Good evening and welcome to the November 3rd, 2025 meeting of the city summit zoning board of adjustment. My name is Scott Loy. 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, 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 in reaching a decision and decorum appropriate to a judicial hearing must be maintained at all times. For the benefit of the
interested public, this meeting is being livereamed on the city's YouTube page, also broadcast on Summit's government channels, which is Comcast channel 34 and Verizon channel 30. Transcript of this meeting is also being taken using audio and video. 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. City has a listening system to assist the hearing impaired. If anyone needs the hearing assistance, please obtain the system of the day and return it thereafter. Miss Sans, can you
please call the role of members? >> Vice Chair Zong >> here. >> Mr. Yuko >> here. >> Mr. Malay >> here. >> Mr. Nelson >> here. >> Mr. Curran >> here. >> Miss Chief is excused. Mr. Feskins >> here. >> Mr. Chantuli >> here. >> Mr. Nering >> here.
>> Chairman Ly >> here. >> You have a quorum. You may proceed. >> Thank you, Jessica. >> 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, is a zoning board secretary. Board secretary works with the applicants on preparing their applications, planning our agendas, and keeping our meeting minutes. The board secretary also does not vote on these applications. Also present are 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 and he's our board planner. These experts are seated at the table to the right of the board, the public's left. They also do not vote. We vote.
Nobody else does. Our board consists of seven regular members and up to four alternates. All members can participate in the hearings tonight, but a maximum of seven can vote. Most applications require a simple majority to be approved. Before we enter into executive session to vote on the application, you'll be advised on how many votes are
required. Each case will begin with the applicants and/or their attorney giving an o 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 those variances are
needed. The board experts followed then by the board members may ask questions of 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 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 the case, but should be a direct question of the witness. Also, before you ask your questions, please clearly state your name, spell your last name, provide your asterisk. It is critically 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 that's the time when you may express your opinion, positive or negative, about the application. Then the public hearing is closed. We enter into executive session. This is where the board members discuss the case and then vote. you'll be able
to listen in on our executive session, normally not allowed to participate. I ask that each applicant and their attorney at present come up and give a brief synopsis of the anticipated testimony tonight, including the number of witnesses and whether or not they can finish their presentation within 30
minutes. Um, before we get to the cases we're going to listen to tonight, we're going to do a little bit of housekeeping. Uh, resolution of extension for 226 Hobart, right? >> Yep. >> Okay. Um, so I know I I had circulated we received a request from uh the
applicant by way of correspondence. I know they're here this evening in case there's any questions. Um, but the scope of the application has been reduced as compared to the original approval. I know one of the variances that was granted is being abandoned as part of this request for extension. Um, I'll
also just note that keep in mind when this application was approved, it was subject to our one-year approval time frame. Obviously, the board has since gone to a two-year approval time frame. And I do believe this is the third request for an extension at this point.
Um, so if there's any questions from the board, I can answer anything or I know the applicants are here to answer any questions that you may have of them. >> Does anyone have any questions? >> If not, can I get a motion to approve the resolution of extension?
>> So move. >> Can I get a second? >> Second. Jessica, can you call the role, please? >> Vice Chair Zon, >> yes. Mr. Yuko, >> I'm going to recuse on this vote. >> Mr. Malay, >> yes.
>> Mr. Nelson, >> yes. >> Mr. Curran, >> yes. >> Mr. Fes, >> yes. >> Mr. Chantuli, >> yes. >> Chairman Ly, >> yes. >> Wait, was Mr. Changuli allowed to vote or does recuse? Okay. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Okay. Great. uh resolution and extension has been granted. We'll see you in the future. All right. First up tonight, can we have representatives from 13 Huntley Road? Just
>> good evening. Samantha Alfonso of Alfonso and Weber on behalf of the applicants and hopefully less than uh 30 minutes but 30 to 45 minutes. >> Any witnesses? >> We have two witnesses. One um direct two direct witnesses potentially um if you
want to hear from the architect we have him available as well. >> Okay, good to know. Thank you. who will be with you shortly. >> Thank you. >> Is anyone here from 221 Blackburn? >> Please come on up. >> Thank you. >> Uh Daniel Dubinette, architect.
>> Hi, Daniel. >> Hi. So, yes, we could definitely do this uh very quickly. Um >> and just you and your clients, >> myself and the clients. Yeah, >> we'll be the witnesses tonight. Great. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> I'm sorry. That was that was for 221 black. >> I apologize. I did
>> Oh, you skipped ahead. I skip. >> So, we'll just note briefly 221 Blackburn, in case anyone's here for that or is watching for that, they had a defect in the notice. So, we will not be able to hear that application this evening, it will be renoticed properly. >> Excellent. Okay.
>> And so, you are here for 190. Perfect. Thank you. >> All right. >> 10. Yeah. 10 15 minutes. >> Perfect. So, we'll see you shortly. And then finally, 23 oxbow, please. double duty tonight. >> Yes. And uh we have two witnesses.
>> Okay. Great. Thank you, Sam. All right. So, why don't we hear from 13 Huntley Road? >> Yeah. Come on up. Just make sure you speak into the microphone. Okay.
The property is located at 13 Huntley, as you mentioned, Huntley Road. It's designated as block 3604, lot 13. Um, this application really is to create a functional driveway. Um, right now they
really can't use it. Um, it's it's just the maneuverability isn't there. There's an existing 15 ft um sanitary easement behind where the existing garage is. Um, that inhibits the extent that the
property can really be improved. Um, so they're seeking a variance for front-facing garage to redirect the existing garage to face forward. Um, it would also require moving the driveway
over to meet obviously the the new front face of the garage. Um, they also are looking to just do a little retaining wall in the back to create a step down with storm water, of course. Okay. We also have a pre-existing
non-conforming building coverage that was noted in the staff reports of 20.8%. I believe that it's because the landing wasn't included in the coverage at the time um based on emails that I found
with Christa Anderson from back when the new the uh home was first built. Um, if the board has any questions of me, I'd be happy to take them at this time or we could hear from >> Yeah, I I think you answered just want to be sure. So, that landing you're referring to, that's not something the
current applicant did. That's something the prior owner building >> the prior owner. Yes. And everything was approved. They had a full CO. So, I understand any, you know, issues back then were resolved. They were at 20% building
coverage at that time, but at that time Christa did not include the landing in that calculation. And I have an email showing that if you want to see it um with her explaining how it was calculated.
>> So we probably should add a variance for that. Ed, would you Yeah. >> Thank you. >> It it was constructed I believe you have in the application around 2020. >> Yes. Okay. >> Yep. Exactly. >> So that's obviously not a pre-existing
nonconformity as compared to the code. So we should treat it as a variance >> included. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions for Miss Alonso? >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> First witness, please. >> Thank you. I have the applicants here.
Um, if you could please state your name and address and spell your last name. >> Have you each sworn in? If you could both raise your right hand. >> Do you swear from the testimony you're about to give in this matters, the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? >> Yes. And one at a time, please state your name, spell your last name.
>> James Lee, L E >> Union, L U N. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. So, you're the owners of the property. And when did you buy it? >> Yeah, so we purchased the property back
in March of this year. Um, when we saw the property, we fell in love with the neighborhood. Uh, it's very quiet, very convenient. Um, you know, we moved only a few towns over, but we knew Summit really well at that point, you know, before we moved in. Um, the one big issue we saw right away because the
previous owners parked their cars in the garage and they had smaller cars. They had like a like a Mini Cooper or something small and then the Tesla the smaller model. One of them had to be slanted kind of sideways a little bit. It wasn't a perfect 90° angle in and the
other one was like shoved into the corner and that's how they were able to fit two cars into the garage. So, we tried to do that when we f eventually moved in and um it was uh 15 maneuvers in, 15 maneuvers out, you know, and
that's watching to make sure I don't slam into the side of the garage door or the retaining wall because there was really no space to fit two cars in. So, so what as a result um we ended up just putting one car into um the garage, my
car, because I have to charge my car. My wife's newer car has to be outside because it's an SUV. It's even harder to maneuver. So, that's the situation we >> Thank you. Um, and did you have a chance to review the administrative reports,
the staff reports? >> Yes. >> Um, and you agree to be bound by those comments subject to any comments from your professionals? >> Yes. >> Did you talk to your neighbors as well? Yeah, I I met like with all the neighbors that were around. Um I
actually stopped by some of the neighbors that I couldn't catch um and tried to catch him again, but no one, you know, they were not around. So talked to overall probably five to 10 neighbors um in the vicinity and they all were supportive of uh you know us
fixing this issue because you know they've seen the house get built and they know the issues you know just by looking at it for all these years before we moved in. Great. >> Uh, any questions from our board experts for these witnesses?
>> Uh, no, not for this witness. >> Um, do you have any other witnesses or this? >> I do. They do. >> Okay. All right. Good enough. Thank you. I just wanted to add some technical questions to it. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Board members, do you have any questions for the applicants?
See none. Okay, great. >> Thank you. >> Well, one second there. Any questions from the public for these witnesses? Seeing none. Okay. Sorry. >> No, my I'm sorry. >> Oh, no worries. >> Thank you. >> Cool. Thank you.
