Good evening and welcome to the Wednesday, February 18th, 2026 meeting of the City of Summit Zoning Board of Adjustment. My name is Scott Loy and I'm the zoning board chair. Please rise and join us in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you. In accordance with New Jersey statute
104-10, adequate notice of the special meeting has been provided to a newspaper record. It's been posted here in city hall. This meeting is a judicial proceeding. Any questions or comments must be limited to the issues that are relevant to what the board may legally consider reaching a decision and decorum appropriate to a
judicial hearing must be maintained at all times. For the benefit of the interested public, the meeting is being livereamed to the city's YouTube page and also broadcast to Summit's government channel, which is Comcast channel 34, Verizon channel 30. Transcript of this meeting is also being
tamed using 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 of
the deis and return it thereafter. Miss Sans, can you please call the role of members? >> Vice Chair here. Mr. Yuko is excused. Mr. Malay >> here. >> Mr. Mullen >> here. >> Mr. Nelson >> here. >> Mr. Curran is excused. Miss Chief >> here.
>> Mr. Feskins >> here. >> Mr. Chantuli >> here. >> Mr. Bell >> here. >> Chairman Lett >> here. >> You have a quorum. You may proceed. >> Thank you. Miss Sans Andy Ball is the zoning board's attorney. Mr. Ball advises the board members on matters of law and is the key interface with the
applicant's attorney. Mr. Ball does not vote on these applications. Jessica Sans is a city employee and is the zoning board secretary. Board secretary works with applicants on preparing their applications, planning our agendas, keeping our meeting minutes. Board secretary also does not vote. Also
present tonight are our experts who are hired annually by the board to provide input. Tonight we have Marie Rafé from Collier's Engineering. Also present is Ed Snikis from Burgess Associates. He's our board planner. These experts are seated at the table to the right of the board, the public's left. They also did
not vote. Our board consists of seven regular members and up to four alternates. All members can participate in the hearings tonight, but only a maximum of seven can vote. Most applications require a simple majority to be approved. Before we enter into executive session to vote on the application, you'll be advised of how
many votes are required for approval. Each case will begin with the applicants or their attorney giving an overview of the application process to date, the variances that are required. We then hear from any additional expert witnesses the applicant may have to help explain the application and why these variances are needed. The board experts,
then followed by the board members themselves, can ask questions to the applicant, their attorney, and their expert witnesses. Due to recent cases running excessively long, we strongly encourage applicants and their experts to give brief and concise testimony so we may get to as many cases as possible
in a given evening. Once the board members and then the board 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 the case. That opportunity comes at the end of the hearing. Please be careful as how you phrase your questions. They should not
be proceeded with a statement about this 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, provide your address. It's 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. The public hearing is then closed and we enter into executive session. This is where the board members discuss the case and then vote. You'll be able to listen
into our executive session, but you will not normally be able to participate in our discussion. I'm going to ask each applicant andor their attorney if present to come up and just give a brief synopsis their antest anticipated testimony tonight including the number of witnesses and whether or not they
think they can finish the presentation within 30 minutes. So to start tonight we have 71 Hillrest Avenue. >> James Weber of Alonso and Weber. On behalf of the applicants, uh, we have three witnesses, 45 minutes.
>> Okay, great. Thank you, Mr. Weber. We'll talk to you soon. And can I get a representative from 32 Lennox, please? Hillary. >> Good evening, Hillary Als from Dempsey Dempsey and Sheen. Uh, we have three witnesses tonight. Probably 45 minutes. >> Okay. Thank you. Excellent.
>> Thanks. >> All right, Mr. Weber, let's begin with you. Got a can of beard sells your can. >> Thanks, Jared. James Weber of Alfonso and Weber on behalf of the applicants. This is a
continuation of the hearing that was before the board. This is the second hearing and this is with regard to the amendment of the plan consistent with what we believe would be a better plan. I remember Joe Steiner commenting one
time that the board of adjustment just doesn't hear the applications but makes the applications better. And I was thinking of him when I was going through this application. We're a little begrudging to have to come back, but I must admit it's a
better application. The lot coverage has been eliminated entirely without the need for permeability. Building coverage, which was 3.3% over that permitted, has been cut in half, 1.4% 4% over the
building because the front porch was removed has allowed the building to come forward on Hillrest still maintaining the same front yard setback of 37 ft. But what it also has done is that in the sideyard off Belleview, the main portion
of the building is now 5 ft further away from the neighbor who's most co closely affected by the application. As a result, through this process, we have a better application before the board. The variances now include a
retaining wall in the front yard uh that's over 4 ft. That was always there. It just was noticed in the most recent review by uh the planning review. And we'll have uh Andrew Clark available to discuss that. I would ask that uh Andrew
be called and then we'll have Jared Kest and then we have a professional planner should the board have any questions of a planning nature. >> Thank you, Mr. Weber. >> I acknowledge that I'm still under oath or am I swearing in again? >> Were you here at the last one?
>> I think I was. >> I didn't have you noted, Mr. Weber was Was he sworn at the >> I was pretty sure he would have been sworn in, but it doesn't hurt him to do it. >> Do it just in case. I swear from the testimony you're about to give in this matter, the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> And once again, you're appearing before
us frequently. Any changes to your credentials since the last time you were here? >> No. I've got some updated continuing education from Surveyor's Conference, but uh no change. >> I imagine we'll accept him back once again. >> Absolutely. Welcome back, Mr. Clark. Please proceed. Uh so what I'd like to
do is summarize uh the changes so we can understand what the differences are between the last um presentation of this application and where we are now. Um as Mr. Weber indicated, there were some modifications to the house. One of the main points of discussion at the last
meeting were the porch in the front which was contributing significantly to the building coverage. um you know there was there was some discussion about that and whether it needed to be so big and what about the porch. So that was part of the reason that we um went back to
the drawing board as it were. So in this latest version of the plan what we have now and I'm referring to my lot grading plan dated August 4th, 2025 and last revised January 27th, 2026.
Um the porch which had extended across the frontage has now been modified and you can see in the um rendering that's up there as well to a recessed porch or more of a portico in terms of its size uh at the front which allowed us to move
the entire building uh 5 ft closer to the street while maintaining the 37 ft setback that we had previously proposed to the porch. um that allows the the main body of the back of the house of course to be 5 ft farther from the
neighboring property lot 9. Uh we have this covered porch in the back which moved 2 and 1/2 ft farther from the line so it's a little bit farther from the neighbor as well. Uh the other modifications that have taken
place are some narrowing and slight modification of the walks and we had a connecting walk if you recall that came from the driveway to the front walk that's been eliminated. So all of those contributions have brought us to a condition where we're below uh the
permitted lot coverage. We're at 28.9% where 30% are permitted. So we brought it down a bit below the um the maximum allowed. That's without taking any credit for permeable pavements which have been discussed and we discussed at
the last hearing as well. That's just a simple computation at 100% coverage for those hard surfaces. Um one implication of doing this is that there's a slightly larger um impact to the steep slopes of
about 100 square ft. So, we went from 1250 um square feet that were impacted on the previous plan to 1350. That's owing primarily to the area right by the left side of the driveway where the the
the body of the house slid 5 ft down. So, we just impacted a little bit more of that steep slopes with the driveway since it's moved down as well. Um Mr. Weber indicated that there was a comment in the recent review from the planner
about walls in the front yard area. So everything forward on the Belleview side of the dwelling. There are two sections. One on the left side comes about a little less than halfway out where the wall is uh between 5 and 5 1/2 ft
instead of 4T. And there's another section in the back corner around behind the uh turnaround area. There's a small section. It's probably like about 12 feet in either direction at the corner where the walls 5T instead of 4T. The
reason uh I I wasn't aware that that was actually a variance. It seemed in the ordinance that that pertained primarily to fences, but be that as it may, these sections are higher than 4T. I think that they're best kept that way. Mainly
because what we're trying to do in both of these areas is maintain the two mature trees. One that's in this area here, the 16-in and the 24 in that's on the other side. And the less you disturb the grade, the better in terms of
maintaining mature trees. So maintaining the top of the wall elevation which is very close to the existing grade does that versus altering the grade affecting the grade changes which might impact the tree or making a second layer of wall in
there which would reduce some of the landscape area and open space that's there. Um so I I think it's a minor difference. It wouldn't be anything discernable or notable. it's not impairing sight distance or um the traveling public which I think is the
main area of concern in that part of the ordinance is making sure that there's free sight for for travelers. Um so I don't think it impacts that. I think it's um a reasonable request given the conditions on site and what we're trying
to accomplish with those walls. The storm water management remains the same. Um, I did fail to slightly adjust the amount of um, area that we're capturing. We're actually capturing a little bit
less, but I didn't change the design. So, effectively that means we have a slight overdesign on the drywall. So, I think that's again a benefit beyond the fundamental benefit of of what we were presenting in the first place, which is multiples above what our actual increase
in coverage is. So, I think ultimately the drywall is a substantial benefit in this case. Um, that summarizes the the fundamental changes and the differences in the application and I'd be happy to take questions.
>> Great. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Board experts, what questions do you have for this witness? >> I I don't think I have anything. I think you covered um all of my questions and clarifications. So, >> Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, with
regard to the criteria you put on the latest plan, you didn't indicate the floor area ratio, but it looks like that will comply. >> Yes. >> Okay. It seems seems like from before to after. I just want to confirm for the record. >> Yes. In terms of the bulk, um, yes, we we comply with everything except for the
building coverage, which is, um, owing entirely if to the to the porch that's in the back, >> the one-story open porch that's, you know, effectively it could be a patio and comply, but it's very important to the applicant and the the future
occupants of the house that they really want to have that as one step down and and usable versus having a landing and several steps down to to a surface patio, which of course would put us in full compliance with building coverage. But, uh, given given its location and
that it it's really of no impact to anyone and with our screening, not even to the nearest neighbor, uh, it's it's an important aspect of the project. And so, that slight overage where we're at 15.4% versus 14 is is entirely uh, contained
within that porch area. And then just to quickly summarize for the board, you have the max, I'm sorry, the minimum front yard setback as far as the average in the neighborhood that you're asking relief from, >> right? >> Um, also the front-facing garage, but it's facing Belleview. >> That's right. Those remain. Those
requests remain. That's correct. >> And you touched on the steep slopes and the wall height, and that was the nature of the variances. >> Yes. Okay. Thank you. Um, I think you addressed all of our other questions. Yes. Thank you. Oh, I'm sorry. The air
conditioning units, do you know about those or >> Oh, yeah. where they will be. >> I again failed to include those on the plan, but our discussion was to place them in this area where the walkway runs um past the garage in there. So, it's sort of recessed and behind the house.
It's in a conforming location, be fully screened by virtue of the walls that are there and the landscaping above them. Okay. >> Thank you. No further questions. >> Thanks, Ed. Board members, what questions do you have for this witness? >> Just a little confused. Is there a
marriage required for steep slope or no? >> Yes. >> Yeah. Yeah. It's it's >> we're disturbing about 1,350 square ft. We're 1,000 is the threshold. We were disturbing 1,250 ft. So, we were asking for the variance.
We still are. It's just slightly bigger. >> Okay. I just didn't see it on the um list of variances. Okay. >> The the retaining wall in the front of the house by by the porch. What What is the height of that one? >> Yeah, that's 2 ft high.
>> Two feet. Okay. >> Yeah. It's it's it's more an aesthetic and management of a little bit of gray change in there to provide some landscaping. And then the five foot wall I guess that you need to have a fence over it or the
is that correct? The because over four feet that would be a building department requirement. Yeah. >> Yeah. Typically the fall protection requirement depends upon how you're landscaping it. So for example, you have some thick landscape. I'm not saying we do in this case, but it would be one or
the other. If you had some thick landscaping and it wasn't a normal uh pedestrian route where where you would have people typically on foot, uh if you have thick landscaping that typically would satisfy that otherwise you would need some fall protection, you know, a
minor >> I mean or fence of some sort landscaper. I see it on the plan, but I just not sure Mr. >> We just listen. Um, I just wasn't I guess we'll hear more about the landscaping there after and but in the back
I'm just looking what the >> Just trying to compare where you said it was over 5T so I can >> It's right in this corner right here. >> Okay. And then alongside the stairs. >> Right. Right. That was the other location is right right by the stairs here. >> And we have Jared Guest who's going to
be able to highlight those areas. >> Okay. Thank you. >> What other questions do we have for Mr. Clark? >> Mr. Chairman, just >> Yeah. >> Just so I'm trying to understand, we move we you moved the house forward
>> towards Hillrest. >> Towards Hillrest to gain why? Just to get a better buffer for the neighbor. >> Yes. So, so since we reduced that porch area that was across the entire front at 5 ft deep, we just positioned the house
at that same 37 ft setback providing a little bit more room in the back to the neighbor. >> But then when you move the house forward, that created more of a disturbance for the steep steep slope, >> 100 square ft more. That's correct. If >> the house had stayed where it was, >> remove the porch, you would have you
would have still had to have the,200 foot barrier. >> Correct. That's right. It's still over either way. >> Yeah. And and unlike many of the steep slope applications that are before this board and that I've been involved in, we're not we're not terracing and regrading at all. It's mainly in recognition of the fact that there will
be some activity and disturbance in those areas. Um I I find it's better to conservatively represent that so that once field operations commence, we don't end up in a stop work order and go back to the board and get the variance for
steep slope disturbance when the contractors don't understand where the limits are. Thank you. What other questions? Seeing none. All right. What questions do we have from the public for this witness?
