Good evening and welcome to the May 5th, 2025 meeting of the city of Summit Zoning Board of Adjustment. My name is Miriam Mison and I'm the vice chair of the zoning board of adjustment. 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 and justice for all. Thank you. In accordance with New Jersey
statute 10 col4-10, adequate notice of this meeting has been provided to a newspaper of record and has 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 to the city's YouTube page and also broadcast on Summit's government
channel, which is Comcast channel 34 and Verizon channel 30. A transcript of this meeting is also being taken using the video and audio. So, we need all speakers to utilize one of the microphones in the room. Please note that the fire exits are to my right,
your left, and at the back of the room where you entered. The city has a listening system to assist the hearing impaired. If anyone needs hearing assistance, please obtain the system at the deis and return it thereafter. Miss Kotiga, please call the role of the members.
Mr. Kieran is excused. Mr. Malay here. Mr. Nelson here. Mr. Steiner here. Mr. Yuko here. Miss Chief here. Mr. Fes here. Mr. Changuli here. Mr. Nearing here. Chairman Lucas is excused. Vice Chair Z on here. You have a quorum. You
may proceed. Thank you. Andy Ball is the zoning board's attorney. Mr. Ball advises the board members on matters of law and is the key interface with an applicant's attorney. Mr. Ball does not vote on the applications. Nicole Kot Kotiga is a city employee and is acting
as the zoning board's secretary. Our board secretary works with applicants on preparing their applications, planning our agendas, and keeping our meeting minutes. The board secretary also does not vote on the applications. Also present are our experts who are hired annually by the
board to provide input. Tonight we have Marie Rafé from Kier Engineering. Also present is Ed Snikz from Burgess Associates, our board planner. These experts are seated at the table to the right of the board, the public's left. They do not vote on the
applications. Our board consists of seven regular members and up to four alternates. All members can participate in the hearings tonight, but a maximum of seven can vote. Most applications require a simple majority to be approved. Before we enter into executive
session to vote on the application, you will be advised how many votes are required. 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 and why the variances are needed. The board experts followed by board members may ask questions of the applicant, their attorney and expert witnesses. Due to recent cases running excessively long, we strongly encourage
applicants and their experts to give brief and concise testimony so that we can get to as many cases as possible in a given evening. Once the board members and the board of professionals have completed their questioning, the public will have an opportunity to ask
questions. This is not the time to tell us what you think about this case. That opportunity comes at the end of the hearing. Please be careful as to 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 your address. It is important that our court reporter be able to keep a clear and accurate public record. After all witnesses have been heard, members of
the audience have their second opportunity to speak and at that time you may express your opinion, positive or negative, about the application. Then the public hearing is closed and we enter into executive session where the board members discuss the case and vote. you will be able to listen to our
executive session, but you will not normally be able to participate in our discussion. Um, at this time, I think we're going to just start with the applications go. We're going to have a slight modification of the agenda. We're
going to move 78 Essex to the end of the evening and we'll start with 83 West End. Good evening. Hillary SS from Dempsey Dempsey and Sheen representing the applicant 83 West End AB LLC regarding property located at 83 West End Avenue,
block 1403, lot 17 in the R15 zone. The applicant proposed proposes to improve the existing Cape Cod style home by updating and modernizing the home to provide a functional layout and improved aesthetic and curb appeal. The variances
requested are for sideyard setbacks of 9' 4 in and 8t 9 in which are existing and proposed. Combined sideyard of 31.2% which is existing and proposed. Setback of the stairs on the west of the
home of 5.9 ft. Front yard setback of 24' 4 in to the home and 23t 1 in to the front porch. and a garage width of 9 feet 8 inches where 10 feet is required. The variances requested are all a direct
result of the narrowness of the lot which is 32 feet less than what is required in the zone, the topography, the stream which is a unique physical feature of the site and the existing lawful structure. Presentation tonight
will begin with Denise Bonfilio, a representative for the applicant, Bill Hollows, the civil engineer, Mark Marian, the architect, and John Peele, an environmental scientist and planner with an expertise in environmental land use. If there's any questions of me, I'm
happy to answer them. And if not, I can call the first witness. There are any questions from our experts? No. No questions. Any questions from the board? Call your first witness, please. Denise Bonfilio and I'll swear you in if you could raise
your right hand. 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. And can you just please state your name, spell your last name? Uh my name is Denise Bonfilio. It's B as in boy, O N, F as in Frank, I L I O. Thank you. And what is
your occupation? I'm a developer and construction manager and I've GCED in the state of California and Pennsylvania. And have you developed any other properties in the city of Summit? I have. I've developed two, one on Beakman and one on Woodurn. And what is
your relationship to the applicant of the subject property? And are you authorized to speak on the applicant's behalf? Uh, we are business partners and I am absolutely authorized to speak on his behalf. Um, can you tell the board what the goals and objectives are for this project?
Well, the goals are um, you know, it's a lovely Cape Cod, but it's not in keeping with what is, you know, what people are seeking or what's good for today's living. The house was built in 1945. Sort of outdated at this point,
and the layout isn't really functional. Um although it has four bedrooms, there's like two that you know the Cape Cod is really a halfstory and downstairs. So we'd like to prove the existing home by upgrading and modernizing it and improving the layout
so the home can have function in a way that better meets the contemporary needs of today's family and designing an aesthetically attractive home that complements the eclectic neighborhood while also maintaining uh the existing yard setbacks. and we're staying within
the parameters of what is permitted under the environmental constraints of the property. Myself and the architect went to great lengths. We are not improving beyond the current foundation. We are staying it's a non-conforming lot and we are, you know, staying pretty
much exactly in all disturbed areas and uh just building a filling in the back lefthand corner essentially taking off but building up. We've put some wood elements into the front because I don't know if you're familiar with that area.
The houses are pretty close together, but they have lovely bigger yards and that are kind of wooded and a lot of greenery. So, we're trying to uh kind of complement that and we've in instituted that into our design. And can you tell the board some of the challenges that
this property presents? Well, again, whoops, sorry. because it's nonconforming. Uh there, you know, it is exactly where it is. It's the the current the setbacks required now are 15 ft. We're at like 11 something on one
side now and 9 something I think on the other side at its narrowest point. But again, in that area, we are all we are doing is adding a second story. We are not encroaching at all into those sideyards.
Um, and uh, and yeah, and that's mainly the reason. I mean, we're, you know, we're we like to put a covered porch. So, there's a couple of uh, you know, a couple of feet that we're extending from the current house just to give it, you
know, a little nicer overhang and give the house a more aesthetically pleasing as well as functional appeal. And the reason the house is um located farther forward is because of the stream that runs through. That is correct. There's quite a large piece of all the houses on
West End or where well the stream varies. So any where the house is behind they're pretty uh set forward and actually the one side of the street is set far more forward than the houses not on the stream side. They're set about
five or six feet on average back than the houses are on the stream side. And have there been any improvements or changes to the property since the date of the survey that was submitted in connection with this application? And have you had any conversations with any
of the neighbors? I have uh uh I I've had uh a conversation uh with one of the well two of the neighbors really and uh uh there was uh one of the the fence that's existing that um I think it's
probably her fence but it's in a lot of disrepair. Um, and I had we spoke this evening and I she was asking me if I intended on doing anything and I said yes, in actuality I was because if we're
building this new house, you know, no offense, but we would like to improve and she was very excited by that. and she wanted she was very much in favor of us uh replacing that fence uh with something uh right exactly where it is,
but it's just uh kind of not not in the best uh shape right now. She at that she also asked me if I would consider putting any sort of arborvite or something there. And sure, I have no issues with putting a couple of arborite
to uh I mean, we're not really changing it, but if that's what she wants, we're you know, we're absolutely fine putting some more bravide in. So, as long as it's an appropriate location and that they'll actually grow, then you're correct. Or we'll put some form of I I understand she'd like a little screen if
possible. Some type of screening. Some type of screen. And we have zero issues with not providing her with the screen. Excellent. And did you retain any experts to help in the preparation and presentation of this application? I did. I uh I have Mark Marian who's an
architect. I initially hired Dave Fentina uh who couldn't be present tonight but Bill uh Hollows is been more than uh gracious in filling in and he's been to the property and going up. And then John Peele, who's an expert with D
and water issues, uh a scientist and uh is also here. Excellent. I don't have any other questions. Any questions from the experts? Um no, I don't have any questions. Uh just two questions. Uh chairman chairman. Um regarding the fence, which side of the
property is that on the left hand side? This is going towards 85. That is correct. Okay. And then also the plan things would also be on that left side. That is correct. Okay. Yes. And then also you may want to consider whether or not that the arbor body talked with John Lson whether or not that's appropriate
for deer tolerance. Right. Exactly. Thank you. Right. You're welcome. Question. Question. Questions from the board. I just have one and then maybe it's for I don't know if it's for you or the architect but um there was a comment from the HPC the historic preservation
committee about um the the architect. Okay. Yeah. That's it. Okay. Any questions from the public? Is there any public here for this application? Why don't we There is. Okay.
Thank you. Hi there. I'm actually so Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, do you want to just to be clear after each witness, we're going to have an opportunity for public questions
from that witness on their testimony. And at the very end of this case, anyone who's here who has an interest in the application will be able to give their comment, their sworn testimony about this case. So if you have opinions, you could save that for later. If you have questions for each particular witness,
come up after they're done and ask them. Please come up to the microphone. Good evening and thank you. I'm Elizabeth Ball and we live at 92 West End, so diagonally across the street, and have been residents of the neighborhood for uh 20 over 25 years. So my question is actually about the
exterior and the representation of the aesthetic change. Right now it is a clapboard painted yellow with standard wood shutters. I'm curious to know um what the exterior intentions are of the aesthetic um to the community because we have one outstanding house that doesn't
sort of fit and kind of everything else is sort of within line of what that aesthetic is and that wasn't clear. The architect could probably answer that question better if that's okay. So put it out there. Thank you. Okay.
My name is Elizabeth Wyn. I live at 85 West End Avenue. Um I've lived there about 27 years. Um had a question on storm water management and sump pump discharge. So, I'm gonna sorry, I'm gonna stop you and just tell you that
the engineer is coming up next and he's going to talk about that if you want to ask him a question or you can ask the question and um he can answer it in his direct testimony. Okay. Are there any other questions for the
developer? No. Okay. So, we'll move to the next witness, please. Bill Hollows or expert All right. If you could raise your right hand. Do you swear from the testimony you're about to give in this matter, the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do. And please state your name.
Spell your last name. William Hollows. Hollows is H O L L O WS. Thank you. And I know you've appeared before our board a number of times, including recently. Your credentials were accepted at that time. I imagine um any changes to your credentials since the last time
you were here? No. All right. I imagine the board would like to accept you back once again. Yes. Okay. Um can you explain what steps you took to prepare yourself to give expert testimony in this matter? I reviewed the uh plans prepared by the architect. I reviewed a
letter prepared by the engineer regarding the great plane. I visited the site and we had a a meeting with the uh the team basically to go over the application and you've also reviewed the administrative
reviews and you're familiar with the ordinance. Yes. Okay. And can you describe the existing conditions of the site for the board and explain what is proposed from a civil engineering perspective recognizing that because of the minimal increase in lot coverage
that no grading plan was required. these out. Um probably have to share a couple here, but that is a render existing conditions plan. Are we sharing? So this is A1.
See how many we have. Okay. This is so this will be exhibit A1. Yes. Yeah. I made this on a handout size sheet because it fits the property that we're actually the piece of property that we're actually going to work on or the
proposed uh renovation to the home is. And um north of be on the west end avenue side to the bottom of the drawing is the west and that's where the title block is and to the east is to the
top of the drawing and the railroad which is isn't shown here but that goes off quite a distance uh to the right of the drawing that you're looking at. But this is existing conditions. It shows the existing house as it sits there today.
Um, it's labeled two story, but it is a Cape Cod. It's really, some people call it two stories. I generally call it one and a half story, but this is a drawing from the uh surveyor that we put together to render. You've got the paved
drive on the west side. It goes into a singlecar garage. Got a walkway that goes to the front door. And the lighter color to the back of the uh house is a wood deck. And under that's a on the upper
story or first floor. And this is a lot that uh is more or less a kind of walk out to the back. And under that um wood deck is a paper patio. And then to the right of that is the the stream that
goes through many of the properties here. And you've got a foot bridge to go from one side to the other. And on just to give you an idea on the railroad side of the property, it's a lawn area with some scattered trees. And as you get
closer to the railroad, there's a few more trees. There is one tree on on the area on this this drawing and that sits basically on a rightaway line about in the middle of the lot. I believe that to
be a cow repair tree. And then you've got foundation plings that are um in the front of the property. And can you just um go through the topography? Yeah, the property slopes from West End Avenue back
towards the stream. Um I checked there's no steep slopes that I saw in this. Um maybe a little close but not doesn't qualify as a steep slope area. And then on the other side, as as it indicated, is
relatively flat. Um when you get on the other side until you get back towards the railroad, then it rises a little bit, but it slopes about 9 ft right from the Yes. From the front to the front to the stream. Okay. And um what is proposed?
Well, we have another drawing for that. Perfect. That'll be a I'll hand you sir. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. This is the proposed conditions
drawing. It's the same base drawing as you have but with colored a little bit differently. The darker brown area is building addition. Um in this case it's a building addition. In the rear it's a
reduction of the patio of the deck. And then in the front as noted before that's something to dress up the front facade of the building to make it a little a little nicer looking. Again, the driveway stays the same. The garage is going to be
extended. That's a little dark area on the right side of the building. You've got a garage that goes to the to the back. Now, it's a little bit deeper, 23 ft deep. And regarding storm water
management, all of the re roof leader drains with the exception of one are piped to the top of the bank of the stream. There are five different pipes that come out um visually. If you walk to the other side of the uh the
property, go across the foot bridge, you can see the five pipes there. They're 4-in PVC pipes. They collect the roof leader drains and that one exception is on the east side of the property about in the middle of the of the building. You've got a a leader drain that comes
down to a splash block and then the water the slope is back towards the stream. So there's no water that goes to the neighbors in this instance and our increase in impervious coverage is 93 square feet. So, we're the proposed building addition is over for the most
part over the the paper patio and over the uh deck that was there before. And you'll hear more uh detail from the architect on what the building was going to look like. And then can you just confirm that
the lower level is not considered a story above grade? Well, we have another handout for that. Okay. We did a great plane drawing. Thank you. Thank you, sir.
Thank you. Thank you. This is a a great plane drawing showing the proposed building and six feet out from that building we show elevations. And going through the calculations, we
come up with that um this is not considered a story. The basement um it's close. Um we're at 51% of the the floor area meets the criteria that it's not a
um a basement a story and 49%. So it's it's close but um we purposes of the application and it's not a story book. It's not a story book. Great. And just a little background um when I got involved in this there was a letter prepared by the
by another engineer that was submitted with the application and um our numbers come out basically the same. Um and you agree that there is um no grading plan that's required. No, I
think the really the amount of grading that's going to take place is really back filling around the foundation that for the the addition in the rear. I don't really see any other need for grading back there. Um, as far as storm water management, as this building gets
constructed and the roof leaders come down, I would suggest that they just tie into what's there already. Um, it seems to be functioning and again, it comes at the top of the bank. It's not down low towards the bottom of the bank of that stream, but it's at the top. And my visually, I did not see any erosion. I
know it hasn't rained in a while, but I but I didn't see any erosion from any of those pipes. You know, it's got a a lot of stone on the side on the banks of that stream. And the limit of disturbance um will be determined and updated on the plan. Is that correct?
Yeah. If this plan was approved by the board um in order to get a building permit, the applicant would have to prepare a grading plan for and submit it to the building department and also the engineering department and that grading plan would
include a soil erosion sediment control plan. Um I roughly estimated about 2400 square feet of disturbance and that includes it's not soil conservation. Sometimes I don't agree with them, sometimes I do. But if
we drive over it in order to get say from the front of the the street west and m into the back where probably more of the construction is going to take place, we have an area where we could actually bring the material down for construction. Facing the house will be on the left side, the side where that
wood fence is. Um we would have to move one lilac bush, but there's no other shrubbery along that side of the house. There are some foundation plannings in the front of the house which most likely after the construction would need to be
replaced and the applicant will be replacing those. Correct. Correct. Um and then in terms of the lot coverage and building coverage in F, they're well under what is permitted in the zone. Is that Yeah. Yeah. The lot is um Thank you.
20,293 square feet and um we're not even close as far as lot coverage for this 16.33% to be exact. Building coverage is 10.24% and F is
16.18%. And then can you just run through the variances quickly to the board? The first variance I have listed is a front yard setback variance. And again, this is an existing dwelling. Um, if you look at my drawings, both of the
existing conditions, proposed conditions, the front facade of our house lines up with the houses on either side. You know, it's not like you would drive down the street and see any anything that's really different than what's there now, other than it's going to have a new facade. But, uh, as far as
setbacks, it's very very close. If we were to put it back at 35 ft, then you there would be a difference because those houses are more like 25 ft similar to what we have. And what is the average front yard setback? The average front yard setback is 28.3.