>> Sorry. Swear from the testimony you're about to give in, this matter is the truth. to hold nothing but the truth. >> Yes, I do. >> Please state your name. Spell your last name. >> Andrew Clark. C L A R K E. >> And I'll note for the record, you've appeared before us a number of times, very recently. Any changes to your
credentials since the last time you were here? >> No changes. >> I imagine we'll accept you back once again. >> 100%. Welcome back, Mr. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> So, I'll jump right in. >> Um, >> do you want me to I have your plans up here, too? you can leave it up there, but I'll just make reference to the
board as well. Um, since it's here, um, I'm making reference to the lot grading plan prepared for this project dated June 26, 2025. Um, I prepared this plan. I conducted the survey as well as the,
um, proposed grading plan. Um, brief description of the existing conditions just so that those are clear. Um, as was indicated previously, this house was constructed, uh, work done, finished up around 2020, I believe. Uh,
at the time they constructed the driveway, which is on the existing conditions on the left side of my drawing. The driveway is a side load garage cuz obviously they were uh, advancing a conforming plans that would meet the ordinance and the sideload
garage does that. However, um the 15 ft easement that's at the top of that of the page there um limits some of the work that could occur on that part of the property. As a result, the
the wall that they built where this brick drive area is right outside the garage doors currently in the existing condition is only about 19 ft from the face of the garage. So when I whenever I do a side load garage and in most towns
they actually stipulate in ordinance what that minimum distance behind the garage is. I use 24 ft as a minimum. Um that's pretty standard drive aisle in a parking lot and uh also applies to pulling in and out of a garage. So this
is 6 ft short of that which means you automatically have a maneuvering issue. In addition, the way the driveway was aligned is it comes straight along the face of the garage. So that makes it so if you're pulling up and the garage face
is right there, you really can't just pull into the garage. You would have to do a series of maneuvers just to get into the garage the way the driveway is aligned. So, it's very easy to see even just on paper and thinking about it um
practically that that it's not a functional garage in in the modern sense. So, uh these owners took a look and and discussed with their architect and there is a possibility with relatively um
minimal effort. It's not, you know, they're not rebuilding the garage, but what they're going to do is close up the door and introduce a door that faces on Dayton Road in order to make a functional garage with a driveway that comes straight out and they can pull in
and out of their garage directly. Um, I think that that works very well in this application and on this site and in this neighborhood um because it is a relatively low traffic neighborhood. So pulling in and out of the the driveway
in this manner shouldn't be problematic from a traffic standpoint at all. Um if you drive the neighborhood a little bit along Huntley, there's probably like for all those houses that have attached
garages, they're front facing and there's about nine of them, eight or nine of them. The other ones either have detached garages or no garage at all. Um, just up the road there's another road, Milton, that cuts across. It's,
you know, 150 ft away is where the street starts from where we are. And I drove down that road as well because it's also gives context in the neighborhood. There's about a dozen houses on that street that are front-facing garages. So, this is not an uncommon thing to see in this
neighborhood. Now, granted, some of those may be of the lot width that allows for the front-facing garage, but the point I would make is that it's not an uncharacteristic thing to see in the neighborhood. So, it's not like this would be the only house that looks that
way. Um, to affect this change, you you would put the garage door facing Dayton, pull the driveway straight out, and then the section of driveway that is existing currently between what's labeled as the
brick drive and is labeled as pave drive, that pavement and brick apron would be removed and replaced with landscaping lawn. I imagine perhaps uh some plantings if they want to add a little bit of screening for their for their um what will become the patio. So
the brick drive outside the existing garage doors would rem they're planning to have that remain and use that as an outdoor space, a patio um for for outdoor use. Um
the area just behind the existing brick pave pa patio that's in the back. What we're planning to do is just frame that area a little bit with a 3-ft high wall and just level it a bit. uh it starts to slope off towards the easement in the
back and it's kind of the only sort of yard area that they have as limited as it is but they wanted to just flatten a little bit of it and so that's what the introduction of the wall is in the back there. Um doesn't require variance relief. will disturb a bit of the steep
slope area, but um that area of steep slopes in the back totals 850 square ft. And we're going to disturb slightly more than half of that by introducing this wall and leveling that area. So about 450 square ft, which is within the
threshold of uh Summit's um waiver for steep slope disturbance. and and the and the other areas of steep slope in the front up on Huntley are not going to be disturbed at all as part of this project. The um
change in lot coverage is about 160 square ft of new um pavement. So it's underneath a 300 ft threshold triggering new storm water management. Um there is an existing dry well. That's what's
shown in uh the existing condition with the manhole that's in this what well used it started out as a turnaround area and then was uh restored to grass. Um but there the manhole covers there. I check that is the dry well. So that was obviously installed as part of the
project that was done previously for storm water management. The roof leaders certainly along the Dayton Road frontage appear to connect to that. they go below ground and then there is the drywall there. So, I'm assuming they're connected to the drywall. Um, they're
not discharged at grade. And so, we're not adding any new storm water management measures, but I think given the conditions on this property, um, I don't anticipate that very minor increase in coverage to have any impact.
Um certainly anything that would be flowing this way, we're going to take some of the pavement out and add grass. So there'll be a layer of grass in between the new driveway and the concrete wall that exists there. Now, so that'll actually improve that runoff
characteristic in that location. Anything on the brick drive that's here isn't causing a problem now. There's no signs out in the field of um stress from storm water management. The owner said they haven't experienced any sort of conditions or had any complaints. So I I
feel confident that the storm water management as it is today with regards to the project that was already done is uh adequate for the site and that there are no problems and we're not going to contribute anything that will increase
that. Um there was a mention of the building coverage. So the building coverage is 0.8 8 above what's permitted technically. And that's look, when I go out and do a survey, I start fresh. I survey, I make my measurements, and then I do my assessment of the zoning and and
and I report those numbers. In this case, the 2,65 [Music] 265 square ft is above the 1986 that's permitted. Now, the 65 square
feet that I'm classifying as a deck, which technically meets the the definitions in Summit's ordinance for building coverage because it's more than a foot above ground, is this 3x6 ft landing that's in the back that I have labeled as a deck and the stairs that go
down to the patio. Um, again, there was some discussion in earlier email chains about that uh with Christa, so I don't think that deck was included. If you if you take that as as the condition and say, okay, well then
there's 2,000 square ft where 14 square ft over was permitted. I would attribute that to I'd say difference in measurement and probably the difference between the foundation and the skin of the dwelling. So, when I do a survey, I
go to the the the skin of the dwelling as best I can assess depending on how consistent it is. I take the outside of the siding versus the foundation. A lot of times when you're doing a new house or dwelling, you're working off the architectural plans. You're using the foundation dimensions. And and that
difference between the foundation and the skin varies. can be almost the same or it can be two inches or three inches different on older, you know, packed out um skin. In this case, the 14 square ft
that is different amounts to about 3/4 inch difference between the foundation and the siding if you were to look at it that way over the 215 square ft or uh linear foot of perimeter. So, that's just a little background where I think that came from. Again, it's a
dimminimous. It doesn't really change the the impact or the feel of the house uh for any passers by or or um residents, but it is a little bit over what's permitted. Um I think that's the general summary of
what I don't want to over complicate this. It's a fairly straightforward uh situation. We have the hardship in that the garage doesn't function and um I think that this improvement will be um a very welcome improvement. It will make that garage functional and won't stand
out or be out of character with the neighborhood at all. >> Great. Thank you. >> So, with that, I could take questions or um go comments first. >> Questions from this. >> Okay. >> Uh just some quick questions. >> Sure. >> With regard to the easements, what the
easement area, I'm sorry, the 15oot easement. What's the limitations of that easement? It's both a sanitary and a drainage ease. >> Well, that's how it's shown on the on the plans and in the deed. That's right. Uh, so I mean it's a little unusual in
that there's some mature trees in there. Usually when you have sewers running underground, you don't really want those trees, but >> I thought that was unique. Yeah, >> some 24in trees, >> but they're there. But there's also in those cases I often suspect and and I'm not sure if the easement's actually
being used but in this case we do have hardware and manholes and covers that are there would indicate that there is in fact uh use of that easement. >> So in order to improve the driveway condition you would have to go into that easement. Correct. You said you're shy about 6 ft on just the maneuvering.
>> That's correct. >> But not only that it's also the alignment of the driveway as well. Yes. the driveway. >> It's not at right angle to the street. That's right. >> Building. So, >> so that adds to it. Yeah. >> To that. This is also a corner lot >> which I think is unique in this
instance. >> I agree. >> Um that you're providing it's only fronting one side of that the frontage of the property. >> That's right. And and the front door addresses Huntley. So So it's not on the front door side of the property.
>> Okay. Any tree removal um as a result? There's no tree removal scheduled there. There are some arbivies that are that are sort of in a line um right where I'm indicating along the date and frontage.
>> So those will have to come out. Um we we discussed that in terms of screening and and there's certainly agreeable to adding back that screening. It may actually be more, believe it or not, more cost effective to just plant new ones because these aren't that old and
they're not that tall yet. By the time you transplant some of them, sometimes they die and it doesn't end up working out that well. But >> you had mentioned uh and you addressed Dayton Road and Dayton Road as I see it comes into a T intersection right at this property. Correct.
>> Very close. >> It's not a through street in >> correct. Okay. >> Correct. >> So therefore, you're coming to a stop line at that location. That's right. That the Huntley and Dayton intersection. That's right. >> Okay. Thank you. No further questions. >> Um, are there any changes to the uh to
the downspouts um and the driveway location? Is there anything that's going to change about any of your >> No, I you're I saw your comment. I double checked that. I I went back to the property today. Um the the if you're looking from Dayton, the right side of
this garage, there's a down spout for the garage that goes straight down into the ground. So that shouldn't be altered. Uh you know, if it gets damaged during the construction, we'll have to repair it, but it's going into the ground and into the drywall. >> Okay. All right. Um I think that's all I have.