Seeing none, Mr. Weber, your next witness, please. >> I would ask that Jared Kes be called to the stand, be sworn in to give testimony in this matter. 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 please state your name, spell
your last name. >> Jared Cast, ke S. >> Thank you. And you two have appeared before us relatively recently. Any changes to your credentials since the last time you were here? >> I think I took a couple classes, too. >> License still in good standing? >> Yes.
>> I imagine we would like to accept you back once again. >> We would. Welcome back, Mr. Cast. Please proceed. Thank you. If >> I can uh Jers, before we go, Mr. Chairman, I think that the exhibits that you're going to be uh sharing have not been uh provided to the board previously
and as a result there will be a approximately a dozen uh portrayals or perspectives. We can name them all at once or do it as going along. >> Yes, we'll mark the entire electronic presentation as A2.
>> So that's a older plan that you're looking at there. And then the u home core board that's there that's included in the electronic presentation. >> It is. Yes. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Mr. Robert. Go ahead, Mr.
>> Great. Uh it's my pleasure um uh to be here. Uh thank Andrew for his very boring black and white drawing. And I can come with these very glowing green drawings. Uh so we have a bunch of graphics here today and you know our aim
is you know to put together a convincing case that this is a beautiful home. Uh our team has collaborated uh for months, you know, trying to get this exactly right from a zoning perspective, of course, and there's
certain things we just can't avoid on this project, but also for our clients, uh the end user of the project being their parents uh to be a family home next door to their family home so it functions really well for everybody. So,
we have a number of diagrams and perspectives and a plan. Uh, hopefully that tells the story. So, as we've stated, we're here to design and construct a new single family residence at 71 Hillrest Avenue compatible with the city of Summit's prevailing architectural styles and the
character of the immediate neighborhood. So, here is a view as looked at from the west. Uh, these are the front-facing garages. Uh, you'll see some of the items in here, the retaining walls and the stairs and the landscaping. So, we're going to touch on the landscaping
first. Um, so that we can kind of paint the picture of the setting of >> Mr. K. Sorry to interrupt. These these were prepared by your team, >> correct? based on >> the architectural plan provided to you and your landscape plan combined.
>> That is what this is. >> Okay, great. >> Yeah. So, I can describe it a little bit better. So, what you're seeing is a 3D model to scale uh based on the architectural plans prepared by Kim Tone, the site plan prepared by Andrew Clark, and the landscaping prepared by
myself. Okay? And we'll get into, you know, more specific info. I just wanted to kind of give you the overview of what this looks like uh in these photos first. So, why don't we just get into the landscaping a little bit? Um, just to
start, uh, like we do on every project, uh, I was able to meet with John Linson a long time ago on this project before anything was really even contemplated. And we got his blessing. You know, his comments were pretty innocuous, I think, in in the staff comments. Uh, and he
supported everything we're doing here. And I think the main reason is is that we're committed to using almost an entire native pallet uh here. The only non-native plants we'll be using are boxwoods. Uh and the purpose of the
boxwoods, as you might imagine, is to create interest this time of year. Uh I still feel that they're still the best option uh for doing that in Summit. uh especially with the boxwood blight being somewhat under control at least on the projects we've been involved in. Uh I
think it adds nice structure and it also supports all the native perennials, grasses and so on on the project. So statistically, you know, we're removing three trees uh from the project. Two of which are pretty damaged, one is a decent tree uh but we're coming back
with minimum of eight uh trees on the project. All of which are native. So can kind of touch on the pallet a little bit here. So I call it 71 Hillrest natives because well that's what they are. We're committed to this being a beautiful
native uh environment. You know one that attracts butterflies and hummingbirds and all the things we love. Uh smooth hydrangeanger amsonia rubecia um agistachi panicum and and so on and so forth. I think this will really complement what is on our client's house
next door. Uh because that's basically what we did there. Uh and you know it's full of butterflies and hummingbirds and you know plus you know from a storm water management perspective these plants tend to absorb more water runoff
than say non-natives uh would. So, moving through the tree pallet, uh, and I'm not sure how familiar you are with our projects, but we tend to plant larger trees, uh, than most. Uh, so these are representative of the size of
the trees, uh, that would be planted when at time of planting. Okay, so we have some sugar maples and red buds, you know, dogwoods of different colors and varieties, witch hazel, uh, and swamp white oak. So
the picture on the right here is a swamp white oak. This was planted on Prospect Hill about 15 years ago by us. Uh and this was probably this photo is taken about 6 years ago. Right? So you can see
this is a significant tree. You know, most of the trees in Summit that we love that are sprawling over on top of the houses that everyone's, you know, in love with, including myself are white oaks. Uh but white oaks are not available in nursery stock. So the next
best thing is the swamp white oak. So that's what we've been using for you know over a decade in summit and they're thriving here. And John Linson is in complete support of that. Uh just to add to that uh we are using some arborvite.
Also the white pine isn't something we're adding. It's an existing white pine. So just to kind of give you the full picture of the plant pallet here. So just to resummarize you know what we're asking for variance for a relief here. Uh we have the neighbor
neighborhood minimum front yard setback frontacing garage front yard retaining wall height maximum steep slope disturbance and maximum building coverage. So I'm just going to move quickly through this uh just to hopefully illustrate you know some of the challenges that we're facing
here on a property that has some of these things. Right? Right? It's an undersized lot. You know, this diagram here is describing the average front yard setback. So, the blue heavy blue line. So, I'm going to zoom zoom in a little bit here.
So, the rectangle towards the top of the page is actually the building envelope that is per the zoning code, right? It's an unbuildable shape, right? There's no building that would ever fit in there. So that is the first challenge when Kim and Andrew and I were citing this house
and discussing where's where should this go. Uh that was the first challenge. So the orange represents the former home, right? That's the overlay. So this is a figure ground showing the former house in orange and the proposed in gray. So
you can see the former home was far more nonconforming than the proposed home, right? It was very close to um Belleview. It's even closer. Sorry, my screen is not cooperating.
So, we're about 4 feet back from Hillrest than the previous home was. Moving on. So, this picture illustrates that. Obviously, there's no dimensions and things like that on here, but you see it sits nice and comfortably on the site. There's a two and a half foot or
twoft retaining wall in front of the house, and it really just grades down to the site. So, most of this front yard is not graded. You'll see the addition of the dog woods and the existing white oak. You know, there is a massive 38 inch, I believe, caliber uh white oak on
the left side here that will be retained and protected during construction, but really creating a lush environment for the house. So, moving on to the front entry garage. Uh showed you this picture uh moment ago. Uh as you can see nestled in there
to the left of the picture is an existing white oak that would be protected and uh also supports the build the wall height there uh being a little taller so we don't have to disturb the grade in that area. >> One of the questions that has come up is the height of the retaining wall that's
in the front of the building. And here we can see one of those retaining walls. What portion of that is over 4 ft? >> So just zooming in you see the stair opening right there. That's the point where it is, I think, 5' 3 in tall. But then we intentionally,
you'll see it grading down to almost zero uh as quickly as we can. Uh really the only purpose of it is to re uh retain the white oak that is nearby. Right? So in that case, we wouldn't have to do any grading. And you can see to answer one of the
questions about fall protection, if there is not a direct pedestrian path near one of these falls, then typically, and again, it's up to the discretion of the building official at the time of construction, typically uh a guard is not required. So, you can
see the lush plantings. You know, we have at least 8 ft of landscaping uh in that area that would prevent anyone from really getting near that. But of course, you know, if the building inspector has a difference of opinion, you know, compliance uh for sure.
So, here's here's another figure ground, orange, previous home, gray, proposed, and there's a couple of red lines here. So, the previous garage was only 27' 4 in from Belleview. Uh our proposed garage is 52 feet 6 in. Right? That's a
significant uh setback there. So, I'm going to show you a diagram here. So, the white um kind of screened image with the black dashed line is the outline of the previous home, right? So,
if we were looking at this and this is to scale, uh that's the placement of the old house, right? So, our house is 25 ft 2 in further to the east or set back into the property. And just a note here, uh, and I assure
you we've looked at every possible way to design this property to comply. Uh, sometimes it just isn't possible. uh a compliant driveway in the rear, you know, given the setback constraints in the building envelope and the undersized lot would just be so disturbing to the
neighbors property and trees uh that it just it's just not feasible. Wall height, we touched on that, but here's a diagram, and I have some exhibits that we can give toever whoever would like them. Uh but this just shows exactly
where that wall height exceeds the four feet. Uh so in the case of the southern port of the wall, that's a five foot wall and then we have a 5'4. Uh and both in that both cases, excuse me, the intent is to preserve the trees.
Uh here's an overlay showing the walls that are exceeding the 4T. Would it help if we could uh zoom in a little bit more? >> So that that white oak tree to the left, uh that's a nice tree. Um this this
helps keep that tree. Okay. So, for example, if we made that wall lower, we would have to grade that area where there's a lot of roots uh down to that wall, which we obviously don't want to do. Uh, and on the right side here, uh, we have that other wall that's five feet
tall. You can't really see it, and I think that's the point of the diagram. No one sees it, but the user of this house. Uh, steep slope disturbance. Uh, this is pretty straightforward. Um, >> I think we can move through this. Mr. Clark already addressed that. Unless the
board has any questions >> that we need further edification, I would pass through that. >> Moving. Okay. building coverage. So, here is a perspective of the rear of the house showing our covered patio. So,
obviously, we're asking for uh some variance relief for building coverage, but in this case, as you can see here, uh not all building coverage is created equal, right? This is a patio with a roof. Now obviously per the zoning code it is building coverage but it is of
paramount importance given the end user and any real future user to have this as a shaded space right that's what's important to our client and I think would be appreciated by every future client or future >> it's not just shaded it's also protected
from rain and snow >> and we know about the snow this year and that is a fireplace that would be accessible where the chimney Correct. Yep. So, here's a side view. Uh you can see, you know, there's a lot of landscaping
on this project. Uh this really would not be seen by anyone but maybe the rear neighbor a little bit. Uh and the user of the property. Uh and just in regards to the neighbors, uh happy to report that our clients Tyler and Lindseay
Roen, you know, we're able to in person meet or speak on the phone with everyone adjacent to this project and they have full support of all those people. Um one note, and I think it was touched on uh in the previous hearing, but I'll reiterate it here. uh we will be working
with the neighbor to the south of this property uh on the design of that landscape because she expressed some uh desire to not have a big green wall of trees. Uh she likes the the ability to look through the property. So the
current landscape plan is showing an arborite hedge. We have not had the opportunity to meet with that neighbor yet, but that would be a condition, you know, of this approval uh that we're happy to comp comply with. Excuse me. >> And what property is that >> on
>> 70 >> 77 Belle >> 77 Belleview. >> Thank you. It looks like lot nine on the plan. >> And we also, you know, we are allowed to have a 6ft opaque fence, but as a concession also to this neighbor, uh
we're going to be going with a 4 foot high, you know, black vinyl chain link fence, which would really just be absorbed by the landscaping on both sides. and that's per her request. So I feel like this is the most important
uh diagram uh for this presentation. Uh it's an overlay kind of stating our cause or case that is uh for why it's important that this patio one be at the level of the main living
space but two uh protected from the elements. So first this is a southern exposure right and having helped Lindsay and Tyler on their house their house is also a southern exposure next door. Uh, this cooks in the sun, right? They have
the benefit of a covered porch on their house and they really couldn't live without it. Now, they are young and they have a young family. This house is being designed and constructed for Tyler's parents, right?
So, they're in their 70s. Okay, I lose track. They're in their 70s, right? And and getting older like the rest of us. So we're trying to be conscientious of what is the most valuable space that we can create for them that is one accessible and two
protected. So we believe that this achieves that uh southern exposure you know full sun the patio that's that's a negative uh storm water managed at the gutter system and conveyed to the seepage tanks. So let's just imagine
this was a patio right the patio is hit by rain. the water runs off and goes into maybe a drain, maybe goes into the lawn, uh, and maybe eventually gets to the dry well. Well, all storm water that is hitting this space is going into the gutter system and being conveyed
underground to the drywall, right? So, 100% managed storm water in this case. Uh, native and varied landscape treatment at the property line touched on the collaboration with the neighbor. And then probably the single most
important thing is that you can see the four stairs required to get to a patio, right? That's too many stairs in my opinion. Uh by having it up at the elevation, which would be 6 in down, right? Just normal construction
techniques, you would step one step out of the door uh to the patio. But that becomes a really easy transition for everyone. But definitely someone who is older and may have challenges walking, right? So if this patio was simply at
that level and did not have a roof, it would still be considered building coverage, right? Because anything greater than a foot above grade is considered building coverage that's attached to the house, right? So it's kind of a double whammy there.
