to be clear, so those latest those small point4.5% changes th those
are not on the plans we have the physical paper. >> Correct. >> Okay. So those do need to be reviewed at some point if we approve. >> But for the variance we would commit to those numbers. >> Okay. >> Mr. Novak, do you have questions for this? >> Just a few questions. Thank you very
much. And I apologize if these were asked at the last meeting. Um was there any discussion regarding the interior of the cabana? what's going to be inside that building. >> Um I don't recall whether there was much discussion about it, but it's two in two
parts. One is a cabana, which is simply uh sort of a small bathroom for changing or going to the bathroom. Uh and it's near the pool area. The second part of the building, which takes up about twothirds of the building, that little building is a greenhouse. And the
greenhouse is for the usual greenhouse kinds of things. and it's adjacent to gardens that are um that are on the property. >> Okay. So, I know it sounds like a silly question, but no cooking facilities in that cabana. >> Correct. >> Okay. The reason I ask you because the
city does not allow accessory buildings to be converted into a dwelling unit. So, we just wanted to cover that. Um this may be a question for another witness. Um but you had mentioned the size of the eaves that were increasing
lot coverage and building coverage. >> If those were brought into if those were reduced to 2 feet in length, >> would that bring lot coverage and building coverage into conformance? >> No. But Andrew Clark will address those
because we have all of those statistics, but I'll leave it for him uh tied in with some of the other changes that have happened. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, Mr. Barren in his April 22nd, 2026 memo had inquired regarding the
uh, city's development design guidelines contained in chapter 35 and whether or not the proposed building materials and colors address consistency. Were you able to review those standards? >> Um, the the building all of the materials are consistent with the original
building. Okay. >> Brick on the first floor. uh cedar shingle siding on the second floor and the little bits on the third floor. Um the the roof is a slate roof consistent
with what it was. Um the windows have been replaced. They are the same size and the same um pattern of the panes and so on as what already exists on the on the building. >> Okay, that's all I have for now. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. November. What questions
do you have for Mr. Ros, >> I just have one. The the roof overhang, the part that's going, you said 4 feet. Is that that's new roof? You said you were trying to match it to the original building. What was the what's the what's the overhang?
>> No, only the existing. >> The existing has that long extension. Okay. Yeah. In the central part of the um of the front and back that has it. Uh let me just go to So
>> it's not like you can reduce it because it's the it's the existing house that has the overhang. >> The existing house has an over has the foot >> the big overhang. >> Okay. So to match that you're saying is you >> we we decided not to match that. We have it sort of compatible but we don't have
we left it just in this in the main part of the building. So up across here, I don't know if you can see that, but at the the main eve has has the big overhang. Um, let me just
>> So it's not like you could reduce it. It's it's existing. >> Anything is possible, but it would be kind of taking a big chunk of the of the original house. >> That's I just wanted some clarification on that. Right. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. So in fact we are looking at five
variances only. >> Uh there are maximum building height, average building height, accessory building height and then the accessory building to the front yard. But that's sort of in two parts. Pool
and the greenhouse. Then we have maximum lot coverage, building coverage and steep slope. So I think that we're at seven. >> I counted eight. Okay. If the with the accessory on the two >> the two structures. Yes. And a couple
have been eliminated. >> Um I don't know if Jim I should present positive and negative criteria for the architectural portion now or should we wait on that? >> Let's uh let's get our witnesses through and at that point uh if the board has
any questions and they need some confirmation as to affirmative and negative criteria then perhaps a synopsis of that at the end. >> Mr. ever. That sounds excellent. >> So, now or or later? >> Later. >> All right. >> Okay.
All right. Any uh questions from the public for this witness? Seeing none. All right. Mr. Weber, who do you have next? >> Mr. Cast. >> Awesome. Thank you. >> I would ask that Jared Kesby call to the stand to be sworn in to give testimony
in this matter. Got it. Just a sec. This chair's a little loose now. No. Perhaps while we're waiting for the computer to tie in, you can uh go
through your qualifications. All right. If you could raise your right hand whenever you're ready. Do you swear from the testimony you're about to give in this matter is the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Please state your name. Spell your last name. >> Uh Jared Cast. K S. >> Thank you. And you've appeared before us
a number of times, including recently. Any changes to your credentials since the last time you were here? >> No. >> I imagine we'll accept you back once again. >> Absolutely. Welcome back, Mr. Kess. Please proceed. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, I get the fun part. Um,
>> now has this been presented previously to the board or through Jessica Sans to the board? This has not been presented. >> Okay. So, this is illustrative of the landscaping plans that have been presented to the board. Uh this is really an illustration and perceptive uh
approach for that. But this does require being introduced as an additional exhibit >> and we're up to 83 at this point. >> Thank you. >> Great. Um so, um like I said, I'm the landscape architect here. Uh it's been
my pleasure. Um it's pretty rare uh to meet a client um clients like Ravi and go to Datria in that their passion for landscaping uh use of native plants and all things environmental sense u sustainability
exceed even mine. So with that knowledge going into this project uh trying to design you know a full program for a full family right we're looking at multi- uh you know grandchildren children grandparents utilizing this
space you know for generations is the hope so how do we incorporate a full program that a whole entire family can use and enjoy but also be as environmentally sensitive as possible. So, uh, we did our best.
So, I'm about to show you how. So, here is the landscape master plan, and this is inclusive of all the improvements that Dave David Rosen just described. Uh, you'll see the existing residence as the main rectangle, and then the two uh additions off to the
north and to the west. Uh, starting at the top of the screen, we have a preserved and enhanced landscape. So we are preserving two large mature trees there. Uh like I said uh specifically go to Datria and we just had this conversation again in the hallway is
very concerned about keeping as much plant material on the property as possible and also utilizing native plants uh of all sizes and shapes and colors uh to replace the ones that we may be taking out. So you'll see along the
northern edge of the property, we are preserving enhancing that landscape. So keeping all the trees that we possibly can for a a strong canopy, but also coming in, cleaning out invasives, doing a lot of pruning. You know, there's a lot of overgrown material in that area.
And then bringing in, and we'll go through the pallet of plants, but a nice full pallet of native plants in that area. And then along the northern border and the west and east for that matter, we are coming in with a really full opaque uh landscape screen. So mature at
the time of planting. Uh almost all of that is native. The only non-native is the Norway spruce. Uh but the rest we'll go through in a minute, but they're all native as well. And then you'll see the pool located central uh adjacent to the
dining patio. And then kind of the star of the show and go to kind of baby here is the greenhouse and the gardens. And you'll see proportionally the greenhouse in the gardens is much larger than any single program element on the property. Uh and that's intentional obviously. I
think the intent is to grow vegetables and use those vegetables at the house but also to grow flowers, cutting gardens and so on. And it was important to go to to have all of the property accessible so that she can prune all
this material herself. Uh which it's quite the size property to do that but it's all yours. Um so so and then if we move to the south of the property um we are showing a U-shaped driveway. There's currently a
U-shaped driveway. This one is dramatically smaller uh than the existing. The existing driveway extends almost all the way to the neighbor to the east uh only maybe four or 5t from that neighbor and then all the way to
the west. Uh the current driveway opens where you see that little curb cut uh by the intersection. So this design is a much safer design but also provides a lot more privacy to the east there. And then to conclude in the front uh we have
the streetscape garden. So we're using lots of native plants if not all native plants. Uh but we also want to maintain consistency with the street. So there's a healthy balance between kind of a nice uh row of trees to frame the house and frame the drives. But once you get
inside the property, we have these native meadow landscapes. So this will have a more wild look to it uh within kind of tailored frames. And this will attract butterflies, hummingbirds, and and so on. So,
why are we here? Um Dave did a good job talking about the buildings. I'm not going to attempt to do that, but let's talk about the pool and the greenhouse and why we're asking for variance relief there. Uh, as Dave stated earlier, uh, the two times the 50- foot front yard
setback 100 ft is quite restrictive, you know, on a corner lot like this, especially one that has steep slopes. So, I've prepared this exhibit that kind of highlights, you know, the only area on the entire property where this pool and greenhouse could potentially go. Right? So, this is
at the bottom of the slope. Uh, this is about 25 feet lower than the finished floor elevation of the house. and really not big enough or the right shape to have a pool or a greenhouse. Right? It's also on the north side of the property,
which is probably the most undesirable part under a tree canopy. So, we're talking about a heavily shaded, weirdly shaped, undersized swimming pool uh in a greenhouse that would never get sunlight uh in that location. So, we just can't
do that. And that was also be right next to the downhill neighbor who had retained counsel and had been very interested in this application. >> Well, and that's really paramount here, right? So, the neighbors uh issue was,
you know, the sound of the pool and entertaining and the proximity. So, we've done everything possible to reduce the size of the pool and bring it closer to the house. Uh obviously if we located at the bottom of the property, we'd only be 15 ft from the house. Whereas now we
are from the property line, excuse me. Uh and now we are next exhibit. The pool is 48 ft. So going back one slide here. Uh
as you can see, a really undesirable. We're talking about 50 stairs from the first floor elevation down to what would be the only buildable envelope for a pool and a greenhouse at the bottom of property. Really not a option.
>> And pools are allowed to be 15 ft from a property line. Correct. >> In this zone. Yes. And you'll also see in this exhibit the 100 foot line from Fernwood. Right. That's also highly restrictive here as well. Is that the dash line that's
running from from north to the south? >> That's correct. Yep. >> Uh a second exhibit uh just showing you know how far from the property line on the north uh both the greenhouse and the pool are. We have the greenhouse at
71.34 ft uh from the north property line and the pool 48 ft both which could be as close as 15 ft. Uh we also are locating the pool mechanical equipment underneath the cabana portion of the greenhouse cabana structure. So there's
no visual or auditory impact of that equipment whatsoever. Um the other major benefit of this proposal is that instead of being 25 ft below the finished floor elevation requiring 50 steps, we're only 6.4 ft. Right? So, uh, people looking
after grandchildren and children, you know, it just becomes a much more manageable space. It's also located in the sun, which I wrote here equals fun and lower lower maintenance. Um, and then just kind of touching on the environmental aspects of
the project that Dave Rosen and his team worked on. You know, this this project is really a model example of, you know, really all the things that we have control over that we can do. There's solar, there's geothermal, there's native plants being used, the types of
insulation and natural materials, uh the HVAC system and so on are all designed for maximum efficiency. uh all kind of making a a bundle of really a very sustainable project and storm water which Andrew Clark's
going to get into in granular detail um is probably the biggest place where we're making an impact on this project. Uh as you are aware the previous proposal had about 3600 square ft over on lot coverage. We're currently only around 200 square feet over on lock
coverage, which is just an incredible reduction. But why that matters here is that we did not reduce our storm water management uh as a consequence of that. So, we were already capturing all the storm water landing on the property um
counting 3,600 over on coverage and we still are capturing that volume. Plus the addition of a sistern in the front yard uh and the native plants also having a higher absorption rate than non-native plants, you know, really
leads to a site that is probably not probably definitely um capturing all storm water where currently there's no storm water system on the property. Right? The house sits at the top of the hill and anything that hits this house runs down the hill. So this is a
dramatic improvement. So, moving on into the plantcape, uh, here, you know, obviously we're taking out, uh, a few trees. Uh, one of them is a large mature ginko. Um, and we also have a large beach tree in the
front yard. The beach tree has beach leaf disease, which, you know, there has been some success in treating those trees, but I would say some is less than 50%. Right? And from the looks of that tree in the front, um I would say you're probably leaning towards less than 50%
on that tree. Uh but the GKO uh is healthy. Uh but unfortunately there's just no design solution that would allow us to keep it. Uh so what we did and this is now I guess a year and a half ago uh we had an arborist come to the
property uh and we took cutings from the tree uh at the right time with their buds and he's been growing them in a greenhouse uh ever since. So we have 10 ginko trees from the one. Now obviously this is a 30 something inch ginko tree and these are sapling ginko trees but
it's important to the datrias that we are able to replant that genetic same tree back on the property. So whether I don't think we'll get 10, right? We we are growing 10, but maybe we'll yield three or four. Uh but the intent is that
there will be the same genetic uh GKO tree back on the property. Uh and this a simple diagram showing the two mature oaks uh and the understory that's going to be kept um on the north side of the property. We're going to remove the
invasives and dying material. Uh and then we're also removing a gravel driveway uh number three there on the north side uh and the garagecarriage house. So what is really characterized by kind of a undermaintained
uh invasive understory uh an old building and a gravel road becomes this really magical kind of planted meadow on the north side of the property. Uh and just a selection of the native plants. Here's the native trees. We have
elms, dogwood, and swamp white oak. Uh for screening, we have American holly, arborite, and Nelly Stevens holly. uh with native shrubs. We have the winter berry holly, sweet pepper bush, red oa dogwood,
common night bark, mountain laurel. And then as pollinators, we have butterfly weed, showy golden rod, and joe pie and cutleaf, cone flower, eastern blue star, and blazing star. And then we're also introducing in the front
specifically this kind of native grasscape you know so it will have like a meadow uh look to it little blue stems witch grass and Indian grass. So with that, you know, to conclude my my portion of the the testimony, you
know, I feel that we have done our best to make the most sustainable project possible, you know, by balancing, you know, what is the aesthetic of the neighborhood, but also how do we improve how this property functions from a how does it capture storm water and what are
the plant communities that you'll find on this property. Uh, with that, I'll take any questions. >> Thank you, Mr. Yes. Board experts, what questions do you have for this witness? >> Um, and I don't know if this is a question for you or not, but um the the very rear
of the property um there where there's steep slopes. It looks like there's going to be some grading of like lawn paths or something. Could you talk about how that's going to be on a on a steep slope? >> Yeah, it's basically not really grading.