>> Yeah. The the the only other thing worth noting I think that you did bring up is your comment number 15 about the uh width of the curb cut. >> Yes. Yes. The width of the curb cut is in in the proposed condition about 23 and 1/2 ft. The existing curb cut, it's
just worth noting, is about 22 1/2 ft. So, it's nearly the same. The driveway is 20 ft, but we have just a little flare at the end just for that maneuvering in and out and the turning movement. Um, so that would be a deviation from the permitted 18 foot
curb cut. So if possible, we would add that as a variance request. >> Okay, >> great >> board questions for this witness. >> Can you just recap the variances that
are being requested >> front-facing garage and now right we discussed the 20.8% 8% building coverage that's existing. Um and uh 24 foot wide driveway apron where 18
ft is the maximum permit in R six. >> You said 22 and 12 23 now it's 24. >> Yeah it's it's 23 and 1/2 ft. So she was just rounding to 24. 22 and a half is the existing okay >> curb cuts that's there. Just to confirm
23 and a half is what's being requested then correct. Okay. Sorry. >> Yeah, I I thought the driveway was permitted to be 20 ft wide where the where you have a front-facing garage that's two cars.
>> But and then and then there's a different criteria for the apron and the curb cut. >> I just have one sort of housekeeping um recordkeeping. I'm I'm pretty sure I know the answer to this, but it's just labeled differently on the plan. Mhm. >> So, in the existing and the proposed,
you have a brick drive, >> right? The proposed, I'm assuming that that's what you're calling, is that what you're calling the side patio? >> Correct. That's correct. Yeah. And yeah, I I maybe could have handled that slightly better in the labeling, but it effectively becomes a patio where it was
a drive before without changing anything. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions? Yeah, there's >> it just one. It's minor. I mean, in the new proposed new driveway, that manhole is looks to be right on the edge of the
driveway. >> Is that going to be a problem or is that >> No, it shouldn't be a problem. Um, you know, it's a it's a full-size manhole cover. Um, so it should be able to handle the traffic. They may have to reset it as, you know, with the driveway
as they construct that. So, it might need to be reset. >> Okay. I mean, given where it is, it might not be driven over a lot, but you know, it's still technically in the driveway. >> Yeah, that summit now requires a full-blown metal manhole cover now for
above dry wells. So, uh, it's kind of set up for that now. >> Okay. >> I'm just could your client live with an 18 foot wide apron? >> I mean, I don't understand what what the need what's the need. Well, the >> want
>> it's the driveway is 20 feet >> and then it's a it's good practice to have just a little bit of a flare at the end so that it's it's that flare at the very end that causes that that wider >> So just make it cut. >> What's that? >> Straight out. >> I mean, you can make it straight out.
>> You you you you can make it straight out. I I find what happens is, you know, that's where people hit their tires when they're pulling it out and >> the average person has to >> knocks the curb out or knocks your tire out or both sometimes. >> They just drive right over the grass. I
have tire marks on my >> Mr. Clark, do you know if there's any other driveways on Huntley or Dayton that have that flare out? Do you remember from your >> I don't remember. I actually didn't pay attention to that aspect when I was driving around.
>> Okay. >> But it's not an uncommon condition in Summit to have the flare. >> No. >> Okay. No, >> they don't require variances. >> So, I know I had to get a variance for a wider driveway with a wider apron, but I didn't go over 20.
>> Yeah. I mean, >> I'm not sure if they got one in 2020 when they did that approval or not. Um it didn't look like but I'm not sure if that was one of the new ordinances as well could I don't recall. >> Anyone else
questions from the public for this witness? Seeing none. >> Thank you. Um unless the board wants to hear from the architect, we I think we can >> Oh, I don't think we need to. Do we? No, >> I think we're good. >> Okay. Thank you. then we can close um
and submit the application if you would. >> Great. Thank you. Uh any comments, public comments at this time for this application? Seeing none. Okay, Mr. Ball, what do we have in terms of our
votes and um conditions? >> So, we're only dealing with C variances. So, four votes are required to approve. I only have our usual condition which is compliance with those conditions noted in the board of engineers memorandum. Um I the only out of the ordinary thing is
the additional variances uh beyond what we originally came in that we have just discussed here. >> Okay, great. Who would like to open up executive session? >> I'll start. >> Please tell. >> Um I think it's a reason reasonable request. the garage as has been
testified to and visually it's it's like it's very hard to get in and out. I can see that just visually looking and hearing your testimony made that even clearer. Um and the frontfacing garage it's as has been noted and visually I could see it walk through the neighborhood. It's not an unusual thing in the neighborhood. So I'm not troubled
by that. The building coverage is existing and it's it's not a huge variance but it is existing. So it's uh not that's not changing. And the driveway apron, you know, I mean, I the driveway apron, I think it's a reasonable request. I agree with the issues. I know I've had problems going
in and out of driveways without aprons. It's very much easier. You can do a easier turn in. So, I'm I'm not troubled by it. We may want to consider, you know, what are Summit's rules on that and maybe that's something we might want to make a recommendation on at some point, but um I'm not troubled by that
either. So, I I could vote in favor of it. >> Great. Thank you, Tom. >> Anyone else? Um, I can also support this. I think that you know just the the obviously the driveway the access to the garage right now is not functional. Um,
and there are out the way the hardship is that you really can't extend extend the driveway further back because of that sewer line. I think that's you know very critical to this application.
And then add to that and not so much a hardship but just an existing condition is that there are two fronts. So it is difficult to find a place to put this driveway in the back of the house. There's you know it's you kind of you're between a rock and a hard space with
those two conditions of having two fronts and then having the sewer line. So um I think it's a reasonable request and I can support it. Um, I I agree with my colleagues. I what I like about this application is they're
moving their driveway away from the neighbors property line, away from the easement, uh, which seems to me to be empirically safer, you would think. Um, not causing any issues like potential
flooding or um, whatever else. having a an active driveway next to a sewer easement might cause and um you know I I think the other variances are dimminimous as um Miss Alonso stated so
I I can fully support this. All right with that can I get a motion? Yes. Thank you. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> Jessica >> Vice Chair Zan. >> Yes. >> Mr. Mr. Yuko. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Malay. >> Yes. >> Mr. Nelson. >> Yes. >> Mr. Curran. >> Yes. >> Mr. Fes. >> Yes. >> Chairman Ly. >> Yes. Okay. Good luck. >> Thank you. >> 190 Kent Place Boulevard. Why why don't we meet your your uh
client? science first and >> absolutely >> have them come and get sworn in. >> You can sit there. >> Just give us a little quick overview and then >> your architect can do the heavy lifting. >> Sure. >> All right. So, whoever's testifying, if you could please raise your right hand. If you're both, that's fine. Do you
swear from the testimony you're about to give in this matter, the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> And one at a time, please state your name. Spell your last name. >> Jordan Glasper, G L A S B E R G. Redulla Glasper. G L A S S B E R G.
>> Thank you. >> Why don't you just tell us a little bit about your project? >> Um, so we started, well, we bought this property about two years ago, 2023 of uh August of 2023. Um, and we originally
had a different architect uh who designed the plans. We actually have been in front of this committee before for our variance for the plans. Um we got that approval and we started construction. Um we did have some issues in communication with our prior architect. Um so
post starting just starting construction um we we parted ways and since then we have had Danny uh really help represent us. Uh I will have Danny speak to the rest of like the technical details, but essentially what we're uh looking for is
a slight changes or modifications in the plans um since then. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Any any questions for these witnesses? No. Any questions from the public for these witnesses? Seeing none. Okay. Move
on to your next witness. If you can raise your right hand, do you swear from the testimony you're about to give in this matter, the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> And please state your name. Spell your last name. >> Daniel Dubanette. >> And just uh spell your last name for the record. >> Thank you. Sorry. Uh D U B I N E T.
>> Thank you. And I know you've appeared before us relatively recently as well. Any changes to your credentials since the last time you were here? >> Still good. >> I imagine we'll accept you back once again. >> We will. Welcome back. >> Thank you so much. Um so as we were just going to this is an interesting case
because after they started construction um I I took on this job and uh like any new chef I guess in the kitchen I looked at the plans and I said oh gee I wish we could do this that and the other thing.