And then lastly in this diagram, you'll see that if this were a patio, it can be upwards of 5'4 in closer to the neighbor. Right? So this is a pretty modest size space. It's about 15 by 14
more or less. I have some measurements at the end of this presentation. Uh but this is not a big space. You can see this is two scale. These are two little seti sofas and a couple of potted plants and it's full. So, another one of my orange and gray
diagrams. Um, just, you know, as we were thinking about how to describe this, I felt that this would be helpful in that, you know, the previous patio was only 12t 10 in from the property line. You know, this the closest part of our covered porch is 20'9 in, right? that's
another 8t further away. Uh and then also the previous structure main house was only 16'8 in away and you know being another 4t further away. So >> if I can stop you for a second Jared I actually think the proposed porch is 22
feet for from the rear lot from that side lot line. >> That's correct. So I was being conservative and I just measured to the chimney. Right. So if you add a couple of feet of the chimney, we get to your number. And then lastly, you know, as a design
team, uh Andrew, Kim, and I, you know, like what's the good argument for having extra building coverage here? Uh so, you know, being just the landscape architect here, my logical question if I was sitting on this board would be like, well, like what are you doing in this
building that's making it so big that you can't comply? And you know, I'm not an architect, but you know, I started looking at the size of the spaces and there's there's no extra spaces and there's no rooms that are uh over the top in size, right? So, at the end of the day, you know, the only concession
we're able to give to the board was, well, let's, you know, minimize lot coverage the most we could to miticate any of this really important building coverage, you know, for our client. So, in summary, um I think you'll find and I think the environmental commission
will find that, you know, we're doing everything possible to be as environmentally sensitive as we can on this property. Uh we will have the tree protection in place per John Linson's uh recommendation and requirement. You
know, we're using native plants. We're oversizing our storm water system. you know, we're managing all the storm water that's hitting this property uh into the drywall system. Uh and also willing to do things like permeable pavers if that also helps the case here. But at the end
of the day, it's of paramount importance that, you know, for his Tyler's parents and Lindsay's uh in-laws to live here comfortably, uh we'll need relief on these five variances. >> Thank you. Board professionals, what
questions do you have for this witness? >> I don't have any for this witness. >> Uh, just two questions with regard to the retaining walls. You illustrated that I think they're dry laid stone walls. Is that where they're going at this point? Or do you know what the material is going to be? >> They'll be natural stone. Whether
they're dry laid or not, we're not sure. They may be structural, >> but they will be stone. Okay. >> Natural stone finished. And that would match match the house. >> We had a note in our report just noting that the size of the trees seem to be small. at 2 in. Um any reason why you use the
specification of two inches compared to typically sometimes it's more two and a half to three? >> Uh well it's the minimum. So this is we'll call like a code minimum landscape but in actuality when the final landscape plan uh is developed almost every one of these trees will be minimum
4in caliber. >> I thought so. >> Um and we're willing to commit to that here. Uh that's not an issue. Um, but just from a code compliance landscape plan, that's where that's coming from. >> I also saw the Green Giants were 14 to 16 feet tall. So, I was wondering why
there's a difference between the two. But that would be uh all my questions. >> All right. Thank you. >> If I can, Mr. Chairman, I just want to confirm with the rodents that they're agreeing to 4in diameter plantings. I mean, how big are those trees at time of planting? >> Uh 4in caliber.
>> Um, they're probably 25 feet tall. and they agree with that. If the board approves the application, then to make that a condition of approval. >> And if you've been out to the site to, you know, before this hearing, their house next door, that's what we planted
there. So these trees are now 8 9 in caliber. Uh look really good with holiday lighting on them. Um so anyway, >> okay. Big trees >> board. What questions do you have for this witness?
>> Mr. Bell. Um, I'd like to commend you on the tree choices. They're all native as you said and that's rare and and quite wonderful. I'm not on the environmental commission. I used to be. I'm not speaking for them.
I read their report. I and um I can't channel what their reaction would be to what you're presenting today, but speaking personally, uh I think there's a lot of very good things in it. However, um you mentioned the boxwood
and um the reason that a non-native plant, not invasive admittedly, but not a native, which could I think so easily be replaced by something else. And I would just like your opinion if you've thought of other
alternatives. Uh Inkberry Holly for example, >> is do you use that in other jobs or is there some particular reason? There are 104 boxwoods on the drawing. That's a lot. >> It is. Um, so you know, you live and
learn. I've been landscape architect uh over 25 years. I've tried everything. So I've tried uh Alex Glabra. Um, they look really good for a couple years and then they look really leggy. Uh, and then we
rip them out. uh and they have a place I think in a park I think further away from the house but I think when you're creating frames which is what we're doing with this landscape uh it's really important to have a plant that will be
beautiful for 20 years right not four >> so that would be the main reason we've used cranada which is not native um >> can you just explain what an alix is >> oh it's a holly >> thank you >> and Alex is the ink berry that it asking.
>> Yeah, they're both holl. Yeah. >> And we've used uh those and we tend to rip those out, too. Uh so we found that boxwood, even though boxwood blight is a real thing, uh it has been very treatable uh and much more managed over
the last several years and just will live longer. >> Right. And the second of two questions somewhat similar. Um, on the plant schedule, deciduous shrubs are indicated as quote
unquote deciduous shrubs, 117 of them. Um, might that be New Jersey tea or something I've heard of? >> So, earlier in the presentation, you know, I I can show you, but Clethra uh is certainly one of them.
>> You two gentlemen wouldn't mind using lay person's language. >> Yeah. Well, New Jersey tea is a lay person's name. You can't drink it. >> Drink it. >> So, uh, so in the center here, Clea is a is it summersweet, I think it's called.
Um, that's a native has beautiful. This particular ruby spice has a great grapefruit scent to it. Uh, so this is really the plant palette smooth hydrangeanger. So, this would be the native Annabel hydrangeanger. Uh, that's what deciduous shrub is referring to in this case. >> I just wondered why it wasn't indicated.
when we go through a painstaking process with the client. Uh it's like paint, right? Like we haven't picked the paint colors for the house either inside. Uh so I just wanted to give you a flavor for what the plants are and then that's >> fair enough. >> A lot of time. >> I said two questions, but let me just
sneak in a third because you opened the door to a discussion of permeable paving, which is a passion and it was in the Environmental Commission report, both the old one and the new one, if you will. Uh is that in the cards? Uh we talked about it a little bit. It was talked about before. You mentioned it now, but I don't see it on the drawings.
>> So, it's not on the drawings. However, um in the previous discussion, we were over on lock coverage, right? So, that's why we offered that. Um I think the client is still willing to offer it selectively uh in areas. Now, it does not we do not get any credit, so to
speak, for using it in the driveway, but we have discussed possibly putting it there. Excuse me. And then you know the the permeable pavers are kind of a funny thing right because the paver itself is not permeable. It's the joints between the pavers that make it permeable. So in
essence you can use almost any material to have permeable pavement. So if we wanted to use blue stone it's a matter of having quarterinch joints instead of say you know smaller joints eighth inch or butt joints uh that allows the water to percolate through. So these wouldn't be mortared joints. These would be like
gr gravel like pulverized stone kind of joints. So long answer to your question. We did discuss it and if it does help them achieve the other goals on the project, they are willing to do that. >> Well, I understand fully that the drywall that the water management is is
taken care of and the the reduced coverage, you know, bets that uh but as a landscape architect, not as a civil engineer, um and your description of perial pavers is is correct. Uh uh although there are some and and I could
use a lay term is the kind that has grass growing in between it >> that look really nice on driveways in my opinion because they soften the uh hard or asphalt often edge and just wonder your opinion as a landscape architect on this project in this context given there
you are over coverage uh whether that might still be yes it's not giving you any credit but from a aesthetic call it uh of a benefit. Would would you uh recommend that to your clients if uh if
uh cajol >> um on this project? I wouldn't. Um we use products like that uh and also kind of the same products that are used uh for fire lanes. Uh more in like the Jersey Shore environments where it's
kind of like temporary parking and there's not going to be a lot of snow removal. You know, I find when there's snow removal, even pavers or Belgium block is a real pain. Um, so the smoother the surface the better. So for that reason, I think you'd end up doing a lot more damage than the good you
would get from it. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> So then what you were talking about in term of in terms of permeability would be the walkways. >> Correct. There's a walkway at the back of the the house and I think you know the client would be willing to use permeable pavement there.
>> What what other questions do we have for this? >> Just two, I think. Right. Um >> the patio/ porch in the back. >> Yeah. >> So, if I understand you correctly, it's one step out, then you're onto the patio >> porch, >> then it's three steps down to grade. >> Correct. >> Okay.
>> And then why are the stairs still constructed in the driveway just for access to the front yard? >> Right. Like if you let's just say uh a friend comes over and they park in the driveway and let's say they're a new friend, right? An old friend may know to
come to the back door, but a new friend or someone that's just like selling Girl Scout cookies, for example, they're going to want to go to the front door, right? We felt that having some access that way. We used to have a walkway. >> Um, but I think just even from a 360
circulation standpoint for uh Tyler and Lindsay's children, >> be nice to be able to freely move around the property. So >> just no anticipation of a Bel uh not Belgian block stone pathway or anything like that in the future?
>> None whatsoever. >> Um >> Mr. Malay >> just a question about the uh two drawings um AP1 LD1 also uh those were originally and uh uh issued in October
25. I'm sorry. >> They were they these drawings dated 25 October 27, 2025. >> I think you're looking at the >> these are the out to see what they are.
>> Yes, please. Please, please. >> I think the date wasn't changed. Well, the drawings are changed, but the date wasn't changed. >> This has the revised per site plan change dated January 27, 2026. So, these are the most current plans. So, if you could pose that question then.
>> Oh, yeah. No, they weren't looking. Are they exactly the same as we have seen today on exhibit the >> Yes, everything on the screen is okay on that plan. Yeah, >> because I saw the highlighted
monitor. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Thank you, Mr. Mo. >> I have just two questions. Um, in the last meeting there was some mention of doing the landscaping on the neighbors property. It looks like here you're
committing to doing all the landscaping actually on your property. Is that correct? Between the um the rear like sideyard neighbor on Belleview. >> Yeah. >> Is that >> uh Well, so it's still in play, right? We basically have a verbal agreement or
they have a verbal agreement with the neighbor to work with them. >> So Tyler and Lindsay are willing to help landscape the neighbor's side as well. >> Okay. So this is just a plan of their property.
>> Okay. Um and then just the second question is you mentioned driveway non-compliance if the driveway wasn't compliant. Um can you explain what you mean by that? >> The driveway. >> Yeah. >> Uh I may have misspoken. The driveway is
compliant. >> I think if you was you were talking about where the garage is. Oh, the front facing garage is a driveway, but I just want to make sure that we're talking about the garage and not the driveway, which >> Yeah, the garage is the issue that we're here for. >> Thank you.
>> Okay, Mr. Chairman, one one more question. Go ahead. On your landscape drawing, it shows I'm going to harp on these stairs to the front yard, but I don't see stairs to the backyard. >> Is it grade in the driveway? It's a >> Yeah, the driveway. It's a flat walkway
and then you'll see the stairs further back >> over over here. Okay, very good. Thanks. Okay, Mr. Chair, question for Mr. Ball. How do you put into zoning resolution to work with the neighbor? >> Well, currently our condition is the
applicant shall coordinate with the neighbor. We have the representations on what they're willing to do generally. Um, so they're bound by that testimony and they're bound by that condition. Obviously, it's not finalized. Um, so we can't really say exactly what how we
want them to resolve it. >> Can we say that it has to go through John Lindome again because it might be different. Some of the landscaping might be off the property actually. >> I feel like Linds would sign off on this as it is. >> Yeah. Yeah, I think he did. But if you change it and it goes off property, right? Like that's what you're getting
at. >> I think appropriate. I assume Mr. Weber that's fine. That's acceptable. So I would be concerned about your client where the other where the neighbor says hey I want uh you know 8oot arrivites along now I've changed my mind now I
want 8 foot arrivites along my fence line how do we can't prevent that right >> well I think that's where it goes back to Mr. in and they've tried their best to work with the neighbor again. >> Well, it could always be all on the property. That's that's always an option
to do it all on your property. Right. >> Right. >> So, it's if it changes from what we see, it'll be run by Mr. Lindson, right? >> Basically. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I mean, we're we're committed to minimally do what's on this plan, right?
So, everything else would be above and beyond that. Okay. >> Any other questions? Seeing none, any questions from the audience for this witness? Seeing none, Mr. Weber. >> Mr. Chairman, uh we are running past our
estimated 45 minutes. We do have a professional planner to help put perspective on the application and how a covered porch has become an amenity that is not unusual in the north side. And we can certainly call Mr. arrival. But uh
if the board wants to uh uh hold to the presentation to time, then perhaps there could be an understanding as to whether or not this suffices for the board's consideration. >> This is going to be cheeky of me, but we're not going to offer an opinion. >> You can decide yourself.
>> Um can I ask Mr. Ball a question just to clarify? Um, >> the covered porch if because this is a source a source of building coverage overage, right? Um, if someone in the future decides to enclose that because
it is does have a roof, it has a wall has, you know, has foundation. Um, would that require variance or not? >> Unless it >> it would it would trigger an F. >> I'm asking Mr. That's just Yeah, >> that was going to be my point is if it pushes it over on F, then that would be
a variance that's >> but it wouldn't need another variance for building coverage. >> Correct. >> Well, if it were to be converted, will that calculation push us over on the F as well? >> I would expect so. >> Can we find out what's the market?
>> Yeah, >> because I feel like that might need to be some >> I'm confused. Kim Tone was sworn in previously and she had advised me that it would put uh the application over the floor area ratio and trigger a variance. It's not to be cheeky. My question is so
what you know we're not contemplating that right now. A future homeowner if they decide to build and do something that puts them over the F they do so at their own risk. If they don't pull permits, they do so at their own risk. That's not our problem right now.