Thank you. And um we're required the 35 ft. The existing is 26.33 feet or 26'4 in. Uh the architect's plan is in inches. And then there's a stoop that comes out and
that's at 23 feet 4 in. And all of the sideyard setbacks for this house, the existing ones are in violation of the zoning as it is today. Um they're existing non-conforming conditions and the new setbacks are very
very similar um to what's there. We're building right on that same footprint, just extending it a little bit more. And with the angle of the the house and the jog in the building, the the new addition is even further away from the sideyard set back. And then what about
the side steps on the west? Side steps on the west are will be in violation and um it's 5' 10 and 1/2 in off the property line and steps can encroach into the sideyard 4T um not more than 4
feet. So there um they should be set back 11 feet. So they'll be set back what was that five feet. Yeah. Well, we're already in violation. We already don't conform. So we correct be difficult to get that 11. Again, all this non-conformance as far as the
sideyard setback has to do with the 58 foot wide lot and the garage. The garage the garage is um 9 foot 8 in wide now. and we're going to extend it. It can't make it 10 or else we again in
more violation or exacerbate our sideyard setback. So, we're going to keep it at 9.8 ft wide, but make it a little bit deeper. 23.5, but that requires a variance because 10 feet is Yes, 10 feet is required and we're it's a technical variance for the
width. Um, and then can you just go through what the distance to the neighboring properties are? Yeah, if you Sure. If you look at um either drawing existing conditions or non-conforming conditions,
um the house to the east, the one with the wood fence that uh had some discussion on that house corner is 14 ft off the property line by scale. It's a little bit further. So,
we've got a 14 and 12, it goes 26 ft from house to uh house to house at the front. And then with the angle of the way the house is built and the road angle, the uh as you get the house gets deeper, gets further away from the property line. And again, that's a solid
wood fence. It's a you really don't see that house very well. And then on the other side or the west side, that house is a bit closer to the to the property line. It's uh
7 2 and 8 6.47. It's 7 ft 2 and a/4 in if you want to go to inches. And then it's 6 feet um five and 5/8. So, you know, I think
we're splitting hairs as far as that. It's just it's just closer. But it seems to me on my when I was out there on the site doing my site investigation was that there's more landscaping on that side uh the be the
west side of the property between the house and our our subject property and the area um where the existing home is and they're going to be uh two stories that's 15 feet or greater right from the property line in the front part of the
home. Yes. Yes. It's um you go towards the front of the front of the property where the over top of the the driveway, it's about 15 ft from the house to the uh westerly property line. Excellent. Um and I think you talked
about the landscaping. Um and I don't know if there's anything else you wanted to add about storm water management. Yeah, I just want to indicate that there's 93 square feet of additional impervious coverage over what's there. Now, the threshold for storm water
management being dry wells or some other form of uh storm water management is 300 square feet. So, we're well under that that threshold. And I think the fact that we're actually going to pipe the um water towards the stream as it's as it's
there right now, it's not we're going to change anything. We can leave the pipes that are discharging there right now, just tie into them with the new roof leaders and gutters and leader system. So, it's we're not going to affect any neighbors with with that. And
I think 93 square feet is pretty dimminimous as far as storm water. Perfect. I don't have any other questions. Any questions from our experts? Um when you covered all the um the storm
water that I was looking at, do you um you're aware that um you will have to apply for a city of summit flood plane development permit um for the location of the stream in the back? Yes. And I actually think that the environmental
consultant was going to touch on that. Okay, good. Um do you know if there's any existing storm water management on the site? Are you aware of any? I didn't see any. I walked it pretty pretty well. I looked around for a while and I did not see anything other than that fact
that the the roof leaders all go underground with that exception of that one. Okay. And then there's five pipes that come out on the stream bank. And I'm sorry you I know you said this before. What was going to happen with that existing one that's going down to a splash block?
I don't see why it can't be tied into the existing Okay. existing system because there's one the front front corner front east corner it goes underground so it passes right by this splash block um I think that's all I have
um with regard to your grade plane analysis um just wanted to clarify I guess in the three criteria approach in the second one looking at the perimeter of the building below Oh,
280.9 equals 99 ft or 49%. Correct. So, you're at 99% whereas 50% it would have then had to be considered a story. Correct. Above grade. Okay. Yeah, that's Thank you for that calculation and confirming that calculation for us. Um,
in addition to that, I noted in your exhibit where you proposed exhibit and you rendered the building in the proposed condition. Is the proposed addition off the back of the building going any further than the existing wood deck?
No, I don't. I think that's that's the limit of it. Okay. As I recall, it's maintaining that line that Okay. Thank you. And then it seems slightly different to me from the exhibit on the architect's drawing, but
I believe I was mistaken by I believe there's a chimney off the back or a a bump out of some type. That's a chimney off the back of the Okay, thank you. And then the air conditioning units will still be also in the back of the building. Correct. Okay. So, screen and
then the width of the existing building envelope because I think this is important to this this property. Uh you said that lot width is about 58 feet. If you take off the two 15 foot sideyard setbacks or a total of 30 feet, you have
about 28 feet left for the building envelope. Correct. In that area. Okay. Thank you. No further questions. Any questions from the board? I have a Jeff. I have a question. Um, in the
application, and I'm not sure if you'll be able to answer this. It says that in 1995 there's an addition to the rear um of the of the property of the um dwelling. Do you know where that was on your on your diagram?
I I'm sorry. I don't. Okay, the architect answer that. Okay, thank you. Uh following up on that just a little bit, the uh resolution that we received
uh indicates that this is u a three-story building, not a two-story building, and zoning follows. Is it now? How how do we get to two from three? and probably our legal
counsel has to and I wish we had the rest of the resolution to know exactly what they what they approved but uh in this it is telling us that a finding a fact is that this is uh a three-story structure. Now did they approve that and
if they approved that doesn't that continue to today because you're not changing the foundation. So that means that the uh everything else will stay the same. I can't speak to whether the code and the
calculations have changed on whether that story above grade analysis would have changed since 1995. Yeah. But doesn't it stay with it? So they would have been permitted under that code to have that three stories if it's the
code is now. So, so whether it's three stories or two stories is ins doesn't matter to us because it is whether the code has become relaxed and then that changes the impact of what they were granted through that. Well, why would you want two instead of three? We were
just I think responding to questions from administrative comments and the planner had asked us to do the calculation. So based on calculations now it's two stories. I'm sorry. You You moved that that that
measuring stick by a half an inch. You you changed 49 to 51. Um well, they could have done something as far as grading when they put that addition on two, which but it really doesn't, from what I can tell, it doesn't make a difference. It's
if it's a threetory, it doesn't change what we're facing. Yeah. if if the calculations haven't changed and they were granted a threetory, but then of course it's the three-story structure that was proposed before and now they're changing the proposed structure. So I I think the
testimony is at that point has become moot. They're not proposing a three-story structure under the current code. Mr. Yuko. Yeah. So I get back to your comment earlier about if I understood it correctly that none of this project is extending the back of the any part of
the structure. I mean the architect's going to going to speak after me. My understanding is that it was going to that point because I mean I maybe maybe just be something with the drawing. It looks like the proposed addition goes back approximately as far as the existing wood deck. Then it looks like there's a little bit of the wood deck
that goes back a little bit farther. But I just may be misreading the drawing. I think the architect can clarify. Okay. Do you have a question? Um, so I I would assume you're familiar with the problems going on with the stream behind your
property or behind the proposed property. The state's been out there, D's been out there uh due to the erosion and the other issues going on. So though you say the water doesn't go to your neighbors, it actually does. It goes
downstream to the neighbors. So, um, maybe you're not the guy, maybe it's the scientist, I don't know. Um, has there been any thought about maybe taking the first step to help the downstream neighbors and not pour more water into that stream? Maybe put some sort of drainage pit in with an overflow to the
stream or something like that. No, really, we're following the ordinance the way it way it's written. Well, if I could just add to that, my question is directly related to that because it's I I believe this stream ultimately discharges to the Payic
River, right? And there are no new no runoff is allowed to be discharged to the Payic River like new runoff is my understanding. So the 93 square feet like even if you if you keep the house as it is, maybe those pipes are grandfathered in. But I don't know what
happens when you add a story and you put new pipes, you know, you new runoff, but for sure that 93 square feet is new discharge, right, to the stream that um probably needs permitting. Have you looked into that? That kind of
discharge. I think the uh environmentalist person will speak to that. Okay. Um any other questions for the board? I just have one more. Um, I know I know C, we we can I'm going to sound very bad here, but we can adjust numbers to do
whatever we want them to do. Um, what's the headroom in that basement? The walkout basement? Is it 8 ft? I'm not. Oh, you don't know. Okay. The architect. Okay. Any other questions from the board? Um, questions from the public
from Mr. Hollows? Any questions? No. The stormwater question was answered. Someone had a stormwater question before. Yeah. Okay. Um, so seeing none, we can move on to the next Mark Marian. Look at that. If you could please raise
your right hand. Do you swear from the testimony you're about to give in this matter? The truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. I do. Please state your name, spell your last name. Mark Marian. M A R I O N. Thank you. And can you briefly describe your background and experience for the board? Sure. I
have a bachelor of architecture from Pratt Institute in 192. I've been a registered architect since ' 89. Can you please just make sure you're speaking into the microphone directly? Thanks. Um been self-employed as a principal
architect at Architecture Plus since 91 and I've been uh we've been operating at our current location in Rariton since 97. My license is uh in good standing and current and I've given ex expert
testimony in a couple dozen towns uh mostly in Somerset County around here, Union, Westfield, Brookkeley Heights, New Providence and licensed in New Jersey, right? Yes. All right. Any questions from the board? Would you like
to accept his credentials? Think so. Go ahead. Okay. Um and just tell the board how you prepared um to give expert testimony. Um we were hired by Denise to uh do existing conditions. So we measured the
existing building um prepared to design with her and then we also prepared the uh drawings for uh the variance and you reviewed the ordinance administrator reviews best I could. Excellent. And can you describe for the board what is existing on site
and what is proposed? Sure. There's an existing uh Cape Cod there. There is an addition in the back. It's a one-story addition. Um I couldn't tell you when it was put up, but it's certainly not
original. Um the existing house is a four and a half story Cape C. It's around 1,600 square feet. Um there's four bedrooms. There's two bedrooms up and a and a bathroom that's quite tight up in the attic area. Uh there's some dormers that help get some headroom
there. There's two bedrooms on the first floor and one bath. Um there's a single onecar garage to the right. It's not accessible from the house at all and it's undersized per the ordinance and uh it's not very deep. It's like 18 feet
deep also. It's kind of on the small side. Uh the one-story addition out the rear uh is uh a kitchen and like a family eating area, a family room. Um and it's
uh has some vaulted ceilings and um and there's the a very large deck off the back also. So u and the basement's partially finished. I don't know the height of it, but I'm thinking it's it's under 8 ft. It's between seven and eight
feet down there. It's uh pretty standard for a house built in the the 40s or 50s and we're that's pretty much it for we're going straight up off the house. Uh and we're
as went down. Okay. Yeah, these are the same plans you were looking at. Uh, um, this plan right here is the main level plan, the one in the middle. Um, the gray area in the front
is we're putting addition 3 feet out the front. We're not quite going to the front of the living room there, but we're adding 3 feet to the foyer where there's a we're moving the stair and we do have a an addition a small porch that
we're adding to the front to put a cover over the front door. Uh the rest of the addition is in the back where we are extending out over the existing deck. Uh we are canolvering the fireplace over past the deck but it does
not come down to the ground. It's a cantal levered fireplace. So um that does exceed the line of the existing deck. And the new deck also sticks out about two feet past the existing deck.
The deck's actually getting smaller uh than what is there by a few hundred square feet. Um I could double check that number. Um, but basically we are the where the existing where the kitchen is shown on our plan, that is where it
is right now. So, we're adding like 2 feet to the kitchen and we're pushing the back out and expanding that family room and adding that breakfast area there on the first floor. um interior wise to the existing house. We are providing a door from the garage
to the basement because the garage is quite a bit lower than the first floor of the house. It's you drive down that hill. So, it's easier to get in the house if we go down into the basement. It's a few steps down and then um they'll come up the
main stair to get in. I'll talk about the basement just a little bit. upstairs is where most of the addition let me just follow my notes here. We're adding about 300 square feet to the first
floor. The addition. Yeah. Um also on the first floor there's the living room, a dining room along the right side. There's a pretty small den in the backside and we're relocating the powder room. So the internal guts of
that existing house is getting reworked. to accomplish this plan. Um upstairs, you can see the addition is much larger by the the grade area. U upstairs were we moved all the bedrooms upstairs. Um there's four
bedrooms, there's four bathrooms, a nice master suite, double walk-in closet, and we also moved the laundry upstairs. Um, we're going to end up around 3200 square ft in total of living space on this first and second
floor. And I'll slide this over in the basement. Um, we have new stairs coming down. There's a large mudroom coming off the garage. Uh, we're there's a bath down there now, but we're moving it. And then um adding a guest room with a
window be an egress window out to the uh which I believe that's an existing window. And then we're expanding that back w the big back wreck room is uh what was con looks like what was constructed uh for the the previous
edition the previous one-story edition. Um that basically explains the plans. Um can you go through the exterior? Yeah. And then explain how that also ties into the um the neighborhood.
Neighborhood's pretty mixed. It's uh some ranches, some capes, couple of two stories, some newer houses are sprinkled in here and there. Some of the older homes have had additions put on
them. Some some are two two story. It looks like this second story and the lots in that area seem to be narrow. U so most of them uh additions have been driven back. Um at least that's what my
eye sees. Um so what we're proposing is a two-story house in the front. We have a small gabled roof over that port the front a portico over the front porch
um in front of the foyer. Um we basically took the g there's a gable a low gable there now we just extruded it up for the bedroom that's in the front. Uh tried to keep the roof fairly simple
and uh in the addition just drives out the back. Um, I forgot to mention that we did make the garage deeper and have a door at the back of the garage. Um, and will the garage comply with the fire ratings as
required? Absolutely. Uh, and in the rear, um, there's a small deck. There's an upper balcony off the master suite and
uh there's a gas fireplace uh in the breakfast area that's can levered out. Uh and there is a w there's a a door out from underneath. So the my
grade line as drawn is uh is wrong. It's actually basically level across the back. that line should be lower. That's one of was one of the questions. So, we will confirm and correct the um
the height under the deck. Yeah, it's it's low there now. So, and then I think there was also um a request for a construction detail of the walkway and that will be provided, right? Yeah, there's pavers back there. So, I'm sure they'll be uh tying into the existing
pavers. And then can you just go through the um materials for the exterior of the home? Sure. Uh the front has like a the front gables panels and then uh we're showing board and
batten siding. I know the historic commission didn't like the board and batten and we can't switch that to horizontal siding or shakes in the front and along the garage side. And we were going to more
uh horizontal siding along the sides in the back. I don't have any other questions. Questions from our experts. Okay. um in the front of the house where
you're bumping out adjacent to the front staircase. That bump out, what is that serving within the existing building? Why is it necessary? It allows us to get uh create a nice foyer and get a a reasonable set of stairs up into the second story. Is that
where the stairs are now? No, the stairs are kind of they're dotted in in the dining room. Okay. Uh the entry door into the house is on the side of the living room. So when you see the house that the the front door
actually doesn't face front, it faces sideways. It's in that little return right right here is where the front door is and it goes into the living room. Okay. And this where the foyer is is a bedroom.
You're also proposing the new breakfast area, I guess. upper on the upper floor there's a new master bathroom correct there. Uh what is it about the architecture of where you placed that? It's in the sideyard setback. What what was your rationale for doing so? It is
in the sideyard setback but I believe it's it's le it's not uh it's less than u the worst case scenario we have a the corner in front of that is uh 9
foot4. So we just kind of like keeping that line and stepping the building back and not trying to increase the sideyard set back. So you do have a slight jog in that back portion of the building. Yeah. Okay. Tradition. Um yeah because the
building doesn't sit um well the property kind of skews off at an angle from the street and the the bu the the house is skewed on the property in relation to the sidewalk. Yeah. So we we stepped the addition to try not to
increase the site setback. You had mentioned you're going to revise the schematic rear elevation. Yes. If you can also revise the line of the average graded plane uh in accordance to what had been provided tonight. Okay. Um and I wasn't clear on your testimony.