So to do this that and the other thing requires us to be here tonight again. So the first application was uh about 15 months ago, August 2020 uh 2024 and uh so during construction and I
would like to show you why I wanted to make some modifications to the plan which requires us to be back here and there's another component to this which does not need a variance but I do want to through my presentation just show you some other modifications I want to do because 2024 in August we were approved
D for uh a style of architecture or some little details that I'd like to change. So just to clear the air and and not to have any confusion moving forward um like to show you some other modifications that do not require varants but because you are proving a
variance that you saw and now it's slightly a little different. I'd like to run through that. So basically um I think the I think the underlying overriding restrictive uh piece of this puzzle is
that the lot is 60 ft wide in the R15 zone which requires 90 ft wide. So there's an existing non-conforming sideyard setback at 8.2 2 ft. And this project uh we'd like to extend uh this
house a little bit and keep it at the 8.2 ft. And so there's a variance for that. And that also is the combined sideyard setback. Same thing existing non-conforming uh that we uh would like to ask that we keep that existing non-conformity. And
the third part of this is the generator which uh requires 10 ft sideyard setback and we're asking for five. And I guess I would like to show you just through some photographs and images that this probably is the better place for it. Anyway, so that being said, let me take
you through the U exhibits. [Applause] Of course, lot size is not a problem. It's again, it's the width and we can see that in the some of the sight lines. Um, what's interesting to note is the neighbor that would potentially have
well has the uh generator 5t off the property line is the one to the right on this slide here. And because the house is so far set back that if we put the generator in the back of the house conforming it might be
worse obviously for the glass but potentially a worse spot for the adjacent neighbors. So I think that's the deviation could be acceptable. So just want to interrupt for one second. The >> the image that you're showing is this directly from the plans that were already
>> No, thank you. >> Okay. Uh we'll just have to mark this electronic presentation as A1 and I'll ask that you please send that to Jessica to make sure we have it. >> Absolutely. >> Yes, that's the Glassberg's house. Uh and I I'll show you um Google Earth did
a little bit better job. Um, so 190 Kent is ours and the adjacent neighbor to the right. You can see how farther f far f far f far f far f far f far f far f far f far f far f far farther step back they are from from our house. um making the generator in the sideyard somewhat palatable I would
imagine for 186 can there's already you'll see I'll show you some slides there's already really really mature evergreen trees that um are part of 186's property and then the gigantic arborites in the backyard are part of
190 so I'd like to show you that as well uh and again the two variants we're seeking one is For sideyard setback, 15 ft is the requirement. 8.2 is existing. 8.2 is proposed. It's a violation of 6.8 ft. Combined sideyard
setback, again, it's existing non-conforming, which doesn't change, and it's a violation of 5.5. So, the more restrictive one is the is the minimum sideyard at 15. The plan
is to there's already a covered porch. this this dark darker uh color red color uh has an existing column and roof on it. So that's the part of the house we'd like to enclose to make the kitchen better. And I'll
show you that. And then the uh portion of the back that has the lighter pink, we'd like to propose a outdoor covered deck. Um in the previous application had an outdoor covered deck just in a very odd uh part of the plan I thought
so the changes and I tried to show you uh basically existing or I should say previously approved plans versus the what's in front of you tonight. This is the lower level which has the garage. Uh
so previously on the left plan was the proposed covered patio which was off of the mudroom behind the garage and I thought that was a very odd place for a covered area for entertaining. So I propose um a couple things. A this is
just a plan change, but instead of the existing mud room uh being this very large space, we proposed to eat into the existing garage a little bit to be able to get a half bath, which we do not have on the main level. Uh so a half bath uh
side entry mud room. And again, this doesn't change the variance, but it was a change in from the plans that you saw. So that's it was kind of hard to to I guess see the other architect's plans and not want to make some changes.
So that was the lower level on the main level. This was the I think the bigger change. So the existing variance or design did not include this porch area. And so when we started to do the kitchen design, I it was kind of a
natural to say, well, this will make such a better internal space and it's already being covered. Can we uh maybe move the dining there's no dining room or or or I should say there's no separate dining room. So it's a kitchen and and and dining area. The you know,
it's a split level house from left to right. So the main level is living room, kitchen and then dining area. So by by getting this internal uh space, it improves the plan dramatically which I think will have very little or ne no
negative impact to the neighbors. And then instead of putting the covered proposed patio off the mudroom, which I can't imagine someone navigating their way to go enjoy it, this would be a much better place to enjoy. And it would be
right off the dining area. So that is why we're here tonight. And I would like to show you some other little modifications to the plan that again do not require variance, but I would like the board to be aware. In the previous application, I I imagine somebody on
this case, the design of the exterior included, this is the front elevation. So, the design of this was to uh this is their existing roof line. The design was for curb appeal to raise the roof line. And
I think there was some conversation at the meeting about well, you're going to leave the framing in there and take the right. I don't. So obviously practicalitywise we're going to go through this uh expense and go through the trouble of creating the curb appeal
curb appeal which I think is great. What we'd like to do is uh make that uh attic space usable. Get rid of the existing framing the existing rafters that m are in here. And now and I've I've checked the F. We're still way way way under the
F but we'd like to add this to the project. So basically uh create an attic space for them in this portion of it and that equates to this shaded area. So um again because it's a
split we'll go up to the master bedroom suite and then I'll have a set of staircase up to this unfinished attic space which is uh I've included in our calculations of F. We're still significantly under what's allowed. So again, no real change to the exterior other than I think there was on
testimony at the previous uh hearing that that space was not going to be used and we'd like to use it visually on the front of the house. I'd like to go over some of the changes and again it doesn't trigger variance but because you
saw it one way and now I'm proposing another way would be this was what was proposed basically was going to be a dormer here for aesthetic reasons um
and this cute but troublesome area where the this peak and this peak don't meet. So, it's going to be a problem with snow, rain, and so part of my suggestion
architecturally was to um join these two. This way, we get still get the aesthetic qualities of the two peaks, but we don't have any long-term uh issues with snow and create a problem there. So, that is
a change to what you had seen a year and a year year and a half ago about. And the other change that I suggest that we make is uh add this break in the roof line to create like a dormer look. So instead of trying to do that in the roof line of
the attic that has no value, let's add it to the master bedroom suite. So now they have a gorgeous window. And so that was another architectural change I'd like to make to the plan. And looking at um this is our proposed
rear elevation. So the proposal is to add this covered deck in the back, square off the kitchen, this this side view. So this again is is the ask to enclose this already covered area and add the porch.
I have some three-dimensional images to help depict the changes. Uh this is what was previously approved in the in the rear perspective. And so this is the proposal. So we'd like to fill in this uh porch and
instead of adding the covered area to the lower level, bring it to the right side. And I believe what makes and I and I have if if we need to see it, I have the previous application, but I would like to jump to I think the
the real essence of this application is the conditions of the site in the backyard. So, this is um looking at the rear of 190 and we have all these I couldn't even tell you how tall they are. They're probably over 40t tall.
Mature arborites and then uh in the front of the house facing the neighbor is uh the fence and then very mature evergreen trees. That's on the neighbor's side. So very very very little if none impact
to the adjacent neighbor but of course a big gain for the glass in terms of functionality of the space that we're requesting um to uh and then I just show this is a a picture I took not too long ago in
October. This shows how the site is today. Um, and we're kind of on a little bit on pause to be able to enclose that piece and add the porch. That's our application. Um,
>> and and you took all these photographs. >> I did. >> Okay, great. >> And this is what it looks like uh at the moment uh with uh with the new roof line and this obviously is the adjacent neighbor. So I
think it fits in well to the streetscape and and it's an an enhancement and I didn't see any negative impact u by this application at all and um no trees will come down as a as a result of this as well. >> Thank you so much. >> Thank you
>> board experts. What questions do you have for this witness? >> Um do you do you have um engineering testimony at all? I could speak uh to the engineering uh a bit which is as a result of the project we're not covering
enough lot coverage to to necessarily need storm water management. However, they have a very very very flat lot and the neighbors on the either side are elevated a bit. So, um, the Glassbergs hire an engineer to design the storm
water system that is going to take care of their water in their backyard because although when it rains there's a p like a pond and then after a couple hours it does dissipate. So, I guess my testimony in terms of engineering would be we're willing to do it. We want to do it and
mostly for the benefit of of the Glasbergs and anything that in terms of your comment need to be addressed. I would definitely have the engineer civil engineer address everything. So in terms of the percolation tests and the design
of the system um we would like to design it and have it approved by by the engineering department. So, um it appears to me do you know what the um amount of additional impervious coverage is? >> Yes. Yes. Um
I believe I have that calculation. I do not have Well, let's see the locker. I apologize. >> Thank you. So, yes. So, here's the the differential between the two. >> The um >> so I'm coming up with a difference of
ft. >> Is that right? >> Uh >> that's based on V1, right? >> I was looking at the lot coverage that he has right there. He just underlined. >> And I just I think I just want to point out that the what you're saying is the
145 square feet is from a different drawing and it has different numbers. >> Right. So that's why I'm just trying to just trying to make sure I'm >> Thank you. following it >> because 400 um square feet of additional impervious coverage does require storm
water mitigation. >> Okay, >> which you have already. So I I'm in agreement on that. I just don't I just don't want anybody to think that it's optional because required. >> Okay. Um so with that said um some of
the engineering drawings show an extensive kind of um rainwater collection system. There's a coldtech chamber in the front yard. There's also a series of um perforated pipes running
throughout the rear yard. Um plus um a berm. And I'm I'm just trying to figure out how this is all working. What's the purpose of the burm? Um Is that going to impact, you know, neighboring properties? Um, where is the water coming from that's going into the
back uh drainage area versus the uh cold tech chamber in front? Um, I don't know if you can offer any test. I I I can't other than um I think at some point they they designed the system
with a seepage uh pit and then after some uh digging and percolation tests that they abandoned the the pit because it just wouldn't work. So then they came up with this elaborate um underground piping system. Uh, I know that the
Glasbergs are are a not 100% satisfied with what they've gotten so far and we're going to continue. I'd like to reach out to Andrew Clark. Uh, but maybe get some other expert advice on how to handle this storm water management. Uh, but it would be something we would 100%
uh agree to and abide by. So in condition >> Yeah. Uh that's that's what I'm hearing here is our usual condition that storm water management plans would be submitted to the board engineer for review and approval. >> Okay. Great. >> Yeah. >> Thank you.