>> I guess >> I could address that in executive session. My thought on that is that, you know, probably not right now, right? Um >> Okay, Mr. Weber, if >> I could ask that Mr. Paul Bragle be
called to the stand to be sworn in to provide testimony in this matter. >> 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. >> Yes. Good evening. It's Paul Griel. G R Y G I E L. Licensed professional
planner. >> And you two have appeared before us a number of times, including relatively recently. Any changes to your credentials since the last time you were here? >> I've appeared here multiple times. Actually, since last time I've actually taught a webinar for New Jersey planning officials. >> License is still in good standing. I
>> Yes. Since 1999. Has been for that entire time. >> And I imagine we will accept you back once again as well. Yes. Welcome. Appreciate it. >> Please proceed. >> Mr. Gargo, have you formed an opinion as a professional planner as to the
benefits and and detriments of the proposed application? >> Yes, I have. >> Would you be kind enough to share that with the board? >> Yes. Just to be brief in the matter of um what the variances are required, we have five of them. I believe at least four qualify under the C2 criteria of the benefits and detriments. I'll start
first though very quickly with there's one hardship in my opinion regarding the prevailing front yard setback or average front yard setback. We have a lot that is a corner property. It is roughly a third as deep as its neighboring lots uh up the street along Hillrest. So because
of the size being much smaller and the much greater depth of those properties to comply we saw a diagram provided by one of the prior witnesses showing a house would be essentially pushed back towards the we'll call it's a side property line but really to the rear uh
off of Hillrest and you could not have a compliant house built within the envelope that's permitted by that uh prevailing setback. Uh with regard to the other variances, we've also heard extensive testimony and seen exhibits showing the benefits of this application
from planning point of view. I think to summarize what some of those are, they include uh providing for new housing that's up to current codes and that also would provide for its own storm water management. Uh we would have landscaping that preserves existing trees to a great
extent and greatly enhances the landscaping on the property with native plants. I know that's a desirable uh factor that's been talked about by the board and the professionals. Uh in addition, we're we're dealing with um essentially providing customary outdoor
living space. We have a unique situation as far as not having the ability to provide for a covered area in the rear because of the coverage requirement for building coverage. Uh but it's actually better as we've heard through the testimony with regard to the design of the rear patio, the covered patio, to
have it up above the grade, uh to have it farther back from the neighboring properties. Likewise, with regard to some of the issues on the variances for the retaining walls and the uh front the drive, excuse me, the garage, it's fronting. Essentially, we have a better
zoning alternative here by not fully complying with the ordinance. Uh so with that said, I believe all these benefits again outweigh any detrimental impacts. It's very focused as far as the potential impacts. I believe we've mitigated them. So in my opinion, the
positive criteria met for the C2 variances, the four of those, the one hardship. As far as the negative criteria, not to rehash what everyone said, but essentially the potential negative impacts are very limited. Would not be essentially visible from neighboring properties or the street given the landscaping, given the
setbacks and in the unique circumstances we have here, there'd be no substantial impairment to the master plan or zoning ordinance. >> And does the master plan talk about uh this type of construction at all? Well, not not specifically, but basically that, you know, we're
providing for something that's contextual with the design of houses in this section of the city uh with regard to trying to have building materials that, you know, match the prevailing aesthetic and really trying to fit within the established character. And I do believe that the proposal certainly
is consistent with regard to, you know, those factors. >> Nothing further, Mr. Chairman. >> Excellent. Thank you, Mr. Weber. Board professionals, what do you have for this witness? >> No question. Okay, great. Board members, what questions do you have for this?
>> Sorry. >> Go for it, Don. How big is the house? How many square feet? >> I want to The numbers change slightly, so I'll make sure I get the correct one here. My fingertips coverage. I don't know. 38.91 3,891 square ft. That's the number
that's at least as far as floor area from the calculations for F. >> Right. So, if I understand correctly, the building envelope on this lot would be considerably smaller than what it's is now if you were to conform to the
requirements of the zoning. >> Does that make sense? That question makes sense >> I believe. So, the fact that we're under on the floor a ratio and again I didn't in the interest of time I didn't point this out. It was mentioned before every single R25 zoning standard is met. Uh so, and including now in previous
coverage with F all the other setbacks etc. Yes. So that We're underneath on the on that envelope if you want. >> This is an R25 zone. >> Is that thought you're Maybe I missed the two. >> Um, >> and I'm going to put you on the spot and the board can tell me to be quiet if they want to.
>> What size house could you build on this property? >> If I can with regard to the floor area ratio >> just on a build in the building envelope. >> Okay. >> Will F have that on the chart here? Uh, >> I didn't if you did I didn't see. No, I not my chart. I'm referring to one
that's already if it's still the same number 3,925 ft. >> Well, that's the whole lot area and I'm trying to move this ahead. If we could recall Mr. K uh to demonstrate where the red lines are.
>> That's you know, I don't want to I'm just >> I'm just trying to figure out if if you remove a foot from one side of the househ, >> you know, would it make a big difference or two, you know, >> at this point? that it's I know that's I don't want to go down the road too far, but
>> I'll withhold my question. Don't worry about it. >> I was just asking some questions that I thought you might have the answers to right off the top of your head. >> I think that the if you stayed within the frontage uh the front yard setbacks, they were talking about a house that would be deep of around 23 or shallow
around 23 ft uh from front to back is the number I've heard. >> Close to that. That was Andrew Clark is previous. >> Thank you. >> What other questions do we have for this witness?
>> Seeing none questions from the public? Seeing none. All right, Mr. Weber. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Uh I'll reiterate what uh I
opened with that Joe Steiner indicated when he was listening at some point to the presentations of the board that these applications result in a better application, a better product than what was originally presented to this board.
And when we look at this application, it is better. They've brought it. They've cut that building coverage down from 3.3% over down to 1.4. 4. We're talking a couple hundred square ft in terms of excess. They've eliminated the lot
coverage variance altogether and they're willing to agree to those conditions that have been made as representations to this board. So as based on that, I would submit the application to the approval of the board. >> Great. Thank you so much. Do we have any
public comment? Seeing none. All right. Mr. Mr. Ball, what are our conditions and number of votes required? >> So, I have three conditions noted. Uh, first is our usual compliance with the conditions noted in the board engineers memorandum. Second is that the applicant shall coordinate with the neighboring
property owners regarding additional plantings adjacent to the properties located at 77 Belleview and 67 Hillrest. The final planting shall be subject to review and approval by the city forester. Uh and the third condition I have noted is that the new trees shall
be a minimum of 4 in caliper at the time of planting. Here we're only dealing with C variances. So four votes are required to approve the application. >> Thank you Mr. Ball. With that who'd like to begin our executive session? >> I'll start.
>> Mr. Nelson, you've been so quiet today. Thank you for stepping some inter some questions that I thought were interesting but apparently not. Um, I can support this project. I'm glad to see that you've listened to the board and you know, you've you've listened to what our concerns were. Um, yeah, I
think the uh the shape of the lot, corner lot always becomes challenging. This kind of reminds me of another another um project we had in town that was kind of the same scenario. But I think you've done a fantastic job. I think the pros outweigh the cons. I
think the the hardship is that definitely being a corner lot, which you've accomplished very well. So, I can definitely support this project. >> Thank you, Mr. Nelson. >> Who else? Allison. >> Uh, not yet.
>> Not yet. >> Sure. Um, I have a question. I don't know if any if this is the really it's the porch that's driving this, right? I mean, there's the steep slopes. it. That is kind of what it is just to
even do some of the construction here. Um there's not much you're going to do about having two front yards. Actually, you've improved upon that. Um and I do recall the house that was there and how close the driveway was to the street. So, um I mean some of some of the things
are not negotiable the variances unless you didn't put a house up or you to your point Don maybe you put a house that's 200 square feet up so that you can meet all the setback requirements. So, in the, you know, in trying to be reasonable, but I'm wondering about this
porch and um is it that's the thing that's driving the building coverage really. And if it's meant to be used as a porch only, is it something that could be a condition that says if it is enclosed then it needs to be reviewed for variance or is that not a
>> I mean that's just it the reality of >> I guess because of the because it actually and I did calculate it would push you over F by 1.4. 4%. So yeah, I guess >> it would be too. >> Yeah. Okay. That that would be the only thing. And I I think um you know, I
appreciate um that when you were here the first time, you you you heard us and you came back and um made some adjustments that I think are are to the benefit of the neighborhood. And um you know, I think
this is a plan I could support. >> Great. Thank you. Anyone else? >> No. >> Mr. Bell, >> I think as the fourth alternate, I won't be able to vote, but I think if I were
to be able to vote, I would vote in favor for a reason that has very little to do with the porch or the walls or the steep slope or or the uh design of the house or its landscaping. And that's just the uh wonderful circumstance of
being able to have a multigenerational compound given the zoning ordinance. You know, uh you have next doors built-in babysitters. I'm in my 70s. I wish my grandkids are a lot closer than where they are. And how little or how much this site plan
relates to the adjacency factor. Uh I think this should be commended for recognizing social infrastructure that is uh hard to find in some frankly. So good luck with it. >> Great. Thank you Mr. Bell. Um
I'll I'll note for future applicants if you speak favorably about Mr. Steiner, you're going to score some points with me. So just keep that in mind. Um, >> I I am certainly in favor of this application given the undersized lot and
the two front yards. Plus, uh, I will echo what everyone else says, certainly look favorably upon anyone who's willing to heed, uh, the concerns of the board and make adjustments. And I would agree
that those adjustments have improved the project. um clearly uh that these changes are positive and uh something that I can support. So with that, can I get uh a motion to approve?
>> Moved. >> Second. >> Vice Chair Zon. >> Yes. >> Mr. Malay, >> yes. >> Mr. Mullen, >> yes. >> Mr. Nelson, >> yes. >> Miss Chief, >> yes. >> Mr. Fes, >> yes. Chairman Ly. >> Yes.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. >> All right, moving right along. 32 Linux. >> Oh, really? Yeah. Oh, >> you guys need a break? >> No. >> I'm going to power through. >> Let's move. stuff like that.
>> Yeah. Welcome back, Miss. Please proceed. >> All right. I'm Hillilary Ols from Dempsey Dempsey and Sheen representing the applicant Andrew and Danielle Chisik regarding property located at 32 Lennox Road, block 25501, lot 22 in the R15
zone. taking your advice, chairman. Um we also agree that uh with what Joe Steiner said and how coming back does make the applications better. Um so um in line with what Jim was saying again
um we've listened to all of the board's comments and the applicant and their experts previously appeared before the board on December 17th, 2025. At that hearing, plans were presented for construction of a pool, pool house, and associated outdoor improvements with
requested variance relief for the height of the pool house, the height of wall and fence combination, and disturbance of steep slopes. During that hearing, the board provided comments and feedback, which the applicant carefully considered and subsequently directed
their professionals to address through plan revisions. The revised plans have been submitted to the board and will be presented this evening. As revised, the application eliminates the previously requested variance for the height of the pool house as well as the variance for
the maximum height of the wall and fence combination. The plans also reflect a reduction in imperous coverage which is compliant with ordinance requirements and further reduces the disturbance of the steep slope area. As a result of
these revisions, the only relief sought tonight is for variance for steep slopes. The property presents unique challenges. It is constrained by significant topography and is further burdened by a front yard setback that exceeds the
required minimum by nearly 50 ft. That extraordinary setback substantially diminishes the usable depth and functionality of the rear yard. These conditions are intrinsic characteristics of the property that inhibit the extent to which the property can be used and
impose an undue hardship and create practical difficulties in achieving improvements that would otherwise be permitted as of right. The proposed improvements represent a balanced approach that allows the applicant reasonable use of the property
as otherwise permitted while accounting for the unique hardships presented by the site. At the same time, the revised plans respect and advance the intent and purpose of the steep slope ordinance, which is designed to regulate disturbance and not prohibit it
altogether. This evening's presentation will include testimony from the architect, civil engineer, and landscape architect, each of whom will review and highlight the revisions to the plans. And if there's any questions, I'm happy to answer them, or we can call the first witness.
>> I just had one. I see the applicant's not testifying. Do you know if the applicant uh spoke to the neighbors to the rear about this project? >> Yes, they did. >> Assume the outcome was favorable. >> Yes, and I none of the neighbors are here tonight to provide any comments um
in opposition. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mullen. >> All right, let's have your first witness. >> Sure. Uh Zachary Goldstein >> and I believe he was previously sworn. >> Yes, he was. You remain under oath. Go ahead.
>> Okay. So, uh, revisions to the proposal were made based upon comments by the board members at the last hearing. Can you describe from an architectural perspective what the revisions are that have been made to the plan? >> Um, yes. Ultimately, um, we reduced the
height of the pool house significantly, um, to bring it into compliance. Um, and so, uh, as measured from the, uh, kind of patio area up over here, um, the roof is now only 11 foot six above the height
of that patio. Um, because of the existing grade, which we're measuring from. Um, the the technical height of the total pool house is 15 ft, which is compliance with the maximum requirement. Um, but like as viewed from the majority
of the backyard, it would appear as more than that. Um, yes. And I think the other kind of adjustment that we made is where previously we had a walk out basement. Um, we're no longer disturbing the ground behind the pool house. The
pool house itself has been shifted 8 ft further from the rear property. So, >> Mr. Goldie, I don't know that the microphone's turned on. Is that >> Does that work? There you go. Apologies. Should I restate that? >> No, you're good.
Um, so, um, yeah, the pool house has been brought forward from the rear property line, uh, by 8 and 1/2 ft. So, now it's, uh, the the rear of the pool house is is, uh, over 32 ft from the rear property line. Um, and as I was saying,
we're no we're no longer disturbing this area behind behind the pool house. Um, and as a result, um, we no longer have a walkout basement. Um, so there's a small window which you can kind of see at the back of the um, pool house. Um, and um, that's
just to provide uh, a little bit of sunlight and frankly uh, to break up the facade so that it doesn't feel uh, like this kind of continuous uninterrupted facade. Um, but that window is um, significantly smaller than would be required for egress and there's no plan to really occupy the basement. and it
would be used for storage and for uh concealing the mechanical equipment which I think would be a benefit to the to the neighbors. >> Um okay so again you are confirming that the pool house will not be used as an accessory dwelling unit and I believe that was a condition of approval at the
last hearing. Um is there any lighting proposed for the pool house? Uh yes, we're proposing a total of uh four sconces that are kind of decorative and uh not likely to give off significant amount of light. They'd be in compliance with the the ordinance. Uh so there's there's there's four of
them. Uh two two on uh the side uh two on each side of the proposed pool house. Um and like I was saying, they wouldn't give off a dramatic amount of light. It's really primarily for for kind of safety purposes so that this staircase on the side of the pool house would be would have some lighting and and also to
just to have a little bit of light um on the side here by the patio. >> Excellent. Um and is the pergola still being proposed and if so what is the height? >> Um we haven't um really changed anything with regard to the um pergola but we
haven't really um laid it out in detail. It would be in compliance with the maximum heights. It would be under the 15t requirement. >> Excellent. Um I don't have any other questions. >> Great. Board experts, what questions do you have for this witness?
