Good evening and welcome to the December 17th, 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 it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you. >> In accordance with New Jersey statute 10 col4-10, adequate notice of this special meeting
has been provided to a newspaper record 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. The quorum appropriate to a judicial hearing must be maintained at
all times. For the benefit of the interested public, this meeting is being livereamed on the city's YouTube page and also broadcast on Summit's government channels which are Comcast 34 and Verizon channel 30. Transcript of this meeting is being taken using video
and audio. So, we need all speakers to utilize one of the microphones in this room. Please note the fire exits are to my right, your left, and at the back of the room where you entered. The city has a listening system to assist the hearing impaired. If anyone needs hearing assistance, please obtain the system at
the deis and return it thereafter. Miss Sans, can you please call the role of the members? >> Vice Chair Zon here. Mr. Yuko >> here. >> Mr. Malay is excused. Mr. Nelson >> here. >> Mr. Curran is excused. Miss Chief >> here. Mr. Feskins is excused. Mr.
Chantuli >> here. >> Mr. Nearing >> here. >> Chairman Loy >> here. >> You have a quorum. You may proceed. >> Thank you, Jessica. >> Annie 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 our city employee is the 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 Maria Rafé from Collier's Engineering. Also present is Ed Snigis from Burgess 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
did not vote. Our board consists of seven regular members and up to four alternates. All members can participate in the hearings tonight, but only a maximum of seven can vote. Most applications require a simple majority to be approved before we enter into executive session to vote. You'll be
advised as to how many votes are required and what conditions are attached to the approval. Each case will begin with the applicants or their attorney giving an overview of the application process to date, the variances that are required. We then hear from any additional expert
witnesses the applicant may have to help explain the application and why these variances are needed. The board experts then followed by the board themselves may ask questions to the applicant, their attorney, and their expert witnesses. Due to recent cases running excessively long, we strongly encourage
applicants and their experts to give brief and concise testimony so we may get to as many cases as possible in a given evening. Once the board members and the board professionals have completed their questioning, the public will have an opportunity to ask questions. It's not the time to tell us what you think about this case. That
opportunity comes at the end of the hearing. Please be careful as how you phrase your questions. They should not be proceeded with a statement about the case. Should be a direct question to the witness. Also, before you ask your questions, please clearly state your name and spell your last name. Please
provide your address. It's important that a court reporter be able to keep a clear and accurate public record. After all the witnesses have been heard, members of the audience have their second opportunity to speak and and at that time you may express your opinion positive or negative about the
application. Then the public hearing is closed and we enter into executive session. This is where the board members discuss the case and then vote. You will be able to listen in on our executive session, but you will not normally be able to participate in our discussion. I'm now going to ask each applicant
andor their attorney at present come up and give us just a brief synopsis their anticipated testimony including how many witnesses they're going to have and whether or not they can finish their presentation within 30 minutes and if it's over 30 minutes a good guesstimate of how long it might take. Thank you,
Miss Chief, for that suggestion. Uh tonight we will begin with 71 Hillrest Avenue. If you could please give us a summary. James Weber of Alfonso and Weber. I We have four witnesses. I think around 45 minutes.
>> Thank you, Mr. Weber. Appreciate it. >> 19 Ridge Road. >> Good evening. Uh Samantha Alonso and we are asking for an adjournment to allow time to speak with the neighbor um about some questions that they had. Uh while
the applicant was eager to proceed tonight, um it's more important for them to continue to have a good relationship with their neighbors. >> Okay. And if we could carry that, when will we carry it to? >> February 2nd, 2026.
>> Can I get a motion to carry this application to February 2nd? >> So moved >> without notice, I imagine. >> Without notice, please. >> Thank you, Sam. >> Thank you. >> Can I get a second? >> Second. Jessica, can you call the role, please? >> Vice Chair Zan, >> yes. >> Mr. Yuko,
>> yes. >> Mr. Nelson, >> yes. >> Miss Chief, >> yes. >> Mr. Chantuli, >> yes. >> Mr. Nearing, >> yes. >> Chairman Ly, >> yes. Thank you. We'll see you February 2nd. All right. Can I have a representative for 32 Lennox, please?
>> Hi, I'm Zach Goldstein, the architect. Um, so for 32 Lennox, there's going to be uh a total of three professional witnesses and the homeowner uh is going to also uh speak. >> How long do you think you'll take? >> I think in total maybe 20 minutes. >> Okay, great. >> Through it. >> Thank you.