>> You're off the hook. >> Chair jurisdiction usual. >> Yes. Two years. Okay. >> Ed, you have questions? >> Yes. A few questions. Uh we had noted in our report that the grading plan seems
to differ as far as the location of the patio or the covered uh porch area. >> Yes. >> At least between the two. Can you bring the two into alignment? >> Absolutely. That was future >> uh before me the design and then now we
have to go back and uh update the design. >> So for the record we need to have that consistent. >> Yes. Um it's noted that the property is a non-conforming lot width at 60 ft compared to 90 ft is being required. Right. Uh any tree removal happening as
a result of the proposed changes? >> No. >> Okay. Just some planting changes I would imagine for the location of the generator on that side. >> Yes. And I saw the some comments about what to plant. So, of course, uh, Bachwoods, uh, was just a generic, uh,
shrub that I thought of, but Ivy Barry Holl's Barry Holly. >> Eight Barry Harley. Thank you. >> That would be a good substitution for that type of location. Okay. Um, you had uh shown the covered porch in the back. The alignment of that covered
porch. Is there an architectural reason for why it is aligned the way it is? the dimensions that it is. >> Yes. >> Because it is going into that sideyard setback. >> Yes. Um primarily uh well my my dream is that the dining table is centered in the space. We've
got twofer cabinets on the left, two foot cabinets on the right, and this magnificent quad uh set of sliding doors. So if that could be centered, great. Uh so that's what drove that design. >> Okay. So it's really just to match the
interior design of the building. >> Yes. >> And then the roof design itself. What is the slope of the uh roof? >> Uh the slope is very very very very shallow. So so much that Yeah. that we did to do a metal roof. >> Okay. So that'll have a metal roof but coming off the the rear of the house.
>> Yes. >> And that likely would not be visible from the street. That >> slope of that roof. >> Definitely not. And I don't think the neighbors would would see it as well >> because we do have a requirement in our design standards calling for like six on 12 roof pitches, but in this situation
it seems like that's off to the back of the property as well. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um and then you mentioned some changes you're making to the dormers on the roof uh areas, but that's being repeated elsewhere in the building. Uh yes, we
we've done the that aesthetic look of the dormer on the front to give the master bedroom uh some uh special transom window and and to break the roof line primarily and then we'd like to do that in the rear of
the house with the master bathroom. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Oh, actually one last question. Sorry. You had mentioned the 8.2 2 feet is your uh part of your variances. But then the other side at 7.3 feet also doesn't
comply, but that's not being changed on that side. >> It's not being changed. >> Just wanted to clarify. >> And I think previously there was a variance for the covered porch >> on that side. >> On that side, so we've eliminated that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thanks, Ed. Uh questions from the board
for this witness. Uh if you would uh maybe you can uh rem remind me uh time uh of the first uh application a generator was not included was it?
So why not >> uh when we were originally because we weren't trying to build that corner in so we didn't need to include the generator at that point. Uh the existing generator is behind that portion of the house and so I think
they were planning on having their entertaining on the lower level of up the mud room and the generator was going to stay but now it can't stay because that's where we >> I see. >> Yes. >> Yeah. The old location. >> Yes. >> And the other question now we have uh a new set of drawings and uh design do
they supersede the uh previously approved ones or what's the >> legal status? Yes, they would. >> They would. >> Yes. >> Thank you. That's all my questions. Sorry. >> Any other questions?
>> Just have a just as a reminder something about the peak in the front of the house that was discussed. >> I don't know if it was there a fire. >> There was a weird Well, I think the plan was to leave the existing framing. >> Yeah. >> And then fra overframe. Mhm.
>> I mean, we'll give them the curb appeal, but then it just seems like that's a fire hazard. >> Why would you leave it? >> And then it's like, all right, well, I'll remove the shingles and the paper. And then I said, well, why would you do all that? Let's just get rid of the,
>> you know, let's use like you could use this space and we're obviously um, you know, we have the room, we have the F and it doesn't change the curve up here. Why wouldn't we? Mhm. >> So that I think your memory is this conversation >> and I wasn't there, but u the testimony
from the architect was that I will uh >> No, we're just going to overframe it and and so I would like to say that that's a bad idea. >> Great. >> I just got a question about the generator. Are generators allowed in the front yard?
>> In the side yard or rear? >> Did they change it? peritted in certain areas >> in certain areas for corner lots, things of that nature. >> Do we need a variance for this back? >> That's what I was wondering myself.
>> The other question I had was is also for the board and for our experts here the existing AC unit that's in that setback. >> Yes. >> Do we need to do we want to include that now? I just know there was an application on Essics about restoring
replacing an AC unit that would rather you not have to go through this again >> should include it. >> Thank you. >> Getting back to the roof pitch issue. It's under our design standards. It talks about a single or two family house shall have a minimum roof pitch on six
on 12 for a minimum of 80% of the dwellings roof coverage. Do you feel that this is more than 20% of the overall roof? I >> I don't think so. Area >> I I would say I can >> What is the pitch of this roof? >> The the pitch of this roof, I believe,
is a three on 12. So it it kind of puts you at a place where you can't >> Well, you have a asphalt shingles don't work well. A rolled rubber roof unattractive. So even though you're not going to see it, we're going to do a standing seam metal >> and three on 12. Is that the minimum
building code >> for asphalt? Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> So, it's a shallow roof, obviously. Um, >> is there a heat tracing in that roof? >> No. >> Okay. >> No, we'll just do the the
guards. That's what they call them. Ice breakers. >> Yeah. >> Was the the burm part of the original plan? I don't know if you had a grading plan at your original application. >> We didn't need one. So, we didn't have >> this this drawing is a little confusing
this um this grading plan because it it's showing new stuff but on the old >> the actually the old plan. Yeah. >> So, >> it sounds like they're going to get a new civil engineer. So, yeah. Yeah, we need >> I know but but I I do feel like this is
this whole presentation here is a little bit >> a little bit unknown and like >> I What is the purpose of the BM? Is this for aesthetic or is it for storm water management or I don't know if that's for the homeowners or the architect.
>> So we originally went through this when we were applying for the permits for the prior variants. So I think what we would do is work with the civil engineer to make sure like we are redrawing these plans as well. This wasn't part of the variance. It's just that this plan is showing and
I realize that that we're putting it as a condition, but this plan is not, you know, typically if you're going to show a drainage plan, you would be putting it on the new construction and then there would be some explanation as to like what the burm is because to me
>> the burm is very strange in in your backyard. Um, I mean, you have this huge deep backyard that, you know, people can use, except there's I know it's just a 12-in burm. You can walk over it, but it's a little strange. So, um,
and even just I I just have to say just note that like >> Thank you. >> the patio the new patio is not shown here in relation to the burm. Like we're looking at the generator and sort of the old footprint of the building. So it does make it a little bit it does make
it a little bit hard to you know talk about this plan holistically just it I understand where what your variances are. >> Yes. >> But it's just that this doesn't actually match >> you know the plan. >> Yes. >> And my other question was about the sump
pump pit that's on the side of the house. >> Yeah. We don't know what that's for. We we we it seems abandoned. The one that's on the left side of your property. >> It is not connect. It's not plugged in. It's been there. It came with the house. So, we're not sure what was the purpose of that. To be perfect,
>> it seems like a neighbor's discharge is coming. >> Seems that way. The ones on our left 186. There's a pipe that looks that comes in and discharges into our external sump pump. I don't know what the prior owner's conversation was around that. >> Do you see water coming from it
>> when it rains? Yes. >> Water's coming out of it. Sure. So, the >> neighbor's not working. So, it just Yeah. >> Yeah. >> The neighbor might have to address coming. >> Isn't that something that should be addressed like >> Yeah, for sure. For sure. >> Yesterday, >> uh yeah, we we we uh struggling to get
an engineer. Um and I suggest we reach out to Andrew Clark. Um someone who could help us because this is obviously the uh typical seepage pit design didn't work and we need something else to handle this. So
>> So you're saying this plan? I don't know if it well certainly it's the concept that uh you know when I obviously I had to come before the board and and present a grading plan. So I since they had had this designed and it
and from an engineer uh I used it. Um but I would like to testify that uh obviously nothing get approved without approval from the engineering department. So, if they're not happy with it, um, and they have questions and concerns, we'll take care of it.
So just on this note about if this is because it is actually I think this is a sort of a big ask to not have this presented because the there's 400 square feet of impervious cover that have to be covered by the drainage.
But it has to be more than that if you're also trying to cover the backyard and some things from the front yard and then roof leaders and all of that. So, um I just want to make note of that that it's it's not only 400 square feet that
you know you're designing for. So, would you say that's correct? >> Right. Right. So, so um she's exactly right. when we when we ask for storm water collection, you know, yes, you're required to collect 400 square feet or so, >> right? But now we're going to ask,
>> but if you're taking the whole house that's greater than 400 ft, we don't want it to just bubble up out of the system. So, right, >> we'd want the system sized for what's actually going into it. >> Yes. >> Any other questions? >> Um, I just had one more. So there's a is
it a fireplace in on the in enclosed porch? Yes. Not not a fire pit too. >> A fireplace which will build a wall and that will give Glassber's privacy but you're on the deck and then of So yes. >> Okay. I wasn't sure if it was a grill or
a fireplace. Thank you. >> If I could follow up on that question. You don't look to enclose the >> No, we could testify that that would never >> that would have to be a condition. >> Yes. even a screened in portion. >> Yes, and we could definitely uh testify
to that or have it >> a condition. >> Thank you. >> Great. >> Any questions from the public for this witness? Seeing none, >> just
I just No, I just in the plan it did look like it was a screened in porch. I'm not thinking about it. if you can just put the plans up again. It did look so I just want to make sure that this is >> the Yeah, not the plan the in the >> Yeah, I think one nice thing would be
the perspective view uh of of the >> deck. Yeah, I think the one that was colored looked a >> No. Yeah, I tried to just Yeah. >> Yep. Okay. Thank you. >> But that doesn't show the enclosed wall fireplace. Uh the brick
>> any public comments about this application. >> Yeah, go ahead. >> I don't see any light on there. >> Uh just I would say uh well ceiling fans and I would think that's lighting on the covered porch part the ceiling. Nothing
for the back doors or anything like that? >> No, no, just the light the ceiling. >> Okay, great. Is there anything you want to say in conclusion? >> No, thank you for hearing us tonight.