>> Um I I'm I'm just questioning something you just said about the pergola that that you you haven't actually removed that that's still on the plans. I'm trying to >> it's it's undetermined because the it it hasn't been a final design. >> Okay.
>> You still have a detail a detail that was on the previous plans, >> right? >> And I'm just acknowledging that that detail is there. >> That's fine. Fine. And somehow in my review, I was thinking that it had been removed, but that's not the case, right? So >> it again, it's it's kind of un undecided
at this point. Regardless, it would be going over impervious coverage, so it wouldn't require any additional um approvals. And if it was constructed, it would be under the height um that's required. Okay. Um
does the um the relocation of the pool house change anything about the walls or is that something that maybe somebody else >> I think the engineer is going to testify. Um, how about um can you can you talk about anything that is um inside the pool house like some of the
pool equipment? >> Yeah, I I think the the equipment that would customarily be associated with a pool uh the equipment that like filters and um uh heats heats the pool um would be located within the the basement. >> So typically that would be outside and
it would need to be screened. This will be obviously inside. So fully screened and a benefit to the neighbors because they're not going to be looking at any of that equipment. >> So um does that all discharge then to the sanitary system within the building or is that discharging somewhere else?
>> I think the >> I think that's for the engineering. >> Okay. Um >> All right. I think that's all I have. Thank you. >> Thank you, Murray. >> Uh you've clarified the pergola for me. Thank you. Um, and the other aspects of
our comments, I think the only thing you have is the uh, excuse me, the air conditioner in the back of the pool house, but that'll be appropriately cleaned by the landscaping, I presume. >> Correct. >> Being proposed and then the fence itself will be bordering the outer property. Is
that correct? >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, and I think you have landscaping that protects any of the fall zones for the trees for the walls. Excuse I think the landscape architect could probably speak a little bit more specifically to that. >> Okay. Thank you. Question.
>> Thanks, Ed. Board members, what questions do we have for the architect? >> What? >> Yes. What is the purpose of the stairs on the side of the pool house now that there's not a sort of a a rear walk out basement door?
>> You know, it's uh there isn't like an explicit purpose to them. It's to provide access to this rear area. We're not disturbing it, but we still wanted to provide access to it. Um, so it's simply to be provide access to the kind of area behind the pool house
>> maintenance. >> That way you can get behind the retaining wall in between the landscaping and >> what other questions have questions. It's a metal guard rail. That's the front of the pool house facing the pool.
>> Um, no, this was along the retaining wall. It'd be along the retaining wall. >> Oh, so the pool's okay. So, it's the back. Just so that >> Yeah, that's this is this this um like this. Sorry. This view here um is the back the rear view
>> because the pool house was pushed forward. Now, you're going to see some of the the patio area. So that is protecting you from falling. >> Okay. >> Off the patio. >> And then I'm sorry, one other question. With the pool house, you just look like
you just chopped off the whole roof. >> Um I mean we have a lot of uh exterior trim work on the on the rear of it, but that's right. We no longer have a gable on the roof. >> It's a flat roof. And what's the material? >> Um it would likely be a EPDM um membrane to waterproof the roof. It would be
really visible. um because you'd be below it um standing on the patio. So, you wouldn't really be able to see it unless you were like uh in their house or in uh you know >> the neighboring houses. >> Uh they'd have a tough time seeing it with all the the trees that are around
it. So, I don't think they'd have a real easy view of it, but yes. >> And what color? >> Uh it'll likely be black. We previously had a condition that the plans were going to be revised to reflect that there's no dwelling unit or beds in the accessory structure.
>> Correct. I think the references the the uh it's not proposed to be an accessibility to be used in that fashion and I think the homeowner would be happy to um commit to a deed restriction that notes that. >> Yeah. And and that was a separate condition but there's no reference to dwellings or anything of that sort in
the current plan. >> Not at all. No. >> Correct. And again, by removing the walkout basement um and changing those windows, which are not code compliant for egress, you couldn't put any kind of a basement or living area down there. >> Thank you, >> Don. Just a Was there any thought that
when you move the pool house forward to not move the proposed patio forward so you would disturb even the less steep slope or was that not a consideration? >> Yeah, that was part of it. By by moving it forward, we're disturbing less steep slope. That was definitely a consideration. But the but the patio is the patio smaller than it was on the
previous plan or the same >> it's shifting forward. Um so like where the pool house was previously further back there was patio occupying that. I mean the layout's a little bit different but um so ultimately I think we're reducing the ultimate uh disturbance >> there. There's actually I think it's 518
it could be 516 square feet uh reduction in imperous coverage. the the changes and I think um Miss Ols mentioned they're responsive to to everything that the board said. >> Anyone else? >> Okay. Any questions from the public for
this witness? Seeing none. All right. >> Uh Peter Corin. >> Great. Thank you. >> Again, I believe he was previously sworn and accepted. >> Yes, he was. He'll remain under oath. Okay. Um, Mr. Cororsen, since there are board members who are here tonight who were
not at the prior hearing, I would ask if you could briefly describe the existing conditions of the site. >> Yes, I just brought that up. That's the existing conditions plan sheet two. Uh, the site is located on the west side of Lennox Road.
It's in the R25 zone district and it includes 45,869 square ft of area. And you can see here that the house is situated far back from Lennox Road approximately in the center of the site.
There's a driveway that leads up to a detached garage on the south side of the house. >> Sorry, can I just interrupt you? Can you tell us how far that setback is? >> Yes. Uh I'll describe that later on, but it's 83.4 4 feet to the rightway line, the front of the house. >> 35 ft is what is required.
>> Correct. And uh in back of the house is a slave patio and then also the topography is a little different here because in the front of the house it slopes down towards Lennox Road and there's a very steep area that steep slopes in the front along the road and
in the back when you um look at this patio you see some steps here. Those steps actually go up. So there's a higher area here and then it drops off steeply in the back and there's a larger steep slope area in the very back of the property. Uh these steep slope areas
total 11,420 square ft. So that's a quarter of the entire site. And um especially the back steep slope area that actually if you like strike a line along the back of the house and say that's the backyard that
occupies over a third that steep slope area occupies a third of that rear yard area. Um other than that there are some utilities. There's overhead electric telephone and cable. There's underground gas and water. There's an underground sanitary sewer lateral that's located in
the front of the house that goes to Lennox Road. And there's also a storm drainage system currently for the house and for the detached garage. Uh there's two dry wells located in the front. One is a smaller one for the garage and one is a larger one for the house.
And you can also see some trees on this plan. There are mature trees greater than 8 in diameter. Uh quite a few in the front and some in the back. >> Um and can you maybe just describe some of these steep slopes in the back? Is there any ecological value or um you
know if you could just maybe explain to the board about those steep slopes? >> Yeah, there's no ecological value and I'll I'll talk about the impacts of the proposed improvements after I after I uh describe those. Uh but this is the lock
rating plan. This is sheet one. And I'm just going to bring this up briefly to show you how everything is oriented relative to the surrounding or the entire site. And I'll bring up an enlargement in a minute, but you can see all the proposed improvements are in the rear yard with the exception of a new
sanitary sewer lateral that runs along the north side of the house and connects with the existing lateral in the front. Okay, this is the enlargement. This is sheet two and this shows the rear yard area. You could see clearly that there is the steep slope area shaded. Here is
the pool house which has been slid forward. You heard about that 8 1/2 ft. Further uh from the um when compared with the previous plan on the east side of the pool house is a inground pool with a surrounding patio. There's also a patio on the south side of the pool
house. And one of the main improvements other than these hardscape features is also to create a usable rear yard where there currently isn't any. Uh so in order to accomplish that, we're flattening flattening this area out here. Um getting into the steep slopes
with the flattening and in order to um uh create that usable rear yard, there is a retaining wall that's required that runs along the west side of the development area, connects to the pool house, and there's also another wall
that runs along the pool house and along the north side of the pool. Um, as far as utilities go, there is a water line that starts at the house and feeds to the pool house. And there is a sanitary sewer lateral that runs from the pool house to the front existing
lateral. Uh, one of the main advantages of this plan is the storm water management system that we're adding. Uh, currently there is sheet drain drainage that um that actually drains to the west and to the northwest corner of the site.
that's currently uncontrolled uh from the lawn area. And what we're doing is we're capturing a big portion of that with the impervious surface and the 14 uh drain inlets that we're adding in addition to a slot drain in the pool patio. So all of that runoff including
the pool house um roof drains get conveyed to a drywall system which comprises three tanks here. They're standard drywalls 4T deep 8t diameter surrounded by stone and that system has been designed per code. >> Can I ask a question about that? >> Sure. >> In your opinion, does that improving the
storm water management from the existing condition? >> It does because all of this would be uncontrolled. If you just vision this whole rear yard, you can see these slopes. They're all leading down toward the west and toward the northwest corner. All of that gets
or a good portion of it gets captured by these lawn inlets and gets conveyed underground. Do >> you have an approximate percentage by which you're improving it? >> Well, we have impervious coverage that's broken down on sheet one uh that shows what's proposed, but I don't have a a detailed analysis of the rear yard. No,
>> just ballpark if you have rough estimate. >> I'm just looking at this plan. I would say that probably a third of the rear yard is being captured. Thank you. Yeah.
>> Um, as far as trees go, we're uh, proposing to remove, well, actually, this plan shows eight trees on the plan that you have, but um, there's actually six trees that are going to be removed. And, and the reason is this is an older topographic survey where two of the
trees have been removed already. I believe one of them is right here at this location at the steps. The other is by the drywall system, but you you'll hear more about that from the landscape architect. Um, and as far as the steep slopes go, uh, well, you know what? Let
me let me just go back to sheet one here. If you just look in the upper right, there's a zoning data table, and you can see that um, we've eliminated the two variances from the previous plan. Previously, we had a 23.2
two foot uh height of the pool house. And because there's no rear door to the pool house and we've split it further, um even though the pool house height is measured to existing ground to exist to average of existing ground, uh it still
uh complies. It's 15 ft high now and it was 23.2 ft high. Uh the second variance we've eliminated is for the combination of wall and guard uh which we do have next to these retaining walls. There's also a 4ft guard on top of the retaining
walls. Um we've eliminated that variance that we had previously where it was 12 ft combination of wall and guard. Uh now we have it at 10 ft which complies with code. So, uh, at the maximum height, we have a 6ft high wall at this angle
location right here and then 4T fence on top of it. So, that gets you the tent. >> But that wall is not consistently that height, correct? >> No, it's it's not. It's only at this location here and then it tapers down to zero to the uh south and it's about 4T at the pool house and it's also 4T along
the north side of the pool. >> And there's a reduction in steep slope disturbances. Get to that. Um the steep slope um variance previously was 4,900 square ft. We're proposing 4,000 square ft uh just by making adjustments to this
plan. And um one thing I'll I'll just bring up and there there's two really burdens on this property. One of them is the steep slopes and there's one located in the front which you've seen and this big one in the back. The other is the position of the house and the existing
improvements on the lot. Um the house is set back as you've heard 83.4 ft from the rightway and it could have been positioned 30 at 35 ft. So if this house and all these improvements were slid forward, there
would be no steep slope to service in the back. So there would be no variance. It would be an as of right application. Um so just getting back to the steep slopes they do not have any ecological value and I know there is an ordinance and the purpose is to identify first the
steep slopes which are 15% or greater and the second is also to uh promote um reasonable development within the steep slopes not prohibit the development and that's what we've done here. We've uh there's two things to consider as far as
impacts. One of them would be erosion, the other one is drainage. As far as erosion goes, uh there will be sediment control measures that will be uh implemented as shown on sheet four in your plan set. Uh that'll all be regulated by the Somerset Union Soil Conservation District. Um, and also as
far as drainage goes, you've already heard that we're improving the situation where now you have um a very substantial drainage system that's capturing probably a third of the backyard where currently it all sheet drains towards the northwest and towards the west.
Um, >> and if I could just jump in and ask in your opinion, um, will the introduction of the retaining walls and the pool house act, um, to stabilize the slopes and prevent erosion better than what is existing? >> Yes. Yes. It accomplishes two things.
One of them is to provide the usable area that was discussed, which is sorely needed, and the other one is it provides a stop at the low end of the steep slope disturbance. and it does stabilize that area and it's it's fully connected. It
starts at zero foot for the retaining wall, comes around to the pool house and then continues with the retaining wall on the north side of the pool. So that does provide the stabilization. >> Excellent. Um and have you had an opportunity to review the administrative
comments? Um and if so, can you respond to any of those comments that you have not already addressed in your testimony? Um I believe I have a testified to just about all of them except for maybe number nine. And there is a question about the
maintenance of the drainage system. Um so in addition to the manhole access which is required by the city for the dry wells uh we've also provided sumps at two drainage inlets um directly above
the or directly upstream from the uh drywall system. One of them is labeled D10. The other one is D11. So anything that flows into those two inlets, there is going to be a sump on the bottom which which an open bot with an open bottom and that can be accessed and
cleaned out just in case there's any debris that enters the system. So with the combination of that and the manhole access to the drywalls, that's how it'll be maintained. Um believe I've covered everything else except for maybe there was still a
question about the pool and the sanitary sewer system. Uh the answer is yes, we will discharge to the new sanitary sewer lateral. And I think the only clarification is that the pool have a or has a um volume of less than 36,000
cubic feet. And uh this pool hasn't been completely red or redesigned yet, but um just using 900 square ft, which is the pool surface area, and using a 5ft average depth, it's less than 35,000 cubic feet. So, we comply with that.