uh it's just clear, right? So the intent is to not grave that area, right? It's to remove there's a lot of overgrown and kind of half dead roodendron in there. So it's really about removing those and then these are just the forms that these plant beds will take. So you're not
going to end up necessarily with a flat path, but it will be a clearer path, right? So it'll be a long path, but we're not intending to do any serious grading on that. >> Okay. Um but but you are going to clear it out since it's steep slopes and I
don't I I can't I I was trying to look at the uh steep slope disturbance plan and it didn't appear that that area in that back there where you have some of those paths was included as part of the steep slopes but I don't know if I should ask you that or if I should ask >> well you can that later.
>> Okay. So so that's what one thing I'm concerned about. If you're taking away some of the things that are holding that slope in place, can you talk about what you're going to be doing to make sure that the slope doesn't go anywhere? >> Yeah, absolutely. So, we're only taking out things that are dead or die, right?
So, the intent is to preserve the character, preserve the understory, um all healthy and living things, right? So, there really will not be destabilized earth. You know, obviously there'll be construction methods as far as like uh erosion mat and so on to
prevent that as it's being planted, but historically, you know, having worked in town for about 15 years, you know, landscaping, as long as we're not actually regrading it is not technically disturbing of the slope, right? As long as we're not changing the grade and the
drainage patterns on that slope. And maybe Andrew can add to that explanation. >> Okay. >> Um the other thing was that that 18 inch um white oak I think you said it was that's going to be preserved that's right up against the wall. Could you talk about how your your realistic
expectation of if that's going to be able to stay um and how the height of that is going to match up with the wall that's there plus the landscaping that's on top of that and will that canopy be tall enough to go over yeah the patio. >> Yeah, those are tall trees, right? Those
are at least 50 feet tall and we've done this quite a number of times. I mean, they have to be very careful. So, if you hire a licensed professional like a Bartlett tree service or similar, we did one a couple years ago on Hobart where we had a very large much larger than this beach tree and we had to retain.
So, we did root pruning well ahead of time and then we did deep root fertilization afterwards and monitoring. So, that would be the same approach here and that tree is doing well. So that house I think is there two to three years and I haven't noticed any issues
with it. So same approach would be here. >> Okay. And I think that's all I have. >> Thank you Marie. Mr. Novak. >> Thank you. I have no questions. >> All right. Thank you board. What questions do you have for this witness? >> Very quick question. You've mentioned um
the reduction in the width of the driveway and maybe Andrew will be talking about some of the civil engineering aspects of it, but since you did bring up the issue of materials, the elimination of the gravel driveway, could you just talk about what the materials of the new proposed driveways
are? >> Um, as of today, we're proposing an impervious surface, meaning asphalt. We may end up doing oil and chip, which is a gravel applied surface. Uh but there's no intention at this point uh to use
like perous paving and so on. Uh for a while there when we were much over on coverage that was one of our strategies however it doesn't even reduce the amount of coverage in summit. >> No it's not in the ordinance. The question Carl question is even though it's not in the ordinance it does have a
benefit >> whether it's recognized or not. >> Would you consider that at this point still or not? Well, I think and Andrew can definitely speak to this better than I, but because I think we're something like 12 times the amount of storage capacity that is actually required, you
know, that's far more than the permeable pavers would provide. Typically, it's around 12% uh reduction. Uh so I think we're we're way over what that would do. >> The intent of the question was to set an example. >> Yeah, for sure.
>> Yeah. Thank you. >> Any other questions? Seeing none, how about the interested public? Any questions for this witness? Seeing none. All right. Thank you, Mr. Cast. Mr. Weber, >> I would ask that Andrew Clark be called
to the stand to be sworn in to give testimony in this matter. >> Excellent. All right. Do you swear affirm the testimony you're about to give in this matter? Is the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Please state your name. Spell your last name. >> Andrew Clark. C L A R K E. >> Thank you. And you two have appeared
before us a number of times, including recently. Any changes to your credentials since the last time you were here? >> Freshly renewed license. >> Glad to hear it. I imagine we'll accept you back once again. >> Absolutely. Welcome back, Mr. Clark. >> Thank you. >> Before I get rolling here, I'm going to
hand out two things. Yeah, sure. >> So, what Dave's handing out is um two things. One is a drawing, full-size normal drawing that did not make it in the revised documentation, but it's the
updated steep slope plan just to reflect the slightly modified limits of disturbance versus the original submission. And then the second thing is a letter size sheet that is the updated site data.
>> All right, I think we're going to mark these exhibits. Yes, we'll mark the steep slope plan as A4 and then the letter size sheet with the update as A5. >> Okay. Thanks. Thank you.
So just to describe that as you take a look um the steep slopes plan is very much like uh the original submission that was made. Um there is a minor modification in the rear of the site as to where the limited disturbance is based on the revisions we made and
slight uh change in the configuration of the walls. So the disturbance area is now totaling 7,700 square f feet instead of 7,500 square f feet which was previously indicated. So that's the one the one document. Um the other uh letter
size sheet with the site data is updated. So this this project has been a little dynamic, let's say. It's it's it's uh had had a life of its own. We've done a number of revisions, gone
around and around, and in this final um uh prep for this meeting, I said, you know, I really need to just sit down and go through all my coverage numbers again and just make sure triple check again to make sure that what I've got here is is what we have, what we're presenting. So,
that's what this represents. In doing that, there was, you know, one transposed number and then a couple of things that um had changed and the I'll talk about the details of those, but
this is reflective of the what is currently on the plan. In other words, the site data chart that's on the plan on this revised plan doesn't accurately reflect all of the numbers the way this sheet now does. So this should be what we we are using as the the actual
numbers and the current >> and what you're referring to what's been marked as A5. >> A5 I believe that was yes A4 is the soil erosion and A5 is the site data. With that I will jump in here. Um
so first I'm just going to walk through the existing conditions. I'm going to use that steep slope plan that was just submitted as the basis for that um since it has the existing conditions on the left side. Uh I conducted the survey of
the property uh a number of years ago when we had brought a previous application in front of the board and then updated the application updated the survey work um as we approach this current application that we're putting
in. So the these conditions are current. Um the existing condition is uh depicted on the left side based on my survey and obviously I'm showing the steep slope area. What we have in the existing condition as has been indicated
previously is the dwellings located centrally. on this. You can see uh on the front there's a dash line and I have a label that shows this roof overhang that we've been discussing. And that also extends along the rear uh of the dwelling. So of
of the main body, not the onetory uh piece on either end. And so that roof overhang is existing um that's there and that's going to be continued with this project. The driveway, as was indicated, is a
loop drive, but again, it versus the proposed configuration. We're much farther to the east. We're almost over to the boundary on the right side, the east side, and then it comes along the front. It's a little bit wider along the front, and then it comes almost down
pretty just short of the intersection um in in really what's sort of an undesirable proximity to the intersection. There was and is a residual piece of driveway that came around to the back on the right side behind, but um wasn't
really there's no garage back there currently. The garage is the detached garage that's down below. And as was indicated, there's all these steps. So there were all these railroad tie steps that led all the way down to the garage down here. And then there's was a sort
of a stack stone wall in the back, a patio, and then the stack stone wall sort of managing a little bit of the grade. It really just created a very uh minor less slope area at the bottom of that wall. Um the overall topography is
such that from the front of the house, the grades very gently grade towards the street and then once you get to the house, everything else pitches to the rear to the north. um almost directly towards the neighboring lot five. Uh
once you pass that patio, this is where all this whole steep slope section is. It's sort of sweeping along the the the the back third of the property and then goes back to not steep slopes where the stone drive was accessing the carriage
house garage off of Fernwood. And you know, right on the edge there's a stone wall which we're going to re retain and um repair as needed. Those are the existing conditions. There's no formal storm water management that's existing. Um, so everything is
overland flow towards the back or a little bit towards the street. It's very flat in a driveway that's not very well drained either. It's actually so flat that I'm sure there's some ponding in the existing condition that occurs. And so that's the existing condition.
Now I'm going to turn to the proposed condition which I'm now going to refer to the lock grading plan that was submitted and last revised. It's dated uh February 13, 2025. Last revised April 7th, 2026.
So recently revised. Um as you may have seen on the previous application, uh we were of course uh much further over on law coverage. We've done a lot of work to uh refine this whole plan and bring it down to where it is now. Um the
result of that is you know the the main area of of savings was there was a a wider area which was a subject of one of the potential variances in front of the house where we were 18 ft wide. That's been eliminated. Um and the entire driveway except for uh outside the
garage area has been brought down to 11 ft wide. So, that's a totally functional driveway, but it's actually a little narrower than the existing. Uh, the existing had some more width along the front and even on the edges. We've also brought the driveway in um from this
east side quite a bit, so it's um got some space over there for the landscaping that Jarrett was referring to. And we also brought the other side farther from the intersection. And so it's a much more comfortable and safer um proximity to the intersection now
than what is existing. So we have this loop drive comes around to the back to the garage. You have the addition with the garage there. The addition on the left side we're uh proposing uh a more expansive porch in the front.
The roof overhangs are being maintained and are shown on there. The roof overhang in the in the rear is also being maintained and we're actually adding a matching roof overhang above the garage doors in the back. So that's contributing also to the building
coverage in that sense. Um we have the green patio outside in in this rear u outdoor space. We have the patio some few steps down. There's the greenhouse and the gardens just to the left of it. And then the pool is down
some more steps. So the pool, you know, we have the level where the patio is. It's down a couple of feet to where the greenhouse is. And then it's down a couple of more feet to where the pool is. So it's we have sort of like three levels, but they're not separated by a lot vertically, but it adds up. And so
that brings the pool level down. That was part of what we were doing was trying to manage some of the wall heights and the impact of the walls um for our own property and for the neighbors. the walled section that we were discussing
earlier about the variance being in the front yard. Um the 4 foot in the front yard is right in this area here the back left of the pool. It's 6 ft and comes down to four. So, it's like a 14 ft stretch there, but it's a foot closer to
the road than what the house is, which means it's technically in the front yard, even though it's behind the 50 ft required front yard. So, it's at, you know, 56 1/2 ft instead of 57 1/2 ft. So, we're going to just pull that wall
in to eliminate that. And then it won't be in the front yard, but it's still going to be at the highest point right there, 6 feet. The rest of these walls we made adjustments with this plan and the revision to keep those all four feet or less.