>> Not that we have a timer or anything. >> Take you at your word. All right. Um, next up, 19 Oxbow Lane is uh we have a defective notice on that, right, Miss Sans? So that will be carried to
>> they've been rescheduled for February 2nd, 2026 as well. >> Mr. Ball, do we have to vote on that or just >> No, no, they will have to renotice and then it would be on the agenda for that uh once they do provide the valid notice. >> Perfect. Thank you for that. And finally, a representative for 45
Prospect Hill, >> James Weber, Mr. chairman, members of the board, uh 45 prospect uh had been penciled in here in the hopes that there had been clearance. However, we also have neighbors uh one one set of
neighbors who I had promised at the last hearing that if we were not going to be proceeding this night, I would let them know. And I waited until Monday and I said, "Yeah, it's we're not going to go uh until we found out today that uh the
uh 19 ridge uh is not going." So the opportunity came and best laid plans of mice and men. So we would ask that this be carried and I think we had reserved February 2nd as well. >> Yep. >> And I would ask that this be done without further notice.
>> Great. Thank you, Mr. Weber. Can I get a motion to carry this case? >> I have a question. So, how's the neighbors going to be notified? >> I told I called them. I have the cell number. >> You gave them the date, the date, the new date. >> Yeah. And I told they were here at the first hearing and I said, "We're going to try and do it tonight, but if we
don't, it'll be February 2nd." >> Okay. >> And they just wanted to know if you're not going tonight, let us know. So, >> perfect. >> I left them a message. Can >> Can I ask you another question? >> Sure. um when you come back for this hearing um
uh the the engineer that wrote that um report for the um structural is he is he going to be here to testify? >> We can have him here. Yes. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Great. >> Thank you, Mr. Nering. Appreciate um Mr.
Ch. Sorry. Sorry. I got >> wedged up. Um okay. Can I get a motion to carry this to February 2nd? >> Make a motion. Second >> just vice chair on >> Yes. >> Mr. Yuko. >> Yes. >> Mr. Nelson. >> Yes.
>> Miss Chief. >> Yes. >> Mr. Chantuli. >> Yes. >> Mr. Nearing. >> Yes. >> Chairman Ly. >> Yes. All right. >> Thank you. >> All right. Mr. Weber, you're up for 71 Hillrest. Good job. Thanks.
>> Then uh Mr. Clark, could you put your uh site plan up? James Weber of Alpontto and Weber on behalf of the applicant 71 Hillrest LLC which is the LLC that is the LLC of Tyler and Lindsay Rhoden and
their presence here with their family as well. The application is to construct a new home for the uh elder uh rodents next to the uh Tyler and Lindsay's home at 77
Hill Crest. The home is at a corner lot. It's in the R25 zone district. Has 15,700 square ft. So, it's sizably under size for the R25 zone. Also has a corner lot. the board's aware you have two front
yards, two side yards, no rear yard. As a result, the uh uh size and the shape of the lot has uh proven to uh present some challenges in terms of providing a
design that meets the requirements of the city DRRO. In the review of the staff comments, there was a request for a lot coverage variance. What is being proposed at this point is
to remove the connecting walkway that exists from the front door to the driveway, which provides a reduction in the lot coverage of approximately, if I recall correctly,
260 square ft. Likewise, at the suggestion of Jared Kest, the landscape architect on behalf of the Rotens, he's suggesting that permeable pavers be installed
uh on the driveway that exits onto Belleview. The installation of those permeable pavers will reduce the lot coverage as long as
two conditions are met. One, the specifications have to be by manufacturer and they have to be be provided to the city engineers office. Two, the construction of those permeable pavers have to be consistent with the
manufacturer specifications. So you have a two-step process. As long as that is met, then from the city engineers point of view and from our review of the ordinance, this then constitutes a permeable surface. But
it's not the entire surface. It's the gaps in between the stones. So as a result, based on Jar uh Mr. Kess's calculations, we're reducing the lot coverage another 142 square ft. That
leaves an overage of 16. And uh the architect, Ms. Tone, has assured us that there can be a trimming of the sidewalks and other pavement in order to uh stay compliant with lot coverage. So the lot
coverage variance is going to be eliminated. With regard to the building coverage, the building coverage is over by 517 square ft. The front porch is 400 uh or
yeah is 454 square ft and the rear porch is se is 266 which leaves 760 square ft devoted to porches. So, in terms of the uh openness
with the porches, uh the front porch is an architectural amenity that's designed for the quality of the appearance of the home and it's a benefit to the uh people, the passers by looking at the property and it's one that makes the property consistent with the north side.