>> Great. >> I think that's probably it. There was one comment from the city engineer. It's more of a statement of understanding. >> Uh, okay. Yeah. Um, he's concerned about
extra measures should be taken downhill during construction. And you'll see that on sheet four. We have a very substantial soil erosion sediment control plan with a detail sheet that goes along with it. And that includes a um silt fence located at this location
in addition to uh inlet protection and there's a stabilized construction access next to the garage. All of that shown on sheet four. >> Board experts, what questions do you have for this business? Um
I wanted to talk about the dry well system. Was there is there any opportunity to um to capture water from other like the roof on the house at all? Um I wish there was but um the system
already or the house already goes to an existing system >> which is in the >> which is in the front yard >> which which you know in some cases that's not the that's not the situation uh with an application. So there's quite a bit of uh storm water management here when you consider the existing and the
proposed. >> Okay. And I forgot to mention that um one thing we've done with this revised plan, I think we were a little short last time with uh the tributary area to the drywall system. We just didn't quite make the net change in impervious surface. We were close, but we didn't make it with this plan. We do. We
actually exceed the uh net change in imperous surface. >> And I think um correct me if I'm wrong, but um you accomplish that by some of those yard inlets. >> Yes. >> Right. Those were not on the last plan. Yeah, we we just >> slot drain
>> the slot drain was not there. There was a couple of inlets there, but um I think we just looked at everything and uh it just when you consider everything al together, you have the pool, you have the pool house, you have the patio, um both both patio areas, you have uh some
of the walls that are close to the drainage inlets, all the chimney in the back, all that goes to this drainage system. >> Okay. So, you have um roof drains that are um attached to the pool house that are routed to the drywall system. Um
any of the runoff, could you talk about the runoff from the pool patio and how that's directed to the drywall system? >> Uh yeah, there's two patio areas. One is by the pool. You can see that there's the slot drain on the west side. And there's also um drains labeled D2, D3,
and D4, and even D5 located on the east side of the pool. Those will pick up that side of the patio. There's also drain inlets D6 and D7 on the north side of the pool. Those will pick up that um runoff. Uh there's also D1
and D10 on the south side of the pool. That'll pick up that runoff. Um, and there is D11, D12, D13, and D14, which collect runoff from the patio that's on the south side of the pool house. So, there's quite a few. Like I said, there's 14 um lawn inlets and also the
slot drain. >> Okay. Yeah. >> Um and you addressed, thank you, the the um um pool equipment in the pool house and the drainage for that that um and you testified that the pool should be
less than 36,000 gallons. Um so I think I think you're good with that. >> Um can you talk about any changes in wall heights that were on the property? Uh yeah, we did have um a higher wall.
Uh it was 12 feet was the combination. We still had a 4ft fence. So um you know, we had an 8ft wall at one time and we brought that down to six feet. But again, it's only at one location. >> Okay. >> It's only where these angles are by the chimney and it tapers off dramatically
from there. >> And that's fully compliant. >> Yes, it is. >> Okay. I think that's um that's all I had. I think >> great. Thank you, Ed. >> Chairman, just two quick questions. Um you had also reduced the amount of
impervious coverage, right? By 500. >> Yes. Uh 518 square ft. >> The revised design and the way you've adjusted your impacts to steep slope is because of the way you've moved the pool house and the retaining. >> Yes. >> Now pulled out of that area preserving that tree in the back. >> Yes.
>> Thank you. >> Great. Thank you, Ed. Board members, what questions do you have? >> Mr. Malay, >> first of all, I see the major issue here for house uh which uh finished the
elevation of the top or the roof elevation is like 124 >> I think 124.5. Yeah, >> that's that's really a high uh elevation and uh looking at the contour around
this area, it's going to stick out as a >> well I mean from any part from this side to this side you're going to see the house. >> Well, if you look here, this is a sheet two of the site plan set. You can see
that there's a diagram on the left that shows the pool height calculation. So, you're correct. It is 124.5. Um, but the actual the actual elevation of the uh of the pool house when you walk in is 113.4. >> I'm talking about the uh the roof
elevation because that's you see from everywhere. >> Right. Right. >> From this part, this part. Okay. We don't have neighbors here, right? >> No, that's another thing that um I was going to mention. I forgot. Uh if you look at where these uh proposed improvements are relative to the
surrounding area, they're all located at the north west corner of this property, which is the furthest from the houses in the surrounding area. I believe the closest house would be immediately to this to the north, which I think is 38 Lennox. And even that's far, but if you
look on Google Earth, it's it is the most distant location on this property for those improvements to be, >> right? But it is visible. This structure the the foot house will be visible from this uh from the 38. >> You're you're still going to hear from our landscape architect and they
prepared a very um substantial plan with with buffers. >> So with buffers and trees. >> Okay. >> And and again the the height is compliant with the ordinance. >> The the pool house height is compliant. Yes. >> Yeah. Uh from the uh >> from the average grade. not from the
average grade from the established grade. The grade that you have on the after the uh uh after regrading. >> Well, actually we we you're actually this is the code is what we've done
here. This analysis and that's a worst case because that uses existing elevations. That's before everything gets raised up. So, so, um, >> so I'm looking here at this stroke that you're uh, let's look at elevation 105
10. >> Okay. They're in back of the pool house. >> Yeah. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. So I don't think this is the best location for the people to but it is impacting
our disturbance. I mean if not for the booth house we wouldn't have been have to we don't need to do all these. >> Well your your ordinance defines height
based on existing elevations. So, we can't change what's back there. That That's low. That's low. >> Exactly. Uh where I was trying to I'm trying to say if he did not put this
petition, they stay here where these drivers are. We We don't need to, >> right? But see, but then we're redesigning. And again, the steep slope ordinance does not say that you cannot build in steep slopes. It just regulates
how you build and it makes sure that you comply with certain criteria that's in the steep slopes, which is what they're doing. >> And and if the house was built at 35 ft from the front yard, then this proposal
would be fully compliant. But the applicants have a hardship because the house was built too far back. And on top of that, they have steep slopes that they have to work with. And so, yes, you could design any project to
have no variances. And you could design any project to make it conforming, but that doesn't make it the best plan. This is the best plan because it's located farthest away from any of the neighbors. There's going to be significant landscaping proposed, which you're going to hear about, and it complies with the
intent and purpose of the steep slope ordinance. Uh that's exactly my point. The steep slope ordinance is to limit the steep slope disturbance by thousand not by 4,000. >> But no no what it says is is that if
you're under a thousand you can do it as of right. If you're over a thousand, as long as you meet the intent and purpose of the ordinance, then um disturbance is permitted, but you have to come before the board to make sure that you're meeting all of
that criteria. >> That requires a variance. A variance is not is deviation from the code. >> And and a variance is for C1 variance, you have to prove a hardship. And in this case, they have two hardships.
And what is the benefit there? >> So if you let >> let's just keep moving, >> right? If you keep kind of keep moving on, we can >> let me jump in from the perspective they're asserting it's a hardship and it's a C1 variance is what they're requesting.
In those cases, you're not looking at benefit benefits versus negatives. You're looking at the hardship meeting the positive criteria versus the negatives that it would pose. So they don't necessarily need to show the benefits that are supported under the municipal land use law.
>> How? >> But they are improving the storm water management and they will be improving the landscaping and the view from all of their neighbors which you will see. So in reality it is actually improving all of the um conditions for the neighboring
properties. >> Okay. So the only hardship here is uh having a steep slope >> and the fact that the house is 50 ft farther into the property than what is where it's supposed to be. So if this
house had been built at 35 ft from the front property line, then whatever they proposed would be 50 ft forward. But because somebody built the house where they built it, which was not my client and which they can't change, they are
now limited to a rear yard space that is 50 ft less than what they should be entitled to. >> Can I ask about that for a second? >> Sure. >> Just Yeah, please. >> I because I drove down to the property the other day and didn't look like there were very many houses, if any, on Lennox
that were cited that far forward on the lot. So, would you say that condition is unique to this house in that neighborhood or consistent with the rest of the neighborhood? >> So, if you look across the street, I would say they were all much closer. Um, if you look at the neighbor right next
to them, it actually this house is farther back than that house. Um, and that house doesn't have steep slopes in the backyard. You know, certain houses may be set back, but then they don't have the additional burden of the steep slope. So, I think that there's unique conditions on this property that not all
of the other properties have. >> So, the steep slope is probably the primary driver and the sighting of the house is more of a secondary driver relative to the neighbors. >> Again, I think in combination with both, they're both hardships if you look at it in terms of the the ordinance and the
way the homes were designed to be built. >> And just one more question following up Mr. Malay's point. Um, what proportion or what level of square footage of the steep slope disturbance is solely attributable to the pool house versus the building of the pool?
>> It's probably um 2/3 of the pool house is in a steep slope. So the pool house pool house itself is >> the pool house is uh I think 576 ft. So it's not a a large building. I'm not
permitted to be a large building. Um, so I always say that the pool house itself is a large element. >> Mr. Merley, did you have any follow-ups to this? Otherwise, I'd like to ask a question. >> Um, okay. Seeing there is a hardship,
it isn't it a good idea to think about a different location for the pool house? So they they did they moved it forward. So the previous plan it was farther back and they came back and they redesigned it and they pushed it forward closer to
their house. >> Thank you. Yeah, that's a good idea. >> No, that's what they did. So their original plan it was it was much closer to the rear property line and now they've come back and they've pulled it closer to their >> I agree fully agree. But if we had
if we can move it either uh even further away to where we have the three driveways, that would be a best area. >> But then you're moving it fully into the middle of the property and that's actually located closer to the house
which is right behind them. So it would impact that neighbor greater than it would if it was tucked over in the corner. And when you see the way that the landscaping is, which is around the entire perimeter, it will block the view of that. And the neighbors who live in
the back have seen this plan and they are comfortable with it. >> The 26, >> all of the neighbors and and Mr. Chis can come up. >> There's there's three. There's one on this side, there's one on this side, and then there's a house in the back. I'd
like to also mention that there's very limited lawn area currently because the house is positioned so far back. So if the pool house were located here, you're really restricting the lawn. There would be no no lawn available at all. >> And that's and that's one of the even though it's not shown as proposed
improvements. That's one of the key features of this plan. >> What's the size of the uh house? >> 576 ft. >> That is necessary. That's per code. This
>> it it complies with the ordinance. >> Mr. Fesa, >> thank you. >> I apologize for not memorizing the previous presentation, but when you looked at reducing this the roof line height to essentially a flat
roof, it is not in keeping with consistency of the existing house. Was there a thought to go with the 18 ft for secondary structures as I I know the garage it's permitted >> but here I mean personally I look at this and saying while you're designing
to be in compliance that's a perfect example of why a roof variance would be argued for. >> Um I think we were just being responsive to the to the board's comments with regard to the height. Um, but having said that, if there was a condition of
approval that we have a gable and that it be uh within the 18T maximum subject to the approval of the board, I I think we'd be very much happy with that and that's why we proposed that initially. >> So, just for clarity, right now you're designing within the 15t technical ordinance. >> Yep.
>> Okay. >> And what would the run be for you to meet that 18 foot requirement, that extra three feet? Um, I'd have to I'd have to to draw it out. I'm not exactly sure. >> Ballpark. Would it be much more in line with a proper roof pitch? >> Yes,
>> Mr. Bell. >> Actually, I'm just thinking about it. I just did the math in my head. It would be like a 3 over12. >> So, it won't be it won't be super steep, but >> steep. >> Yeah, >> but it wouldn't be a flat roof. >> Wouldn't be a flat roof. Yeah.
I know we'll be hearing from the landscape architect. >> Yes. >> Momentarily, but since you talked about um the change from even the drawing that we've been looking at in regard to the trees to be removed, not eight but six, partly because two have already been
removed. You mentioned, if I understand correctly, and this is the clarification I'm asking for, that the two that were removed, I think you said one was near the drywalls, that would be the 18-inch hemlock. >> Yes. and the other is by the stair clos I think let's have the landscape architect test and I will ask the same
question of him in a moment if I might from a civil engineering point of view on the drywalls was the 18-inch hemlock removed to create more lawn space because of interference where the drywalls are being >> I'm going to leave that up to landscape architect I believe that was removed before the chisix moved in but I'll let
them confirm >> okay thank you >> I just have I have one question so just to follow up on Mr. Mr. Malay's question. If the pool house were moved and and um something that Miss Ol said um let's say to if I'm looking at the
plan to the left of where the pool is somewhere in there um that would still meet your sideyard setbacks where you would not have any issue with the neighbors. There's 95 ft from the edge of
>> the pool to the the property line. Is that correct? Uh if it was located where the drywalls are, it would be >> well, you know, somewhere in in that general vicinity, there's at least 95 ft. >> It would meet this the setback requirements. >> Yes. But there's a house right behind
it. Like, can you point to where the yellow house is behind? >> Yes. So, there's it's even closer to the property, >> meet the rear yard setback as well, likely. I mean, it would be a closer visual impact to that house than if it's tucked over in the corner,
>> but it's still meeting would meet this rear yard. >> Yes, it would. But it would impact the neighbors greater than what this would. >> But theoretically, you could build a house all the way back to this prop to setback and still have the same impact, >> right? But that's going to obviously
impact your neighbors greater than one space. Just a quick question about um the water drainage from the I guess would be the south side to the north side. You're regrading where this new cinder block or
this retaining wall is going to be. Correct. There's no drainage catch at all. I mean any water >> catch there at all for the lawn. There will be some interception of um sheet. >> No, go back further back to the shaded area. >> Yeah. >> Is that being leveled off inside that?