Um the the main feature in the engineering plan and the grading plan that that is attendant this whole project in order to support the steep slope disturbance that we're recognizing and um the the building
coverage excess and the lock coverage excess is we're doing an I'd say an over-the-top uh job definitely a an excellent job with storm water. As was indicated, we had we were much farther over on lock coverage. And so with this
revision, rather than tuning down the the storm water, I left the design the way it was so that we actually have a little over capacity. So it should just add some suspenders to the belt that we already have so that we got um a full
collection system here. And the way that works is there's a a roof ridge that runs right along the the the middle of the main body of the house. So that whole front section of the roof and then the loop driveway up to this point where
it bends to go around back. All of that's being captured with two inlets, one in one in the driveway and we've graded to those inlets and then the roof leaders in the front are all being managed with this double tank system in the front. That drywall number one, the
other feature that's in this front portion is the roof leaders themselves are going to be routed first through the sistern. The cy turn. The whole point of it is uh and I've run into this system a couple of times or similar system.
Basically, it takes roof water when it rains and then you use that for irrigation. Now, it's a there's some layers to how that works, but if you get to a rain condition where you exceed the capacity of that sistern, that's when
the roof water then moves from an overflow out of the sistern into the tanks. So in this case, it's sort of like another measure that's on top of the the tank system and we're going to reuse or utilize some of that rain water for irrigation. There's also like when
you don't have rain, um first of all, it's not a problem with storm water, but when you're using that for irrigation, there's a whole system of floats in there and you have to add water to it when you're actually doing the irrigation. So there's some some functionality to that, but essentially
it's just an extra measure of storm water management that we have in this front section. And then after that, it would go to the drywall. The driveway drains both go straight to the drywall. Then the second system is in the driveway itself in the back right here.
That would take there's a roof line that runs sort of down the middle of the proposed addition in the back that meets up with this line in the front. So, there's an L-shaped roof area in the back, plus the driveway that comes all through here. All that gets picked up by
the drain and the roof leaders and is being managed with this two tank system. Then we have another two tank system down in the low area down here that picks up the balance of the roof, which is an inverted L here. And then the
greenhouse, this roof, and then all of this patio area and heartscaping in here will get intercepted at the wall. And of course, the wall drains, all the drainage for the wall can tie into that, too. So, this is definitely um a robust
system that will handle all this. Technically, we're increasing the lock coverage. I think about 800 square ft from existing and we're about 200 square ft over what's permitted. We're collecting each system. I just left the
design the same so that there's uniformity in the design and the construction of those. So each one is designed to handle 4,800 square ft. So that's 13,000 square ft. It's almost every bit of our impervious coverage
that we're proposing. Um so it's yeah it's like 10 or 12 times what we would normally be required to do and will result in a site that's going to be uh very well managed for the the u the
tatrias and will have no negative impacts to the neighbors in in the back which is where the water would go. In addition to that, the portions of the steep slope area that we are disturbing uh is effectively eliminating those
portions of the steep slope. So again, I've testified this many times that my view is once you get in and start disturbing steep slopes. To me, at the end of it, if possible, you would have no remaining steep slopes if it's done well and you have a nice project that
results from it. Um the the the idea being that you take a steep slope and with that steepness and the runoff, that's where the threat of property damage and erosion and things of that nature come in. So if you take and level that off, it calms any storm water
runoff. So that in addition to actually capturing and managing all that runoff is going to create an excellent condition on this property in that regard. Um, I can walk through the the site data numbers real quick so we just all know
what those are. Um, one thing with the building coverage is that on my coverage calculations at the bottom, the top portion of that is all building coverage. In this case, it's made up of the house itself, roof overhangs, the
porch, and the greenhouse. that there was in the previous and uh submission and what you have uh on your plan from that revision there was a about 200 20 square ft of terrace that
was that was a legacy item that I had that I cleaned up because we used to have like one of the older versions coming out the back here we had a much bigger area than the little landing that's there that was you know a terrace that was raised more than a foot above
the ground. Um, so that's no longer in the picture. So all of the landings and steps are now included in the patio walks, walks and patios number which is towards the bottom. So it's no longer building coverage. The roof overhangs we
were talking about. There's the existing overhangs and the porch in this area in the front is 361 361 ft. it subsumes some of the roof overhang that's there. So there's, you
know, it's stacked up. So I didn't double count that, but the roof overhang is the 490 consists of the portion to the left of the porch, the right of the porch, the portion in the back, and then the new roof overhang over the garage.
The greenhouse is 273 ft. So if you look at those numbers in a in a breakdown sense, the house and greenhouse is like I think 20 square ft over what's permitted for building coverage. The rest of that is what makes up the
majority of the overage, which is the roof overhangs and the front porch. And I think Dave suggested it and it's I've seen it in other applications. The sort of mitigating aspect to that is that those elements first the their
attractive elements of the dwelling itself, but they don't carry the same massing um that that the actual house does. So that's an offset to sort of the the excess building coverage that we
have in this case. Then below that section is is the rest of everything else. So, you've got the walks and patios, which is 2265. The driveway is just over 4,100 square ft. The pool surface is now included,
uh, is included in summit in impervious coverage. That's always one of these debates that always goes on, but you know, when it rains, it doesn't run off from there, so why isn't impervious coverage? So, it's included. It's in there. Um, however, we want to end that debate. Um, the retaining walls, we
included obviously the emergency generator. the retaining walls in most applications wouldn't really be accounted for or included, but in this case, based on what we're doing here and the amount of coverage we have, I wanted to just make sure we have it all on the
table and we know what we have there. It's we're we're actually going to design the walls so that they taper towards the top down to a small reveal at the surface. So, you know, a 6 in profile. So it's actually they'll be very attractive in the field but also
not much impervious area that's exposed but we counted it nonetheless. So that's the breakdown and then above it is just the tabulation of how those numbers uh stand up. So I think that's the basic overview. I probably missed something uh but we can
do some questions and figure out the rest. >> Thank you Mr. Clark. Board experts. What questions do you have for this witness? Um, well, I think he's gone over it pretty well. I mean, you know, the um the I'm impressed with the uh dry wells
being oversized. I just want to make sure that when we do take tributary areas that go to them, we're not overloading any one of them. Absolutely. Just >> No. In fact, ultimately the way it works out and the way I did this, we have a little excess in each tank. So
ultimately it it means that we're probably handling more like 4 in than 3 in for the tributary areas for each of those systems. >> And we did do perk tests already. We already we already um there were soil tests done and um the soils are are
suitable. >> Okay. All right. >> Great. >> Mr. Novak, anything? >> Just one question. Thank you very much for your testimony. Um, are there any retaining walls slash fence combinations that exceed 10 ft in height? >> Yeah, so there was a little bit of
commentary in that. Um, there's I I think it's possible that there is in one area past the end of the driveway. And it's only if you go from the bottom of the lower wall, count that wall, and then
we're coming 6 ft back. And then we have another wall. Now, the walls themselves are only four feet, but if you for count the four and the four plus the grade change between them, I think we're at 10
ft from the bottom of this wall to the top of that wall, maybe 11 ft. Um, so I guess it becomes a question of where where do where do you make it a separate wall? Um, >> it's a great question.
It's another one of those debates that I've been involved in. I mean, some people say the height of the wall once you go, so if it's a 4ft wall, you've gone four feet, then it's a separate wall. Some say one and a half times. I went with one and a half times on the spacing just to try to keep them as as
independent walls. >> But whether that triggers the need for variance or not, that's that's I I'm not sure what the answer to that would be. >> Okay. I would have to take a look to see if there's any regulations regarding that because I've seen the same issue as well in terms of
specificity or lack thereof regarding wall spacing. So, but thank you. I'll take a look see if I can find anything. >> Okay. Thanks. >> And if I can, Mr. Chairman, uh Mr. Clark, doesn't the uniform construction code also uh have something to say with regard to providing safety with regard
to walls and wall heights? >> Yeah. So, in terms of the wall height and whether or not you need fall protection, u if you're over 4T, then it becomes a question of whether there's pedestrian movement through
there. So, for example, we're going to want a a a railing or a low fence of some kind in this area from the pool over to these steps just because you do have pedestrian movement in there. in these areas in here, you're going to have a lot of landscaping. So, you know,
it's not really an area where you're moving freely through it. Um, to the extent that we need to have some fencing, we will. Um, but it's going to be fairly limited in this case based on the design and this and the conditions on site.
>> Thank you. Uh, board, what questions do you have for Mr. Clark? >> Just one. >> Go ahead, Don. Um, so if I'm standing in the driveway in front of the garages and I turn around and look to my north, how high is the wall in there?
>> So if you turn and look this way. >> Mhm. >> So it's going down. >> So it's going down. >> Yeah, it's going down on that side. >> So So the garage the driveway is gray and then it goes down from there. Those retainers correct then go down. >> That's right. >> So where is the generator?
>> The generator is is is labeled and it's shown, right? But that is that >> right in that space. So it's going to be >> grade level with the with the driveway. >> Yes. Yes. Exactly. >> And it'll be, you know, landscape. They want it themselves. >> How big that is? >> What's that? >> Any clue how big that is?
>> Uh I actually don't know what the specs of it are. I think I have it on there pretty pretty accurately. I think it I think I have it at 4x8. Um you know, I I I don't recall if it's intended to be a whole house generator. Those are typically bigger. Yeah, that's pretty
that's that's where I was going. It's a whole house generator. It's pretty big because there's electric possibly for natural gas. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yep. Thanks, Tom. >> Yes, Mr. B. >> Quick question on materials. Um, thank you for providing the coverage
calculations and it's pretty obvious that a lot of the capability of adding so much to the size of the dwelling comes from reducing the stone driveway from over 3,000 ft to zero. My question is uh what happens to the stone? Is there any chance that it could be reused
on site? >> Um what is the stone? >> The stone at I understand right. What type of stone is it and can it be used on site? >> My recollection of that driveway is that in some areas
>> might be generous to call it stone. Um it's it's aged. Um, so there's probably some dirt and grass that has made its appearance in there, too. >> Whether or not any of that can be used and screened and and you know, put to some other purpose, I don't I don't
know. I'm not sure, >> but it's a good question. >> That's why I asked it. That's a good question. If there is any way of not putting into landfill, it would be great. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. Any other questions? >> Seeing none questions from the audience
for this witness. >> Sorry, Mr. Chair. I just have two questions in terms of conditions. We talked about >> storm water. Are we going to retain jurisdiction and then do we have to do subject to final plans being submitted and reviewed and approved? >> Yes. >> Okay.
>> Actually, I do have one more. I'm not sure I followed it, but that issue you were raising about the the spacing of the walls, you able to research that, see if there is a variance yet for that? >> I did and there's no specificity. Um, this is in section
35-9.8B3. The last sentence of that regulation reads, "The two lowest exterior walls of any accessory building or structure shall not exceed a vertical dimension of 10 ft." So, there is no
specificity about whether or not a retaining wall that steps back would be considered one structure or two separate structures. Um I'm not too sure how the board has typically interpreted that in the past. Does take a very strict interpretation of that. I would look at it as a singular structure being 10 ft,
not necessarily looking at walls being stepped back. So I I was also taking a look at I see in 3514.1 um it's like subsection there's a a prior subsection but section
five referring to the combination of fence and retaining walls shall not exceed 10 ft. uh and fences and retaining walls are sep or fences and walls are separately defined explicitly to refer to those structures. It doesn't refer to others in the nearby location
or give us any sort of specificity. So I I did want to clarify what are we talking about in that that corner where they're relatively close by. I I don't think there's any >> it's a short run right in this corner here if you were to go worst case scenario. So I'd say
>> you say in this corner here you're talking about >> I'm sorry the the northeast corner just behind the just north of the driveway >> and so what what are the structures that I understand wall and a 4ft wall >> and any fence on top >> um I mean we we hadn't planned on a
fence in that location right now >> but then it's the grade change in between those two 4ft walls that could push it over to >> That's right. I I would not think our code contemplates that they they're two distinct walls at that point. And I >> I've seen this in other jurisdictions,
but it's very specifically addressed in those jurisdictions. So they they must have come up at some point and they say whenever you have walls, you know, in series, they're treated as the same if, you know, and then there's conditions. I >> I would tend to agree. I think this
regulation is really aimed at um >> a singular structure. >> Yeah. A singular structure and discouraging what I would almost call like a castle-like wall that you would see, >> right? >> Um I think this is designed to encourage stepping retaining walls back like that.