>> Thank you, Mr. Ball. What do we have? >> Before we get to conditions, I I just want to confirm a couple details. We talked about an additional variance for the air conditioning unit. Um the setback. What what is the figure the the setback that's being requested there
>> of the existing uh AC unit? >> What's proposed? >> The proposed is 5T for the generator and new AC. But the unit >> Oh, okay. >> There's going to be two units there.
One's existing uh which if if >> so that's the same as what Ed you had noted in your report. It's just the air conditioning unit will be located the same as the generator. >> Yes. >> According to what I'm just hearing. Yes. >> Okay.
>> Yes. >> Are you going with one AC or two condens? >> Two units. Two fans. Yeah. >> So, having trouble reviewing all the plans? >> Yeah. I I think the foot >> uh we we'll definitely be putting the
ACs on this side of the house. Um, I guess they ripped out the AC unit because we're going to do a new new mechanical. So, we could make that to the 5ft setback. >> And then I know we also have the
question of whether the low slope roof area will be more than 20%. And I believe you said it's not, but >> it's not, but I could run the calculation fairly quickly for us. Um, just to be
simple about it. Let's see. >> Well, let's say this is 60 ft. So, if we take a bird's eye view of the uh roof plan, I'll take the front porch, >> right? Slope overlaps. >> Got a little slope overlap. Uh this is a
1,926. back. Okay. How do we do that? 1926 / 43. No, >> you're measuring it just not where >> I did. I I pulled it back into the the
dark color line. So, it's close. It's close. It's I would say it's over 20%. 20% of that number is 385 and this would be 403. >> So, if that's the case, then you would require an additional variance for that.
um the roof area. Thank you. >> With these additional variances, they have to >> No, we always have the discretion any variances that are identified during the hearing, there's a catch all in the notice that gives that ability. And you
know, variances like this, we if you feel it's necessary that the neighbors be renoticed, that's always a possibility, but it is covered in the event that we want to grant it as a result of the hearing. Okay. Um, so getting back to then the conditions, we do only again have C
variances that we're dealing with. Uh, so four votes are required to approve the application. I have three conditions noted. First, as our usual compliance with those conditions noted in the board engineers memorandum. Second is that storm water management plans will be submitted to the board engineer for
review and approval. And third, that the board shall retain storm water jurisdiction for a period of two years after the completion of the improvements. And what that means is that if there are any storm water issues at all um that affect, you know, your property or the neighboring property um
anyone can bring that issue up to the city and you can be brought back before the board within that period to correct any defects or issues that result. >> Okay, great. >> Thank you, Andy. >> Sure. Can pass one question. I had trouble little trouble hearing some of that discussion of variances besides
what's noted in Ed's report. What are the new variances again, Andy, please? >> So, just also an air conditioning unit setback which is proposed at the same 5-ft value as the generator setback that is noted. And then we have the the low slope roof area being more than 20%
where is only it must meet the pitch requirements if it's more than that 20% figure. >> Okay. And just for clarification, both AC units are within that five foot setback. >> The existing has been removed which is
not on the plans and saying it's remain. >> Okay. >> Just want to make sure it's clear. >> Got it. >> Thank you. Jay, who would like to begin our deliberation? >> We did. Great.
[Laughter] Mr. Fesus, please. >> Um, you guys are challenged with a very, very narrow but deep plot. So, a lot of the variances that we're seeing here are really just based on the existing, you know, non-performance. Um, I think what you've designed here
makes a lot more sense than where you're originally placing it. I wasn't here the day that they the prior variances were approved. Um, aesthetically wise, this makes a lot of sense. The natural flow from the kitchen through the dining to the outside living space, the fact that
you're very well screened with your neighbors and that this is not visible from the street, I think any of the potential fallbacks are completely mitigated and therefore I can support this. >> Thank you. >> I um personally I I think that the work
itself is fine. I am struggling with not having the the storm water plan and I know that there's a condition of putting it before the um engineer but typically we we have that whole plan. The board is
privy to the review process. We can also ask questions. Um and I I feel like it's so much that is being done here related relevant to that that I I do really feel like that should have been part of our package. And that's the that's the one
thing I'm struggling with. I think the the variances themselves those are for same reasons Mr. Fesin stated those are not really an issue for me. I mean it's a 60 foot wide lot. You
are constrained. But the storm water um management I I personally would like to see that. Is it possible to come back to that? Like get this approved and come back to show you the what we've all kind of agreed upon.
>> I don't know if it's formal or informally. >> There's there's no variance connected to the storm water, right? >> Uh >> well, it's required though. >> It is required, but there's, you know, it's not necessarily tied to a variance.
And typically, we wouldn't >> approve it. Yeah. partially and require a separate hearing. It >> seems to me that it would be an issue of either all or none. We bring the whole thing back and wait on the approval or we can approve it subject, of course, to
the condition that the plans be submitted and subject to board engineers approval. >> I mean, it's triggered by the the 400 square feet, but then there's so much more storm water work that's being done on the site that >> Well, I think you're going to have to
decide if it's worth bring it back or >> Yeah, I mean I I I agree, but I I'm more troubled by like you're here presenting a case and there's a sump pump that you don't know what it does and it's on the side of the property that's there, >> right? >> Not a big deal and I understand my
coordinates discussion about the drainage system. I mean, I can support the project the way it is, >> but the key thing is to make sure that you get a good civil engineering there and that the city approves >> whatever needs to be done with the which you're required to do anyway. So, >> yes,
>> I'm not a drainage I'm not a drainage expert, believe me, but when I went by the site today and there's a sump pump sitting outside telling me water has to move somewhere. Water's going somewhere. So, um, that leads me back to the backyard where is there any water problems back there that we don't know
about because you're constructing, you're moving things around. So, um, I can support the project the way it is. Um, just got to get that engineer out there and make sure things. >> Yeah. And I'll just add a comment about the storm water. I mean, I I agree with the concerns, but I think we often have
conditions where it's subject to review by by our engineer. And I don't see anything particularly unusual here that I don't think that that we I have a reasonable expectation that Marie will be able to review plans and if it's okay, she can say it's okay. If it's not, we'll make changes. Um I don't
see any reason to to not go with our standard, not standard, but our common condition where we leave it up to our engineer to review the storm water plans. Um, even though we don't have it tonight, >> I'm definitely not doubting Marie's expertise in this area. However, I think
that when we make those conditions, we typically have a pretty robust storm water plan and then in the conversation, some adjustments are made and different calculations, maybe they don't match, and then we say, "Okay, well, this has to get squared away." In this case, I really feel like we don't even have a
storm water management plan. So that's this is something on paper that we basically were told to, you know, discard. So I do think it's different than in the other cases and that's just that's my opinion. So I'm not >> I would add I don't know if we can for the record maybe discard what was
submitted because that's effectively what we're doing, right? Just so it's not even part of any approval. Um >> and if you know based on the variances and what you're asking for, I also can be supportive. But I feel like we're doing a little discovery here and um just trying to
fill in a bunch of blanks. >> But um like the variance is as is. As long as we have that storm water condition, I I can be supportive. >> I think it's pretty understandable that 99% of the people living their daily lives don't have to deal with civil
engineering issues, right? Um what what bothers me a little bit though is this is your second time in front of the board. Um so should be a little bit more familiar with what our expectations are and um what is required to submit an
application and get it approved. Um despite my uh consternation over that I do agree with uh Mr. Yuko that given that the site is so flat and the solution for storm water mitigation
should be very straightforward. Uh and we obviously have full confidence in Marie Rafa to let you guys know if you go astray. Uh so with that I'm willing to uh approve this project as submitted
uh provided that it meets the conditions uh that have been put in front of you. >> So with that can we get a motion to approve? >> I'll move to approve. >> Can I get a second? >> Second.
>> Jessica, can you call the role please? >> Place chair on. >> No. >> Mr. Yuko. >> Yes. >> Mr. Malay. No, >> Mr. Nelson. >> Yes, >> Mr. Curran. >> Yes, >> Mr. Feskins. >> Yes, >> Chairman Lett.
>> Yes, >> that is approved. >> Thank you. >> I'm glad someone's keeping score. >> Good luck. >> Good luck. Make sure you do a good storm water plant,
>> please. And our final case of the evening, 20 Oxbow Lane. Okay. Hello again. Um I'm here with the applicant, Michael Cardone, uh owner of Cardone Contracting,
um and his engineer, we have as well, Bill Hollows. Um the this application really is limited to the rear yard for proposed patio and two tier retaining wall with steps
to go down to the next section of the property. Um, as you can see from the pro the plan I'm showing right now, and if I can, this is the only thing I promise that has not been submitted previously. Um, it's an updated landscaping plan that was approved
verbally by John Linson um, per his comments >> and we'll mark that as A1. >> Thank you. It also shows um, the hashing is the steep the regulated steep slopes on the property.
The part that is not um in hash marks is still pretty steeply sloped. It's just not regulated steep slopes. Um the only variance requested is disturbance of the steep slopes. It's about 5,100 square ft. Um where the
property has 9,444 square ft of steep slopes total. That that's really the gist of this application and I don't want to uh overexlain anything. Um but if the board
has any questions of me before I I turn to Mr. >> Board experts, you want to wait for the engineer. >> I'll wait. >> Okay, great. >> Board, do you have any questions for Samantha before we public? Any questions? Seeing none, let's hear from your engineer.