You were going to change the board in batten. Uh that was one of the comments from the HBC I think u was the siding and and we can uh if board wants us to we can address the siding. Okay. So what were you proposing for that? It would either
be this uh horizontal sighting or shakes. Okay. Horizontal shakes. Uh no further questions questions from the board. I have one one question. Okay. Um as a follow up to that on um on the the schematic for the
left side elevation any of those windows on the um basement level are they existing? Um I believe all the windows we have drawn are existing there. Okay. Uh except where their addition is in the back the back window. That's a new
window. Okay. So there's no um there's no reason to anticipate that you'll be putting in window wells or anything. Those windows are already there. are there and they uh the one window that has me of concern is the bedroom window and that does comply with regress okay for alterations
thank you questions from the board I did do you want ahead no ladies first um you you addressed the one issue that there was two comments from the HBC historic preservation you addressed one of them can you um address the other one regarding the the fact that it's not a
Cape Cod. Yeah. That you you didn't like because a lot of houses around town the you know, you look and it looks like it has the same look of the original house and everything's in the back so it doesn't change the streets. Now we It's not really a Cape Cod anymore. Um we
chose to do a two-story house. So Could we fake it in? Uh sort of. but it's not really a Cape Cod anymore in this proposal. So, if you want to introduce more roof, we we did consider doing a
wider porch and using the porch roof to kind of break it down, but we were trying to not make the porch too big. Um, it was I think it's more of design element of keeping the look of the cape, although the inside of interior of the house Yeah. would not be designed as a
cape, but thank you for addressing that. Thanks. And and again, there's other two-story homes in this area. Very eclectic. There's a lot of different Yes, there's a mixure. There's a mix of houses. I think they're just buying these houses and blowing them out. That's why there's a mix. Well, some you
could tell they were originally that way and some have been renovated. So, is it My understanding is you're not going to change the height of the of the basement, the ceiling height of the basement. No, we're going to use the existing finished floor as it is. So, do you know what it is? It's It's less than
eight feet and I don't I have to go through my notes to tell you exactly what it is. It's between seven and eight feet. I think it's 75 to be exact. I think I measured it. You're not going to dig down or anything? No, the plan was to keep the first floor deck as it is. And
we were going to build on top of that. We as not to raise the building. Well, digging down doesn't raise the building. digging down was like you're basically uh almost taking that thing down and putting a new house there. So,
we were utilizing the existing footprint. So, just so I understand, you're not going to remove the floor of the basement. The first floor? No, no, the basement. The basement. No, we are not. Yeah. It would also have an impact on
stories. That's my whole question. Yeah. So, we are not planning on lowering the floor. So, you actually made a comment that you purposely joged the addition where uh
what is now I guess the be the back. Were there any considerations to jog it more to reduce that restriction any further? Um the breakfast area is 10 by 139. That's seems like a reasonable size. And as if we slid it over, it was crowding
the kitchen. So it seemed appropriate. And u and like I said before, we are not making the sideyard setback any worse than it currently is. And then the deck would also get smaller. And we've already reduced the
deck. Yeah. Yes. Can you uh confirm the window in what is the guest room that it's you know you're saying that you're not this window right here? Yeah. Is that an egress window? Yes. So there's an ex there's an existing egress because it says you said
that you're not really changing a lot here. But it says new guest room. So it is a new guest room. There's no bedroom there. There's no bedroom there now. So we are creating a new bedroom. So you are replacing a window there then because you're going to put an egress window. An egress window is not really
any specific window. It's just a window that complies with a certain size. I understand that's different window. So that window that's there does comply with the size required for creating u like four feet a new window. It's 5.7
square feet. But you have to be able to climb out of it. I think that's the Yeah. Yeah. It has to be a certain distance off the floor. It has a minimum width and a minimum height. In alterations though, they make it easier because they pretend that the sashes aren't in. So, it's really like the
completely whole window. So, I have a I have a question on um uh you mentioned about uh extending the garage. Yes. How will that be extended? Are you going to dig to make it bigger or you going to
back it into the how how is it going to be extended? And we're going to construct a foundation. Uh goes back. We're making it like five almost five and a half feet deeper. So you're not digging digging? Well, they'll be digging to build the foundation in the
back for sure. The only reason I'm asking is because um I'm pretty familiar with that area. Um my family owned 107 for from 1906 to
2005. Mhm. And most of these properties that are in front of the here, it's listed as a stream. But back in around 2004, 2005 when I was
um had many conversations and inspections from the state, they told me it was actually called the drainage ditch. wasn't even a named stream, but it still required um any and back at that time it was a 50-ft buffer.
And I believe uh shortly after I sold the place, it went to uh the state changed it to 150. So I think you're digging the environmental engineer will answer that question for you.
Any other questions from the board? What's the overall height? I I don't have the plans in front of me. 349 and a half. And the house on each side of those are how high do you know? I do not know the specific. So they're one and a half story on each side. It's one and a half to the left or excuse me,
right? and to the left. It's It's a mix. It's I can't tell. It's like two stories on the the side that's uh facing this, but it does step down on the So, how much higher would you say guess is this house compared to the other neighbors?
Somebody's raising their hand behind you. I actually don't know. I don't want to guess. But but the proposed height is permitted. Yes, it is permitted under your ordinance. What's the width of the lot again? It
was 59 58 58 58 feet and 90 feet is required. Yeah, it's quite a deep lot. Um and the coverages are well within F F you could build a 5,000 foot house on
a lot that big. A long one, narrow one, but that goes over. Can't get there because of the string. The little bridge can lever, right? Um, any other questions from the board? Questions from the
public for the architect? Yes. Hi, my name is Moren Alvidres, 90 West End Avenue. Um, I just would like to understand this is a tear down. to the foundation and the testimony is speaking as if it's there's a lot of
reference to existing questions only of this witness but I want to understand is it a tear down technically we're reusing the foundation and the first floor and the first floor okay very good thank you any other questions from the
public. No. Okay. Would you like to move on to the next witness? Okay. John Peele. Thank you. Thank you. All right. If you could please raise your right hand. 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. My name is John Peele. Pee Eel. I'm with PK Environmental Chadam, New Jersey. We do planning and engineering and environmental consulting. And can you just provide the board with your background and
experience, please? I have a undergraduate degree in environmental sciences. I have a master's degree in city, regional, and planning from Ruters. I've been practicing as an environmental consultant and planner for 40 years this
year, probably looked at over a thousand wetlands analyses and assessments, numerous flood hazard area permitting issues, and we specialize basically in NJTD permitting and actions like that.
And do you have a particular state license or? Uh, yes. I'm a licensed professional planner since 1991 and my license is in good standing. Any questions from the board or would you like to accept his credentials?
Accept. Thank you. Okay. Um, what steps did you take to prepare yourself to give testimony in this matter? Well, we were originally retained or contacted from by Denise Bonilio who retained us to look at the
basic environmental issues such as primarily the stream corridor that's in the back of the property. And uh we were retained to basically address the presence or absence of wetlands andor flood hazard area
uh as regulated by the NJP. And you've reviewed all applicable regulations, maps, requirements, ordinances. Yes, we did. And did you prepare a report in connection with the application? Yeah, we sum excuse me, we
summarized our findings in a March 28th uh letter report basically which uh concluded in fact that the the stream in the backyard is very well defined. Um there's no wetlands on either side of
the creek, no regulated wetlands. Um the creek itself is a tributary to the Pacific River. Um but the contributing drainage area at Denise's property is less than 50 acres
and as such NJT does not regulate um a or possess a regulatory flood hazard area. Whenever there's a drainage area less than 50 acres, um a property is can generally proceed with a permit
by rule. So in this case, that's what Denise's plans uh depict. Uh there's no NJT flood hazard area and all the act there's a there is a 50-foot riparian zone associated with the creek. There was a
question about that, I think. But but this this property is in a special flood hazard area. Um not not from the state. It's not. No, it's not. The drainage area at this
property of the of the area to that creek is 32 acres. The NJ regulates flood plane or flood hazard areas when there's a drainage area greater than 50 acres. It is a regulated water course. is called a state open water and all
state open waters have riparian zone buffers either 50 feet, 150 ft or 300 ft. In this case, it would be 50 feet. And that said, the existing house is within that riparian zone and the proposed house will be in that riparian
zone. as long as there's no activities um you know additions and so on within 25 feet then then this pro project can proceed under what they call a permit by rule. Well, and I
mean I from what from what I was told back then and I know the um the requirements got a lot more stringent. True. And back then it was 50 and I know it was changed to 150. What was So is it
your testimony that you don't need any um per uh permits from the state to dig in this area? That's correct. Okay. It's a permit by rule activity. Mr. Explain what that means.
Yes. As I said before, the D regulates all water courses, natural water courses, which this is, and they will put a 50 foot riparian zone, a 150 foot riparian zone, or a 300t riparian zone
if you're in the watershed of a category one stream. This is not. So 300T is out. the if there's a 50 or 150 foot riparian zone and the area is disturbed such as this, such as every house along that
waterway that's within the 50-foot zone. If the area is disturbed, technically the D will allow you to proceed under a permit by rule. And that's and that's what they're doing here. And that just to be clear, if you have his report, um it outlines that permit by rule number
10 and explains what can be done in that area, which might be more clear. Um that's really about it. Do you have anything from saying that is acceptable?
Sorry, I was just think if we could hear from the experts first and then we'll get to because I think there are other questions that will go along with that. We just may miss. Yeah, but that would be for the I know. Let's for the digging and stuff. Yeah. Um do we can we get do
the experts first? Thank you. Marie, do you have any questions? Well, um I I don't know how else to clarify what he said, unless anybody has any questions on that, but um you know, it seemed pretty clear that um that he can act under a permit by rule to do the work
that's on there because the area has already been disturbed and um they're not going to be within 25 ft of the stream bank. Um I think you're still going to have to get a um a flood plane development permit from the city. Yes.
Yes. Okay. Um, so, you know, there's there's still there's still other there's still other steps to take. Um, but I think, you know, and I I don't I can't speak to what the situation was of the property that you were on um or any others, but you know, each each property
can stand on its own and has its own has its own unique places and stuff. So, you know, I can't I can't say why in one case it was it was something and in in this case it's different. But um I hope that helps. But just to be clear, you don't you you don't take any
issue with anything? I do not take any issue with with any of the testimony that's been provided. Thank you. Question regarding the 25 ft setback or limit. Have you measured actually on the plans from the top of bank to where some
of the pavers are being shown? Um, I would ask that that be checked because it looks like you might be in 20 feet um to the edge of the stream. Are those the proposed pavers? Yeah, it seems like proposed papers and possibly the deck. I didn't have the actual dimension
available on the scale with me. It looks like a portion of the deck might be 25 ft from the edge of bank. At least what I'm seeing from Mr. Hollow's plan. I I didn't measure it myself. So, okay,
vice chair. While they check that, can we just verify that we got his report? I didn't get that in my package. I don't see it online. Uh the report from the engineer. Yeah, I didn't I also did not see. I just want to make sure we get a copy of that for public record. See that either?
Yeah, I don't know. Was it supposed to be submitted, Hillary? Was that report intended to be submitted to the board or is that just for your own internal purposes? I submitted it with the application
microphone. It's a two-page report. I did submit that with the application, which is why we got it was a question that was raised. So, it was one of the requirements that I fulfilled so I could fulfill it to get to the hearing tonight. So, I did submit his report
with all of the paperwork. I'm sorry. You're saying that you submitted it after all of the the planners report and the engineers report went out? No, prior to all of that. When you before the review, I submitted it to uh Tom, I think is his name. Tom
Barrett. Tom Barrett. Uh, I submitted it with my initial application so we could get to the next so it could get reviewed and we could, you know, see if we checked all the boxes to get to the variance to the hearing tonight. So, it was submitted and I think John sent one
directly to Kier's as well. I thought I saw ahead of time. I thought so. Since none of us seem to have it, is there any objection to submitting it as an exhibit tonight? Sure. Of course. Okay. So that would be exhibit A4.
Yeah. Thank you. I'm sorry. I just wanted to confirm whether or not a portion of the deck falls within that. It shouldn't be. I sc very very very close. But this is something that can be cleared up when if
the board were to approve it and at the time of building commit application with actually dimensions on in there. And it'll be we'll make sure that it's 25 ft. Well, can we put that as a
condition? I think we would ask for that as a condition. So, that condition was it absolutely won't be more than 25. Okay. It it will be more than 25 ft from the stream, right? I think we're all saying the same. Just make sure it was clear. Yeah. I'm just
uh 25. Shouldn't that Shouldn't have all that been thought about before getting here tonight, though? We were we advised the client about that from day one. So they were aware of it. So somebody didn't listen. I may be 25 ft. I'm not sure. Well, maybe maybe it's not. Maybe it's 8
ft. Maybe it definitely will be. They're stating definitely will be. Yeah. Well, no, I get it. But you have the plans and then it's like we catch it here. Do you have any other questions? Okay. Um questions from the board.
U just simple one. Do any other properties that but up to this property are they required to have flood insurance? Do you know? Um is your property required? This is right now. This is in a zone A. I do not think that they're required to have flood
insurance. I can testify we were not required to obtain flood insurance. That would only that would only matter if there's a mortgage on that's Yeah, correct. there's a if I'm that would only matter if there's a loan on the property and if
there's a flood plane well okay yep um I just wanted to go back to the the runoff the storm the discharge from the roof leaders um and as to whether that is actually allowed the additional discharge because um I think the permit
by rule I understand the what you're I don't know if you know the answer to this Marie But um it it seems you know from things that I've read about the issues with the Payic River and the flooding of the Payic River that that is being highly
regulated all discharges. So that 93 square f feet doesn't sound like a lot but it's a new discharge and is that allowed to be sent through the pipe. Um I think I don't know if you know the answer to that if are they allowed to discharge that to the stream? I I can't
say for 100%. I I just feel like that's not something um that we can just allow to just say that that's okay without saying you need to make you need to show the board or the city that no permit is required for that and if it is required
then you have to manage that storm water on site and not discharge it to the stream. We can make that a condition of approval. It's a good point that's supposed to be applicable to everybody on the stream. But we see a lot of and it's regional runoff problems. It's
everywhere right in New Jersey right now. So D is very serious about that. That said, people do their own normal property maintenance. Not saying that's going on here, but I I see it all over the place. And the D um will tell you
you can't increase runoff, right? If these existing pipe volumes can accept this, there's a fine line whether it's something that's required or not. But we're going to look into that. Yeah. How can we control that? I mean, I I don't
know if this is if you required to get a letter from the D saying you're allowed to discharge if that might be a or is there another regulatory agency because I you know there's already a discharge, right? I understand. Additional discharge. you're and and the question
is would the existing discharge be grandfathered in now that you're raising the building, adding a story, like now it's new downspouts, you know, I don't know how they look at it, but I I feel like that requires um a letter from New Jersey DP that you're allowed to
discharge that that or we would provide the storm water management for that additional runoff. Yep. Okay. Maybe a couple rain barrels might work. Any other questions from the
board? Questions from the public? Yes. Yes, please. Elizabeth Wyn, wn 85 West End Avenue. So, I'm the house on the left and I've lived in the property for 27 years. Um I
can tell you that in 2006 FEMA did reassess question question do what questions to this you have a question for so you had said that you didn't think it was in a flood plane but
in 2006 FEMA reassessed and all houses on West End Avenue along the creek um are in a flood zone. Yeah, that's right. Yep. The FEMA map is available fema.com. Um, is there a flood hazard area
identified or is just zone A? I'm not familiar with that. So, this is a letter of map amendment. Speak up. I'm sorry. I am having trouble hearing it. Yeah, there's a letter of map amendment for this
property. It's a standard flood hazard determination form. What's the date on that letter? February 2015. Yeah, 2015. And and it says that the property is not in a flood. Is it for the property or
the structure? Structure. Structure. C. Can I make a comment? We we had a witness here not too long ago on a property there and his testimony was that not sure when, but that all those
properties that were not in a flood zone were put in the flood zone because they had changed the whole flood plane area. and that that one person that was here with that um LMA letter um there
there was testimony from an expert saying that those standards were increased right they were so I I I mean it's just I from from what I've experienced there that anytime you dig or disturb in
a in any flood hazard area, you need D approval to do it. So, that's what I was told. Does that letter change any of your testimony? Does it change the analysis here? No, it does not. And and they're not digging in a flood hazard area here.