So you don't get that large scale visual element in your face. Well, if the board feels the need, we can certainly discuss in detail during executive session and see if there's any kind of appetite to go into this further, but
>> no. All right. Um, no questions from the audience. All right. Thank you, Mr. Clark. >> Thank you. >> Uh, I have nothing further, Mr. Chairman. Uh unless uh the board's planner wants to hear a brief uh synopsis by Mr. Rosen as to the
affirmative and negative criteria. I >> think he's good. >> Good. All right. I will submit the application to the approval of the board. >> Great. Thank you, Mr. Weber. Mr. Paul, conditions and number of votes required.
>> Sure. So, I have the three potential conditions noted here. First is compliance with the conditions noted in the board engineers memorandum. Uh second is that the applicant shall revise their plan so that the retaining walls which are over 4 feet shall be brought into compliance.
And then a third I know Mr. Fes just raised possibility of retaining storm water jurisdiction. I think it's a robust proposal that they're saying, but if we want to keep it just in case, I imagine Mr. Weber will have no objection to that here. >> No objection. So we will retain storm
water jurisdiction for a period of two years after the completion of construction. >> And I apologize I skipped a step. Uh is there anyone in the audience who would like to um give commentary about this application? >> Seeing none. >> All right. And then just finally, we're
dealing with only C variances in this case. So four votes are required to approve. >> Okay. With that, let's get executive session started. Who would like to begin? I'll kick it off. >> Thank you, Jay. >> So, when this application first came in,
I had my reservations. You know, I understand this house. I've seen it. I drive by it all the time. I think what the applicant and their team has done about revisiting, revising, understanding what the board's questions and concerns were based on the original
application. They've gone out of their way to make this application better as presented. And assuming these numbers are all accurate subject to our, you know, experts confirmations, they're keeping the existing structure. They're revitalizing it, reinforming it, and then utilizing the land, which in my
mind is a hard shape based on a hardship based on the actual gradient change because I know this slope very well. I think what they're proposing here is very, very appropriate, proper, fits the community, fits the neighborhood, and will be generationally well supported
here. Tom, >> for the exact same reason. I was going to open the exact same way. I came into this initially when we first heard this very reluctant based on the based on the large increase in lot coverage. Happy to see it come down so far. Just comment about some of the other variants. Height variance as has been noted. It's not
being driven by an actual increasing the structure. It's because the grade around the house is changing. Uh again, the accessory building height. Sometimes you say, you know, why do you need a variance for the accessory building height? Can't you make it compliant? Well, the architect made a good argument. It's to match the design is
for better aesthetics. So, I I I can I can agree with that as well. Um, it's a very attractive and thoughtful landscaping plan, Mr. Kest, as always is a very attractive plan. Um, and uh I it's very in keeping with the neighborhood, so I could support it as well.
>> Who else? Mr. No, >> I would simply add that the environmental features that were described by all three of the experts presenting on behalf of their client are extraordinary and commendable. >> Right. I I would tend to agree with my
colleagues. They they said it very well. I I always appreciate when a team hears feedback, whether it's from this board or from the neighbors, and they respond accordingly. And um you know I appreciate all the hard work that's gone
into not only the architectural design but the landscape design as well. And so with that I can certainly support this application. >> All right. Can I get a motion to approve? >> So moved. >> Have a second. >> Second. >> Second.
>> You go. >> Mr. Yuko. >> Yes. >> Mr. Mole. >> Yes. >> Mr. Nelson. Yes, >> Miss Chief. >> Yes, >> Mr. Feskins. >> Yes, >> Mr. Chantuli. >> Yes, >> Chairman Lett. >> Yes,
>> good luck, >> Mr. Chairman. >> Yes. >> I just got five minutes. My wife's been calling me, so I won't have an emergency. >> Sure. We're going to take a quick 5m minute break. All right, let's continue.
>> 35 Bedau Avenue. >> Good evening, uh, Stephen Joseph for the applicant. 35 Bedau. Uh, this is a notice application. Um, if we could enter that into evidence, please. >> I don't know that we need to mark it, but we've reviewed the notice and it's
acceptable. >> Thank you. So, this is located on the corner of Bedo AB and Belleview AB in the bar 25 zone. It's an undersized lot. Uh, and there's some existing non-conforming conditions associated with with the size of the lot and the
location of the lot, the the home on the lot. The applicant's proposing a 280 ft second floor addition and a new deck with uh aesthetic improve improvements to the outside of the property. In order to accomplish this, the applicant's requesting a D variance for expanding um
the already non-conforming F on the property and several C variances for lot coverage uh building coverage and setback. We have uh several witnesses this evening. The uh first witness we're going to bring up is Peter, our uh our
engineer, to just describe the site for you. Let's get him sworn in and qualify. >> All right, great. >> All right, if you could raise your right hand. Do you swear from the testimony you're about to give in this matters, the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> And please state your name. Spell your last name.
>> Uh Peter Mskov. M I S K O V is a victor. >> Thank you. you and can you briefly describe your background and experience for the board? >> Um, sure. I'm a civil engineer working with Casey and Keller uh out of Milbury, New Jersey. Been practicing site engineering with them for over the past
13 years. Um, I have a civil engineering degree from Ruckers. Um, and I have a professional engineering license in the state of New Jersey. That's current. Um, >> you've been qualified by other boards in the past. Yes. >> And your license is currently the same. >> It is. >> I would ask the board acceptations.
>> Any questions? Any questions from the board or would you like to accept his credentials? >> We would. Welcome. Please proceed. Thank you. >> Uh Peter, if you could just briefly describe the the site. >> Sure. >> So, obviously we've been hired as the
engineers on this site. Um you know, I'm familiar with all the submitted um documents, and um and have visited the site um several times. Um, so the project site
is located at 35 Boo Avenue and is designated as tax lot 2006 on from the city of Summit Tax Maps. The 12,324 square foot property is a corner lot um
located at the intersection of yeah just so they get an idea of the down here and Belleview Avenue. Um the the parcel situated in R25 residential zone with properties to the north, west,
and south being in the same zone and properties to the east being located in the R10 zone. Um the project site is currently improved with a 2 and a half story single family home, asphalt driveway, paper walks and patio, uh and
other associated site improvements. Uh, no changes have been made to the improvement since the date of the survey of July 17, 2025. The property's topography currently slopes from from this corner, the north,
the northeastern corner of an elevation of 364 and to the southeast down to the northwest to an elevation of roughly 351. Um that's just a rough explanation of our site there. Um the applicant
proposes to construct the second Beautiful. Okay. The applicants proposing to construct the second floor addition um of 280 square ft along with the removal
of a paper patio located here with some concrete steps and to construct a proposed deck uh in its place. The proposed second floor addition is located over existing building uh coverage area. Um there are several
existing non-conforming conditions which the planner will go through. Um but we are um not exacerbating um the front the front setback. We are um increasing the building coverage only because the proposed deck
is being considered building coverage. Uh but the building footprint itself is remaining the same. Um and we are slightly reducing um lot coverage across the site. Um due to removing of the paper patio and associated steps,
driveway remains the same. Um the front the front entrance remains the same. Access to it. Um, from an engineering standpoint, um, the proposed improvements will not alter existing, uh, grading or drainage
patterns that will not adversely impact adjacent properties. There's no changes to um utility connections. The the dwelling will utilize all existing connections in BU or Belleview Avenue. >> No, it so this is a not an engineering
heavy project. Any questions of the engineer? >> Mr. Joseph, can you speak into the mic, please? >> I apologize. Uh, this is not an engineering heavy project. Um, if there's any questions for the engineer, he's happy. >> Okay, great. Board experts, what questions do you have for the project?
>> So, um, so they're reducing the amount of um, impervious coverage on the lot. So, there's no um there's no storm water mitigation that's required. Um, they're not changing the drainage patterns. you have your uh downspouts going to the
same place they were before. >> Uh most likely we we will definitely add those to the plan and confirm that. >> Okay. Um there's a few housekeeping things that um that I I discussed with um the office about about cleaning up on
the plans, but I don't see any problems with it. So that's great. >> And we're willing to >> Thank you, Marie. >> All right, Mr. Novak. Anything? >> Uh just one question. Just wanted to confirm no tree removal on site. Um, no larger tree removal. There might be some smaller trees and shrubs that that get
affected during construction construction, but they are going to try to save the large 40 in 8 in tree. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Great. What questions do you have for this witness? >> I just just wanted that last tree you mentioned. Is that the yellow popppler
that the uh forester mentioned? >> Yes. Okay. >> Yes. >> Thank you, Tom. Um, interested public. What questions do you have for this witness? Seeing none. All right. Great. Thank you. >> All right. Great. Let's bring up our
architect. Um the first thing you'll notice about this witness is this is not David Washington. So, uh David Washington prepared the plans for this project and he was lucky enough to be able to retire. Not something that we're allowed to do in this business. Um and he's down in Florida. So, uh Highland
here has been retained. He took the same plans that were submitted here. He just put them on his letter head after reviewing them so he could sign off on them and he confirmed all the measurements. But we'll we'll get him uh sworn in. >> They brought me out of retirement as well. >> If you could raise your right hand.
>> Do you swear affirm the testimony you're about to give in this matter? The truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. >> Yes, I do. >> And please state your name. Spell your last name. >> Highland Hall Turner. T U R N. >> Thank you. you and can you briefly describe your background and experience for the board? >> Yes, I'm a graduate of Cornell
University. Uh first point of registration was New York City. I'm not going to tell you when. Uh re incorporated uh uh my office in New Jersey in 1991 and secured lensure in 1991 >> and license is still in good standing. I
imagine >> it's in great standing. >> Any questions from the board or would you like to accept it credential? I've appeared in more than 30 or 40 uh zoning and planning board meetings throughout the state. >> Perfect. >> Amongst other states. >> Yes. Welcome. Thank you so much. Please
proceed. >> Oh, all right. Well, uh chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the board, uh as was discussed, I'm uh I'm filling in for someone that is uh slightly detained. Uh
I've reviewed the documents. Uh it's not something we normally do, but I am more than willing to after reviewing the drawings to uh accept the responsibility of the information that is in both the zoning and uh requirement. We also did a
three-dimensional rendering uh as opposed to uh to showing you what that I took the photograph and then superimposed the design over an existing photograph uh from the intersection down at the corner between
Belleview Avenue. And I did this probably around three weeks ago. >> Okay. Do you have a date for that island? >> A date >> approximately >> uh three weeks ago. >> Three weeks ago. making me do that. >> We we that we have to enter as an exhibit that was not submitted prior to >> that'll be A1.
>> A1. Thank you. >> Now, the the long and short of this is the the client has lived in this house since uh uh >> 2017. >> I was going to say that 2017 the the residence the main residence was
originally built in 1917 and a very very small footprint to say the very least. It's a center hall colonial, but sort of looks like something a little more European in style. Um
the on the on the on the side facing at you was an original uh uh enclosed porch. Um which uh we had elected to uh increase the size of the master bedroom
and provide uh Jay and his wife uh a a bathroom, a sun room, and an extended closet. The original closets were miniature and for a master bedroom it only had a 5 by8 bathroom. So a little bit behind the times but not uncommon
for a home that was built in 1917 or designed in 1917. I thought the design was sympathetic and empathetic uh to the existing building uh given its age. Um uh the reason for
that what we was in my view what was attempted to do was maintain the existing block building to emphasize the fact that uh I'm not we're not trying to incorporate the thing as a replica but showing that this is actually in
addition to an earlier form building but very sympathetic both in scale, color, texture and roofing materials. Um the extent of the square footage allocation
for that u uh second floor is 280 ft and that's could be for the most part why we're here. Essentially the a building originally um was a little bit over pre-existing
uh the F um um so we were we were we were approximately 17% the uh the required is about 14%. So that's where we started by adding on the
820. We're now at 21 or about 3% more for that second floor. Obviously, what is uh we're occurring, let's take a
look at this, is the the front side of the property uh cuts through the left side of that and sort of shears the building a little bit on the left quadrant. I can't point to it, so forgive me. Uh but that's what sort of
created the uh throws us into the nonconformity uh lot coverage. um requires earn specifically because uh the existing was 37.15 however we tried to reduce that and
we're going to 36 81%. Uh the F as I was saying started at about 28. So we're adding about another 3% just with that uh 280 ft uh for the
extension of the master bathroom. Uh the only other thing was of course I'll talk about the deck. Um previously to this deck being proposed there are two staircases. You couldn't get out of one part of the
house. She had to take literally two stairs down to this terrace that's below there, one from the left side of the house. And it became was sort of very difficult to sort of manage those steps coming up and down in and out. So we attempt was to try to simplify that,
create an outside deck more uh connected to the main floor and sort of use that as the essentially the the raised porch for the entire first floor and the building itself. Um
the uh there was also um a height variance required um >> not there's existing non-conforming condition. Yeah, definitely recommend that.