The rear porch is really to provide some cover uh on that little patio uh so that the uh use is available uh in inclement weather. When you're looking and when Mr. Clark talks about the steep slopes, there's not a lot of yard space
here. Probably the largest yard is at the corner and that's all steep slopes and that's in the front yard. So, they were trying to provide that uh outdoor space and that enjoyable outdoor space. The other variances are the front entry
garage. The lot is 100 ft deep as you're looking at it uh from Hillrest along Belleview and you're allowed to have a front entry garage if you have 90 feet of linear feet. This is 100. And as a
result, uh you're going to trip the uh uh prohibition against the front entry garage, but there's no place to put the garage other than where it's uh proposed, which is consistent with the existing setup where the access is off Belleview.
Uh oh. The front entry uh or the front yard setback on Hillrest when you look at that uh it's by the average and the average you uh exclude those other lots
on Hillrest that have twice the 35 ft required. So the houses to the left on Hillrest exceed the 70 ft and as a result you don't include them. Uh the only lots that have been included are
across the street on Hillrest and those two are likewise set back uh very far. So you have a requirement of around 59 feet on the average, but the average because you're excluding so many properties is only based on two lots.
And as a result, it's not particularly guiding as to where this property would actually work relative to the setbacks of the homes. As for Belleview, uh, which has a more defined setback,
uh, along Belleview, you have a setback requirement of around 42. They're providing here, if I'm not mistaken, a setback of
53, if I'm correct, 52. So, you have a setback here on Belleview of 52. and five. I believe that covers the variances associated with the application. Unless the board has any questions of
me, I'll call the rotent to the stand to be sworn in to give testimony in this matter. >> Board experts, any questions for Mr. Weber? >> Not at this time. >> Not at this time. >> Board, any questions? >> Just to be clear, you're you're removing a lot of track. >> Lots of coverage is out. Okay, great.
>> Yes. Let's meet your clients. Um well I I do have one question. Are we is there going to be a revised plan that shows us um where the lot coverage has been removed? There was some discussion of it, but you're still 16 ft over and you said you were going to sort of find
the 16 ft somewhere square feet. So um is that is there going to be a plan or you know I think that has to be on the record what where this is coming from. >> Very good. Uh, vice chair. Uh, we'll have a Andrew Clark testify and he will identify the removal of that connecting
walkway. We have Jared uh who will then talk about the driveway. So, we will confirm those two. And then we have Kim Tone uh available to testify and she will talk about where the sidewalks can be reduced in width sufficient to an amount that will provide that additional
16 ft. >> Thank you. Um, I have a question too. Um, it when you mentioned the the front facing garage, it's noted that the existing building has a twocar garage that faces Belleview. I mean, there is no exist the building's gone.
>> The building's gone, correct? >> Okay. So, when we refer to things like I mean, you're talking about the sidewalk. So, you're saying the sidewalk is still there. I mean, I went when it was snowing there. So, the sidewalk is still everything is still there. The building's gone, but the sidewalk, the driveway are still in place.
I will have to rely on the rodents in order to provide that information. >> Thank you. >> Hi. Uh, good evening. My name is Lindsay Roten. >> Uh, John Tyler Roden. >> All right. I'll swear you both in. If you could each raise your right hand. Do you swear from the testimony you're about to give in this matter? Is the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the
truth? >> Yes. >> And just one at a time, please state your names again and spell your last name. >> Uh, Lindsay Roten, spelled R H O T N. >> John Tyler Roten, but I go by Tyler. Uh, R H O T E N. >> Okay. >> Thank you.
>> Welcome. >> Thank you. Thanks for having us. >> Um, and regarding the There is no sidewalk on either either the Belleview side or the Hill Crest side of this lot. >> The walkway The walkway is still there. >> The to the front of the house, right? >> Yes. >> To the front of the house.