Yeah, but um it's a disturbed area. They're in the riparian zone, but according to NJD flood hazard area regulations, they don't regulate this water course where it's less than a 50 acre drainage
area for flood for flood hazard flooding issues. It's it's too small. You may be right. There may be a lot of erosion and runoff and excessive stuff like that, but the drainage area at this property is still less than 50 acres and
it does not require a flood hazard area permit from the NJD. FE they're talking FEMA here. This is federal stuff. Um, okay. Any other questions from the public? All right. Any other last questions from the board for this
witness? No. Okay. I don't have any other witnesses. Okay. So, um, at this time, we'll open it up to public comment. This is this is the time where the public can tell us what they think. You don't only have to ask questions. Are there is are there
any members of the public who would like to comment? Okay. So, no. Oh, yes. Okay. Thank you. Steve Woodall 92 West. If you could please raise your right hand. I'm going to have to swear you. Go for it. Do you swear from the testimony you're about to give in this matter the truth? The whole truth. Nothing but the truth. Absolutely. And can you just spell your
last name for the record? Last name is Woodall. W O D A L L. Thank you. 92 West End 92. Thank you. Right. Um just quick question that better. Good. Uh the tree
that's out in front um is it proposed to be taken down during this construction or not? Right. So if you just want to it just saying if you want to see a good example of uh city money well spent. That tree was planted by John Lson and
his group many many years ago. watched it since its infancy. It's in full bloom right now. So, just when you go to build it, protect it around the base. John would support that. I know John pretty well. I've worked with him for a while. I work over at Kemp Place and have
worked at with him for a while. But if you want to drive down that road, it's in full bloom right now. Check it out. It's a good tree. It's one you guys want to save. That's all. Thank you. Any other question comments from the public? So in 1995 when second I just need to
swear you in. 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 can you just uh state your name? Spell your last name for the record. Elizabeth W. Wn. Thank you. Um there was just a question. Um, I think Allison, you had the
question about what the addition was in 1995. Um, and I think another gentleman brought up the question about why is it a threetory versus twotory. It was a twostory edition that was done in 1995. Um, Donald, your question about
the lower level. Um, it's probably very close to 8 ft. Um, it's a completely finished basement. They added a full bath um downstairs. So, the structure, which I do support doing the addition. I'm fine with that. Um,
it's going to be a tremendous building in height and size on a very small piece of property. Um, so I just wanted to clarify that it was a two-story edition back in 1995. Thank
you. Any other comments? Seeing none, I think we'll go into executive session now. So, um, we'll go over the Did you try to close it? Yeah. Oh, thank you. Thanks. Um, okay. So, just to reiterate, the this house um
proposed is well under on all of the coverages. Um, this is a classic C1 variance case. The lot is 32 feet more narrow than what is required. The stream running through the back of the property drives the location of the home closer to the front lot line and the location
of the existing lawful structure. All create undue hardship and result in practical difficulty in developing the property is otherwise permitted. The proposal will provide an improved aesthetic and architecturally complimentary home in an eclectic neighborhood to meet the needs of
contemporary families looking to live in Summit. The proposal will not have a detrimental adverse impact on surrounding neighbors. Um, storm water management will be looked into um and as of right now will be managed. Uh, there's no
environmentally constrained area of the property that will be negatively infect affected. Um, and we would ask that the board grant the variances. Okay. All right. So, I'll note um our conditions. I have five of them. The
first is our usual compliance with the conditions noted in the board engineers memorandum. Second is that the applicants will replace the fence located between it and the neighboring property owner on the left side or 85 west end. Third, the applicants will add additional arborite screening between
the property and the neighbor 85 west end um if possible. Fourth, the applicant shall ensure that all plans reflect no disturbance within 25 ft of the stream and shall revise the plans as necessary to ensure that requirement is met. And the fifth and final condition I
had noted is the applicant shall ensure that no additional D approval is required for the 93 square ft of new proposed coverage. If it is not permitted by the D, the applicant shall revise the plans to either add or to add storm water management to accommodate
any new impervious coverage. So we have just C variances in this application. So a majority or four votes is required to approve. Was was there one about the theiding the siding? I didn't note that as a condition but we
we agreed that that it might change but we didn't say to what right the applicants did agree to change it as the board sees fit. Um so this is the time for us to see fit. I suppose it is correct. Okay. So, so I guess what we're saying
is we're not particularly happy with what's there, but we're looking for um what else you might propose. I mean, if HBC says we should be looking at just horizontal, I would defer to the architect to design something aesthetic in accordance with the code. I mean, the
direct the the design ordinance kind of gives what that style is and it just needs to be horizontal versus a vertical. Yeah. Or a shingle, right? Yeah. Does the board have a preference? So, do we make that in I don't know the neighborhood well enough to make that determination.
So, we're It sounds like we're okay with either of the HPC's recommendations. Okay. A mix of shingles and horizontal is nice on the front of the house. How's that? Yeah. Gave it a little interest. They may think what they proposed. Mr. of all I would suggest that it you know
subject to the design ordinance you know objectives that is in a horizontal fashion and just leave it at that I don't I don't think we need to be designing a form okay um so we'll note that as a condition as well to revise the
materials accordingly and just one question about the second to well not what is now second to last condition the possible letter from DP when does that have to prior to issuing a building permit or we didn't I didn't necessarily impose a
time requirement on getting a letter from D. They need to ensure that no D approvals required for that. Um if it is required then they need to update the plans to accommodate the new coverage but yeah I I guess it has to be done
before a building permit. Can we specify that that's a letter though because I think to I don't know what showing that you don't need D approval is I don't know you know there's probably other you know I think a letter from D would be pretty clear but there are other ways
you know interpretation by other experts who may have different opinions I don't know I don't think the expert that was here knew the answer so I feel I'm sorry are we in questions or we in executive this is about the conditions. So, we're still we're talking about the
conditions. Can we can he I mean, should we ask him how to clarify is what I'm trying to get to. I think flood hazard area applicability determination. I don't think it's flood hazard area that we're looking for. It's for the discharge from
the additional runoff. Okay. So, that's different than the flood hazard area. Yeah, I think what we are going to ask for is written confirmation from D that discharge is permitted.
Yeah, but but can can can I go back to that case we heard with I don't want to get back but I'm confused. I'm having a hard time understanding because so they they talked about the standards of you know being within 25 ft of the
stream. I don't recall what the distance from the stream in that case was. I don't recall what the area was. We have the expert testing. The house is only a few houses up the street. I but looking at the map, the stream does curve up towards that house. And we don't we don't have the facts here tonight to say
it was required in that case for any particular reason. Yeah. But I specifically asked them at that time, they had they had the same Loma letter that it was taken out of the floodg asked them why wouldn't they build the garage instead of the portico
and their witness testimony was they couldn't do it because they need all kind of state state approvals even though they weren't in the flood zone and we approved them to build that portico. So, so I'm having trouble understanding why
we I think what he's saying is broken this one by I know I know each case stands independently and and I can't point to the particular regulations. We have the expert testimony here tonight supporting their position that they are permitted to do what they are proposing
here and we don't have any of our experts who are able to point to something different that says they need to do X Y and Z differently. So unless you have a code that you want to point us to, I we have to consider
that testimony. I also think if we are asking for a letter about that the discharge is approved, that's already getting eyes on it. So yeah, if D looks at it and says no, you can't do it that then they can't
do something that D does not permit. Right. And just to confirm that condition, it's the letter or storm water management for the additional runoff, right? Is that Yes. If D says you cannot um discharge that additional
impervious coverage, then uh the applicant will revise plans to add storm water management to accommodate any new impervious coverage. Fine. And when do they have to have the certification? Uh, I think we asked before building permits are issued
because DE takes forever. We know that. Okay. All right. As long as our resolution doesn't get held up and we wind up running out of time, right? Um, so we have the conditions squared away.
Does who someone want to kick off comments or discussion? uh at the beginning I wasn't uh comfortable with the uh D issues but I
guess uh with these conditions uh excuse me it is uh we're in executive session sorry yes it's uh possible that we can uh support this application uh most of the
uh the variances are existing so I can see the hardship here the the size it's undersized the width so I think we can uh we can
support this I can support this application as with the with all these conditions thank you yes yeah I can support this application too um it's a very attractive change for
the house with very attractive plans There are no variance needed for anything related to the size of the house. There's no variances for height, for number of stories, for lot coverage, building coverage. F as has been mentioned, all within limits. The sideyard setbacks, as Mr. Mali said, our are pre are existing non-conforming.
Front yard setback is in line with the neighborhood properties. Um, you know, I I happy we have those conditions that'll cover any any issues with the with the D. Hopefully that'll I know gets confusing but as was noted the stream worms around so it could be different
distances from different houses. Um I can support this application. Thank you. I'm not sure I I don't see any negatives to this. I um see some positives to it. Uh again we have improved the application that we got. Uh
we've improved its appearance with what we're doing in the front. Uh we are making sure that there are no adverse effects to the neighbors with drainage. Uh and we look like we're uh doing the right thing here. So I can support this
application. Thank you. Anyone else? I'll move to approve. I'll second. Mr. Malay. Yes. Mr. Steiner. Yes. Mr. Nelson. Yes. Mr. Mr. Yugo. Yes. Miss
Chief. Yes. Mr. Feskins. Yes. Vice Chair Zan. Yes. Thank you. Go back. Leave it. No. The other one. Hold on.
It's such a quick I think we should Can we Can we do 78 ES6 because I think it's and we'll take a break after that one. All right. I think we're going to repivot to our original agenda and move to 78 ESS6.
Yeah. Who was the scient? Oh, the I have that these. Well, no. A letter that was passed around. Did I supposed to know? Go anywhere. I I didn't get any letter. There's no one
next to It's over here, gentlemen. No, I passed the wall. This one? It was Oh, we have to sign this. No, it's an exhibit. I need it. Thank you. Oh boy.
Thank you. I'm gonna have to keep my eye on you guys. Not you guys. Just that guy on the end. Yes. Just that guy on the end. All right. If we could just take any conversations outside, please. Thanks. Go ahead. Good evening. My My name is
Amanda Wolf and I represent Effort and Ashley Christensen. And I think we're here for a very straightforward application. and it should be very quick for you. I just want to confirm that our notice was sufficient. Yes, it was. Perfect. And the property is 78 Essex Road, which is block 2305, lot 15. It's
located in the R25 zone. And we're seeking bulk variance for the replacement of two air conditioning condensers and a generator. There's no other changes to the property or the dwelling. And we did receive the reviews from your board professionals, and we have no objection to the comments. So, with that, I'm
going to turn it over to Mr. Christensen and I'm just going to ask you a little bit about your property. How long have you lived there? And let me just swear you in please 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 um you
are Ever Christensen? Correct. Thank you. And if you could just tell us how long you've lived at the property. Sure. Um my wife Ashley and I have lived at the property since late 2019 with our two kids, Caroline and Jack Christensen. And why are you seeking to replace your
air conditioning units? Well, we we discovered this issue um when one of our air conditioning units failed and uh the unit was replaced. Uh the contractor went to the city to get a permit uh for that and we learned that the condenser
units were not within the property uh setback and so we've been pursuing this variance uh since then. Um, we anticipate that our second system at some point because it is aging will likely also need to be replaced. And, um, while we're at it, uh, we wanted to
add a generator to the house. Um, you know, for health and safety with two young kids at home and power going out. Um, it's something that we would like to have added to the property as well. And so, we thought we would take care of that in this application. Thank you. And there's no other changes to the property
that you're making, correct? Correct. Okay. I have no further questions for Mr. Any questions from our experts? Do you have an engineer that's speaking later on? We have Mr. Clark. Yes. Okay. Uh just real quick with regard to the AC unit uh location, that's where the
existing AC unit is now, right? Correct. And that was where they were located when we purchased the property. Okay. And the house is favoring closer to that side. I know the engineers can speak to that. Yes. Correct. Uh would you be willing to test the generator during hours. Absolutely. Okay. And that that
is required under our code so that the permitted hours are in there. Of course. Thank you. Further questions. Any questions from the board? Uh I have one question. Uh regarding the AC, I can understand uh staying with the same
location. How about the generator? Is there any way that it could be replaced on the other side because you have more room at that uh area? So, in in my opinion, um aesthetically, I don't think so. I think it fits better
on the side of the house where the AC condensers are that is screened from the neighbor's property with a a stockade fence as well as a fair amount of vegetation. Um their driveway then abuts to that on the other side of the We
actually have a garden and a path going into the backyard. And so the side of the AC condensers are already placed. Um is, you know, in our view the best location for it because it is most screened, I think, from everybody for
all purposes. It's also where the gas line is running into the property on that side of the house. And so it would be I'm not professional, but I think it would be fairly difficult uh to try to move the gas line to the other side of the property.
Thank you. Is your basement finished? It is partially finished and partially a crawl space area. Okay. So, in terms of like if you had to run the gas line through your basement to get to the other side
to get out, that is a possibility or would it go through the finished? Any other questions? Okay. Okay. My next witness would be Mr. Andrew Clark. Do you so affirm the testimony you're about to give in this matters? The
truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do. And you have appeared before us a number of times, including recently. Your credentials were accepted at that time. I imagine no changes to your credentials since your last appearance. No, sir. I imagine we'll accept you back once again. Thank you. And Mr. Clark, how did you
become familiar with this proposal? I became familiar with the proposal when I was contacted by the owners to um conduct the survey work. Um so I did the survey. I think initially I wasn't clear what it was for but then um we discussed further after the survey was completed that uh there was a variance application
and then I amended with an additional plan to clarify uh the variance condition. Thank you. And if you could describe the existing and proposed conditions. Certainly. Um the existing conditions, it's a it's in the R25 zone on Essex Road number 78 and it's 100
about 100 ft wide, slightly less than that um at the setback and a little more than 300 ft deep, 30,000 square foot lot. Um the property is fairly large. It's a little bit
oversized for the R25 zone which has the 25,000 ft requirement. and conforming uh by and large to all the bulk standards except for uh the right yard setback. So the right yard the dwelling itself is at
uh between 12.6 and 12.8 ft off of that right line and that's where the that's the side of the dwelling where the equipment is located. The rest of the setbacks, building coverage, lot coverage are all conforming. The front yard setback is about four times what the zone minimum is. So, it's set back
uh a considerable distance from the street compared to many properties in Summit and even in the R25 zone. Um the existing air conditioning units as indicated on the plans that were submitted are 8.9 and 9 ft um off of the
boundary required to be 15. And the proposed generator is is other than replacement of the AC units is the only proposed work and new work that's uh involved in this application. And that's going to be placed behind the air
conditioner units at about 8 ft off the line. Um, as was indicated, there is a stockade fence along the boundary. It's a little bit hard to see, but it's labeled there on the right side. It's it's uh I think it's a 6ft fence. It's a pretty pretty
tall fence. I couldn't see over it when doing the survey work. And on the other side of the fence, part of the reason it's not shown is because it's pretty thick in there. Um there's there's quite a bit of vegetation, a lot of roodendrrons,
there's several uh mature trees, and the driveway is past that vegetation. So you have the fence probably like a 10ft strip of vegetation and then the driveway and then in the back um that driveway leads to a detached garage that's back there and then the house is
on the other side of the driveway. So it's uh considerable setback from the boundary. So there's there's a good natural existing mature screening uh environment that's there for the this equipment that's there now. And I think
that's reflected in uh Mr. Linson's review who indicated that there was adequate screening on the property and for the project and um had no objections. I would agree with that. Um I don't think even if you attempted to add screening as the ordinance typically
does require for uh mechanical equipment, I'm not sure how well it would grow given the shade conditions that are in there and given the condition of screening that exists now. I don't really think it's necessary. Um, I think the positioning of this of the
air conditioner units and the generator was also spoken to about where the utilities come in and um, typically the electrical equipment. I'm not an expert on generators, but I believe they have to be in reasonable proximity not only to the gas line which fuels the
generator when the power's out, but to the electrical distribution system within the house, which is usually near the panel box. um typically or often that's in the garage or near the garage in a utility room. So, same thing with the air conditioner units. They usually
like to position them approximate to the uh utility rooms. Um so, I think that those are legitimate and good reasons why this would be the right side of the house to have this equipment on. And I don't really see any any detriment in
this case in terms of any effects on the neighbors. you can't even see any of this equipment from the street. So, it's really only that neighbor to the right on lot 14 that could be affected. And um it's my understanding there's no um issues that have been raised with the
neighbor about the existing equipment. So, I don't see the addition of uh first of all, the new AC units will be probably quieter than the older ones we've found. And um the generator of course will will come on when conditions
uh warrant. Otherwise the exercising would take place as indicated in the planners review and uh Mr. Ball's indication per the ordinance during afternoon hours. I don't really have any other further questions for Mr. Clark. I'm not sure if any member of the board or the
professionals do. Um my understanding can you confirm what the um increase in improve coverage is because of these improvements? Yeah. So the only increase such as it is would be the generator itself. Um which
usually those are about two or two and 1/2 ft wide by about four feet. Um, so 8 to 10 ft additional coverage and we're far below what's permitted and that's also a a an increase that's far below
what any sort of storm water thresholds would be for um for summit. So I I agree with that. There's um there's no additional impervious coverage that would trigger any storm water. So I don't have anything further at all on that. Thank you. Thanks.