>> So, that is the entirety of this edition and uh I think it's improvement certainly to what was there and also improves the lifestyle of donors >> board experts. What questions do you have for this webinar?
>> I don't have any for Mr. Novak, what do you have? >> Thank you very much. Just two quick questions. Um, as a result of this addition, is there going to be a change in the number of bedrooms? >> No. >> Okay. So, the number of bedrooms remain the same. And the facade and the roof
materials of the addition, will they match the existing building? >> Yes, they will. Of course. >> That's all I have. Thank you. >> What questions do you have for this witness? >> Mr. Attorney, did you make any changes to the design or you felt that it was as design was adequate for you?
>> I thought I thought it was very well handled honestly. Um, again, it's not something we normally do and if I objected to it, I probably wouldn't have uh taken this assignment. >> Okay. >> Or had or redesigned it one of the 10. >> Great. Thank you. Uh, does the
public have any questions for this witness? Seeing none. All right. Great. Thank you. Next witness. Thank you, Mr. Turn. >> Thank you very much. We're gonna bring Nick up, get him sworn in for uh some brief planning testimony.
>> Is there Do you swear from the testimony you're about to give in this matters, the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> And please state your name. Spell your last name. >> Yes. My first name is Nicholas with an H. Last name Graviano. G R A V is in Victor. I A N O. I am a planner of partner with Graviano and Gillis
Architects and Planners at a business address at 101 Crawford's Corner Road in Homeell, New Jersey. >> All right. Can you just tell us uh briefly about your background and experience? >> Yes, I have a bachelor's degree from Ruckers University, a master's degree in city and regional planning from Ruckers
University, a law degree from the Temple University School of Law, where I received a distinguished class performance in state and local government law. I'm a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey. My license is valid. I also hold an AICP certification. I've testified in
over a 100 boards in 20 different counties, including all of uh Union County except for Winfield. >> All right. I imagine the board would like to accept your credentials. >> Absolutely. >> Not much going on in Winfield. >> We're not going to hold that against
you. I promise. >> Great. >> Thank you for pleasure being here. >> Thank you. Okay. So, uh, as you heard through the two two professionals before me, this is a relatively simple application. It stems from the 280 square ft second
floor edition to accommodate a a newly designed master bathroom, master suite that's befitting of the living conditions of today's homeowner. Uh, this is a specific piece of property known as block 2006 lot 1. Uh the
applicant is requesting a D4 F variance from the board as well as three C variances uh for front yard setback, maximum lock coverage and maximum building coverage. First I'll touch on the F variants uh where in particular cases and for
special reasons uh the board can grant the D4 F variants. um as all the time away from your family and friends has taught you that the D4 variance is more akin to the D3 conditional use variance in that the um the focus is on whether
or not the site can still accommodate the proposal uh and any problems associated with the increased uh F. Um, as the board knows, a relief uh cannot be granted without showing that there's no substantial detriment uh to the public good and will not substantially
impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan or zoning ordinance. I think in this case it's clear that the site can accommodate the proposed addition to the second floor. Uh the applicant is actually reducing impervious coverage with this proposal. Um so the relief for
the very modest increase 280 square feet uh of the F can be granted uh without substantial detriment to the zone planner zoning ordinance. Uh additionally this proposal in terms of the F does advance purposes of zoning of the municipal land use law uh
specifically purpose A uh to guide the appropriate use of lands in a manner which will promote the public health, safety, morals and general welfare. Additionally, through the impeccably designed building and careful consideration to the site, it certainly promotes purpose eye, a desirable visual
environment through creative development techniques and good civic design and arrangement. Um, the applicant is requesting a uh 30.68% F, an increase from the 28.40
which exists on the site today. Uh, the applicant is also requesting front yard setback relief. uh whereas 35 ft is required. Uh the present dwelling, the first floor has a non-conforming front yard setback. Um so the applicant
is looking to meet that non-conforming setback with for the second floor addition because that makes rational sense from a design standpoint to meet the footprint of that first floor uh space that exists today. Uh additionally the applicant is looking for a lot
coverage variance uh whereas sub 37.15% exists today 36.71% is proposed with the application. Uh lastly the applicant is requesting a building coverage variance whereas 14%
is permitted uh 17.36% is existing and 21.83% 83% uh is proposed. Uh the real increase in building coverage stems from the fact that the applicants going from a patio to a deck here. Uh so that's how you get
that bump up uh in the in the building coverage. It's not it's not an increase in pvious coverage because that patio exists today, but it is increase with the building coverage. Um all three of those variances can be granted under the
C2 criteria where as it relates to a specific piece of property. Here you have a corner lot uh on an undersized lot in the R25 zone. Um the applicant must also demonstrate that advances purposes of zoning of municipal land use
law. Uh with respect to the C variances, it also advances purposes of A and I for the municipal land use law. the C variances can be granted without substantial impairment to the zone plan or zoning ordinance. I also had a chance to take a look at
the master plan and master plan re-examination. Uh certainly no conditions of this application violate any of the goals and objectives of the master plan. And specifically uh this proposal does advance a a purpose of the 2000 master plan to promote a desirable visual
environment through creative development techniques and flexible de development techniques. I think in a situation where you do have an homeowner coming in and reducing impervious coverage, um it's certainly a flexible development technique to advanced purposes of zoning
of the municipal land use law and specifically with respect to the C2 variance. Um it does demonstrate that there are benefits to the uh outside community other than the applicant itself. >> Great. Thank you so much. Board experts, what questions do you have for this witness?
>> No questions. >> Mr. Novak, >> uh, I don't have any questions. The admin covered uh, all the statutory criteria for the F barren. >> Perfect. Thank you so much, >> Board. Any questions for this, please? Seeing none. How about the public?
Anyone questions? No. All right. Great. Thank you. >> That concludes our direct testimony. I think I'm actually slightly under time here. >> All right. >> I'm impressed. Excellent. Thank you so much. Um, is there any comments
from the public? Seeing none. All right, Mr. Ball, what do we need to approve and what are the conditions? >> So, I only have our one usual condition noted compliance with the conditions noted in the board engineers memorandum and uh we do have a devariance associated with the F. So, five votes
are required to approve the application. >> All right. Great. Thank you, Andy. Who would like to begin our executive session? I >> I'll start at this one. First, I want to compliment the planner. I wish all witnesses had your voice project. Well, >> could hear you. No problem. That was very good. Um
>> I'll put that on my website. >> Add it to your resume. Whatever. Yeah, >> I feel a little jealous now. >> You You're good, too. You're good, too. Anyway, uh so this lot, as I think has been clear, has kind of a double whammy. sit oversized and a corner lot which creates you know problems for for doing
almost anything. Um so I mean the F is always the major concern if there is an F variance needed and I think the testimony has been given and I accept it that we can grant that without a substantial definite to public good and without substantially impairing the
intented purpose of the master plan and zoning or ordinance. I don't say any it's not going to stick out with in the neighborhood. it's in keeping with what what's going on in the neighborhood. Um, as has been noted, no storm water management is needed. And uh, I like I like that we get our engine our city
engineers giving comments about kind history of the neighborhood now. So, there's apparently no history of of drainage problems in the neighborhood. Um, it's an attractive addition and makes the house more useful. Uh, so I I can support it. >> Great.
>> You're good. >> Agree. I agree. All right, great. Um, setting all sorts of speed records here. Um, Tom said it perfectly. I I think uh
summarizing your testimony uh I I agree. I think with the undersized lot and then you choosing to build something that's appropriate to the scale, not only the house but the neighborhood, I think it's a very modest addition. Right. And
you're essentially keeping an existing for uh footprint and um putting an addition on. Uh and the fact that this was designed by Mr. Washington and then endorsed by Mr. Turner uh gives me great confidence. Uh so with that, I can
certainly support this application. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. Great. >> Miss Sans, can you call the role please? >> Mr. Yuko. >> Yes. >> Mr. Mr. Malay. >> Yes. >> Mr. Nelson. >> Yes. >> Miss Chief. >> Yes. >> Mr. Fescin.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Chantuli. >> Yes. >> Chairman Lett. >> Yes. >> Good luck. >> Thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> Is that the fastest appearance we've ever had? >> I was like, >> do not jinx us, Mr. Fesin.
>> Skip records. I don't know. >> The gauntlet has been laid for who harvests the next half. Uh, no. >> What's next? Could I take the exhibit up here, please? >> Dale Drive. >> 36 Dale Drive, please. >> That um
the presentation board that was the rendering >> for Bedau. >> Yeah, we need to keep that. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Can we get the other one? >> Thank you. All right. Good evening, uh, Mr. Chairman and
members of the board. Uh, my name is Steven Aelini. I'm an attorney in Floren Park, New Jersey. and I'm uh representing 21 Sterling LLC tonight. This is actually my first time appearing before the Summit board. I've appeared in a lot of the towns in uh Morris and
Union County. So, uh I look forward to tonight's evening. And my daughter just moved to Summit, so this may not be the last time I appear before this board. Uh knowing my daughter, I'll be here on something on her home. >> Well, if you're trying to curry favor, it's working.
Please proceed. >> Uh, this application tonight, uh, involves the removal of an existing dwelling, um, an existing split level house at 36 Dale Drive and the construction of a new single family home, two stories that is consistent, we
believe, with the scale, design, and character of the neighborhood. Uh this is a fully developed residential area and our proposal tonight represents a reinvestment in the property that will enhance both the uh site and and the streetscape in my opinion. Uh
importantly, this uh proposed home is well within all the bulk standards for lot coverage, building coverage, floor area ratio, and the setbacks. Uh and this underscores the fact that this is not an overdevelopment of the property. We're not looking for an overdevelopment, but rather a compliant
and appropriately scaled uh improvement. Now, by way of relief, the applicant is seeking two variances. First, uh for steep slope disturbance and second, for a front-facing garage uh with respect to the garage, you will see that this is a
corner lot and the existing home already has the garage oriented toward West Lane. Uh the proposed design continues that orientation in a manner that is uh consistent with the uh conditions of the property. Um and the home will now
actually you'll see front more on on Dale Drive as opposed to being kind of caddyy cornered at the intersection. Uh a key objective of our design was to create a more functional and usable rear yard uh which is uh currently constrained by the existing layout and
the site conditions. Uh in doing so, the applicant has addressed the steep slope conditions on the property and while variance relief is required uh the disturbances have been minimized uh as as much as possible uh in balancing the constraints of the lot with the need for
a functional uh residential layout. This is uh a home that will be for a family. So a workable and usable rear yard is important. Um, also you'll notice that we did submit a revised uh plan to eliminate one of the variances was which
was the roof pitch. Uh, that variance is no longer required. And you should have the revised plans. They were revised to March 23rd, 2026 to eliminate that roof pitch. Uh, and that was submitted more than 10 days before 19. Um, so I know
the board wants to move things along. Uh so tonight uh the testimony I will present first is Andrew Clark, the site engineer. Uh and then uh we'll follow with the architect, Roger Winkl. Uh a lot of this application deals with the site layout. So really Andrew's
testimony is is most uh important. And we do have our landscape architect here tonight, uh Joe Politic. U if there's any questions regarding landscaping, he's available to testify tonight. >> Great. All right. >> Welcome back, Mr. Clark.