>> There. There actually was not a walkway to the front of the house. It was >> stepping stones. >> The stepping stones. >> No, the stepping stones are have been the house is gone. >> I saw it when the snow was there. side. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, there used to be there was never a sidewalk. There was a driveway and then there were stepping stones. I wouldn't really call it. It
was kind of a zigzag. >> Sir, can you speak into the microphone just to make sure the public can there was um stepping stones kind of zigzagging up to the front of the house. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> All right. Uh you own the property at 71
Hillrest through your LLC? >> Yes. So, we purchased the property from um the previous owners in 2023, >> the Donahoos, >> the Donahoos to Jim and Carol. Um and they lived at and then we rented the
home back to them while they decided where they were they were moving closer to family. Um so they moved closer to their son and daughter-in-law and their granddaughter. Um and so we rented back to them for a year until April of 2024. Um,
>> you own or you live at 77 Billrest, correct? Adjacent to this? >> Yes. And that's owned by 77 Billrest LLC. >> No. Uh, trust. >> Trust. >> Yes. >> And why did you buy the property? >> We bought the property. Um, honest well
because it was our our neighbors honest. It was their lot was adjacent to ours. And um when we talked to mostly we talked to their daughter-in-law and son um they >> Yeah, I understand you bought it, but
why why would you buy the property next to you? Was it for your parents or for Tyler's parents? >> I think sorry this is making it hard for me to speak. Ultimately, I mean they came over one Sunday and the daughter-in-law talked to us about this
potential purchase and we didn't have any intentions in the beginning. We then thought it could potentially be a place someday for our parents. We had no intentions of knocking the house down. That came later when we found out the information we'll share with you guys. Um, but it was kind of my brother lives
in town on Shady Side. My sister lives in Cranford. We thought it could be a pretty cool place for them to be and we're dealing with a lot of stuff with my grandmother right now. And we were like pretty cool to have three families around my parents. >> And are your parents here now? Did they
just put their hands up? >> Yes. >> And uh you had indicated that your intention was to try and use the existing pre-existing house that's no longer there. >> That was our intent. That was our >> um we we started looking around and
found a lot of stuff. I mean, we have a a guy who does work for us um at our house who went downstairs the first time he went and checked the house and it was so bad in the foundation that his eyes were burning. I think yours as well, which she can testify to. Um, then we had it tested and we found out there was
mold. Um, there was asbestous in the walls and my parents who were very successful. Um, and own two homes. I just want to say that because it sounds like we're putting them up. We're not were downsizing their house in Ridgewood and we were like, "Hey, when you're not using your house upstate or your house
at the beach, this might be a good place for you to be." Um, >> close to family. >> Close to family. So, that's Sorry, I left that part out, but it Um, it's an important part. Um, and we started talking about what to do and we weren't going to put two people, you know, older
people in a house that has asbestous and mold and water issues. And >> there were quite a few um, floods, not only through the ceiling, but the foundation and the garage um, that we were dealing with. I think it's towards the bottom of the hill. And as
we knew going into it that there were going to be water issues. Um, we didn't know how much mold there would be. Um, we had it tested and by multiple different companies and they all came back and said that it was they they said it was unhealthy and
the remediation would have been much more than a renovation >> to make it a healthy place for parents. >> I kind of I'd kind of add too people that live there. We actually thought they were going to stay longer. We thought they were going to rent longer than they did. she had um
dementia and um I don't think that he had was a a person who was in charge of a lot of the things. I think she was and when that started to get worse faster, the house really was I saw 10 of 12 neighbors or eight of
10 neighbors I brought our plans around to talk to and I didn't run into one person who said, you know, the house had been worn down. Nobody had done any work there for many years. Do whatever you want to do. There's some things we'll talk about that people asked for, but they were I'd never say anybody's
pleased to see a house get torn down, especially not us or or trees, but they were definitely excited about the prospect of a house being put up in the neighborhood that it conforms with their homes and what they're doing. >> And that leads to the next question. Did you have a chance to talk to your
neighbors and what was their opinion? >> I did the one that's definitely in Florida because their house is hasn't it's one light that I've gone by for three weeks. and another who uh we've seen but doesn't want to answer the door it appears. Um but everybody else we
spoke to and they were all on board. We had one neighbor who uh the neighbor on I forget the >> on the hill on the Bel side who we know um had asked us if we could make more of
a natural um transfer between their property and ours. We were going to put up a line of uh trees or giant giant I forget what they're called. Giant. >> Yeah. >> And we said to them, "Absolutely." And we actually said to them, "Listen, this lot is tricky. We we can't move the
house more. Would you be open to giving us some of your space because she has space, a lot of space?" And she's like, "Absolutely. If you guys are willing to put the planting in, we're willing to give you guys space on our side to make it feel more open." Looking at the diagram that's uh on the
screen now, LP1, which is the landscape plan. Would that be the neighbor to the top of the sheet? >> Yes, sir. >> So, the address the left is our question. >> What was the address of that? The property we're talking about today? >> 77 Hillrest. I'm sorry. 77 Belleview.