Really no questions just to say that you have the stockade fence there now and plus the adjacent landscaping. So I think that addresses questions from the board. Is there any public here for this? No. Okay. Seeing none. I have no further
witnesses. Okay. So with that, in closing, I will say that I think that we can make this application under the C1 standard given the location of the existing dwelling and the location of the sideyard setback and where the existing air conditioning units are. I think that that's an appropriate
location. And I think we can also make it under the C2 standard because that it will be modern equipment that will be less noisy, more efficient that promotes the purposes of the MLUL which include the general welfare, secure safety from fire, flood, disaster. the there's adequate light air in open space. We're
not adding any coverage. It'll promote a desirable visual environment. As we discussed, there's a fence there, there's landscaping there, so no one's going to see this. And it promotes the utilization of renewable energy resources by having modern and efficient technology. On balance, I think it will have a limited impact on the neighborhood. It's buffered by the
fence. It's currently in the same location, so I think the neighbors will be used to seeing it. It's nothing new. And as I as we discussed, we can stipulate to only testing the generator at an appropriate time. and we have no problems with adding additional landscaping if necessary, but we don't think that is necessary. So, with that,
I would turn it over to the board for consideration. I I have one question. I don't remember if you covered this. The size of the air conditions, are they going to be the same as the Are you replacing for equal size? Uh, yes. In my be replacements identical or similar in
size and capacity, you're not not bigger capacity. Thank you. Do we have any conditions? No. Right. I have none. Just the usual, right? Just the the But that's already in our code, so we don't need Can we just I mean, if
they're adding a generator, just make sure nothing's none of the screening's disturbed when they're getting the generator into the spot that make sure proper screenings in place or that's just all part of the same I think the screening is mostly the fence. We can certainly maintain the
existing screening. We don't have any problem with that. Yeah. Just for clarity, the the where the equipment is located is next to a path, stone path that's running between our house, the screening, the fence, and the neighborhood property. And so there
would not be anything disturbed. But of course, we don't want to replace anything that gets damaged. So I don't necessarily see any indication that there is going to be a disturbance. We wouldn't normally add a condition if there's no such indication. So, so unless there's any other thoughts
on conditions, I'll just note that um again, we're only dealing with Z variances here. Only a majority vote or four votes is required to approve. Well, I keep saying we try to improve every one of the applications and I can't do it on this one because it's perfect. So, we'll leave it the way it
is. Uh we are doing everything or they are doing everything that's appropriate. The um the narrative in here spells it all out and uh I I think we should approve it.
I would love a night of just applications like this because it is so easy to understand the hardship of the existing building in its location. You're not moving the house. You're not moving your supply lines coming in from the street, the gas line. This is an existing location with
existing units, very well screened. This is a no-brainer to me. I support it. Anyone else? Or a move to approve. Move to approve. Second, Mr. Malay. Yes. Mr. Steiner. Yes. Mr.
Nelson. Yes. Miss Chief. Yes. Mr. Fes. Yes. Mr. Tantuli? Yes. Vice Chair Zon? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. And why don't we take a fivem minute break now before we start 31 Hobart. We have to do this. We're taking
a break. lately. Tom joined us. Yes. And we're moving on to 31 Hobart Avenue. Okay. So, good evening again. Long time no see. Hillary from Dempsey Dempsey and Sheen representing the applicants Matthew and
Katherine Medvine, owners of 31 Hobart Avenue, block 3401, lot 26 in the R10 zone. The applicants seek to construct a detached two-car garage to match the architectural style of the home and to modify certain aspects of the home that
is currently under construction by adding a roof over the patio in the rear of the home and adding a covered porch on the side of the home to further enhance the architectural and historic elements of the home. The applicant requests variances for building coverage
of 22.13% where 18% is permitted. That is an overage of 785 square ft. Uh the proposed required twocar garage counts towards 576 ft of that coverage. Um and the roof
over the patio counts towards another 560 square ft. Although the patio is not fully enclosed under the ordinance, it is included in building coverage. The required twocar garage is proposed to be located 4.33 feet from the side property
line, which is a result of the steep slopes on the property. The slopes also contribute to the height of garage of 22.56 feet from the average grade. However, from the street, um the front elevation in the garage will be 18 feet,
which complies with the ordinance. The applicant, Matthew Medvine, is here tonight along with Ryan Petack, applicant's architect, and Rich Keller, the civil engineer and professional planner. I'm happy to answer any questions or call first.
Any questions from the experts? This house is already under construction. Um I just have one. The 570 uh six square feet for the garage. Um only a portion of that is
contributing to the building the overage relative to the old house because there was already a garage it right but it was it's probably 300 ft not 576 square ft. Um I did the maths on Okay. Yeah. But I
mean it's not it's not 576 ft of overage from the garage. It's about 300 ft if you you're going to do the new part, right? So, yeah. That's it. Um, yes. Okay. Um, so Matthew Medve,
good evening. 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 can you please state your name, spell your last name? is Matthew Medine. Me d ne. Thank you. Okay. Um, are you the owner with your wife of 31 Hobart Avenue, the
property that is the subject of this application? I am. And how long have you owned this residence? We purchased it last March, I believe. And you currently live in Washington DC. And so you're moving to Summit? We are
moving to Summit. My wife grew up in Westfield. So I lost the long battle to try and keep her south. So, we are moving up north. Okay. And can you tell the board what drew you to this home and what your objectives were for the improvements? I grew up in Northern Virginia within walking distance to
downtown and a small town. So, once I caved and agreed to move north, we had pretty perfect specific parameters that we were looking for. Uh, the location of this house is within walking distance of downtown, which was my biggest thing. Uh, the historic element. I'm a builder
by trade and I love history and just old homes is very fascinating. Um, and the charm and just history behind the home is something that really drew it to us. And then the proximity was what sold it and caught attention from the get-go. Um, and can you tell the board a little
background of how you ended up in front of this board tonight? So, we bought the home last March. Uh we were hoping to have plans expedited uh as we found out unexpectedly that we were expecting and we were trying to get plans submitted by
last summer. They didn't end up getting submitted until uh or last spring, excuse me. We didn't get submitted until last summer and we didn't end up getting a building permit until October. Uh we got stuck and hung up through primarily
through the garage with a placement. The old existing garage that was torn down. From what my understanding was, it was no longer compliant. And given that we were modifying the size and the location given the addition we were putting on the back, uh it was no longer compliant
with the current codes. So, in order to continue getting the building permit, we made some adjustments, put a placeholder garage just somewhere on the plan so we could check a box, get the building permit, and get going on the main primary portion of the house. Uh, with the understanding that we had spoken
with, um, I believe it was Chris in the zoning department. Um, within that department, several individuals that we were looking to go through this process. Um, but just given that time was of the essence to try and finish the home and get in place
um within the timeline of having the baby that we'd be going before the board to pursue it. At that time, they said, "Look, we can't promise anything, but what you're asking for seems to be fairly acceptable." So, we proceeded as such.
Okay. And um can you describe briefly for the board what is proposed as part of this application? Sure. As you noted, uh we are looking to construct a new two twocar garage uh that is 18 ft from the street. uh the back quarter of the lot drops significantly. It's I believe
roughly 14 feet. I can let the engineer confirm that. Um but that significantly skews the calculated average grade around the lot or around the garage, excuse me, which drastically increases the height of the building. Um we are
also looking at connecting the existing front porch with a side walkway to make it a wraparound porch to connect to the side entrance where there's another porch. And we are looking to cover a patio at the back so we can use it during the rain. Um, and can you describe for the board
what is proposed in the new garage? Uh, it is used for storage, cars. We're probably going to put some workout equipment. Just that's it. And did you retain experts to help you in the preparation and presentation of this application? I did.
And can you just tell us who they are? Uh, I hired our architecture firms due to 3877, Rich Keller and his firm, and then your firm, Hillary. Um, and have you spoken with any of your neighbors about the proposed improvements, and if so, what were the nature of those
conversations? Uh, we have, uh, we have walked up and down the neighborhood at a few different points. We've caught a few neighbors, not all. Uh we wrote handwritten letters or partially handwritten letters and signed notes uh to all of the neighbors on the block from uh Springfield down to the bend. Uh
we have spoken directly and met several occasions. Our immediate neighbors on the left and right, Lisa and Ed, the other side, Bill and Leslie, and across the street, Hi and Matt. They're all very happy with us uh maintaining and preserving the historic existing cottage, and they have no issues with
what we're doing. Uh we've spoken with some other neighbors on the street, a Marcela, a Matt, um I believe a Mark. Um and everyone has had nothing but good things to say to date. You know, we left our information on the letters we canvas with the neighborhood um just to reach
out if there are any concerns and we have yet to hear anything, but happy to to address questions, concerns, etc. as we outlined in that letter. Perfect. I don't have any other questions. Sorry, it's okay. Any questions from our
experts? I have no questions. Questions from the board? I I just have one. So, the work that's been done so far, that's all been permitted and none of it is Okay. So, we haven't started on the garage, the patio. We're still a ways out from that, but the patio's already permitted, just
the covering part, but none of that stuff's been built. Okay, good. Any other questions? Actually, there was a couple comments from John Lson about trying to save the trees. So we have one. So the two large trees in the front aptly named the
building's aptly named after them. One of them is not in great shape. That one has already been approved to be removed as part of the building permit. That was the one in the original comment that he had significant concerns about because there was no protection. There was no protection because that's it's coming
down. The one that is being preserved that has had protection. It's in good health. Um we have since met with him on site, clarified that he has no issues. Uh the only concerns he had said was I think asking for additional um just refertilization and just re um whatever
the right term is I'm sorry like decompaction. Thank you. Um after construction is done just to make sure that everything is is safe for that tree. And we're also looking at putting a new tree in uh in place of the one that we're removing. And we did get this um forers
report today. I don't know if you saw I'm not sure I saw that yet. Yeah, I think it was probably under the um agenda. Um so uh I I see uh you started work I mean construction work is there but I see in the u ki uh memo that the sole
erosion sediment plan was submitted or not yet. So it was we have an approved plan. That's what we're we are building per the approved plan as it stands currently. We have not started on any any elements that are associated with
the variance that we're requesting. Thank you. Um yeah, I think just to clarify because in the in uh Mr. Linson's uh report here. Um he
said both the larch and magnolia trees on the front lawn have been abused during dis construction. Uh decompaction and fertilization are required. Are either of those the tree that you're proposing to remove or No,
they're not. one of the largest is, but I believe the two that he's referencing are the one is that's preserved that's in the center and then the magnolia is on the far end uh where no work has been done. Okay. So, and you will agree to correct. We will. Yeah, we love the trees. I want to keep that. Yeah, we
even kept the sign up on the original tree. Thank you. Mhm. If there are no other questions, we can move to the I didn't know neighbors. Oh, yes. So, there are any neighbors here? Any any who would like to anybody who would like to comment now a question not
comment sorry the owner if you would come up question questions only yeah yeah I guess just the com the question would be can you tell us your name please it's Ed Pursc and I live at 11 Hobart Avenue
right next door thank you uh I guess the question would be is there what is the plan for storm drainage with the twocar garage since that'll be about double the square footage of the original one onecar garage because I know there's
been a lot of issues with flooding in the back there and that's our concern. So, um the engineer is going to go through the entire storm water management. So, is it okay if we wait and have that answered by
Thank you. Are there any other questions for the homeowner? Okay. So, we can move on to uh Ryan Pachak. All right, you're ready. Could you 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. Ryan Petack. Spelled like I have a pet yak. P E T Y A K. Thank you. you and can you briefly describe your background and experience for the board? Certainly. Uh got my masters, my undergraduate and my masters at Great Catholic University of
America in Washington DC. I've been practicing architecture uh for 20 years. I've been licensed for 12 of those um registered in the state of Pennsylvania. I have um worked on probably a dozen to 20 historic
preservation projects. I've worked on probably a dozen to 20 um zoning projects in Washington DC with the building zoning of board of adjustment. I've worked on projects with the old Georgetown Board Commission of Fine Arts as well as um with uh with other with
actually the the the preservation district of the the city of Honolulu. All right. And just to confirm, my understanding is you are not licensed in the state of New Jersey as an architect, but your firm prepared these plans. Obviously, a New Jersey licensed
architect who did finalize and sign off on those. That is correct. My partner David Trotz is the licensed architect who worked on this project with me along with my colleague Joanna Wit. Um David Trotz couldn't be here this evening due to circumstances uh that were unforeseen. Um but I did work throughout the entire project with the applicant as
well as the rest of the team. Okay. Um, so if there's any questions, go ahead. If not, we will let him speak about those plans. Hearing none. Okay. So, can you go through the steps you took to prepare um for your testimony recognizing that
you're testifying to plans that have been prepared by a member of your firm who's licensed um a licensed architect in New Jersey? Certainly, like I said, I worked on the design throughout throughout the project with the design team. I've met with uh Matthew Medbine as well as Rich and yourself. I've
visited the site twice now. Um once before construction began and then once during the construction of the foundations. Um I've reviewed the historic preservation guidelines as well as the ordinances associated with summit itself. Um and I've also reviewed the
comments that were provided by Hillary and her team or I'm sorry, zoning and the team by Hillary. Thanks. Um, can you describe for the board what is proposed as part of this application? Certainly, like Matthew said, um, the original garage was a flat roof garage. What we
wanted to do was to, uh, or what he wanted to do was to bring it up to, um, the visual aesthetics of the neighborhood by creating a a pitched roof that actually matched the existing pitch of the existing home um, on the lot as it stands. We wanted to also
utilize the front porch as you um can see at the front and wrap it around the side to engage the rear edition um at the back of the home to uh establish a connection between the original and the new. And then we also wanted to help Matt with providing a rear covered porch
over the existing permitted porch so that him and his family could um enjoy that through uh three or four seasons out of the year. Okay. Um, and the new detached garage is replacing
a prior onecar undersized detached garage. Is that correct? That is correct. The original garage was non-conforming because it was a onecar garage. So, we've since proposed a second twocar garage as shown here. The roof line uh matches the existing roof
line of the existing home. We've also provided uh per Matt and Cat's request a Koopa on top of the roof um to um match the original Koopa. It is the original. Oh, you were able to see it. Fantastic.
So, it is the original Koopa. Yep. So, I just want to point out this is a new exhibit. Um this is exhibit A1. Um the garage has been redesigned to remove the dormers on each side. Thank you. So, this was not yet submitted. Not yet
submitted. It'll be A1 then. Yes. Yeah. There was originally um dormers in the original design to provide daylight into the garage space. Um also to try to capture some of the existing roof lines on the permitted home. Um since and
after talking with Hillary and Rich and the rest of the applicants team, we've decided to remove said side dormers on both sides of the garage. Um, furthermore, we utilize some of the existing pediment detailing uh underneath the roof line that matches the existing home, understanding that
the uh garage would be visible from the street to provide some of that complimenting architecture associated with the original structure itself. Uh the height is 18 ft to the peak um as Matt was talking about the site in the rear. Uh and that's whenever
at the at the location at the point in which you drive into the garage. But as Matt discussed earlier and Rich will speak on further due to the site and grades um it is larger as an average grade due to those contours is because I can't see this you know I can't see the
numbers where is where's the 18 ft is it the top of the hoopla or is it where the roof line at the roof line itself not the roof line itself what's the height of the top of the hoopla kuba is roughly 30 in tall so it
would be about Okay. And then if you could just go through um the side porch and how that um is going to help with the aesthetics and the historic nature of the home. Certainly. Um the the idea of the side porch was to uh uh one of the things
that we did as a design team was to have a rear edition. So in terms of sighting, the object was to have the rear uh linear addition off the center line of the existing home. Um, but to also grab some of the the new and existing architecture, we are proposing to extend
the side porch from the front facade, which you can see here at plan right, wrapping around the side of the um existing home and engaging with the uh addition at the rear. There is an existing side porch um that has since been removed. This property uh at some
throughout the history started with the original structure and there were two subsequent additions after that. Um and that side porch then establishes that existing datim as it extends to the rear. We are also in uh we documented the railing conditions on the existing
porch as well as the columns and the f and the ornamentation along the porch and uh Matt and their team have since u began to replicate those elements to continue that architectural um aesthetic around the facade.
Um, and are there other u properties in the surrounding resident in the surrounding area that have porches and similar design features? Yeah, thank you. There are there are numerous homes throughout the the neighborhood that have uh wraparound porches, some on all
three front on all three sides, some on two. Okay. Um and then um can you just explain how the project reflects the design guidelines of the city summit and the historic preservation commission? Certainly. Um
we've used similar ornamentation from the original. Obviously, we differentiate the new from the old. We utilize a uh sighting uh the sighting guidelines to establish that the addition of the new structure is at the rear. uh the um the garage itself which
is what a large piece of this is cited in an area which unfortunately due to the grades at the rear is where it must be relative to the home. Um the rear p covered porch area is not obviously visible to any neighbors or the street.
the scale and size of the windows and the addition itself is in line with the existing residence um as well as some of the ornamentation throughout. Perfect. I don't have any other questions. Any questions for our board experts? I
have no questions. Question. I want to follow up on the um accessory structure height we heard. So, it's it the front elevation is 18 feet, but because of the slopes and the average grade that's
around it, um the height of the garage is going to be 22.56 ft. When calculated from the average, the Koopa does not count. Okay. So it the accessory structure
height limitation of 18 ft is still met in accordance with our code. No, because it's to the average grade right around that. So therefore they are seeking a varian. We are Yes, we're seeking a variance for the height. I must have missed that in there. Thank you.