>> Okay, Mike, you're good. >> Thank you. [Music] >> All right, you can raise your right hand. Do you swear from the testimony you're about to give in this matters, the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> And please state your name. Spell your
last name. >> William Hollows. H O L L O WS. >> And you two have appeared before us a number of times, including recently. Any changes to your credentials since the last time you were here? >> No. >> I imagine we'll accept you back once again. >> We will. Welcome. Please proceed.
>> I guess >> I can show whichever plan you want. >> Mhm. This is proposed >> and basically Here you want to >> what the applicant is. Oh, it doesn't
work. >> Oh, different color. >> Go. The tan area, the brown area is the house that's under construction at this time. The driveway that we see
towards the left side of the drawing is the existing driveway that went to a single family house that was on the site prior to this construction of this new home. That house was removed and this house is under construction. Um, what
the applicant is proposing to do or it's disturb the steep slopes kind of in that area in order to get some outside living space.
um proposing a a patio in that area and we're going from a garage under situation on the side to up to a patio that should be on the first floor level. So we that's where we have the steps going up along the side. Um steps are
are in that area. We have steps going up. going to the wall over here. >> And the reason why and then we have steps going to the up towards the rear yard. And that's these steps in this
this area because when you get if you've been to the property, when you get um past the steep slope that's right off of the proposed patio, the lot flattens out. And that's going to be the area
um where it's going to be some lawn back in back in that area. Um, more of an outdoor living space from actually this property has like a ridge line here and then everything from that
point towards the house slopes towards the house and then everything behind that line slopes actually that's towards the north or towards the neighbor's property. But that'll be this will be a lawn area
and a living space back you know an outdoor living space basically a place for children to go out and play and you know throw a ball around. Um now Mr. Cardone has been building homes in Summit for probably 25 plus years or
doing renovations at homes and he's well aware of of the steep slope situation. Um, and he's not going to disturb anything more than what he really needs. I mean, we put that number down as 5,000 ft², but it probably could be a little
bit less than that. Um, but he's going to keep it within definitely within uh probably pretty much what I have outlined in that blue line that goes parallel to the back of the house. And then um when we get to the rear yard
where I say that'll be the lawn or more of a outdoor living space for the for the families. It's not a steep slope area. So um right now it's kind of overgrowth. So just be that would be removed to be fine graded and seeded.
Maybe a little bit of of soil disturbance just to kind of flatten it a little bit better or make it smoother. Now, we won't be changing any drainage patterns. Everything, the majority of this property comes towards the house.
Um, and then it goes down towards Oxbow Lane. There's no more land disturbance at all in the front yard. Uh, and that was really pretty much just for utilities connections. Again, we're using utilizing the same driveway. So,
it's really just this this back area so we can build the patio and um you know, we need some retaining walls in that area because we because of the steep slopes. We are and I have I've had a discussion with Marie regarding the storm water
management system on this property. When we did the original grading plan for the building permit, we sized the drywall for just the increase in impervious coverage
since I've had my discussion with Marie. Um, and it was similar to the previous application where if you're going to put the roof leaders in from the whole house, size the drywalls for the whole house. So that's what what I have to
make a revision to the plan, but that's what we'll do. We should >> we're basically going to have more capacity, >> right? We're going to have more capacity than what we're So when we did the original plan, we had one dry well for the building permit. When we did this original plan, we had
two drywalls. Actually, I need one and a half, but taking in the whole house, which was going to create improve drainage for the neighborhood. Um, I need two drywalls, but I have to expand the gravel area around the drywalls a little bit.
Instead of 10 by 10, I need 11 by 11. And it'll take the roof leaders from the whole house into the drywall system. And also in my discussions with uh your consulting engineer Marie on this project um there's some housekeeping
things that I need to add to the plan. Um and I have we can comply with basically all the comments that are in that letter. We went through the letter and um we can comply. Some of them are just some clarifications on some line weights and
some, you know, limited disturbance lines, that type of thing. But, um, probably the biggest item that was in the review letter and our discussion that we had was that size the drywall system for the whole house.
>> Mhm. >> And then there was a comment that Mr. Linson had some comments and uh we had taken sheet three and we just um put the additional landscaping that he was looking for onto that plan. I know there
was comments from your planner that we need to screen the uh AC units. So, we would have to add that to the plan also. >> And that's on your other plan with the new landscaping. No, that no that wasn't
that wasn't something I knew at the time. >> That's all right. >> But I I we would have to add some and it be mostly some kind of shrubs >> and I think there was comments from your environmental people on the type of shrubs and we will look into that as far
as what we may need to change or from what we've selected so far. But we would look into that also and amend the plan accordingly. board experts, what questions do you have for this? >> So, um, as Mr. Hollow said, we he and I
had discussed, um, after he reviewed my letter, um, he and I had a phone conversation about, um, some of the details on his plans. We talked about the dry well. Um, I I don't see any problem with him just sizing the dry well to meet the, um, the roof
collection. Um, and if that were the case, it would be appropriately sized, but I'll make sure that I review it again um, as a condition of approval. Um, and he and I had gone over some some things as as he mentioned, housekeeping things. Um, it was it was hard to tell
like the line weight of, you know, which one was the limit of disturbance, which one was the silk fence. Um, so he he agreed to um to take care of that so we can u make sure that um that's all delineated. Um if there's anything that any any disturbance greater than 5,000
square feet, you'll um you're going to get a soil permit for that. Um could you talk about the um the rear portion of the yard um that you said that there's a a ridge there in the back and then you're going to move some
shrubs, some vegetation. Will there be any are there any trees in there? Young trees? >> No, there are no young trees back there. And it I'm going to be drawing on the other the ridge goes across basically the it's almost the um
setback for the rear yard setback is kind of the ridge line where the contours change the direction. They go in that direction, but it's really just overgrown. It might have been grass at one time. It just hasn't been
maintained. Um, so it's just kind of overgrown and with the rain we just had, it's all kind of knocked down. I was there on Sunday and took a look at that after the rain that we had last Thursday. That's really this would be the area
that I had mentioned would be more and there aren't any trees in that area which would be a a lawn a lawn area. >> Throw a ball. >> Yeah. And that's why we were requesting the steps to get out get through the
steep slopes and then get out to an area where you can walk normally. >> So those um those walls in there are to reduce the amount of um disturbance to the steep slopes. >> Correct.
>> Um those are the only questions I had. Uh, regarding the walls that we were just talking about in that back area, would you have any screening landscaping or fencing to delineate a different to where you have walls higher than 3 ft?
>> Yeah, we're I mean that's a a code requirement. We either have to put landscaping which would be like behind the retaining wall and then this is where we show on that landscape plan um where that was going to be our rev item.
>> Okay. Okay. But yeah, we would I think it would look better with landscaping than it would with putting a fence. >> Yeah, especially if there if that's their backyard. Of course. Um any other I think Mr. Vincson's addressed, I guess, if you've coordinated with him as far as there was a tree that was
supposed to be placed or replaced on the property and I think you coordinated that. >> Yes. And they're happy to do um you know a condition if that's needed. It will be approved by John Lston anyway as a replacement plan. >> Okay. You've addressed the air conditioning units that we were asking
about. Um, in that back area, it seems like you're maintaining somewhat of a modest size patio in that back area and it's you have no other alternative but to disturb that area. Would that be correct? >> That's correct. I mean, we tried to to
make it so we did our least amount of disturbance to the steep slopes, but also get something a good size patio because it really isn't right off of the house. anything that you can utilize. It's not like the flat
lot you were just talking about. This is this goes up if you've been the site. I think what's unique about the property, too, is that it previously had a house on it and you're the house has been replaced, but that you're you're situated the house in the same location
>> and similar >> activities in that same location. It's not really changing the grades of the property substantially compared to what exists today. >> That's correct. Um, okay. Thank you. No further questions. >> Great >> board. What questions do you have for
this witness? >> I have a question about the grading in the in the So, it looks like, you know, in some ways we're we're changing the grade in that back steep part perpendicular to like we're shifting it 90°, right? And so if you look at the
southeast, well, if you look at the southeast corner right now, it looks like it's say an elevation of 134 to maybe even 136 at the neighbors. Um, and then we're we're dropping that down to somewhere around like 130. I just What
happens on the what happens on the border there on the property border? Um, where the neighbors might have a different elevation? How is that being addressed right here with the steep slopes? because it the direction of the grade is changing. >> We're not changing the direction. What?
I I think I mentioned that we're not changing any >> on this right here. Right. This is existing on this. What is this? This is what is this sheet three and five. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but this
looks like the grade is it looks different on this plan than it does on this plan. Well, you have have to remember the the larger scale plan is not the whole property. It's really has to do with um
>> more detail more detail around the house. But when you get to the back, okay, >> I said there was a ridge that went across the property and that the the property slopes towards the neighbor. Well, actually, we are lower than our
neighbors in along the house until you get back to the uh the rear corner. We're we're lower than every everybody around. >> Well, I see. No, I see that this is just a portion of the backyard. Now, I was looking at this like this was the the
limit here. Okay. Any other questions? >> Yeah, I just got a couple. So, the proposed patio, was that included in the original building plans? >> No. >> No.
>> Why not? >> Because it requires a variance. We wouldn't have been able to, right? >> Speak up. Can you speak up a little louder? >> We had something smaller. So, we were undert compliant though.
>> The house is comp. If you're denied tonight, >> what do you do? >> They can't sell a house without a patio. >> They can't have that patio. >> Yeah. Right. >> I'm a little troubled that this is kind of a backdoor way to get this.