And we'll swear you in for this one as well. If you could raise your right hand. Do you swear from the testimony you're about to give in this matter? Is the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> And I'll just note for the record that Mr. Clark was uh his credentials were accepted at the prior hearing and you are good to go.
>> Has anything changed in the last 30 minutes, Mr. Burke? To your credentials? >> I won't go that far since the last time I testified. >> Excellent. Thank you and welcome back. >> All right. All right, Mr. Clark. So, you have been qualified as a professional civil engineer. So, why don't you take
us through the existing site conditions and um with the description of the property, the location of the property, the orientation of the property, and then what we're proposing to do. Certainly, um I'm going to make reference to the lock grading plan that
I prepared dated January 16th, 2026. Um, this is unmarked from what was submitted. So, it's as submitted. Uh, I'll first walk through the existing conditions briefly and just outline what's there. Now, um, this site is
located on the corner of Dale and West Lane. Um, it's in the R15 zone. It's a corner lot, obviously, as was mentioned. Um, the existing house is a little uh slightly unusual orientation versus most
of the houses I've seen at Summit. I've seen something like this occasionally in Floren Park. You get these developments where they put the corner lot on the on the angle, but um it's unusual in Summit. So, that's how the house is oriented. Um, it's a BLE house. Walk up
to the front door and you're sort of in between the two floors. The driveway comes off of West Lane and so the garage isn't directly facing West Lane, but it's mostly facing West Lane. Now, there are some steep slopes on the property.
Obviously, that's the main um focus of of this application and the variance aside from the garage. There's a stretch of it in the front and a little patch right in front of the house and then the backyard slopes up. Um so from us it
slopes up pretty significantly to lot one which is up up above us there. Um so we have the steep slopes to contend with and and the result of all this on the existing condition is you have this angled house and then the backyard. There really isn't much of a backyard.
Um the there's there's a it's a little hard to read on the survey the way it is. It's It's very clear when you go there, but there's a walk that comes from the driveway to a PA patio that's got a wall surrounding it. So, the walls up and the patio's down, and then above
it is the deck. So, it's one of these patio under the deck arrangements, which in my experience, the patio ends up getting grossly underutilized. Um, the deck normally gets used for, you know, grilling and it's approximate to the
main floor. And then there's this other patio that was built up um from from the main yard. So you come out the back, you have to walk up a few steps to like a 10 12 foot wide leveled strip and then another five
steps up to this rectangular patio that's there which again looked from the survey in my experience like it was almost never used or maybe it was used early on when it was built. Um but I can understand why not. It's it's a logistical thing just to use the patio.
There is no formal storm water management on site. There's no dry wells or um anything managing the roof water or the surface flows. And then of course to um put up a new house, we have to do the neighborhood
average. So I have the neighborhood average detailed here for West and Dale. And as Mr. Aelini indicated, we meet all the setbacks. So we meet all the setbacks. we meet the building coverage, lock coverage, F. Um we're within
height, uh which is frankly unusual for a lot of uh variance applications that we have, but certainly noteworthy. Um the proposed conditions I'll describe now include uh the new dwelling, which is going to be oriented in a more normal
manner to Dale Drive with the front facing with an attractive porch across the front facing Dale. And then we're going to bring the driveway in and have this front-facing garage on West Lane. Again, it's very similar to what's there. Um, but the alternative for this
is to uh bring this driveway up and come in sort of a rear loaded garage. Uh, which really would again nullify or greatly reduce the functionality and ability to have some kind of a yard area
in the back of the house. So, we are preparing and um creating this yard area in the back. We're going to have a porch off the right side of the house that comes down a few steps to the patio in the back and then a yard area in here, which we'll achieve by actually taking a
wall and and dropping the grade in that area. So, we're lower than this house in the back. And even along the side there, we're going to put it's like a most of it. It's a twoft wall running here. Again, we're dropping the grade a little
bit just to create um a better leveled area that's pinching towards the street um with any runoff. That that's the basic proposal in terms of the house and and the improvements. We're going to uh implement a drywall uh
that I've indicated right in this location, the front left corner of the house. Um that's going to capture the entire roof area, including the porch. Um, just to put it in context, we're increasing the lot coverage um
by about 600 square ft roughly. We're handling 2700 square ft. So, as I tend to do with these types of applications, we're about four times what would normally be required based on the increase in the lot coverage. Um there was one point
about the roof and the adjustment to that pitch. So we're now conforming, but the result is that the the height that I have reflected on this plan does not um account for that change in the roof. So the height we add about 18 in to the
height, but we're at was 31.8. So we're now at like not even 33 feet um with the height. So we're still well conforming by modifying that roof pitch to conform to the uh to the ordinance requirement for that. So then the steep slopes what
we're doing is is in this back area here we are disturbing these slopes and effectively eliminating them by creation of this yard area. We're not going to touch the slopes that are closest to the street out here. But then this stretch
of steep slopes that's closest to the existing house um will be disturbed by the construction of the new house. So we're we're disturbing this section and and a portion in the back. I think the numbers run out. We have about 6,300 ft
of total steep slopes. We're disturbing about 4,800 square ft. Um most of that is eliminating the steep slope. um which as I testified to before and that in that previous hearing, you know, to me is a desirable thing. Ultimately, the
interesting and sort of good part about this application is that no matter what, we can't negatively affect a neighbor. The all the drainage patterns are are pitched to the street here and to West Lane. So, there's no downhill neighbor
such as it is other than the right of way. So in that sense, it's um as we've seen with other similar applications, the key is just to make sure that the site's controlled well during construction. And I think that can be done very effectively. We have this area
where it's not a steep slope where I'm going to place the silt fence that we can manage very nicely any of the construction activities and not affect the roadway itself. Um so I think this this project can be accomplished very effectively and end with a very nice
product and result at the end um despite the disturbance of the steep slopes. With regards to the front-facing garage, what I would say in addition to the fact that the existing dwelling has been this way for a very long time, so it's not unusual on this property in particular,
I recently did drive the neighborhood again in preparation for the meeting. And there are a number of it's not at all uncommon in this neighborhood, this part of town for corner lots to have a front-facing garage and in a similar type of arrangement. Um that that's not
unusual generally because there are other towns that I work in that also don't want the front-facing garages, but some of them even have like a waiver for corner lots because they recognize that if you're fronting here, this is sort of the side front. Um, so I don't think it's going to end up as an unusual or uh
unattractive condition. It's something everyone's been used to seeing with this house. Uh, it'll just be a newer, nicer house that's there. And I think that covers all the main points. Um, I'm ready to field some questions.
>> Marie, what questions do you have for Mr. Clark? >> I don't have anything. you know, they um there was an increase in impervious coverage, but he's mitigated it with drywalls, which we reviewed those calculations. We don't take any exception to it. So, >> okay,
>> I'm satisfied. >> Uh just a few questions. Thank you very much. Um and this is largely based off of Mr. Baron's memo dated April 22nd, 2026. Um, was there any consideration for, and I
don't know if this is a question for you as the landscape architect, so I apologize. Uh, was there any consideration for some additional landscaping near the AC units along the side of the house? >> Well, that's a requirement in the ordinance that the the mechanical ground mounted mechanical units um are required to be screened with either dense
landscaping or fencing. I normally actually have that on my plan. I didn't make the notation on this case, but we'll certainly be there on an updated plan. That's a requirement anyway, so we're not we're not looking for relief from that. >> Okay, great. Um, he also requested whether or not it was possible to add
some additional plantings along the front of the property. He mentioned street trees specifically. >> Well, there there is there are two pretty substantial street trees that are existing in the front that we're going to maintain along on Dale. There's
another significant tree, 24in tree right up in this corner here that's going to be maintained. Um, we did talk about that a little bit. I don't think we have any objection or problem whatsoever with adding another street tree or two along West Lane where there's space to do that. Um, so so we'd
be happy to do that. I think >> Mr. Linson may want to take a look at the landscape plan and coordinate with us to make sure he's okay with whatever we're doing here cuz there was um speaking of landscaping there was a point that Mr. Linton did make about the
armavite row that's on the right side here, lot 24. There's a mature row of armavites that's in there and that he was interested to see if we could adjust this wall to make sure that we're protecting that screen. And I stopped by the property again and did some
measurements. I think that's not a problem. We the the arborites start about in there sort of near where the existing corner of the house is and run back to that wall. So they're sort of like in this area. Uh I think if we move
the wall in a couple of feet um and and again we can coordinate with Mr. Linton on that to make sure that we're satisfying any concerns he has about that to maintain that arabide hedge because it is a mature uh dense screen that's already there. And you've had
opportunity to speak with our landscape. >> Yeah. Yeah. We've talked about it a bit too and and he agrees that, you know, a couple of feet on that wall would would do the trick. >> That's all I have. >> Thank you. Great. >> Thank you. >> Uh Mr. Clark, would it be your testimony that if you move the garage entrance
around the corner to the side of the house that you would increase uh impervious coverage and increase lot coverage because the increase in driveway size? >> For sure. >> Okay. No question. Thank you. >> I have a question. >> Okay.
>> Uh what's the uh exact uh demolition work? I mean uh limit of demolition because I didn't see any uh demo work. >> Well, I mean on on here I have dashed in the background you can see the existing
house footprint. But um you know essentially that we to do the demo we'd put the silt fence where I have it shown and then and then demolition would occur in this area where the existing improvements are. >> So what's the extent of the >> you mean how many square feet is it? Is that
>> uh is that a full house demolition? >> Yes. Yeah. So the house will be removed, the deck, the patio and then the upper patio. All that all that would be taken out. >> Thank you. >> Yep. >> Thank you, Miss Mo. Tom. >> Yeah. Just one other question. I don't know if we can save having to swear in
the landscape by asking this question. The other comment from our forester was about possibly adjusting the the lawn area to try to save the 24 in diameter. >> Yeah. So, what he's referring to is there's uh you see it xed out here. It's near the 202 contour label. So, that
that sits right about here. It would be a pretty substantial reduction in the the lawn area. And I I think we really want to have as much, you know, passive outdoor as we can. Um, again, we're more than happy. We are doing some replantings. We're satisfying the, you
know, the tree removal ordinance. Um, but we're happy to add a one or two, you know, shade trees, street trees in in this vicinity here, which I to me would make the most sense. Um, because we already have a shade tree here. We have one here, one here. So, one or two in
here would probably be a nice complement and and sort of offset that the loss of that one black gum. Yeah, I think keeping that would at least try to do something in the spirit of what he's asking for. I don't think he's going to the mat on this one particular tree, but I think that matches the spirit, I think. >> Yeah. And again, you know, run it by
John. What we make is a revision for that. >> So, some kind of condition, Andy, I guess. >> Yeah. I think we're anticipating a landscaping submission to the city forester subject to his review and approval. >> Perfect. >> Great. >> What other questions do we have for Mr. Clark?
>> Mr. No. >> Um I'm wondering if you had a chance to read the report from the environmental commission as well as that from the city fires. >> I did. >> Any thoughts on their suggestions about saving additional trees? >> Well, I think we have made our efforts
to save the trees we can and we minimize the large trees that we're removing. Um there are some of the smaller ones that are that are coming out um that are that are approximate to the actual construction area here. and then one right up here where the walls going in. Um, but we're certainly going to do the
best we can to retain all the other peripheral trees and the trees that are not in the the direct um construction area. I think the most important ones are these two in the front and and the one up top there because they do provide some good canopy. Um,
>> and Mr. Clark, aren't aren't you adding uh additional landscaping along lot one? >> Yes, we are. We certainly are. Yeah. In in this area where the walls are, we're you know, we're creating some screening and landscaping up along that side um
to, you know, for our purposes and theirs. Great >> cuz their house is a little bit close um you know to the line there. So, yeah, we're going to we're going to make sure that's well spread. >> Great. Thank you. Anyone else? >> I think John had asked about that too. You know, if we could supplement maybe
some landscaping up there. So, that would be something we'd, you know, as part of our dialogue with John. Um, you know, make sure he's satisfied that we have enough in there. >> Great. Thank you. Any questions from the audience? >> Yes, please. >> Am I just allowed to ask questions? Sorry.