It it was an add-on. Gotcha. I have a question for the architect. Um, when you're designing this access the accessory garage, was there a reason you couldn't flatten that roof um, in keeping with the aesthetic of the historic house as well as what you can
see from the street? Thanks. Um, we at one point looked at having a much flatter roof pitch. It starts to flatten out and starts to get wide and unfortunately I guess the best terminology is stumpy in a sense. It's for shortened. Um so ultimately what we wanted to do was we had an opportunity due to the adding of the width based off
the second the second um car space. We wanted to utilize that existing roof line to try to play with in harmony of what's what with the existing residence. But we did look at obviously the flat roof structure. Um but obviously as you start to compress to meet the 18 ft over
the average grade it starts to really start to forcehorten the height of the the roof line. And I think Summit doesn't favor flat roofs. Well, you I think you this could be made this you could have a garage that with a roof that is pitched to
code, but just a lower roof, correct? And still that would still that is possible, right? Yes, it is. Yeah. Well, I'm sorry. It is possible, but again, when you look at it from the street, it's 18 ft. So, I understand that. Yes, it's 20. It's from the rear of the
property because of those slopes, but if if you're driving 18 to meet, it's really 15 feet. 18 is if you're trying to match, right? Which is what they're trying to do. That's the same slope as the roof of the existing residence. That's correct. The same pitch. Same
pitch. Yeah. Thank you. Is there storage in the top of the No, nothing. Well, right now there is uh the height's going to be used for some of that the the raises and lowers, you know, the the
racks that you can raise above the vehicle for cars, but there isn't a floor above the car. So, when the cars out, you can lower the racks and loads and stuff, raise the seat for just for clarity, for construction, is it a rafter system or is it a vated ceiling? It's a vated ceiling. Okay.
And back to the porch. the or about the porch that was never included in the original plans for the house. The wraparound porch, the wraparound porch was not. Why not? Um, it came up as as Matt and uh the team started looking at the garage structure and trying to
connect those elements. How does how does that connect to the garage? Visually connect. I'm sorry. Okay. It was something. It was something that since we were going for the board, my wife asked if we could ask for it since we're going
through the exercise. That was the genesis of it. Is that So, is that likely just probably aesthetic as opposed to functional because it overlooks the driveway and there's the covered porch
in the back. This is mostly looks like is it mostly an aesthetic feature? Yeah, it's only 3 ft wide. It's purely for passage and connecting the two porch elements. You wouldn't have to go downstairs around the driveway and back up the side. You can just go around the
porch between the two entrances. Are you allowed to move the garage more forward so it's closer to the structure to avoid that steep slope problem? I I don't believe so. when we were doing the sighting, but Rich will speak to that more. Okay,
any other questions? No, just one last question. Yeah. Uh, with regard to the retaining wall, is that something the engineer will speak to as far as the finishing of the wall below the garage? Yes, Richard will speak to that. Thank you.
Um, does anybody from the board have any other questions? No. Um, what about members of the public? No. Yes. Come up. Please state your name and address,
please. Sure. It's Katherine Palm. Um, 24 Hobart. So, haven't got a chance to meet anyone because we probably weren't home at the right time. Um, so getting caught up in understanding the plans. So will the this uh three-foot sort of porch
require moving the driveway over as well? The driveway is already slid. Okay. So you've you are rerouting the driveway. The current drive. That's why the tree on the right being sliding. Sure. That's helpful to understand.
Um, and you said it sounded like you did consider putting the garage in a different area on the plans to get through. Sorry, if you could just go to a mic. Oh, sorry. On the plans to get through permit, we'd put it kind of squat in the middle of the backyard just to get through. That's not something
that we intend. Sure. He just wanted to check the box for a car and if there's an issue here, you could place it somewhere where it doesn't get to be 4 foot from. So, I think that the engineer will testify as to why this is an appropriate
location. Any other questions before we move to the next witness or No, we're good. Uh, Rich Keller, if you could raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm the testimony you're about to give in? This matter is the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. Yes, I do. And uh, you appear
before us a number of times, including recently any changes to your credentials since the last time you were here? No, I am still licensed as an engineer and planner in the state of New of New Jersey. I imagine we will accept you back once again. Thank you. Okay. So, approximately um back
in March of 2024, we were contacted by Mr. Medine, Casey, and Keller to prepare a survey of the property uh that he was purchasing. and subsequently to assist with the grading plan and development plans to uh make an addition to the house and to provide a twocar garage on
the property. Um in doing that, we met with uh we did multiple site inspections. Uh we reviewed the applications. My team prepared the plans. I will say uh the first having done a lot of work in the area, the first thing we wanted to make sure is
that there was no intent to um adversely impact the existing dwelling because if that was the case, we were not going to take the project. And we were happy to hear that Mr. Medvine was um one of the principal reasons he purchased this was to uh protect the character of this
184850 Gothic revival home. Um, yes, there's an addition to it, but it's been pretty carefully done um with uh historic guidelines in mind um so that the additions are placed to the lateral side and to the rear of the property allowing the existing structure to shine through. Um we also uh met with the
engineering department um regarding drainage because we understand there has been some problems with drainage down below and I've worked at properties at the end of street uh where it turns into Franklin. I know there's water issues down at that area. So, we vetted uh all of our uh drainage design for both the application that's under construction as
well as the proposed application uh with both Aaron Shrager as well as uh his assistant. We also met uh at city hall when it became you know I I go back um 35 years as a licensed planner and engineer and I worked with Christa
Anderson for a long time. Um obviously Christa's gone there's been a an understanding in the ordinance that was a little different than we had understood it. So, we were a little surprised when we found out that when we moved the garage up out of the quote unquote required rear yard area and it became into the what is the allowable
building area for for the dwelling that um you are no longer um allowed to use the four four foot setback which is permitted for passive structures in the zone. So, it was a little new to us. So when we realized that that was going to be an issue and we would have to go for
a variance for that and again given the time constraints um by the owner's family to get in, we met with uh both Chris Nola and a member of Burgess Associates at town hall discuss how we could devise an option to move forward. We laid out a plan where we did place a
garage that was more central to the rear of the home kind of destroying the back of the home. Um and also just by its location meant that we would be moving vehicle vehicles further into the back of the property back inside of the property. Um but uh not the preferred
location that was agreed to um by by the group when we met. Um we've also reviewed the administrative comments. Uh we've had conversations over the last week with John Linson. Um and then uh today I had a conversation and uh and responded to uh your board engineers
comments um which I'm going to hand out in a second. So we're familiar with the property. The existing property as you're aware is 100 foot by wide by 190 foot deep rectangular property uh fronting on the east side of Hobart Avenue. It's roughly midblock or exactly
midblock between Springfield Avenue and Franklin Place. The uh the lot area is 19,000 square feet which is 436 acres and it's wholly located in the R10 um residential zone. Um if we look at the
survey that's uh up on the screen, uh there's the property as it exists with the uh the um two and a half story Gothic structure in the center, relatively small footprint, and the uh 225 square ft um onecar garage, which
actually was just it was undersized enough to make it difficult, probably good for a horse and carriage, not necessarily for for a vehicle. Um and that was at the uh at the rear right of the off the existing house. And there was a swath of approximately 3726 areas um square foot of steep
slopes. Steep slopes in your town the threshold is 15%. I will say this steep this swath of steep slopes is much steeper. It's uh it's anywhere from 25 to 35%. Uh especially right off the back corner of the existing garage. So, we
wanted to be careful to uh to make sure we maintained what is allowed as an administrative disturbance of less than a thousand square feet if we demonstrate that there's no in adverse impacts to the surrounding uh neighbors. And so we
uh we worked with the architect um to develop a plan where we would uh nominally disturb that area uh provide uh state-of-the-art storm water management as well as um allow for proper access to the site. I'll go
forward to what I would would call as our uh applicants exhibit number two. This is a um an annotated aerial photo of the site prepared by my firm dated today May 5th, 2025. The image is taken from near map,
a high resolution um subscription service, aerial service. We get aerial photos four times a year. Uh and they are to scale. Um this image was captured on March 19th of uh of 2025, so it's relatively recent. You can see the site
under construction as it exists today. Um, what you'll see is right behind where we've got the garage in the area where I'm I'm waving the cursor. That is the area where the steep slopes come through the site. All of these properties fronting on Hobart drain into the back into lot 29. And that water
then continues down behind lot 24 and it continues uh down into a um the end lot at lot 20 sort of meandering through these rear yards. When we first met with the uh township engineer, Aaron Shrager, and his his assistant,
um we uh they were very concerned that we made sure we did not uh exacerbate any of the flows. There's a large house under construction on Springfield Avenue which has been um discharging, especially before the roof leaders were put in into that area. Want to make sure we were not exacerbating that and we
were careful to actually overdesign the storm water system. So, we are providing more detention than is required. Uh we did respond to a uh a comment by your town the the board engineer. So we are actually expanding uh the stone area to make sure that we can accommodate all the water that goes to it and we're
being very careful about the way that water is discharged. We're not letting it flow down the slopes those steep slope areas. We're actually taking it into the lower a lower part and dis dispersing it through what's called a um a level spreader. A level spreader was the preferred method by Mr. Shrager and
uh and the associate and the assistant. So, um that's the way that uh that's the existing neighborhood pattern. The the proposal, as was indicated, um was to place an addition on the north or
the left side of the drawing, a two-story addition. Um there was a we're proposing a covered porch that wraps around off the existing covered porch, comes down the side, ties into a permitted covered porch um along with a two-story addition. And whereas we got
permitted for uh an area at the rear where it says proposed covered patio, that was actually approved as a as an outdoor um terrace. So the uh that patio there um we're proposing to cover that. That does add to the square footage of the building even though it is open as
Hillary said. Um the covered porch, we're taking that existing um porch and we are looking to wrap that around the side as was indicated by the architect. So the front portion um from where the word C is uncovered to the front that is
a part of the variance application. The covering that's uh goes from there towards the back of towards the two-story edition that is permissible by code. And then we are seeking to basically provide a uh a proposed one-story two-car garage uh the the
required minimum 12 ft off the rear of the structure. So one of the questions was can we make it closer to the structure? Uh a couple things happened. One is um the reason we are at 4.33 feet is because if you look at um we come down the driveway, you need to get
access into that left bay. Um and so we need to curve and widen that driveway. So we met the township city requirement of 12 feet set back to the garage and that allows us just enough uh area to to deflect. The primary parking space would be on the right. The more the one that
would be for the smaller car will be on the left. still adequate to back up. Uh there's no area to turn around in this in this site, so you would back out the driveway out to uh to Hobart Avenue, but uh there's really no way to get the uh ordinance required two-car garage, um
keep it 12 ft off, um and get proper turning and um mobility into that space. And we didn't want to push it on any further back. Obviously, if we pushed it further back another 20T, then the sideyard setback would be permitted at 4 feet rather than the 12 ft that's
required since we moved it forward. So, we're really we're between a rock and a hard place between the steep slopes uh and the location of the lawfully existing dwelling at the site inciting a conforming garage uh that is um basically usable. We also um prefer the
garage facing the street. It's what the current uh design has. And also um if we start to slide that over, we would need to slide that to the left probably some 24 feet to allow mobility to get in and out of the garage. Uh which means now we're we are replacing a static
structure or a passive structure which is the garage with a turning area for a vehicle to uh maneuver and back out of the garage. So, we felt it was actually uh the more neighboring thing to do to keep the orientation uh as is with the historic garage facing the street and uh
and to nestled as close as we could to allow for geometry. That limited our amount of disturbance into that steep slope area. Uh it did mean, as was indicated, that our average grade does go up because we're dipping that back um into the steep slope area and your ordinance requires when we calculate
steep slopes, we have to measure it six feet off of the property. And when you go six feet off, it drops the average grade another couple feet even further. So the uh the location of the of the garage was carefully studied over multiple iterations and we felt that this was the best um for not disturbing
steep slopes. Um really wouldn't be viable in the back because I would have a 12 to 14t drop to get back there. Um so it was really the only viable location that that garage could go. With regard to um the uh variances that are
necessitated, uh we will need uh C variance relief for the proposed open and covered uh porch additions to the single family that's currently be expanded and uh replacement of the existing 18 by uh the existing uh 18'4
in x 12t 4 in onecar detach garage with the 24x 24 twoft garage located about 17 ft further back from the current garage. The um the we did have an error in the zoning table. There was a because we've so many
iterations the uh where it says 105 ft of patio is uh is proposed on this up at patio and deck. That's actually been removed. So our total coverage actually drops by 105. It goes down to 2470. It's somewhat of a move point because we are not over on our total coverage anyways.