And then the neighbor who faces our driveway asked us um is the driveway going to move, which it's not because they were worried about backing up. And they asked us if in the the right corner we could make sure that before we did
our um landscaping that we just talked to them about maybe trying to be able to add more so it wasn't just cars in their face. And we said yes. And so when you're talking about again referring to LP1, that would be the top right corner. >> Yes.
>> And I'm not sure how to phrase a condition where there's going to be cooperation uh among the neighbors, the one that is at 77 Belleview and the one that is across the street at Belleview. In terms of the landscaping,
>> I think we would ordinarily go with something along the lines of the applicants will coordinate with the neighboring property owners regarding the landscaping plan and additional plantings in those areas. >> Is that acceptable to you? >> Yeah. Great. >> And and I think the forcer's comment was addressing 77 Belleview. That's why I
wanted to confirm the address. So he may want to have him review that. >> Is it 71? >> The house is at 71 Belleview the that we're talking about 77. Right. >> Well, >> so we're 77 Hillrest Hillrest.
>> Confusing because they're all the same numbers there. >> I think this is it. >> So, I'm sorry. It's 71 Belleview. But on >> I'm sorry. 71 Hillrest is the lot that we are discussing tonight. >> Yeah. >> 77 Hillrest is our where we live and 77
Belleview. Same number just different streets are both lots on either side of >> the side yards. >> That's 77. >> Yeah. >> So the forest was addressing 77 Belleview just to be clear. Yeah,
>> that makes sense. >> So 77 Belleview is where you proposing the landscape. >> Correct. >> Thank you. And then it would be according to the tax map, the other property would be 60
seven Hillrest, which would be lot eight. >> Yes. >> Where are you at? I'm sorry. >> Yes. This is >> So that's a lot with the driveway. >> Yep. >> And that's the neighbor. >> Yep. Yes, sir. >> You just check those. Just make a check
mark. That >> does this one. >> And you said that was 67 Hillrest. >> Great. >> And that would be >> 67. >> Okay. >> And that would be lot 9
block 2006 A. We did make a mark on it. A1. >> Yes. Please. May I just to clarify what the lots are we're talking about. Does anyone need to see this? >> I think we have it over here.
>> Okay. >> Did you have a chance to review the staff comments professionals? >> Yes. And would you be willing to agree to those conditions subject to the opinions and advice of your experts? >> Yes.
>> I have nothing further, Mr. Chairman. >> Great. Thank you. Um, court experts, any questions for this witness or you want to wait for the professional? >> I'm going to wait for the professionals. >> Just one quick question. It looks like you have a sidewalk that's connecting to your property. Is that correct? >> Correct.
>> And you're looking for that because of the interconnection between the families. Thank you. >> Correct. Any questions from the board for these witnesses? >> I have one. >> Sure. >> It's the $64,000 question. Why not? Why not just build a house that fits within
the zoning and no variance is required? It sounds like it might and I'm going to be a little above board here. Sounds like there's a third residency. So, is it going to be primary? Not our business. Doesn't matter. But why not just build it so that it meets the zoning for the neighborhood? the if I
can we're going to have Kim Tone uh come and testify because at this point we're over with regard to the building coverage >> the front entry garage we can't do anything about >> correct >> uh with regard to the setbacks and this will be Andrew Clark the setbacks to
conform with Hillrest put you at around 60 ft off Hillrest so then you have the sideyard of 17 you're 77 ft and you're at this point creating this tiny little
uh building area within the zone really. >> So the front yard and that's why the building area that again is the aesthetics and that's why we need Kim Tone to talk about that front porch. >> Okay. >> Great. Thank you,
>> Mr. Weber. Next witness. >> I would ask that Kim Tone be called to the stand to be sworn in to give testimony of this matter. I have a question about your response um to Mr. Nelson. >> So the the the property the house that was there before
that size fit in with the neighborhood. Correct. >> Oh, I believe that the house that was there was in violation. So it's a Remember this lot is 15,700. So you're talking about and a corner lot
requires the 25 plus five. you have an existing lot here. So, when you're talking about that size of a of a property in the R25 zone district, you're just going to bump into all of the various
>> the current the house that was on the property before. How many how many non-conforming aspects of it? How many how many non-conforming variances would have there have been on the house? >> I didn't do a study of that.