>> Yeah, come come up to the podium. >> It's okay. So, I live uh >> if you could if you could state your name, spell your last name, and give us your address. >> Sure. My name is Jeff Lewenberger. I live or spell my last name. L E U N B E R G E R. >> I live at 30 Dale Drive, which is just
Hill Cross West Lane. >> Oh, okay. So, you're you're down that way. >> Correct. >> So, I check two I think they're pretty easy question. >> Sure. >> I'm I'm really I really only care about the water. That's really because I'm downhill and it's a hill, right? So, it's water's coming down West Lane and
down Dale Drive. I was really excited to hear that you're keeping that they're keeping the the steep slope there in the front right like because that storm drain >> right there is >> critical to the whole I've seen >> I was just curious if you could talk
about the driveway like is it is the driveway going to feed into the street at the same place roughly that the current I I couldn't tell by your diagram. Yeah, it's a it's it's a little tricky, but um in the background you can kind of see the dashed lines of where
they so the existing driveway is right here. Ours is going to be mostly in the same spot. A little bit wider, but mostly in the same spot. Do you expect the slope like the slope to be rough is I don't know if they're >> it's going to be a little steeper based on the way we're situating the house and
the way the B level is um you know the front doors here and that it's a half story down and that's sort of the garage level so it's a little flatter than our driveway will be but what I can tell you is that um we're capturing all the roof
water which is not which is not being done now. So, a dry well is a a big concrete ring with holes in the sides. You dig a hole, you put a bed of stone down, you put the concrete ring in, surround it with stone, there's a cover. You don't really see it from the surface
except Summit likes to have a a cover up to the surface. So, that's all you see. >> But, basically, it's sized to handle a 3-in rainfall over that roof area. Got it. So for 98% plus of our storm events that we have,
that tank's going to hold that whole roof area and and manage it and then it just percolates into the ground. >> If if if there were a problem that we're seeing, this board typically, as you may have heard earlier, retains jurisdiction for a period of a couple of years. So,
normally that would that would give someone like you recourse that if there was like it turned out at the end of the project, everything's done and now we have this problem, you can come back to the board. First, you would go to the builder, you would go to the the developer of the property and say, "Hey, well, there's a problem here. Can you
fix it?" And if you're still having trouble, then you have recourse with the board. Okay? >> Um, but I don't anticipate that to be the case based on my experience with this builder summit, the drywall functionality, and so forth. If there was something problematic, the presence
of that inlet is actually an advantage because it allows us to tap an overflow into that if we had to. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Oh, that's great. >> Yes, please. >> Hi, I'm uh Jason Lees, last name Les.
My address is 14 West Lane. So, I'm that guy. >> So, you're right here. >> So, um appreciate the presentation. So, just a few questions if quick. >> Um, so as you noted, we're pretty close to the
um boundary line there >> and the like I understand that in order to sort of make a level back lawn, you're going to be sort of carving out the slope and putting in retaining walls. So, I wasn't totally tracking like the absolute height. We took like a
6 foot and then 4T. So, the the upper wall that's closest to your property is is a twoft wall and in part because we didn't want a more dramatic wall um so close to the line. So, it's you know 2 ft high and then
this wall goes from 4T out here to 6 feet right here. So, this is a 6ft section and then it quickly comes back down. So there's a short run in here where this other wall is where on our side it's six feet. So
on on the lower side it's going to be six feet, but then this upper one is going to be 2 feet. I think they're planning to have a fence around the lot. So in terms of you know safety, that shouldn't be an issue really. Um and then of course we're going to landscape there.
>> Yeah. And so on the in terms of like sort of the the strength of the retaining wall, I mean it's a pretty big project as you've seen. Mhm. >> We are very close there. Um like how common is it? Um and how how
common is it to have sort of a drop off? I mean if if you're saying sort of an absolute kind of level change of like six feet or 10 feet from basically like the bottom of my house to their lawn. >> Yeah. I I I if I'm understanding you may be having some concerns about stability
and how that's going to work there. Um, what I can say is that the top of the wall in here is at the existing grade. That's how I set it. So that so what we're not doing is tearing the whole thing up and then trying to reconstitute it. We're we're going to take where
where this is, we're going to take and then cut down and then build the wall and hold what's there. And then this twoft wall really is actually just to give us an opportunity to sort of flatten out the areas between those walls so that there isn't as much steep
in here. It's going to be more of like a little gradual to the level with landscaping to that first wall 2T down and then more leveled to the next wall. So for again more landscaping opportunities. So I don't I don't foresee stability in terms of our
property and and subsequently your property being any kind of a problem. >> Okay. And so then just to clarify like >> so is there my understanding is that there's a fair amount of um uh the the gradient is going to be sort of taken out to level it. Is that not
>> right in down here? Yeah, that's right. So, I guess what's the sort of what's kind of the structure of the wall and like your confidence level that the hill's not going to slide? >> Well, it's just engineering and
experience, you know? I mean, the people build walls all the time. Um, >> I think you have one in the back around your patio there. It's same type of wall. Um, >> Mr. Clark, conservatively, how many retaining walls do you think you've
designed in your career? >> A thousand. >> Probably not that many, but you know, it's 800 >> in the hundreds. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> And I I haven't had any problems like that. and and in Summit. I mean, really, this
comes down to selecting the right wall and then the contractor who builds it, you know, it's got to be built right. They always have to be built right. And I've been working with this developer for for probably four years now, and we've done a lot of properties together.
I I I don't foresee a problem, but I mean, you know, if there was ever a problem like that, you have recourse, but I don't foresee it. I really don't. >> All right. Thanks. And then the last one's a quick one. So, um, in terms of like the absolute change in the height of the building, is it net up, net down?
>> Well, it's definitely going to be at at its peak, it's going to be a little higher. So, the the roof here we got about well, it's going to be 18 in about 230 something. It's going to be about 8 ft higher the peak of the roof than the existing one. >> Okay. >> Cuz the buy levels are by their nature
not not very high profile. >> Got it. Okay. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Great. >> I have no further questions for Mr. Clark. >> Okay. >> And so with that being said, um I do
have the architect here, but this was really more about >> uh the site and the architectures um just from the reports confirming the materials being used and he's reviewed the design guidelines. Um so if you want to hear that quickly, we can. But otherwise,
>> board have any appetite to hear from the architect in this case? >> No. >> Okay. Okay. I think we're good >> then. than than that. And u and I think Mr. Clark handled the landscaping aspect and we're certainly willing to comply with the conditions um that were uh
elicited uh regarding the uh adding the the trees subject to the forest review um and the AC screening as proposed. >> Perfect. And now we have a second opportunity for the public to speak. This this is the time if you want to
make any comments about this case. No. Okay. Great. With that, uh, Mr. Ball, conditions and number of votes. >> Yeah. So, I have three conditions noted. Uh, compliance with those conditions noted in the board engineers memorandum as we just discussed that the applicants, the second one is the
applicant shall coordinate with the city forester regarding the proposed landscaping and shall submit a revised landscaping plan to the city forester for review and approval. Uh, and the third, as was suggested by Mr. Clark is that the board shall retain storm water jurisdiction for a period of two years
after the completion of the improvements. >> Oh, C variances only, right? >> C variances only. So, four votes are required to approve the application. >> Thank you, Andy. Appreciate that. >> Who would like to begin? >> Sure, I'll jump in.
>> Thanks, Shay. >> Um, starting with the existing conditions. I mean, a corner lot is always a tricky thing and there's really no easy way to manipulate meeting the code in a double frontage lot. So, I think the architect and the applicant
and the entire team has done a really good job coming here minimizing the number of variances they're asking for. The existing conditions essentially warrant a variance. There's no way around it. You couldn't build anything uh that is a modern-day kind of
functional use. And I think what they've designed and the fact that they've kept it within um F lock coverage etc is a testament to the application of them trying to be thoughtful with fitting into the neighborhood. So as a result I think there's really no detriment uh no
negative impact to the neighborhood and I think the positives well outweigh this application. >> Yeah, I'll I'll agree with everything. I mean, we we get lots of applications for tear downs where you're suddenly asking for four or five variances and you know, you really need them when you're doing a tear down. Your your variances have
nothing to do with the size of the house or, you know, height, bulk, you know, anything. So, that's a good thing. The garage, you make a very good argument why a front-facing garage is is is a positive here. Um, so I could support that. I could support the application. >> Thank you, Tom. Um, yeah, I think you
summarized it correctly, right? This is this is all about the the design, management, manipulation of the site. And I I think your team, Mr. Clark, landscape architects done a wonderful job um with a tricky site to to be
honest. Uh and I do agree with Tom that the the placement of the garage makes sense in this case and I think that's a a variance we can easily grant. So with that, I'm happy to support this overall application. Can I get a motion to
approve, please? >> So moved. >> Second. >> All right. >> Awesome. >> Mr. Yuko, >> yes. >> Mr. Malay, >> yes. >> Mr. Nelson, >> yes. >> Miss Chief, >> yes. >> Mr. Fes, >> yes. >> Mr. Chantuli, >> yes. >> Chairman Ly,
>> yes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I will uh advise my daughter. You're a very difficult board. It's not worth it for her to come back. >> Just just be sure to give her a discount. >> She doesn't own a corn. Does she own a corner lot by any chance?
>> Uh thank you so much. Hopefully she's not on a corner lot. >> She's not. >> But it's one of those houses. >> Don't laugh. >> Finally, uh to Beman Place. Please come on up >> in a roundabout way. >> Hi.
>> Good evening everyone. Um my name is Magna Hegde. >> I am one of the co owners. >> Swear you in. >> Swear you before we get started. >> If everybody can just be respectful of the applicant. >> All right. If you could raise your right hand. Do you swear from the testimony you're about to give this matters the
truth? The whole truth nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> And please state your name. Spell your last name. >> My name is Magna Hegde. Last name spelled as H E Gde D E. >> Thank you. Great. >> Yeah, as I was saying, good evening. Um,
I'm one of the co-owners of Two Beakman Road. The other one being my husband who's at home right now with uh with our two kids. And this is kind of why we're here. As a family of two young children, we want to create a functional and comfortable long-term home in
Summit. And um it's we are planning an addition to our home a room of 281 square ft and that requires us to present a couple of variances um for that reason. So every
variance that I bring before you stems from the condition that uh ours is a triangular corner lot that is over 1200 square ft unders sized for the zone that we are in and we cannot change the size or the shape of the slot.
So we're requesting four variances. requesting the F relief from 25 to 27.1%. For a 281q ft bedroom addition above the garage, we are also requesting the lot
coverage relief from 35 to 36.8%. And relief for two existing non-conforming sideyard setbacks that we are not worsening. The remaining improvements are comparatively minor. is um we are requesting a large rear landing for some
safe backyard access and a modest patio expansion as well as a small driveway reconfiguration just to straighten it out for safety purposes. I am joined here tonight by Alexander Rodriguez of AR Architect LLC who will
provide expert testimony on the design and um technical aspects of the application. He has designed the addition to sit below the main roof line, align with the existing windows, and remain compatible with the character of the neighborhood.