We did not need variance relief for coverage for total lock coverage. With regard to the uh the engineering f um salient features, um we did, as I said, we worked closely with the uh with the city engineers um to mitigate um against any storm water
runoff created by the uh the project. All roof leaders for both the uh additions to the house, the existing house, as well as the two-story garage, I'm sorry, one-story, two-car garage will be routed to uh an array of two drywalls. those dry wells um are a little oversized and actually we'll be
oversizing a little more because we're directing so much water to them. We have to make them a little larger. Um obviously we will do soil permeability testing to ensure that the soils can handle that. We had good luck up the road. Um but uh and then what we do is we we take the overflow from so
everything goes to the dry wells including any water that runs down the uh the proposed driveway which is flanked by curbing that will go into a trench drain. The trench drain is also contributo to the two dry wells shown at the center of the of the uh the image
and the overflow on that. Um if they get high to the point where they're starting to overflow, the overflow comes out comes behind the garage and then it is directed down um at the part where we have the least steep slope disturbance. By the way, that'll be restored, which you're allowed to do, but we did count
it on our steep slopes. And that will be then discharged into what we call a level spreader. We take that pipe, it's perforated, it's set in a large area of stone, relatively flat. So the water will bubble up out of that and it basically leaves that uh pipe with zero velocity. So you don't you're not getting a pipe that's at the bottom of a
very steep slope and jetting water into that area, but it actually allows it to bubble up and trickle, which will continue to trickle off to the uh to the right side of the drawing as we indicated on the aerial photo that I showed earlier. So storm water management will certainly be reduced
over what is existing today. There there are virtually no storm water management on the Gothic Revival home that's there. It all basically ran down the steep slopes and into that low area. So we there is a net reduction uh considerable net reduction of the rate of runoff into
that rear area. The um as indicated design has been set to dissipate the velocity of any runoff. there will be no erosion to existing slopes and there's no discharging to uh no direct discharge to uh any adjoining
development. So the storm water management was carefully considered and worked out with uh with your city engineer and uh and we did respond to some of the comments from the board's uh consulting engineer which I'll go over in a second uh when we get to the finish
the end of my testimony. The um so the variances required a C variance for maximum building coverage 18% is permitted in the R10 zone. The existing site is 10.2%. Um the property under construction was for
17.4%. The proposed application will increase increase the building coverage to 22.13. Uh as was indicated that is a deviation of 785 square feet over what's permitted. But I would point out so 351 square feet of that is to replace the
existing onecar garage with a twocar garage. So the net difference between the 576 ft proposed garage and the existing 225 um is that 351 ft. So approximately a little less than half of that deviation
is to become compliant with the garage. 110 square feet is to wrap uh the covered porch around the outside. So that was that area from uh midpoint on the house to the front to allow that 3-foot passageway to wrap around. Um not
so much a circulation element as as it is an architectural element to tie that wraparound porch into the side of the home uh and bring it into the rear. The um so it really contributes to the architectural and historical elements of the house. It is aesthetically pleasing in keeping with the character of both
this home and other homes of the neighborhood. Uh the proposed side porch as we indicated further enhances the Gothic revival style highlighting the architectural and historical uh elements of the property uh which results we think in a home that is um overall
aesthetically pleasing and in keeping with the character of homes in the surrounding area. And then 550 square feet, not 560, but 550 square feet is in that back um proposed covered patio. And that is uh it is behind the house. It is um not visible due to the
location of the house. It's not visible due to existing landscaping on our property on the left side which is remaining un untouched as well as any proposed landscaping we are proposing for the property. the um the basically it carries again that
aesthetic of of a wraparound porch. Wraparound porches also um because they are open and diaphous, they're not closed, they're open, allows us to see through them, they actually break down the mass from the rear of the house as well as tie it together architecturally um which the side the side porch does as
well. The um you know certainly um this allows for um the year round or at least threeseason use of the backyard. This is a property that really does not have a lot of usable space in that backyard because of the steep slopes on the property dropping into the back. So
really that whole area behind what we're calling out for the three the three-ft tall fence uh is an area of somewhat restricted use. So we'd like to allow the the applicant to at least be able to use that covered patio in a yearround uh situation. Uh we are fully compliant with the total lot coverage, but it does
drive up because it's covered. It does drive up the building coverage and it's part of that 785 foot deviation. The um I will point out a couple of other comments that were made. The uh we did provide a landscape plan. Uh
the landscape plan does call for uh barrier plantings or foundation plantings across the front. Uh we are proposing a uh a in addition to keeping the trees in the front to the left of the property shown uh the larch being in right in the center the 20 foot 20 uh
inch diameter larch the 21in uh u red maple uh as well as the uh uh the other plantings on the left side. We are removing the one of the larches that's right in the middle of the proposed driveway. We are proposing to replace that with a tree. Um we think it's
important actually to balance that composition with a large tree. I know Mr. Linson was uh did took exception to the uh to the species that we um selected um which we have no problem with working with uh Mr. Linson to provide a uh something other than a
honeyloust um in that area would certainly be a um a native non-invasive species of a tall deciduous tree would be our preference on that. well, deciduous or or evergreen tree in that area, but we'll certainly uh run that
past Mr. Linden. And we've already talked to uh a uh an arborist about decompaction um of the uh both the uh the holly as well as most importantly that uh that larch that's in the center of the area since it did get run over by
construction vehicles. So that will be decompacted and fertilized u per Mr. Lindson's uh requirements. With regard to the um the variance relief requested as indicated um we need that uh that C
variance for maximum building coverage. We also need um an accessory a minimum accessory sideyard uh requirement for the garage. That is where um the proposed detached garage is located within the buildable area of the property. It's not in the required rear
yard um which is basically 40 ft from the back. And once it moves from 40 ft within the 40 ft of the rear of the property and moves up um into an area which could feasibly build be part of the building envelope uh it does have to meet the minimum building code require
the built principal building setback of 12T. So if it was further back, it would be four feet. Once we move it up, it goes to four feet. Um goes to 12 feet. We're proposing it at 4.33. For the physical restrictions, we indicated area uh earlier. That being the location of
the existing dwelling, the additions as well as the steep slopes really calls for this to be the only logical spot to place that garage. the um and that's indicated. Um if we were to slide that garage over 15 20 feet
besides uh interfering with any use of the backyard, it means that um we'd still be disturbing just as much if not more steep slopes because we wouldn't be able to use the garage uh itself as the base of the garage as the retaining wall for down that slopes. Um, the beauty of
this plan is we're essentially saw cutting in that garage uh into the slope so we're not disturbing anything below it other than just to bring that one pipe around and then down for the storm water runoff. Otherwise, we're really just dipping that one toe into the steepest part of the site and using the
building to minimize any disturbance in that area. Um, as was indicated from the front, it certainly appeals appears to be uh 18 feet, but the average grade we'll get to in a second. So I do need um the variance for uh accessory building height 18 feet is permitted. Uh
as was indicated the in the um revised plan that was shown before you the height from the uh threshold of the garage up to the peak is uh will be
18 ft. Um the coupula is a permitted element to extend beyond that. Um so that's not considered part of the building height. But when we do look at the average grade, uh the average grade means that our our building height will be set at 22 uh 46 I believe it is. I
think it's 56 56 22 uh 22.56. Um I would point out I believe I have here. So, um, we did look at studying the garage and, um, as was indicated, when
you no longer are matching the peak of the pitch on the existing home, you no longer get that 3-ft height bonus. So, you go from, uh, 18 feet above average grade down to 15T about average about average grade. And so when you lose that
combined with um that average grade issue, your garage actually can only be about 10 foot three um to maybe 10 foot6 above the threshold. So that was the what you see before you in this what we're going to call uh exhibit uh applicants
A3. This is a conforming garage um that would would work on that property given the average grades. So again, between the loss of the um the three-foot bonus and meeting that average grade requirement, that's what the garage would look like. And we certainly felt
like that was not in keeping with either the neighborhood or the historic character of the structure of the existing structure. So that's why we uh we don't take variances very we take don't take them very lightly. We thought it was really a much preferred alternative to go for the the garage
with the variance as opposed to uh that was really atypical to the neighborhood just to meet the uh the ordinance. Especially because as was indicated in the area map, if you look behind us, um is a significant diff distance um more
than 225 to 230 ft behind our property to the nearest residence behind us. From the actual garage, it's closer to 250 ft um to the next um uh dwelling behind us. And that's through a significantly landscaped uh and and wooded area. So
there will be no even though it appears to be high from the backside uh as it cuts into that uh that slope um there's really no negative visual impact on the neighbors uh due to the wooded nature of the of the properties that you're coming back into the uh extreme rear of the
property at lot 29 and you're far away from any of the housing development on the on the street further to the next street further to the east. So the um so that addresses the uh accessory building height. Um we think that both all of the variances requested can be
approved under C1 and C2 under municipal land use 4055D70. Um I like um your planner refers to C1 as the physical features test. Um and this is where the physical features of the property in this case the topography the presence of steep slopes and the location and
configuration of the loftly existing dwelling on the property um uh creates a hardship in developing the property without the need for variance relief. Um C2 and again I like the terminology u from your planner calls it the public benefits test. I used to do uh
consulting to the for three years I was the the consultant to the uh um planning board of adjustment in Long Hill and if I was still there I would steal that because it's it's it's app terminology and it kind of explains the nature of C1 and C2. Um C2 is also known as the
flexible C variance. This is where the proposed plan with the deviation represents a better planning alternative to the one that is fully conforming. Um this proposal we believe balances the need um for the update and modernization of the existing uh housing stock for
this particular home itself while maintaining the original historic and architectural character of the site. Uh this is consistent with the goals of your master plan uh and the re-examination reports of the city uh of summit and is in accordance with the design guidelines um in the DRRO and the historic preservation uh commission
guidelines. The proposed improvements are designed to bring the existing home in the current custom invogue uh and to conform with interior and exterior standards and amenities as reflected uh that are typical of those in the surrounding neighborhood. Um we uh with
any so we think it uh um in in order to uh to um drive home the C2 we need to demonstrate that we advance any of the purposes um of the municipal land use law as enumerated in 4055D70D2
um sorry D55 4055D2 excuse me um and we believe we advance at least four of those. One is the application promotes general uh welfare and public uh safety. Uh this actually this proposal creates an enhancement to an established permitted use in the neighborhood and it eliminates an existing non-conforming
condition by providing the required two garage parking spaces. Uh it also provides for a sufficient space and appropriate location for a variety of residential uses to meet the needs of the community as well as all New Jersey citizens. We think it promotes a desirable visual environment. We think
it is uh is certainly um certainly as as opposed to the conforming garage. Um, we think it is a much more uh visually desirable environment that we've created through the uh even though it does require a height variance for the garage. Uh, and it certainly promotes the conservation of historic sites and
districts. Um, and that's uh that's J under 4055D2. As with any application, we need to demonstrate that we meet the negative criteria. The negative criteria is in two prongs that there's no substantial detriment to the public good and there's no substantial impairment to the intent and purpose of the master plan and
zoning ordinance. We think that this proposal will neither cause a substantial detriment um to the public good nor an impairment to the zone plan. Storm water drainage is proposed and will be appropriately managed. The proposal is consistent with the character of the homes in the neighborhood. We think that the applica
the uh the improvements are aesthetically pleasing. We think property values will be unaffected if if if anything they'll be improved. Um we think that uh the use as we indicated is permitted and consistent with all of the other residential uses in the neighborhood and no other variances are implicated by the proposal. There's no
degradation of air, light, open space to the neighbors. We think that it's um it's actually um it's nice to see somebody who's worked so carefully to preserve a historic home and yet bring it into the uh to the current uh uh century in terms of its uh its uh um uh
amenities and provisions. I will um so I think I covered both the uh the engineering and planning. I did want to hand out um my response to um Miss Rafé's um comments. I think I've
really touched base on all of them, but I just wanted to make sure it went into the record so it' be easier for the attorney to uh to incorporate. And I'll go over the salient features very briefly because I think I already really touched upon them. So I think we're up to A4. A4. Yeah. Thank you.
And so I think the only ones that I think uh we basically agreed to um everything requested um by M. Rafay. Um we will be as indicated under 8A. Um we will be uh expanding the stone beds
surrounding the dry wells. Um since we were we were putting so much water into those drywalls from all the roof leaders more than we really were required to. Um the actually the the drywall system even though it was oversized was a little undersized for all the water. So we will be expanding that through a large stone
area. We'll provide those calculations to uh uh to the uh engineer uh and then that'll obviously get again reviewed by your city engineers if and when this is approved and go for building permits. Um we did indicate that all of the roof
levers will be tied in. Um we did clarify that um you know the the um as was indicated by the revised uh garage plans there was no use of the second floor. There is no second floor. Um we took out the dormers just to make sure there would be no belief that we would
try to sneak something up in there. U was never the intent but we thought it actually was more I personally thought it was actually more in keeping with the existing house. Um there was a lot of debate on that. Um and we uh I think everything else
Um, one thing uh was brought up by uh Mr. Fay was um that we should uh be conscientious that we're consistent with the and the uh the purpose of the steep slope ordinance. Um and we did design
this very carefully to manage that. Um 35-161H1 appears under com as a response to comment number 16. Um, and your ordinance states that the administrative officer may disregard steep slope areas that are cumulatively less than 1,000 square ft in size if in their assessment
in their assessment of the total disturbed area where such action would be in of uh in the interest of public good planning not seriously impair the purpose of the uh of this chapter and would otherwise result in practical difficulty of the applicant. We think that certainly applies here. Um we believe that the proposed disturbance
actually represents good planning uh and will not impair the purpose of the steep slope ordinance. The proposed 975 square feet of steep slope disturbance will not cause any erosion um or unstable conditions, will not have any negative impact on the adjoining properties, and will certainly not impede the flow of
water uh through the through the property or create any storm water corridor that would increase flooding heights or velocities. So, I think we've been pretty careful to make sure we meet that. Um we talked about Mr. Linson's comments. As was indicated, the site currently has a soil conservation district certification in place.
Obviously, if this board would approve that, we would send them um a new plan. We would have that amended to include any additional ste um disturbances. I think part of our original application approval by soil conservation was pretty much for the same amount of disturbance.
So, I think that addresses um all of Mr. Rafa's comments. I think uh in my testimony, I think I also directly uh addressed any of uh Mr.'s comments. I'm happy to answer any questions from the board or their professionals.
Any questions from our experts? Do I have a few clarifications? Um, so it looks like you're um you are increasing the size of the seepage fits to take on all of the water from the
dwelling and the garage. It looks like um that part of that driveway also drains into there as well. Will you be including that? Yes, we will. Okay. And um in order to direct the water into that trench drain that's in the driveway, we'd be putting in um any
curbing driveway. I had indicated earlier we'll we'll have Belgian block curbing on both sides of that. We'll provide a detail and we'll prov there was no call out, but yeah, we'll provide a call out that it is supposed to be both sides. Um the grades actually show it because there's discontinuity in the proposed contours. But uh there will be
um as that comes down to make sure no water runs into the adjoining properties or against our house. Uh all that water on the drive will be trapped against the curb. It'll go into the trench drain, routed through the dry wells uh for groundwater infiltration and ultimately if it overflows it'll go to the back of
the spread. So the um the only reason anything would overflow is because um the dry wells would be exceeding the design of inch surface water. It would it would have to be an extreme rain event far in excess of a 100redy year
event. So um a normal rain would not be flowing into that spreader in the rear yard. Well, I've learned that we get 100redyear events every 10 years now. Um but uh certainly uh it's designed to accommodate uh those large flows. So the
average rain, even the very intense rains would be completely uh captured within that storm water system. And obviously uh as a condition of any approval as is also required under our current permit um from the building department we will be doing so permeability testing to make sure that
works. If the if the soil permeability is questionable we'll design an alternate system that will still be provide the veloc the volumes you requested and is still protective of the neighbors. Um could you talk a little bit about the courtyard? Um I I I think I understand
it that's to be an open air courtyard, right? I mean it's it's enclosed on all sides, open to the sky. That is correct. So there's rain coming in there, there's leaves, there's sticks, there's things like that. Could you talk a little bit about that courtyard? Well, hopefully
the because it's with it's ensconced within that two-story edition. Hopefully there won't be a ton of leaves, but there is a there is a door so you can get access to it to clean it out. And there would be a drain at the bottom and that drain will be connected into the roof leader system. And those roof leaders are then tied into the drive. So there will be positive drainage out of
that area. Um and um I noticed on your plans that you have um the garage foundation is to act as a retaining wall. Could you talk a little bit about that? Yeah, essentially um
the whether it's bolted to the top of the wall and the walls independent or however that will be designed by the structural engineer. Um it'll be assigned for those loads. So it's no different than any um uh any house with um with internal
um geo or hydraulic loading on it. So it'll certainly be designed to accommodate that. Now, a question came up what it'll look like. The intent was originally to just do a concrete parch on that. Um, so it'll kind of disappear into the landscape. Um, my client is
somewhat agnostic and if the board felt strongly about any other material treatment. Uh, it's not going to be seen by any of the neighbors, but we certainly um, uh, were not planning on making it look like the garage itself was that tall. We're going to have it sit on that concrete base and trying to
park it. But that will be uh that'll be structurally designed to make sure we accommodate um both the uh the geotechnical and any hydraologic loading. That's all I have. Obviously, that would be part of you know that's that's part of like work going.
Just a few questions with regard to the uh the covered patio area that is actually not being captured. Is it the roof run off from that? Yeah, that would be actually it would be so that's how it would be captured. Yes. So therefore that's the offsetting feature is
underground storage and infiltration that uh it does provide. Yes. Because if if we leave it as a patio it runs free. If we put a roof on it it does capture that water and we make sure that there's detail but that does drop that through the drywalls. And again we'll make sure the drywalls are sized accordingly. I think you touched on this with regard to
the impact of the height of the accessory structure, but the uh exposed portion of that uh retaining wall like you said will be parched or other material, but the largest impact is towards the I guess the I guess the east property line towards the rear and but
yet back there like you said there's a significant distance to the rear property line. Yes. On that side. Yep. both to the property line and and more importantly there there really unlikely to be any development right behind us. So we're more than 250 ft through that
wooded area to the nearest development on the streets behind us. And then on the south side of the proposed garage it's really 4T away. Correct. Um the height on that side will look
like more of the comp. Well, the the the gutters the the the based upon the roof line obviously on that on that side the um we the architect was very careful I'm showing on the on the screen uh was very
careful to limit the um the eve um the overhang on the roof to 7 foot 11. So, as we drop um as we drop some 10 ft into the backyard um down that slope um that means towards the rear um you're going to be the the line of the roof will be
about 18 ft above the grade. So, from the neighbor's perspective, you're going to see um a sloping sideline and you'll see and I believe let me see that shown here. No. So you'll see a sloping uh sloping side from the neighbors, but
it'll go from about seven feet up to what appear to be about the 18 feet. Of course, that's at the at the gutter line. As it recedes back, you will see more height. But because the property next to us is lower perspective means that they really will be almost um uh as
they look from their property up and they see this the uh they'll actually be looking above they'll probably be looking above the Koopa to our um in that area because the property continues to drop into that neighbor to the right. So um from the neighbor's perspective it
goes from about 7 foot 10 up to approximately 18 ft which is what's permitted by code and along that side there's a fence. Um, and is there any landscaping in there to help offset that? Um, there's existing landscaping. We could
certainly look at whether um it is on the south side, so it may be an area where we could viably add some additional landscape into that area, but um we could certainly study that. Um, I think that's all the questions I
have. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions from the board? What's the purpose of the courtyard? I have no idea. Provide light. Uh well, you know, there there's there's whole studies on on the beauty of courtyard houses. It provides for a little landscaping and some light that that
gets into the house on a two stories part of the structure. um my previous occupation that would be a very hazardous thing to be up on a roof and then find a an unusual courtyard in a residential structure that's not you know multif family right um is there
some way of I don't I'm not the expert anymore uh when it comes to that kind of stuff but is there some way to signify that on the front of the building courtyard or like they do it for trust roofs if trust trust roofs is there not to take away from the historical
view of the house and all that stuff, but it is an unusual obstacle in a residential structure, single family. It is different, but I think you can see through it. So, if you look in the side view, there's a sun room. So, we did it for light and
air. In the sun room, there's a giant slide double doors. During the summer, in the beautiful months, we can kind of enjoy indoor outdoor space. You pass it. So you'll see through this, you can see right into what is the courtyard through this element here. So to your point, if
someone was looking, if there was an issue, if I was wave, I could wave to you from the courtyard. I'm talking about there's somebody on the roof. Oh. During a dur during an emergency situation, they may not know that's there. Is there some differential on the roof that signifies that? There's there's nothing spot or something like
sign. No, but there are low roofs outside the windows. So if you have to egress, there's about three feet uh roughly. I think 3 to four feet. Um and then on this the upper elements, obviously you can see stops. If I send a guy to the roof to vent the roof and there's smoke all over the place and he
can't see that, right? There is nothing there's nothing that were to signify that the roof stops. And I don't think that there was anything in the fire chief's comment. Yeah, there isn't. There isn't. Right. So it's an interesting comment. Yeah. Yeah. And then um on the driveway side of the
house, it notice it that mentions um depressed curb, proposed depressed curb. Is that for a stairway or um No, actually just because we were trying, you know, we're working with the elevations on an existing dwelling and
we're trying to we're trying to create that high spot um at which water goes back towards the garage forward. So we ended up when you match the existing height of the house and you come down a step out um and you come down a st couple stairs, we were basically at the level of the driveway. So we call for a
depressed curve at that section. It's one of the challenges of working with an existing height rather than a new house. Any other questions? I have one about the steep slope. So 975 is pretty close to a thousand, right?
um it doesn't take much to get to a thousand with this this kind of project and especially looking with the uh where you're putting the spreader in. So that area the excavation that's shown for the pipe that goes behind the garage and then extends to the spreader. The part
that's in the steep slope I mean that is a very very narrow excavation area. I don't know what kind of equipment are you using to it's going to be hand. is about 18 to 24 in wide and it's going to be hand dug because all we're
doing is putting a pipe. Well, hand dug on a steep slope though. I mean, it's you can stand on it. I mean, this is very steep by the stands of a steep slope, but I mean, you could walk on it, climb it. I mean, it looked like a cliff when I was looking at it. So, I I just
wondering like it is possible that you will be disturbing more than that. I I don't know. I'm just wondering whether this is going to get to the thousand and whether that I mean there if that variance could be needed. I think that today would be
the time to talk about it and not have to come back especially given the the circumstances of this, you know, garage location. So, I guess it's like how confident are you in this 975 or Well, one of the things that we did, you're you're actually allowed an exemption for
utility trenching. Uh we didn't take that exemption. So that that whole utility trench down there would be exempted from the steep slopes because we're going to restore it back to what it was. But that is part of the 975 that is considered utility or I mean it's not a it's not electric, it's not gas. Well,
still uh storm water is still utility. Um storm sewage is still considered but it's an on-site storm water management. It's not I'm not sure if that Well, well look I we we normally you know we went a couple feet beyond the wall construction. We
went uh about three feet wide there for a hand dug and it can be hand dug. Um but I I I sensitive to what you're saying. I mean um I think it's the most appropriate location. I would if if the board uh wanted to basically allow us an extra couple hundred square feet to
exact to enact this exact plan and restore it back to where it was. I wouldn't object. But I think if we're diligent, we can comply with the 975. And I've I've worked for a long time with uh with your engineering department to uh to prove that we um are meeting
those requirements. So this is 1 in is 20 ft. So you have Yeah. Let's see. Yeah. All right. About what 15 feet of length there. Mhm. I'm just wonder, you know, because 25
square feet is 5 feet by 5t. It's not much. Okay. So, that was my only question. Anybody else have questions? Is there any maintenance required for the the um spreader drainage?