>> Okay. Are we talking about as many like four or we have up to four or five now? Was it that many or was there more just >> without uh having the topo survey in front of me or that study it wouldn't be possible for me to answer but uh I
believe that Andrew Clark uh is already preparing to answer that to the extent you can >> I thank you. >> Great. Miss Tone, you're up.
>> Do you want to uh testify at the board orify wherever it is? >> Whatever you're comfortable with. >> Grab the handheld. >> Grab it. >> You'll just have to turn it on.
>> Can you hear me? >> Yep. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Good. >> All right. If you could please raise your right hand. Do you swear from the testimony you're about to give in this matter? Is the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> And please state your name, spell your last name. >> Kimberly Tone. T O N E. >> Thank you. And I know you've appeared
before us a number of times, including relatively recently. Any changes to your credentials since the last time you were here? >> No changes. >> I imagine the board would like to accept you back once again. >> Absolutely. Welcome back. Let's proceed. >> Okay. Um, so um, >> a little background. You're familiar
with the application that's before the board? >> I am familiar with the application. >> And how did you achieve that familiarity? >> Um the Rotens hired me for this is um the second project I would will be working with them on. They hired me for a house their beach house in Manaloking
and then they um when they bought this they approached me to help them. Our original intent was to renovate the existing house and then because the house was unhealthy we wound up here for different reasons. And uh you're familiar with the development regulations ordinance of the city of
Summit and the city of Summit? >> Yes. >> And how long have you have you been working in the city of Summit? >> That's a scary question. 1993. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> Would you be so kind as to describe what's proposed?
>> Okay. So, we've we've this is a front elevation rendered a little bit with color just to give you some um it helps to add a little color. so that it adds depth. Um, but we've designed a house that's about 3,800 ft². It's a three-bedroom house on the second floor,
three bathrooms. Um, it's a modest size house for the north side of Summit, primarily due to the size of the property. Um, the footprint of the livable area of the house is about just under 2,000 square ft, uh, 1995 to be exact. And we're adding a front porch on
the front of the house primarily as an architectural feature to enhance the body of the house because it's a very narrow structure given the setbacks and and the topography and conditions of the site which I can talk about a little further. But um the first floor of the
house has a kitchen, a living room, dining area. There aren't redundant spaces like there are in a lot of North Side Summit homes. Whereas we don't have a family room and a living room, we don't have a dining room and a breakfast room. We have simple spaces to be able to make the house comfortable for you
the Roten's parents to live in or anybody in the future. So it's um as I said modest. There is a space on the first floor for an elevator. Um well all floors I guess. Um, and we have also a study on the first floor that will be
used possibly as a future bedroom, fourth bedroom so that um, it's a flexible space so that they can use it as an office or that we can actually if somebody needs more care or they need help at some point, there's the opportunity to have that space become another bedroom or
whatever they want to use it for. the garage is. We looked at several options for trying to avoid the um the garage variance for the garage doors facing the street and wound up that we looked at detached structures for for doing that.