So, we're here to just ask for your um I respectfully ask for your approval for the project. >> Great job. Are you secretly a zoning attorney? >> No, not >> Do we have any uh questions, board experts, for the applicant
>> or just want to wait for their expert witness? board. Any questions for the applicant? No. Okay. Uh public? Nope. Okay. Great. Right after the room. >> All right. If you could raise your right hand. Do you swear from the testimony you're about to give in these matters? The truth, the whole truth, nothing but
the truth. >> I do. >> And please state your name. Spell your last name. >> Alexander Rodriguez from A Rex. R O D R I G U E. >> Thank you. And I believe you've appeared before us relatively recently. >> I have last year. May have last year. I
was here looking changes to your credentials since that last appearance. >> No, my my license is still valid. >> Any questions from the board or would you like to accept them back? >> We would. Thank you, Andy. Welcome back. >> Thank you. >> Uh yeah, just uh just she did a great
job just summarizing uh the variances and everything that we need. I just kind of quickly just want to uh just run through the drawings. I'm sure you've seen them already. um just quickly show you what we're looking to do as far as the floor plans
are concerned. Um so on page three just wanted to indicate that we are um currently there's an existing garage that's about 11 ft by about 19. So we felt that was an undersized garage. We are >> Mr. Rodriguez, could you speak into one
of the microphones? >> Sure. >> Thank you. >> Absolutely. Does this one work? >> Yep. Um, so, uh, currently the existing garage is about 11 by 19. It's a little undersized. So, we are looking to expand that garage, make it a little bit more,
uh, livable. Um, well, not livable, but obviously where we can actually get a car in there. So, we're actually um still keeping the width of the garage and we're making uh we're expanding it about about six feet towards the front. Um
we are also uh one of the things that they mentioned is we are expanding a rear landing because we wanted to add a slider going out towards the back of the house here. And then as far as the second floor is concerned, we are
building a second floor over that uh new garage that we're proposing. So the garage is an it's going to be an existing garage, but we are demoing the walls. So I just wanted to be clear that we're demoing the walls in order to make
the structure and the walls a little bit taller to conform to have the second floor aligned. So we're making those taller. Uh we're also coming out towards the front because we are looking to add a primary suite above that garage. Uh we're looking to um enhance the overall
second floor. We're looking to make the closets more conforming. Um there's currently some smaller closets are there. So we're looking to add some of those closets there. We're also looking to reconfigure uh some of the bathrooms towards the back. Um, we're adding a
bedroom with a primary uh with a primary closet over the front. Um, the second floor uh does align over the existing onecar garage. Um, as you can see in the front elevation, we are going
to maintain the same materials as far as the stones going to uh maintain uh be maintained. And then we're also going to continue the cedar uh siding um on the new addition along the front. Um we're also maintaining the double hung window
um to be similar to maintain the front and keeping the character along the front of the house. Um along the back half of the house, we are adding a window towards the rear. And then as far as the sideyard uh setback is concerned
towards uh the one neighbor uh we did we didn't want to maintain a blank facade. So we did add some uh some two windows along the garage lower area and we just added one window to maintain the peak.
Um just so we added three windows along that one facade that would be closest to the neighbor. Um, in regards to um, my client already mentioned it. I don't know if you want me to go over the the variances that are required again. Um, but those are
already mentioned. Uh, I think we're looking for four variances. We're looking for the floor area uh, ratio variance. Um so currently we're at 23.9%. Uh we're looking to increase that to 27.1%
as far as the floor area ratio. Uh the sideyard setback uh currently we are in an R10 zone. Uh we're required to have 12 ft. Um the existing uh sideyard setbacks are 7 ft and 3 feet. uh where
the garage are. That's the seven foot dimension. So, we're keeping that seven foot um sideyard setback, but we are continuing to create a second story above that. Um and then there is an existing 3 ft over on the right side of the property line, which we're existing.
We're not touching that side. Um as far as the side, we're also looking for a combined sideyard setback whereas 35 is required. Currently, we're at 12.2% 2% and we're just maintaining the existing uh sideyard setbacks uh combined at
12.2%. Um we're also again slight mod increases in lot coverage um where we're increasing the patio. Uh lot coverage is going from 33.7% to 36.8%.
Um, so again, we need the sideyard setback, combined sideyard setback, lot coverage, floor area ratio, and I think they also called out for uh the sideyard setback for the patio, which again, we're just
increasing and we're just looking to make that patio a little bit more usable as we come out that rear door. >> Great. Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. Appreciate it. Uh, board experts, what questions do you have for this witness? Thank you. Um,
so it looks to me like, um, based on the information that you have on your cover sheet, the zoning table shows that you're increasing the impervious coverage by 272 feet. Does that sound right? >> That's correct. Yes. >> Okay. So, because you're less than 300
square feet, then um you're not required to do any storm water mitigation. Um, but I just want to make sure that um you and the cl your client are aware that if it goes over 300 square feet of additional impervious coverage that that has to be mitigated for.
>> Yes, we are aware of that. Yes. Thank you. >> Um, I think that's really all. Yeah, that's all I had. >> Thank you, Marie. Mr. Novak, >> thank you very much. Just a few questions. Um, you might have already covered this, so I apologize. The materials of the addition, will they
match the existing facade of the building? >> Yes, that's what we're looking to do. Keeping the stone in the front and then keeping the cedar shingles. >> Okay. Um and just to confirm, there's no increase in the number of bedrooms. >> Uh no, the bedrooms uh stay the same. >> Well, actually, is that true? >> Um the number of bedrooms.
>> Okay. So, the number of bedrooms do increase. >> Yes. >> Um and the driveway is being reconfigured and the garage is being increased. It's correct. >> Correct. >> Um the Do you have an estimate of how many vehicles the driveway and the garage can
potentially hold? >> Right. And then how many approximate vehicles would fit in the driveway? >> I think the applicant should get close to a microphone. >> So the garage can hold one uh vehicle so far and I think even after renovation that's what happen. The driveway can
probably fit two. Uh we can currently fit our uh SUVs side by side as well as one in front and one behind. >> Okay. >> So about three vehicles on site. >> Yes. >> Okay. The reason I ask is because uh a fourbedroom house would require parking for 2.5 vehicles. So the applicant still
has ample room on site to accommodate cars with this addition. >> Okay. Great. Thank you. Um board, what questions do you have for this? >> Are you replacing your air conditioning unit as part of the renovation? We do not we replaced them um
about a few months ago actually and from what he checked we didn't require additional air conditioning or H for any new additions of this size >> if you replaced it already. Yeah. I was just wondering if that was in that setback too close to the property line existing AC unit if we needed to grant
the variance for it. Just don't want you to have to come back. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. They already got it. It must be okay. >> Okay. >> Um, how would you describe the shape of this lot?
>> Very irregular. Absolutely. So, yes, it is a very irregular shaped lot where the two uh property lines uh are angled towards the back of the property line and that's what creates our our hardship in regards to the sideyard setbacks. And
what about the size of the lot? >> Uh the size of the lot is undersized. So uh we are required, I believe, to have uh 10,000 square feet and we're at 8793. So we are undersized for this particular lot.
>> Great. Thank you so much. >> Any other questions? >> I just got a real quick one. >> Yeah, Don, go ahead. >> Um did you speak to your neighbors about your project? >> Um actually interesting you said that. They were just here. There were a couple that were sitting there and they um actually we stepped outside and we they had a few questions for us and we
answered them and they they were very comfortable and >> good. Yes. So, I was just concerned about the the and maybe this is not the right term, but the massing of the second floor. If you're looking at the house to to the left where now it's one story, now it'll be two almost two and a half, >> right?
>> But if you know here, nobody's here. Okay. >> If I actually here and um I will speak to them again um just so that we can accommodate whatever requests they have. Our intention is not to create an issue
for them in any way whatsoever. >> That is great to hear. Thank you. >> All right. Um any questions from the audience? Seeing none. Any comments from the audience? Seeing none. All right. Great. With that, Mr. Ball, what do we have for
conditions and number of votes? >> All right. The only condition I have noted is our usual one, which is uh compliance with the conditions noted in the board engineers memorandum. Uh here we do have an F variant so five votes are required to approve the application.
>> Thank you Andy. So who wants to begin our executive session? >> I will. >> Thank you Allison. >> Um all right thought. Um, I think obviously the very odd-shaped lot, like I said, upside down
triangle. Um, does cause hardship and I think this is a very reasonable ask. Um, everything like, you know, to be able to fit your car in your garage and, you know, to have um, you know, an extra, you know, a nice um, master bedroom. Um,
so I'm I'm fully supportive of this. >> Thank you, Alison. >> Don. >> Yeah, I can support this application. And I just, you know, I was a little concerned about again the massing of the what would be the left side, but uh, you know, looking at the drawings,
um, you're on a you're in a hard spot. It's a it's a it's a regular shape lot under size for the zone. It's, you know, it's you're stuck between a rock and a hard spot. You're improving the the you know, the look of the neighborhood. You're improving your lifestyle. So, uh,
I can definitely support this application. >> Well said. Thank you, Don. All right. Anyone else? >> With that, can I get a motion to approve? >> So moved. >> Thank you, Jay. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> All right. Miss Sans, can you please call the role?
>> Mr. Yuko? >> Yes. >> Mr. Malay? >> Yes. >> Mr. Nelson? >> Yes. >> Miss Chief? >> Yes. >> Mr. Fesin? >> Yes. >> Mr. Chantuli? >> Yes. >> Chairman Lage? >> Yes. >> Congratulations. Good luck. Thank you so much. Do you want to do the resolutions first
or? >> Yeah, resolutions first. >> All right, great. >> All right, Jessica, resolutions. >> Okay, so first up we have the resolution of denial for 695 Springfield Avenue, zoning board application number
ZB-24-2237. The eligible voting members are Chairman Lyz and Mr. Nelson. That's interesting. >> Could we get a motion? >> So move >> and a second. >> Second,
>> I guess. >> Mr. Nelson. >> Yes. >> Chairman Lyets. >> Yes. >> Thank you. And the next three resolutions for memorialization are resolutions of approval. First up, we have 52 Huntley Road, zoning board application number
ZB-25-2317. The eligible voting members are Chairman Lyz, Mr. Mr. Yuko, Mr. Malay, and Mr. Nelson. Could we get a motion? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Second. >> Thank you. >> Chairman Lyets. >> Yes. >> Mr. Yuko? >> Yes.
>> Mr. Malay? >> Yes. >> Mr. Nelson? >> Yes. >> Up next is 16 Shady Side Avenue, zoning board application number ZD-25-2321. The eligible voting members are Chairman Ly, Mr. Yuko, Mr. Nelson, Miss Chief,
and Mr. Feskins. Could we get a motion? So moved. >> Second. >> Chairman Lickets. >> Yes. >> Mr. Yuko. >> Yes. >> Mr. Nelson. >> Yes. >> Miss Chief. >> Yes. >> Mr. Fesin. >> Yes. >> And then lastly, we have 31 Melee Place.
Zoning board application number ZB-26-2323. The eligible voting members are Chairman Lyets, Mr. Yuko, Miss Chief, and Mr. Feskins. Could we get a motion? So move. >> Second. Chairman Litz, >> yes. >> Mr. Yuko,
>> yes. >> Miss Chief, >> yes. >> Mr. F. >> Yes. >> Thank you. And then we have minutes for memorialization from March 16, 2026. The eligible voting members are Mr. Yuko, Mr. Nelson, Miss Chief, Mr. Chantuli,
and Chairman Ly. Could we get a motion to approve? So move. >> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? I. >> Any opposed? >> Thank you. All right. So, we do have a closed
session uh noted on the agenda. I'll read the resolution in full before we go in. I will also just note for the record that that concludes the formal business and that no further business will be conducted by the board after the conclusion of the close session. So for
the resolution, whereas the open public meetings act permits the exclusion of the public from meetings of public bodies in certain circumstances set forth by statute. And whereas the zoning board of adjustment of the city of summit is of the opinion that such circumstances currently exist. Now therefore be it resolved by the zoning board of adjustment of the city of
summit as follows. One, the public shall be excluded from the discussion of any action upon the here and after specified matters. Two, the nature of the subject matter to be discussed is as follows. We have attorney client privilege public comments. Three, it's anticipated at this time the above stated subject matter will be made public in
approximately 30 days or at such time as any litigation discussed is resolved. >> Is there a motion? So moved. >> Second. >> Mr. Yuko. >> Yes. >> Mr. Mai. >> Yes. >> Mr. Nelson. >> Yes. >> Miss Chief.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Fasin. >> Yes. >> Mr. Chenuli. >> Yes. >> Chairman Lett. >> Yes. You guys are good. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for all your help tonight. Thank you very much. Nice work with you tonight.