>> And let me just >> Am I allowed to say that? >> Yeah. I'll just remind that is the process, right? You know, they come here for a variance. If it's granted, they can do it. If it's not granted, they can't. And they knew that presumably in generating the original plans. And
that's that's why we're here to weigh whether it makes sense or not. >> I just Yeah, I'm I'm I'm troubled by the whole process. I understand we're supposed to just focus on this, but it's it it just seems like we're we're we put the cart before the horse and we're now
we're being asked proposed to to approve something that um leaves if we don't approve it, it leaves people in a bad spot. If we do approve it, it becomes another one of those cases where we approve something after something's built.
And I'm just not comfortable with that. So, I'll leave it at that. >> Um, I have a question here. >> Just make sure you're speaking into the microphone if you can. >> We have uh what's currently existing,
it's just uh a level at uh 107 elevation. What's existing now is uh this area is the uh at elevation 107.95.
Correct me if I'm wrong. >> 116 is what I'm seeing on the plan. Note >> the existing grade is approximately 116 behind behind the house. So it is
>> 10 foot. So So this area here is uh I mean the dwelling this wall is a kind of basement from the other side. I mean there is some distance between this wall
>> and what's there in between currently? It's just >> there was a house there before and it's just >> it's flat. It's kind of flat and we're making now a patio at 117. So, we're
filling or uh what's what's going to happen between the 107 and 117. >> You got to step back a couple of steps on that. >> The house has a garage under. So you come up the driveway, you go under the
you go in the garage on the basement level. So you you then you go up approximately 10 ft to the finished floor of the house. We have a patio back there. We wanted to be
able to walk out from the house onto the patio. We don't we don't want to come out and go down a few steps and then go up more steps to put a steep slopes. We're coming out a foot and a half higher than the existing ground lot to match the
finished floor of the house. So, it all starts pretty much starts with the the elevation of the garage. >> It would be helpful if I had the architectural drawings. I don't >> Yeah, this is really limited to the rear patio, right? and the two retaining
walls to create that small area of flat space and it's it's limited to the request for steep slope disturbance over 15%. I can see between these two areas here 10.
This is the finish. >> Yes. >> Kind of a one story difference and it's a lot. >> Yeah. That that's they're working with the existing grade and and that's why you see that, right? That's why they
have the the driveway the cars go underneath, right? So they're working with the existing exactly the way it was right now and replace the house exactly where it was. So this is the the minimum >> to just make a
>> any excavation or field >> they have to regrade where that the that >> little line is right. >> Could you explain where the fill and excavation going to take place? >> Well, you get you're going to can clear this.
>> Mhm. I didn't get really the only fill we're we're putting in and it's it's a it's a minimal amount of fill is to so that we can walk out of the house onto the patio,
you know, at most 6 in step down to the padding. >> So that's the fill. And where is the excavation? >> There isn't any. >> There is >> no excavation. >> Not even for the stairs. >> Well, there'll be Yeah, there'll be a little bit of excavation for to get the
stairs up to the patio >> foundation >> and then some excavation to construct the wall. >> Do you know does this house has a larger footprint than the previous house that was there or you don't know? It it the other house had a pretty because it was one story so it kind of
was wide. >> Um this is little box here not a whole lot a whole lot in size different but it was two story. >> So the patio you I was out there today and I guess I I'm just picking up on what Mr. Malay was saying. So, it looks
like there's definitely a bit of fill that has to go under that patio to have the grade match uh where the doors are or a flight of stairs would have to come down more than one step. >> Yeah, there would be more than one step if you but it kind of defeats the purpose because if you come out with
steps from the house then you've got to have more steps going to get back. >> So, >> right. So, so it's a couple feet potentially that are being filled in the back to get that patio to >> Yeah, cuz it goes from one look like 115 to 117.
>> Yeah, looks like a couple. Yep. >> Any other questions from the board? All right. Not seeing any um questions from the audience. Seeing none. [Applause] >> Anything you want to say?
>> He is our last witness unless you would like to hear from the the applicant. >> Does the board want to hear from the applicant? >> I'm not seeing a ground swell for that. So, if there's anything you want to say, >> um that's it. This is really limited to
uh like I said the steep slope disturbance for about 5,100 um square ft to create that patio with the steps and the steps to the rear yard. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Ball.
>> So once again, we're only dealing with C variance for the steep slope. Four votes are required to approve the application. I do have three conditions noted. First, as our usual compliance with the conditions noted in the board engineers memorandum. Second is that revised storm water management plans shall be
submitted to the board engineer for for review and approval. And third, that the landscaping plan shall be submitted to the city forester for review and approval. >> Okay. Who would like to begin? >> I'll start. >> Oh, go ahead.
>> Oh. Um, >> current. >> Yeah. Yeah, I mean, being out there today, I I can't imagine how you would disturb less than I think what's being asked for and trying to access the flat space in the rear yard. Um, I think, you
know, improved drainage for the neighborhood, making this a usable lot for a family. Um, the outdoor space in the in the flat backyard. Um, I can I can support this. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, >> Mr. Nelson. Um, being out there today
and looking at the lot, um, it troubles me that, um, I know we're supposed to concentrate on the steep slope and the stairs and the patio. Um, that should, in my opinion, all of that should have been included in the original application for this property. Uh, it
may have resulted in a different design of the structure so that less steep slope would be uh, disturbed, different plans could have been looked at. Uh we're kind of stuck right now. I think this board is stuck because if you don't approve it, um the our our builder here
is stuck with a house that he has to go back to the drawing plans for the outside. In either case, he has to disturb um steep slope. Uh I'm not comfortable with the process of how this happens. Uh I think the process needs to
be more upfront with the building department and us. Um I I hate to say this, but I cannot support this project only because of the way things were handled. And I don't know if that's
>> okay. >> So, you you understand what I'm saying? >> Keep in mind your role, right? It's not to address the procedure of how the applications come before you. Your role is to weigh, you know, the positive and the negative criteria. see what the benefits being asserted by this
application are andor the hardship proposed by the lot. Uh and against that you have to weigh any detriments that are presented to the surrounding properties. So that that is your basis of how you're to consider and vote on
the application. The procedure itself behind it should not come into >> correct. Yeah, you're right. You brought me back into line. I'm still struggling with it. I'm going to hold my
opinion right now. It's fine. Who else? Um, well, I was out there today and I mean there's there's really no usable space behind this house without disturbing that steep slope.
And um I mean I I don't I don't see any negative impact to the neighbors. Um I I I I would I would approve this. >> Yes. I I'd like to note that a lot of
these steep slopes have already been disturbed. So um there's sort of no going back and undisturbing them. I mean even rebuilding them. Um, which doesn't necessarily mean that we should approve it. I'm not saying that. Um, it's more
to >> have been disturbed here. This isn't I'm sorry, not to interrupt you, but this is in their case, right, where they they've been stopped. >> Well, some are. And that I'm not saying it was stopped. I'm saying some of them have already been disturbed for the construction having walked through the backyard. Some of the area where the patio is, this is already, you know,
it's already disturbed. >> Um, >> but steep slope area. >> I think it was a steep slope area. This is, we're not seeing it anymore. this all of the backyard was steep slopes. So where the patio is going along the house that's you know it was
excavated probably part of construction but some of this area that we're seeing has already been excavated. Um that said um and so I to you know just saying that to Mr. Nelson's point I I don't also don't like the come in after. Um however
I will say that I agree with Mr. Chantuli that without putting, you know, without allowing for a patio here and allowing for these steps, this is a backyard that has zero function and probably zero safety for a family in terms of if you
have, you know, presumably children living in this house. Um, you you need to make that backyard a little bit accessible to them. So, with that, I I could approve this or support it, I should say. approve.
>> Chairman, may I >> please? >> After listening to other testimonies, it, you know, kind of brought me back to my senses, but again, it's it's um I don't want to dwell on it, but we we're kind of putting the cart before the horse. So, I can support this project now. Uh I just hope in the
future that uh people pay attention to what we're trying to say. Thank you, Mr. Nelson, for that. Um can we get a motion to approve? So moved. Can I second?
>> Second. >> Vice Chair. >> Yes. >> Mr. Yuko. >> Yes. >> Mr. Malay. >> Yes. >> Mr. Nelson. >> Yes. >> Mr. Curran. >> Yes. >> Mr. Fes. >> Yes. >> Chairman Lakets. >> Yes. Thank you.
>> Good evening. [Music] We do have a resolution for memorialization. Sorry. Uh 80 Elm Street zoning board application number ZB-25-2291. The eligible members to vote are vice chairs on Mr. Yuko, Mr. Nelson, Mr.
Curran, Mr. Chantuli, and Mr. Nearing. Could we get a motion? >> So moved. >> Indy second. >> Second. >> Vice Chair Zone. Yes, >> Mr. Yuko. >> Yes, >> Mr. Nelson. >> Yes, >> Mr. Curran. >> Yes,
>> Mr. Chantuli. >> Yes, >> Mr. Nearing. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> And there are no minutes tonight. >> Motion to adjourn. >> Um, we're meeting next Monday. >> Yes. >> We have a meeting next Monday.
>> Yes. >> When's that? Just a regular regularly meeting. >> November 10th is the second >> November meeting. >> Did we get a second? >> The 10th and >> Do we have a second to adjurnn?
>> Yes. Second. >> Yes. >> Is it in and one the week after? >> No. Next week and then we're off for Thanksgiving. >> An extended Thanksgiving break. >> Look, if you guys want to get together on Thanksgiving, make it happen.
>> I'll be in California. some turkey and >> some tur turkey and zoning >> all those in favor of journeying. >> I >> All right. Thank you.