It just sort of killed the it took away 576 feet of living area. So, it was not the best option. The best option is really to put it in the basement where it doesn't count in floor area ratio, doesn't count in building coverage. You can build over it. So, we
took advantage of the topography of the lot like the previous house did and as well as this property, the property 77 Belleview and the two properties across the street on Bellev also have frontfacing garages. So, it's consistent
with the neighborhood that >> fair. You heard me uh indicate that the uh front porch is a certain size um and that contributes to the building coverage and so does the rear porch. Can you talk about that rear porch a little
bit and why that's not just simply a a patio? >> Yes. Um the rear porch we have in order to get the program that we needed on the second floor to get a closet for the for the bedroom. The rear porch has part of the space of it covered. About six feet
beyond the back wall here, there's second floor space for a laundry room and a closet for the primary bedroom. So rather than um just enclose that as an entry or additional space on the first floor and then try to add a separate
patio in the small area of rear yard that we have left here. We tried to incorporate the two and make it a little bit more efficient by covering it and making it a little safer for in inclement weather. So, it's a usable space. Given that the house is not necessarily overly large, we felt that
that outdoor space would be helpful and combined with patio, not necessarily um contribute to a larger patio and a larger lot coverage variance, which we were already up against. >> So, in effect, you were making the most efficient use. You're using the patio as
also the entrance way and the uh within the coverage on the second floor as well. >> Correct. >> With regard uh to the uh what was the other issue? Uh oh, with regard to area the outdoor
exterior areas. Uh I had mentioned that the front corner is steep slopes and doesn't really hold itself well to uh outdoor space. And so what you're also using with regard to the patio, you have a
small area in the back that's also uh lawn area. >> There's a small lawn area here next to the the covered patio. It's not it's not very large given um you know the positioning of the house on the property. I mean, we were forced the
garage location forced sort of the driveway location conforming to the average front yard set back to Belleview and we even pushed it back a little bit further and we're able to to get this this turnaround area for a little bit of safety so that if you can back into it and and pull out onto the street that's
a little safer. Um if if there is at some point where there's help needed, being able to park a car here and have it screened from the neighbors across the street is also an additional um amenity that we think was helpful. We do have this connecting walkway back here,
which is what we would take that 16 square feet out of by making it narrow narrower. >> Well, the uh vice chair wanted a specific response to achieve that 16. So you have to provide that if you don't mind.
>> So, >> how wide is it now? >> It's four feet wide now from the corner to here. Um I think if we took out 3 in that's probably um 24 ft. >> All right. And so when should we mark an
exhibit? Would that help? >> We just had a an updated >> Yeah. What is the length of the walkway there? That's right. I I think it's 48 ft from here to to here. >> So when you're saying from here, you're saying from 77 Hillrest to the left hand
side of what's marked as V1 >> parallel to Hillrest, it is 48 ft. >> So that would be 12. Then that would be getting rid of 12 square feet there. If you did three, you said reducing it three inches.
>> Oh, it was I think that was six. Hold on. Let me get a scale. >> I think four. Yeah, four inches would probably >> four inches would work. >> I don't know. I'm just >> Yeah, three inches is 144 square inch. So, >> three three inches. >> I may be confusing it because I looked at 8 feet is Yeah,
>> I looked at it right >> 3 in is 0.25, right? >> So, 0.25* 48 is 12. Yeah, >> I think it's actually double that because when I did the calculation at home before we came, I was assuming we were um taking out six inches and that
was 48 ft. So I was thinking three was 24. So yes, it's closer to 98 ft. >> 98. >> The walkway is 98. >> 98. >> So taking out 3 in would give us 24.5,
>> right? So, in addition this >> just wait >> if you don't mind. I didn't mean to interrupt. They're reducing. >> Well, your your team's going to provide us updated plans and revised calculations.
>> Say what? Yes. >> I have nothing further, Mr. Chair. >> Board experts, what questions do you have for this witness? Um, >> no, I think I'll just wait for the engineer. >> Great. Thank you. >> Um, you needed the overall building
coverage as well. Um, I think what was described in the opening testimony was that opening presentation was uh the front porch is representing a certain square footage. Um, identified as
bear with me, I apologize. uh 760 square feet. I think that's with the back porch and the front porch. >> 720 when combined the front and the rear. Is that correct, Ms. Tone? >> The actual footprint of the porches. Yes. >> Okay. And that those two elements are
both just one story. Correct. >> They're one they're they're onestory porches. There are there is a section at the back porch that over that will be built over part of it. So the second floor extends over part of that porch about 105 square feet. >> Okay.
>> And there is two sections these two gable ends here project out a foot >> over part of the porch. Um which is I think 34 square feet.