>> It is. That's the purpose of that wall right there. Not not on the left side though. Right. >> Right. So that's the area I'm talking about. Yeah. >> There's no drainage proposals in this area at all. Where does that water run off to? >> It all runs from south to north. That's
not being changed. >> They're not touching the slope in that area. >> Okay. Any other questions? Any questions from the public? Seeing none. Okay. Uh, the landscape architect.
>> Great. >> Oh, sure. >> Thank you, >> Andy. I think this will be um A2. >> One more color. I >> believe that's correct. >> Thank you. Oh, I know we're recycling.
So I again I believe that um Misma has been sworn um and qualified as testified at the last hearing. >> Yes, she was she remains under oath and just to confirm yes this updated plans is A2. >> Perfect. Thanks. Um since the last
hearing, did you have an opportunity to confer with John Linson? And if so, are the revised plans reflective of your conversations with him? Yes. got in touch with him on a day he was in the summit sent revised plans. >> Miss the microphone.
>> Oh, right here. >> Oh, sorry. >> Um, yes. Better. No. Um, I spoke with Mr. or I actually emailed back and forth with Mr. Lson probably two and a half weeks ago regarding tree removal,
confirmation, tree replacement. He um didn't give us the quantity that we needed to replace, but he knew what we were taking down, what was storm damage. He's been out to the site over the past couple of years and gave us the approval
for 7 to 8 foot evergreens. I had given him a handful of different species depending on, you know, what the client chooses. We actually counted out the 25. He didn't say that that was more or less than what we needed, but he actually just ended it with, you know, the way I
think. So, um, we think that that's the way he thinks. So, if anything, it would probably be end up being more just for our clients privacy. >> And his review did approve this plan. >> Yeah, he and then he wrote the revised staff comments that said, quoting
landscape design has my approval for the replacement trees, quantity, and size. Um, okay. And then so you prepared um exhibit A2 to help you um in your testimony tonight. And can you just explain to the board why we have a new exhibit?
>> That was 100% my fault. We were working off an old survey and we've been working for the Chisik since after they moved in. So that's probably 2020, 2019ish. Those trees actually weren't there then. So it was just part of our removals plan
that they were on the survey. So, we marked them off, but those haven't been there since we've been on the property. So, I apologize for that. The um two hemlocks that are on the >> So, can you just point to the two that are not? >> They have the big red circles around
them. So, those haven't been existence in quite some time. And then there are two kind of mangy hemlocks on the left side of the garage on the left side of the property there. They're not in great health. They haven't been since the beginning. and we'll need that as our
construction access so that we don't disturb anything additional along the right property line. The um back left corner has a large oak, but that has storm damage and the main leader was ripped out of it a couple years ago. And
then by the pool there are two oaks that don't look great. There's a lot of dieback. We just haven't done any tree work removal cleanup to them yet knowing that the project was on the horizon. and um one other hemlock that has wooladelia, the same disease that
affects every hemlock. >> Okay. So um technically then you're only removing six trees, >> correct? >> Um this plan shows you're providing 25. It could be more, but that is an additional 19 trees over what is existing. >> Yes. >> And that doesn't include all of the other landscaping that hasn't been
>> finalized. That's just screening. Yep. And can you just explain uh to the board the screening and what effect it could have on storm water and stabilization of slopes and things like that? >> Of course. So um any tree, lawn, shrub,
anything will absorb rainwater and will stabilize the slope with their root systems. So in this plan, we actually shifted the walls so that we didn't have the 10 foot to 12t wall that we had on the original plan to remove that one
variance. So in doing that, we shifted the slope around and made one single wall. So the trees will actually block that wall at planting um faster than what we would have had on the original plan, which was a 10-ft minimum wall to uh hold back
that grade. So, you'll actually get more screening faster, the AC unit, the back of the house, the um retaining walls from any of the other um adjacent properties just because they're actually level. They're they're more at that like
existing grade the way we taper into their properties. >> And how big will these trees get and will they grow together to create basically a a consistent screen? >> Yeah, they'll make an entire wall. the the arborite grow probably 2 three foot
a year minimum. Um and we were going to go in at 7 to eight as per Mr. Lenson and I think they double like every 3 years or so. So they'll make an entire wall where you would never know that you had a neighbor. >> And what's the maximum height or is it just grows forever?
>> 60 80 ft. >> Okay. Um and again the the retaining wall has been reduced. Um does this help stabilize the slopes by adding >> it does landscaping >> and we'll have drainage behind the walls as well to there'll be clean gravel
pipes behind that. So we'll collect any any um I guess it's sort of runoff but any you know um absorbed water so that there's no hydrostatic pressure against the wall to keep the retaining walls as planned as built. Um, and that would
all get captured back into the drainage system as well. So, the um and any planting we do, any of the the green hatch there, that'll be a ground cover or perennials or that sort of thing so that you don't have the runoff that'll slow anything before it hits a neighboring property.
>> And that'll improve the condition because existing um trees on the site are pretty tall, right? There's not really like anything. >> There's a lot of moss in that corner. Yeah. So, so this will definitely um block the view better than what what is existing for the other neighborhood. Um
and by pushing the pool house up, you're saving an existing tree in the rear that was originally scheduled to be removed. >> Yes. >> And the AC unit in the rear of the Yes. That's going to be screen. Nobody's going to see that, right? >> Yeah. They'll never know that's there. Yeah.
Um, and what about the outdoor lighting that's proposed as part of this application? >> Right now, we just so show three different um, post lights just for safety at that point, but I'm sure when we get into the details of it, there'll be path lights and that sort of thing. More for safety and ambiance. Nothing
that's going to be above and beyond what the regulation is. >> And then again, can you explain how the landscape plan is designed to promote the purposes of the steep slope ordinance? Well, we obviously we don't want to disturb the steep slope. That wasn't our intent. What we're trying to do is make
this usable for three young boys and the family. And if you've been to the site before we had the sto the snowstorm that everything pitched steeply down into this back right corner. So, there's that concrete shed footing foundation
situation that's back there, but you're basically if you're kicking a soccer ball, you're chasing it down to that corner and you kind of lose eyesight of anything that happens over there. Bless you. Um, so this actually gives more recreational lawn while also stabilizing
at the same time because right now there, like you said, there's no trees, there's no screening, there's just um a chainlink fence that exists. So really anything we do is an improvement. >> And I think it was testified at the last hearing, but you are removing the shed um and that wall that's kind of around
that tree that's in that back corner. >> Yeah. >> Um I don't have any other questions. >> Okay. Board experts, what do you have? >> Could you talk about um the access to the area behind the pool house? it it um
shows on the plan that you have one area there. Um but there's also the only access that I can see to it has um has like a ground cover. So >> and that's just kind of for rendering purposes just so it gave a little interest. Yeah.
>> Whether it's going to be lawn ground cover that sort of thing. And it's not where we've had houses in this town where we have to not but where we don't have to drag like a lawn mower down the steps just to get to some unreachable area or it may end up just being like weed whacked just to keep it maintained.
>> Okay. All right. Um I think that was the only question I have. Thank you. >> Uh just a few questions regarding the planting. You show that this is a schematic plan obviously subject to verification with the forester. Can you help the board with a idea of what your
plant pallets might be as far as natives? You heard that conversation. >> Oh, absolutely. >> Uh if you can identify some of the plants or what you're thinking as far as >> Yeah, of course. For for the main intent here is screening. So whether that's arborvite, juniper,
um hemlock that'll then be treated and maintained. Um uh Norway spruce, that sort of thing. And then around the pool, we're going to go into more flowering things. So, we'll want um Jerk Cess had said earlier about the the summer flowering sweet shrub and
that sort of thing and hydrangeanger while we want flower thing. Flowering things that will attract butterflies and no bees, I promise. Um and um hummingbirds and that sort of thing while you're at the pool since you're there kind of April through
October maybe. So, we're going to, you know, narrow in on those. So, you'll probably get a couple red buds, that sort of thing. the New Jersey um the New Jersey tree um tree of New Jersey um >> but an effort will be made to >> Oh native plants.
>> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Were you involved in the placement of the pool and the pool house at all from a design perspective? What was your rationale for where you put >> Well, we were all involved in the first plan and then we understood that we were kind of biting off more than we should
have. So, I was kind of the one that fought to eliminate the walk out behind the pool, save that tree, reduce the um disturbance back there, and shift everything forward. At that point, we had more non- steep slope space to work
with as you got closer to this part of the house. This really stayed the same, the steep slope area, because we want to make a level area. you don't want to run off outside the pool and hit another steep slope or kick a ball and still be chasing it after going through this
process in construction. So, um we and then we reduced the patio area which also reduced the um steep slope disturbance. So, it kind of gave us a little bit of everything that the board had asked for the first time.
>> And then the fencing for the pool area. >> Yeah. up up there on top of that wall will just be like a guard situation. 3 4 feet to catch a ball, a child, that sort of thing. But everything else will be um pool compliant that'll hit property line to property line. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Board members, what questions do you have for this witness? >> I just have one. The house in the rear of the property that's the closest to the property line. Where is it on your diagram? >> Here. There's actually the garage is here and then the house is right right
next to it. It's definitely a non-conforming setup. They've been that >> so the structure that you see from the property is the garage. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Yeah. The driveway comes all the way back from >> Yeah. You know, back was there before the snow, but
>> I just a couple chairman. Um if my calculations are correct, all the patios together are 5100 square feet. >> Do you recall that off the top of your head? >> I know that offh hand. I apologize. That's on my other plan. >> Okay. >> Is that in if >> Well, that's my question. Is it Does that Does that number include the old
patio? >> If it's new, yeah, then that'll be all of it. >> Is there >> Sorry, maybe this isn't your perview. Maybe we I should have asked the architect. I should have looked at the landscaping plan first before the architect left. But, um, that's to me
that's a lot of coverage. 5100 square feet for patio. Uh, I know it's been zoning. I know it's allowed. Uh, it's a lot. I mean, I don't think that the footprint of the house, I think, is 3,000 square feet if I'm not mistaken. Maybe a little bit bigger. >> Yeah. >> We were just making something that they
were going to be the house with three boys that was going to have friends. >> I have five kids, so I know what you're talking about. >> Better than I do. >> I don't have 4,000 foot 5,000t patio. But anyway, um, >> now you have a place. My question is um >> when you said you were involved in the
design of the pool and the pool house >> and you you fought to move everything forward >> if things were made on a little bit of a smaller scale. >> We actually did dial everything back because we were trying to fit in a couple different elements that again made it the place to be that if it was raining you could go in the pool.
>> And if I could just ask, there's only a small portion of the patio that's in the steep slope area, right? >> Oh yeah, that's just that back corner. Yeah. Yeah. everything else is uh is >> right. But my kind of what I'm alluding to is if things were stepped back even a little more. Let's say we just made the
pool 40 by 15. >> That's not you usually do a different ratio for the pool. >> Whatever. I'm not a pool guy. I'm just throwing numbers out. >> But then you can move use my rationale. Then we can move the pool house maybe 5t
closer to the house for better for better flow access. Um the patio area, the new patio area with the fireplace would move forward and then you could maybe disturb less steep slope, still have an effective area to to >> enjoy. We would probably still disturb
the same because you wouldn't want to move the patio in and then have like a just a steep drop off behind it. Most of the disturbance preventing, >> right? Most of the disturbance of the steep slope is going to remain lawn area.
>> Absolutely. Yeah. So you gain more lawn area, >> right? >> Yeah. >> Make the patio smaller, you gain more lawn area. So you still disturb it, but it's less it's less of a structure toward the rear of the property and >> Right. But the but the structure and the
patio are a very small portion of what the disturbance is. Yeah. >> Just >> it's still steep slope whether it's 100 square feet or 1500 square feet. But again, we would still want to make that level just for safety at that point cuz then you're not going to have the retaining walls.
>> Okay. I didn't see it that way. Okay. Thank you. >> Can I ask a question with regards to the retaining wall? Um the rationale for the jog beyond the fireplace versus say that second jog just having a straight shot. >> That's the existing grade. So we don't
hit the 10 foot max 10t 1 in. >> So you pushed it, you kept it back there to keep below the 10 foot threshold. We didn't trip that or that uh variance. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. We wanted to maintain the open sight line out into the lawn. That's why
we left the fireplace back there and then just kind of like you said zigged and zag around it. >> How much if ballpark would you think if you were to do that one straight shot or two, right? Would you say 500 square
feet of disturbance? >> Um, possibly. But then it's not even the disturbance, it's the the wall height. >> No, I get that. >> And that was I think some of the comments at the last hearing that everybody, you know, made comments that they asked if that could be reduced.