Um there shouldn't be. Obviously, you've got you've got fairly good uh cleansing velocities coming down that pipe and then it basically discharges it to a rip wrap stone area that's wrapped with filter fabric. So, it shouldn't become um overly bonorous on it and that's right on the surface. That's right. It
well, it's the stone is embedded 6 in down so that the the top of the stone is roughly even with the grade around it. Um it can be blown away with leaves can be blown off of it generally because the water is lifting from the the back. It just lifts the leaves and goes with it.
Um, if anything, it can just be part of the normal fall maintenance of blowing leaves off of it, etc. But, um, no, it's basically maintenancefree. How about the the uh trench drain? Trench drains. Um, actually that is also something that we will issue a comment on our letter and
on our drawing that the trench needs to be cleaned on an annual basis because obviously there's nothing more frustrating than going out to a site and finding the trench full of 5 years worth of debris. But the what will keep it my client from doing that besides he's a pretty diligent guy is that if that
overflows it means eventually the water's going to lift up and come into his garage. So um it would be at his own peril to not maintain that. Any other questions? Seeing none. Is there do you have any other witnesses or actually are there
any questions from the public for this witness? Yes, please. Yeah. Here. And just please state your name and address. Ed Pursc 11 Hobart. I'm south of
property. Um I guess I just wanted to see I'm not an engineer but uh in terms of is there another case study or property that's an example of a thousand almost nearly thousand foot slope where
this type of drainage system has been put in and it's worked successfully. Um I I've done a lot of um microphone please. I've done a fair amount of work in town um in some of the steeper areas
um and so I could probably provide you with some areas. We've never had a problem. I've had areas I'm working on a project in um Milbourne Township right now where um we had uh 15,000 square feet of steep slope disturbance in a much steeper area than this. It was a
very unusual ordin variance, but we've demonstrated the entire time that the the storm water management certainly was protective and there's no degradation of the soils. Um, obviously soil water's been running down that area in the back with without any um storm water
management. So, when we take all that water off of that slope, it certainly will um there shouldn't there would only be uh an improvement to that. Um, so and I think obviously um both the we met with the city engineer as well as um
you've got the board engineer. Um I think the amount of disturbance we're talking about is relatively minor. Um and I think we can certainly accommodate this storm water management system will make sure that it doesn't exacerbate any of the the problems that may be
associated with and it's a reduction. Yeah. And so I can probably give you some of other about to suggest suggest that. Yeah. Yeah. I don't know if Mr. Ball has saw this yet, but it might be a good idea to add that we'll retain stormware jurisdiction on this one. Heard that
being mentioned by a few board members. Any objection, C. No objection. All right. I just wanted to comment that lot 29 gets some significant drainage, some flooding, not from that property, but from overall. And I know that Aaron and
Mayor Fagan and everybody been down there trying to neutralize that, alleviate that situation. I think it's due to a a drain pipe actually that goes through and Aaron could speak to this, but that's why I have this concern that
with the footprint of this property and the garage that um combined that it could add more a lot more to it. So that's why we met with both Aaron as well as Sam when he was here as assistant engineer and the current
assistant engineer and they were very clear that there's been a history of problems the name of concern and they wanted to make sure we took the suspenders and belts approach which is what we've done and we'll continue to do. So it's on not only the board has just indicated that they will retain
storm water jurisdiction. So that means if there's any issues um this board would have jurisdiction to make us fix that and there'll be notes on our drawing and we and recognition that there's a problem that we're contributing to. We'll have to fix that and that'll be again reiterated the city
approves its assuming this board. You got three levels of and just so you know that uh stormwater jurisdiction will be for a period of two years after the completion of construction. And so if you notice any changes, any issues that result after that time period, bring them to the city's attention and
then we would bring the applicants back for the board at that point. Great. That was going to be my next question. What if it doesn't work? So, yep. Uh could I just ask another general question? I don't know who this pertains to, but when you're because I've never built a
house. We have a ranch next door and so the biggest thing we did is the bathroom, but um you know when you're doing this kind of work, do you um you seem to have a place marker for the garage, but wouldn't everything get approved at the same time or is that not
the case that you can peacemail a house and garage? I don't mean this to sound derogatory in any way, but you know, wouldn't everything be collectively thought about and approved at the same time, meaning the the garage and and the
home? No, not necessarily. Yeah, I'll just say, you know, you get these instances on a number of occasions. applicants can come in and get a zoning permit as long as no variances are triggered based on, you know, a single application and then
if plans change or if additions are added later on and variances are triggered, that's the only time the board is actually brought in to hear the case. So, it's not uncommon. Okay. And that gets back to my first question of the evening, that all the work that's going on right now is
permitted. None of it requires variance what they're doing right now. Yeah. And we're fine with all the work that's been done now, but I know it's a small thing with the garage, but and I even just think personally my comment aesthetically with the historical value
of the the home. Sir, we're going to just say if you can save the comments for a little bit. We're almost to public seconds. We're almost That's okay. Any other questions? And then we'll get to the the comment part in a little bit. Just one real quick one. In your survey
of the property when you were out there, we assume you went there, there used to be a a trench that ran from the back of lot 29 all the way down to behind some truck body toward the train tracks. Does that trench still exist?
It was literally literally a about that deep hidden by a bunch of Pakisan. Yeah, that trench was actually uh off our property. Mhm. Uh it starts I believe about 75 ft further to the south. Um and
it picks up and it's actually um would be just behind the common rear line as it starts because I've done work around the summer truck body and the property. We looked at analysis of the corner lot possibly developing that low area there. Um we worked at other stuff on Franklin Place. So we're aware of it. It actually
starts further up. Okay. Um, but it is it is there to my knowledge and that's that's to help with the I don't know if that was done by the city or by the neighbors or what, but it's been there a long time. Nate nature helps those things too. Y thank you. Any other questions from the public?
No. Okay. I do not have any more witnesses and I usually do a closing, but Mr. Keller did an excellent job and he hit all of the points that I was going to say. So, um, we have nothing further. Okay, great. So, we'll go over the conditions and then public comment.
Public comment. That's right. All right. Now is the time for public comments. Yes. So, I'll have to swear you in if you could raise your right hand. Do you swear from the testimony you're about to give in this matter? The truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. I do. And can you just spell your last
name for the record, please? P R O S H U TL. Thank you. I guess not. maybe so much a comment but just a question like is there an option for a onecar garage because I think and there my comment
wouldn't that be kind of keeping with the aesthetic and the historical value of of the home as well and I guess as we saw the go the home go up and it looks great and you really did keep it so much intact but added a nice sort of modern
element to it too but I guess we had envisioned maybe a little bit of it and I really that was so nice that you kept the top of that garage, that little point. You know, I guess we had all all long thought, well, they're just going to put the garage kind of in the same
area and kind of give it that same, you know, onecar garage, which is what we have. Only a horse and carriage fit in there. Um, and I know you have to be practical and and you've got a family and all, but is that at all a option or was that ever consideration or So, I'm
just going to jump in real quick. In that zone, they're required to have a twocar enclosed garage. I I heard that before. So, a onecar garage is noncon correct. It's non-conforming. So, our onecar garage is non-conforming.
Correct. Existing nonconformity. That's different. It's once you disturb your property that then all kinds of things. Yeah. Welcome to Z. Yes. Well, that was my only comment.
Thank you. Any other comments from the public? Do you swore from the testimony you're about to give in this matter? The truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. Yeah. And can you please state your name? Spell your last name. Sure. It's Katherine Palm. Um P A L M like a palm tree. All right. And just address,
please. Oh, sorry. It's uh 24 Hobart Avenue. And I really appreciate the opportunity to have learned so much about the project like getting caught up and all the interrogation of the storm water issues because I was concerned for here knowing that there had been issues
in the past on the on the sort of east side of Hobart. So that's really great. Um, I think my only comment is just more general to say I'm sure this is something that everyone struggles with in in keeping a balance in in town,
but the sort of situation where it's the situation where you can have you have these like ordinances about bulk lot coverage and things like that, but then build within them having taken down
parts and then say, "Hey, but we have to put up a two-car garage. It's seems like it might slightly defeat the spirit of trying to not overbuild the lots. And I think in this case, it's all really well designed. It's probably going to look fine, but I think that's something to
keep in mind that this is a way that anyone could sort of continue to build way over what the designated lot sizes. So, that's it. Thank you. And I any other public comment? No.
So now we can now we can hear our conditions. Now we can get there. All right. So I have three conditions noted. First, compliance with those conditions in the board and engineers memorandum. Uh second that the applicants will perform decompaction and fertilization
of the larch and magnolia trees which are to be preserved in accordance with the recommendation of the city forester. and the applicant will consult the city forester regarding the planting of a replacement tree on the property. And the third and final condition, the board shall retain uh storm water jurisdiction
for a period of two years after the completion of construction. Once again, perhaps I I'm not sure um if we want because of those two trees in the front. I happened to be on the sheet tree advisory committee as well and they were talking about maintaining
landscaping jurisdiction for a period of three years on um you know when it was when there were considerations like that like trees you're worried about are they going to make it or not and you know with this if it dies we're going to
replace it like the trees we don't so we're fine all right we will add that in as well um landscaping jurisdiction for a period of 3 years after the installation or after um the decompaction or whatever. Yeah. Okay. Uh and then once
again only C variances are at issue. So four votes are required to approve. Can I ask a question about that keeping landscape jurisdiction? How would that work? Are we just talking about just specifically in that front yard area or what how broad? I think it's I think it's whatever um John whatever they plan
they come about with John because there are a couple things that are unresolved. Right. So there's a a tree that's going to be placed in the drive, you know, next to the driveway. If it doesn't if it doesn't take it, it'll have to be replaced. So be jurisdiction over what the forester recommends over the tree
replacement and tree maintenance. Um, perfect. You know, in the front yard, we'll phrase it that way. Okay, that's good. Okay. Who would like to open up exactly? I'd like to start. Yeah. Um,
first of all, I want to thank you. um to the homeowner. Um really really really appreciate that you are keeping you kept the house, the historic house. I walk by that property probably a couple times a week and when I first saw construction
going on since you didn't have to come to the board since you have a variance I was getting very worried because I've watched too many houses get knocked down because somebody who's new to town decided that's what they want to put you know they want to live in the town but didn't think the historic
um significance of our town was mattered. So really appreciate that a lot. Um I think what you're doing is great. I think you've um covered a lot of you know a lot of the issues um you know with the storm water which is the you know one of the biggest issues and
um and just you know a lot of people come to the board say they want a modernized house you're doing that but you're also keeping it you know keep keeping the the the qu the keeping our town looking the way it should look thank you so I can support
this application Yeah, I I'll just add that I I thought Mr. Keller's testimony was excellent was excellent combination of engineering and planning and I I he made a very excellent argument why this application does not provide a detriment to the public good. Um so I think the proofs
are met. It's a very aesthetically pleasing. It's a beautiful beautiful design. Um I commend you as well. I hope you have a long long life there with your family. It's a going to be a beautiful house. Um just the technical things. things. I mean, the garage height variance is driven by
the slope. So, I think they make make a convincing argument that from the front it'll be 18 ft. From the back, it'll it'll be much higher, but it's not seen from the back. There's not much back not much back there for people to see or not not many people will see it from the back. Um, so I can enthusiastically
support this one as well. Anyone else? Yeah. One of the things I always struggle with is when um a building's already under construction and then we they come in with change with with plan changes and you know we hear oh very thorough and we you know we
designed this house for for our liking and then we realize we need to have a covered porch or whatever the case may be. Um but in this case it it it's you know it's aesthetically pleasing really doesn't affect the neighborhood at all. Um the garage you know I used to this is I'm doing a little bit of history lesson
here. I used to slay ride in all those houses right there when I was little. Broke my chin a couple times. Uh I know the drainage problems back there cuz they existed when I was little. So it's it's just and it's getting worse, I think. Um but this certainly this drainage uh system that you've designed
will certainly help that. Um I wish we could have done that in other instances, but you guys are doing a great job. Um I truly do appreciate you um keeping the historical aspects of the house. I know uh last year when I was doing something for the city of Summit, I I walked the
neighborhood and that was a big thing that the neighbors were concerned about is losing the historical value. I think that's like the second or third oldest house in town if I'm not mistaken. So, it's got a lot of historical value. Um so, thank you very much for keeping as much of that as you can. Um and I can
support this application. A lot of all the pros are met. I mean, all the everything's taken care of. So, you've covered all the bases. So, I can support this application. Move to approve. Second. So move. Mr. Malay. Yes. Mr. Steiner. Yes. Mr.
Nelson. Yes. Mr. Yuko. Yes. Miss Chief. Yes. Mr. Fescan. Yes. Vice Chair. Yes. Thank you. Resolution. There's another one on Broad Street, Mars Avenue down by the board.
That's You're up, Nicole. You're up. Yeah. I just wanted to make sure talking. Um, so we have resolution for zoning board application 24-2252. This is for 144 Beakman. Um,
the applicant had requested variance relief to reconstruct a garage that was destroyed in 2023 by a large tree. Um, the members that can vote on this are Mr. Malay, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Steiner, Miss Chief, Mr. Feskins, and Vice Chair Zon.
Can I get a motion? So move. So move. Second. Mr. Malay, yes. Mr. Nelson, yes. Mr. Steiner, yes. Miss Chief, yes. Mr. Fes, yes. Vice Chair Zan, yes. Get a motion to adjourn. Before we adjourn. Oh. Uh, point of personal
privilege before you do that. Oh, okay. Um, this will be Nicole's last meeting with us. Oh, no. And uh she's moving uh she's moving back to where she belongs. And I understand we'll have a new secretary, but we don't know who at our
next meeting. Correct. Thank you. Wait, can I have a request for Can I have a request for the new secretary? Not I mean, I was going to write an email today. Is there any way we can get the package earlier? I mean, this week was really tough. I didn't get to pick it up till today because I didn't find out
till Wednesday and I was away Thursday and Friday and the offices are closed on Saturday and Sunday. Used to be a lot easier when they delivered them. I mean, can we get back to that? So, I I do know that fact that because there is no secretary right now. The job is literally being split between three
people who also have other jobs. Um, so Oh, really? Yes. Can we get like somebody like Joe to some somebody to deliver the packages? Well, so that's the other problem. Yes, please. So, that's the other problem because then you need to have one of those people
take the time out of their day and deliver to every single person here. Um, and unfortunately, I just don't think we have the staff. Well, actually, when when this came up, uh, and they made the change, I asked, "Does city council get theirs delivered?" No. And the answer is
they don't. So, I figured if they didn't, we Well, no. When they were trying to get that changed, I talked to one of them. They were one of the council Yeah, used to. But that also it created problems. So yeah, I would just I would ask everyone to be patient with the new person. Give
them a couple of months just to been new like a new permanent. Yes. Oh, good. Yeah. Okay. Um so be nice. It to my understanding May 12th is her first day. Um so yeah, just be patient for a couple
months. Let her adjust a little bit. Um, this was an adjustment for me and I've done meetings before. It's just zoning board is a different animal. Um, so yeah, I just It's a beast. Yeah. Yeah. And Nicole also notic you send emails at
hours of weekends. Yes, I appreciate I appreciate that. We actually bumped about that. Yes. Move to adjourn. All right. Um, all in favor I thanks Nicole. Thank you.