>> Yeah, the wall height and the building height both were >> Yeah. Right. >> I'm just looking at the unintended consequences where we try to fix one thing and create another issue. >> So, I'm making sure that everybody looks at it from a This is here for a reason because this is what you asked for. At the end of the day,
>> it's actually going to be less than 500 because even if we ran it straight, >> you would still And that's the thing. There's still like you can see the dotted line behind it, that's still with the overlap to back fill the wall and the construction access. So >> there's still like the track marks and
that sort of thing to compact and everything. >> So does conformance make it a worse outcome in your opinion? >> That's where I'm looking. Same thing with the roof. I'm looking at it as saying, should we be considering something else? Not to belabor it, but yes. I mean, again, the law of unintended consequences, trying to fix
one thing would create another issue. >> No. And that's why Zach had agreed that if there was a way to write in the extra 3 ft for the roof, we would all agree to that that it would be more similar to the house roof line to have a little bit more consistency. >> The original design that >> Yes.
>> I don't remember, Rich. >> Yes. Because House would be less. >> Yeah, there was a window and that was testimony. >> The pitch was >> questions questions only. >> Mr. Bell, >> I have uh two thoughts which all phrases questions.
One uh very positive and one maybe a suggestion as a question. Uh the positive one is that the pool house is in the proper position because of where the sun is and that hasn't been mentioned yet. you know that do you was sunlight and daylight and south facing
patios and lawns? >> Absolutely. That's the actually the first thing that we lay out that you're not >> no one has said that so thank you for doing that. >> I apologize that I missed that. That actually wasn't even like a mention that Yeah. No, absolutely. And that's why we would assume that this would be where the lounge chairs would be that that's
going to be laying in the the um the south facing. Yeah. No, that's the first southwest. >> And the second one I'll I'll start with. Do you think that it would have been useful to have a site plan that showed the adjacent properties that might be visually impacted by the position of the
pole house as your council has suggested? >> Not that she suggested having a plan, but you know, a house has been referred to that's off the edge of the drawing. >> How easy would it have been to >> Oh, very. We actually had it prepared and then realized that we didn't have any negative comments from all the
neighbors. So, if they had had an issue, I'm sure they would have been here. You know the issue of context comes up often in urban contains the first one to show existing because the first thing a client says is all right show me what's here right now and that's the first thing they want >> because when you look at Google map it
doesn't look like that house is close at all the garages. >> The garages and the house sitting by the garage moving uh the pool house not that I'm suggesting to do it to the south which doesn't make sense from sunlight point. Yep. >> Would have absolutely no visual impact
on the adjacent property except for the back of the garage. >> Correct. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for your question. >> No, sorry. >> Any other questions? >> I I have one on your plan last time
which was Jade September 11th. You had like the layout for the patio, the seating area, the outdoor kitchen, the dining table. Is that the same? >> No, that's why we removed it. It's all up for grabs at this point. We were showing that as graphics, not as furniture that was shown.
>> And again, the patio is reduced. >> And the patio is reduced. So what is it? What? So what is it going to fit now? >> We don't have any idea. We haven't picked furniture, layout, quantity, seating, nothing. So we kind of put the cart before the horse with that when people were asking seats, tables,
kitchens. >> It it's moreformational. I mean, again, those are the types of decisions that are made. >> It's more schematic just to show somebody like me. I see like how big the patio is visually when I see a seating area, outdoor kitchen, and a dining table. Is that same thing going to fit
on this? I'm still going to have an outdoor kitchen. >> No, the patio is definitely less. Over 500 square f feet less, but you're still going to want to put three couches, three sofas, love seats, that sort of thing around the fire. >> Some kind of a seating area and an outdoor kitchen. Oh,
>> that we have no idea about. That might be off the table at this point. We're not sure. Thank you. >> Any questions from the public for this witness? Seeing none else, do you want to summarize or
>> Before we do that, I just had a question about conditions. >> Um, do we have are we retaining storm water management jurisdiction for two years or some period beyond this application given the amount of steep still disturbance here?
>> How further we do? Sounds like that's a request. Any objection? >> No objection. >> Okay. >> So, yes. Awesome. >> Okay. >> Hillary, go ahead. >> All right. Okay. So, the applicant in direct response to the board's comments
revised the plans to eliminate two of the three previously requested variances. As revised, the only variance requested tonight is for steep slope disturbance was which was reduced by 900 square ft. This application is a textbook C1 variance. The lawfully
existing residence is 83.4 feet from the front property line where only 35 ft is required. The excessive front yard setback is 48.4 ft beyond what the ordinance requires and directly constrains the applicant's ability to make improvements that would otherwise
be permitted under zoning regulations. If not for this unusually deep front yard condition, the proposed improvements would be located outside of the steep slope area and no variance relief would be necessary. In addition, the property is uniquely burdened by
exceptional topographic conditions, specifically the steep slopes at the rear of the lot line at the rear of the lot. Absent this distinctive physical feature, the applicant could proceed with the proposed improvements without any need for variance relief. A C1
variance is expressly intended for circumstances such as these where exceptional topographic conditions or physical features uniquely affecting a property or lawfully existing structures result in practical difficulties or undo undue hardship in developing the
property is otherwise permitted. Granting relief under these circumstances is entirely consistent with both statuto statutory framework and the established zoning principles. The proposal also meets statutory criteria for C2 variance since the
proposal advances the purposes of zoning. The proposal provides for adequate light air and open space as the improvements remain well separated from neighboring properties. It supports the conservation of environmental resources through engineered storm water controls,
slope stabilization, and enhanced landscaping. It encourages the appropriate use and development of land in a manner consistent with the character of the neighborhood and the improvements in landscaping are aesthetically pleasing which create a desirable visual environment. The
demonstrated positive criteria for both a C1 and C2 variance is coupled with the fact that the improvements are proposed in this location in order for them to be oriented away from adjoining residences. The perimeter evergreen plantings will be a significant aesthetic and screening
improvement over existing conditions which will buffer the adjoining properties all year long while also acting as natural storm water management. Appropriate engineered storm water management measures and retaining walls are proposed to ensure slope stability, prevent erosion, and capture
runoff that would otherwise travel to downhill neighbors. No neighboring property owners appeared in opposition or raised any concerns at any of the um meetings before the board. And the applicant civil engineer provided unrebuted expert testimony confirming
compliance with the substantive standards of the steep slope ordinance which regulates and does not prohibit disturbance within the steep slope areas. Taken together, these factors establish that the benefits of the deviation outweigh any perceived detriments and granting the requested
variances will not resolve in any substantial detriment to the public good, nor will it impair the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance or master plan. For all of these reasons, the applicant respectfully requests that the board grant the variance for steep slope disturbance.
>> Thank you. Do we have any comments from the public? Seeing none. All right, Mr. ball. What do we have? >> Three conditions. First is compliance with the conditions noted in the board engineers memorandum. Second, that the applicant shall record a deed restriction to confirm that the
accessory pool house shall not be used as a dwelling unit. And third, that the board shall maintain storm water jurisdiction for a period of two years after completion of the improvements. And obviously, we only have a single steep slope variance. Four votes are required to approve.
>> Excellent. With that, let's begin our executive session. >> I'll start. >> Mr. I like the the rule of the law of unintended consequences. I mean, we've they took everything that you guys and it wasn't part of the original
procession, but a lot of changes were happening. We're talking about one variance. I really personally the only issue I see here is the roof of the pool house to me is idiotic. It doesn't fit the design standard. I think we should be giving them leeway to design something that's
more appropriate with the neighborhood. Otherwise, there I see no issues with this. It's screened. It's hidden. It's way far back. Yes, I think there's uh a hardship with the sleep being very specific where it is in the house. You can't move the house. So, the reality is
you need a backyard to be able to play in. And I, you know, again, I think the dumbest thing here is is the fact that they're designing something to be in compliance when we should be looking at giving them a proper roof line. >> I'll just uh jump in here and say that
that something that wasn't mentioned is that this lot is oversized. Usually, we're hearing about lots that are undersized. This lot is almost twice the size of what's required for an R25 zone. So for me, the front yard being 40 ft
back is just it's just not compelling because this is a very large yacht lot. There's a huge backyard to work with with or without this. If you just carve the steep slopes out, it's still a big backyard. So, that being said, disregarding the front yard, um, as part
of one of the reasons, I do think that the location is is probably the best location for it from a functionality of a backyard. You know, would I like to see that the pool house is not in a steep slope? I would, but then I I
recognize that that um would diminish the backyard and the functionality would eat away from the backyard. So I I you know and appreciate the moving it 8 feet. I can agree to that. I
respectfully disagree with Mr. Feskins about the us requiring the roof. We didn't require the roof to be 15 ft. They could have come in with an 18 ft and presented it. But I would be fine if that was if we made that a condition that their roof could be their building
height could be up to 18 feet for the accessory structure which our code I think does allow for. Is that correct? >> Why don't we do that? Why don't we add that? >> But I don't think it >> is a clarification where it's got to match the roof line. >> Yes. >> And I think that's where the variance
may be required. >> That's where I would call the mayor. Exactly. >> Right. So, but we could give them we could say up to I I agree the flat roof looks a little weird. Yeah. >> Um and also from a look if you get >> two feet of snow um on a almost flat
roof that's going to be a problem on your on your pool house. So functionally on any any roof line right in this kind of weather that we've had. I I think it would be better if that's if other people you know that we added that as a possibility. So just for clarification,
it would be to permit up to 18 ft with a variance that it doesn't meet the pitch requirement under the code. >> Yeah. So it would be a building accessory building height variance no more than 18 ft because yes the variance is triggered anytime between 15 and 18
where it's not a match >> or I mean I don't know does do you need to say that and I don't I'm asking I don't know the the ex like the the room height the wall ceiling height is the same and then that you're not you know raising keeping a flat roof and making
it you know vated ceilings or something because that does that's not the intent. The intent is to give a little bit of slope to the roof, right? Is that just to make sure that it's to accommodate a roof with a some more slope? >> I'm I I would be completely supportive of that because that is the intent from
an aesthetic, not a vated ceiling. So, I'm good with that, too. >> Depending on I'm hearing nobody else objecting to that change. I know the applicants have indicated that they would be more than happy to incorporate that change. So, uh >> but that is also a variance, correct?
Yes. you would treat it as a variance and the board would be, you know, granting that variance for the roof height. >> Um, >> doesn't meet the exception, which is exception is correct. >> Yes. >> Um, so then obviously as a condition, we'll ask that the applicants revise
their plans to reflect that, you know, change in the roof height to be pitched no more than 18 feet in height. >> Perfect. >> Who else? That would that would that would be the the peak would be no more than >> Right. Right. Correct. >> Correct.
>> The ridge the ridge. >> So I'm looking at this case fairly narrowly and I look at the steep slope is the primary driver here. You know the sighting of the property um what 80 ft from the property line. I don't think that's remarkable relative to the
neighborhood. um steep slope does present a topographical hardship and so I think the applicants have met their burden here in demonstrating that I think what they've proposed you know as uh
forgetting your name sir and I I apologize for that um what they propose in terms of the storm water management I think is a material improvement over what currently exists so I think the variance is supported so I will support
this application. >> Thank you, Mr. Mull. Anyone else? >> No, >> I can support it. Um, you know, they did make the improvements. They did move the pool house in. I do like the um I did not
like the flat roof. You know, it looked it looked bad even just in the in the diagrams. So, um I think it's it's a happy agreement. What? >> Can I get a motion to approve?
>> So move. Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Miss Sans, can you call the role, please? >> Vice Chair Zon, >> yes. >> Mr. Malay, >> no. >> Mr. Mullen, >> yes. >> Mr. Nelson, >> yes. >> Miss Chief, >> yes. >> Mr. Fes,
>> yes. >> Chairman Ly, >> yes. >> Great. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. So no resolutions but uh minutes. >> Yes, we have the minutes from October 20th, 2025. The eligible voting members are vice
chairs on Mr. Malay, Mr. Nelson, Miss Chief, Mr. Chantuli, and Chairman Leett. Could we get a motion to approve? >> So move >> and a second. Second. >> Thank you. All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed?
>> All right. Thanks, crew. Turn >> just >> Oh, sorry. >> Give me two minutes. >> Can we wait till the audience leaves? >> Sure. >> Sorry. I know guys want to get out of here, but I'll make this real quick. >> Um, >> if you want to talk about Olympic
hockey, you can stay here for longer than 10 minutes. >> So, I I I guess that's what you want to watch. Um, I don't know if you guys have been seeing what's going on at the state level with this abus and the proposal for all that. So, my
question is, and maybe I'm being too far ahead of the game, but in a scenario like this, if that law changes where edus are allowed, would we be able to ask for deed restrictions or is that off the table? More importantly,
>> part of that new law is the um I don't know how to say this without saying it. Uh houses of worship will have greater ability to do what they want to with their property. How would that and maybe this is not the
probably don't have an answer, but how would that affect us moving forward? >> Yeah, it's kind of hard to guess what it you know unless we have an approved law in front of us. You know, I don't want to just >> So my really my question is are you guys are we watching that to see how it will affect us this board specifically?
>> If there's any laws that are adopted that would impact, you know, those conditions obviously, we would need to take those into account, but you know, guessing as draft legislation is >> usually just a waste of time. >> No, I get it. I I didn't expect an answer. I just wanted to know for like
watching what's going on out there. I'm I'm maybe it's just me, but I'm kind of getting the impression that zoning boards won't exist. >> If I can just comment, Mr. Chairman, we we would also be advising the planning board as well because the planning board
makes recommendations on adjustments to ordinances and things of that nature. Typically, when you get these sort of changes, you then think of, okay, how can we still control certain aspects of that? And then we try to advise around that criteria as best we can. But of
course, as you're saying, it sounds like things are being taken out of the municipality's hands >> more and more these days. But I'll stop there. >> That's it. I'm sorry to hold you up. Just >> move. >> Motion to adjurnn.
>> Motion to second. All right. >> Thanks, team. >> I'm sorry. Who seconded?