>> But that 720 does not include those overhangs or it does >> the 720 does >> it does include. So we need to factor out >> 581 is the is the calculation without >> okay >> and 517 is the building coverage variance
>> okay 50 um what is it about the design of this that requires you to be over the building coverage it's not just the porches is it something with inside the building uh from a design perspective my purpose for asking that question is really the board
as you could hear uh from earlier questions is charged with looking at why we're deviating. What is it about the architecture that necessitates that coverage? >> I I think that it's um an aesthetic uh reason. I mean, we've the house is
modestly sized. We're not we're not building a huge house here by any standard for for the north side of Summit. We understand that the property is undersized. It's undersized even more if you consider the fact that it's a corner lot. Corner lots are usually bigger. In this case, we're we're
smaller than the the the typical lot in the R25 zone and even exacerbated further by the fact that it's a corner lot. So, we we are I'm thinking that presents some issues. The average front yard setback issue, the
garage door facing the street, the um trying to conform to the Belleview at um average front yard setback all creates a very narrow house. the steep the locations of the steep slope on the property which we're trying to
avoid and minimize disturbance to um at this corner here. I don't know if you can see up here and the steep slope continues around the front here which Andrew will testify to all of that but the positioning of the house here and it created a linear house to get the
program that we felt we needed and to get the spaces open to each other to have what's a modern amenity for for typical house on the north side of house of summit. This is as I said it's not the typical program. It's a It's a smaller house than what the typical
program is on most North Side homes, at least the ones that we design. Um, and the front porch gives some architectural character to the building that I think is necessary for it to otherwise otherwise it feels very boxy. When you
when you design homes that have no one-story features on them, they just appear very flat and sort of, in my opinion, unattractive. So, we're trying to add the character to the house by putting that porch on the front.
>> And is there other details as far as the architecture that reflect the style or at least the character of the neighborhood? >> I I think that the massing of the house reflects the style and character of the neighborhood. The details are traditional and colonial
and yes that's very common for the area. >> That's a good point Mrs. Snickers. Perhaps we can go into materials. >> Yeah, that was one offering I was going to go through. Go ahead. >> So um the the the windows will be a good
quality um window probably Marvin um as u we haven't really discussed that at this point. We're like, are we building a house first? Um, the exterior wall material will be shingled. The roofing is at this point
an asphalt roof, but there have been discussions of as to whether or not that gets upgraded to wood at some point in the future. Really depends on on the cost of the overall structure and what they want to invest. But at this point, I would say asphalt for the shingles um
all traditional details. So, we will have um traditional wood style columns. They'll probably be made of Azac painted to look like wood so that they last a little bit longer. >> What's ASK? >> Azak is a um PVC trim product that we use because it doesn't decay,
but it replicates the detail. >> And then what's the siding? >> Siding is cedar shingles. >> So, when you say cedar shingle, you're talking about natural wood cedar shingles. And you understand, and I'm now asking the applicant, you understand
that what the what your architect is uh alluding to and testifying to is going to be a condition and you're going to be siding this house with neckl shingles. >> Yes. >> And also on the foundation,
>> we've put a a thin stone veneer on the foundation to replicate a stone foundation. Um, and that continues on the chimney as well or the chimneys, the one at the rear and the one at the side. >> Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Ed. Board members, what
questions do you have for this witness? >> So, if I were to understand you correctly, the variance for the building coverage is because of the porches. >> Yes. So, if we were to make the house a little bit smaller, I >> I mean, we can certainly make a house smaller, but I think at some point this
house is is not viable much smaller. It's I mean, it's a 1995 foot >> which which a smaller house would fit better on a lot. Would not over would it would it is the current house over massing a lot? >> No.
>> Where a smaller house may not. >> I I don't agree with that. Um I I think that you know there are plenty of areas with this size property in Summit that have this size house on it. >> Um >> give me an example. >> Sorry. >> Do you have an example?
>> Anything in the R15 zone? >> Okay. I'm just I'm just troubled by the I understand the front yard setback, the sideyard setback, all that kind of stuff, but you're blaming the overage on a porch front and back. >> I'm not that I mean, not blaming, you're you're you're requesting the variance
because of the porch, >> right? >> If the house were a little bit smaller, I mean, maybe a foot less wide, foot less long, you're going to because now we're nitpicking about 3 in on a sidewalk. >> Well, you're talking about 500 and something square feet. You're talking
about 517 square feet. So it's essentially the size of a garage. You'd be taking away a significant portion of the house. Like that much >> with a foot. >> With a foot. >> Yeah. >> To to get within compliance, right, Don? >> Oh, yeah. Well, but then that would make
that would also make the porch smaller. >> So, you know, we might not be where we're at. We might be closer to where we need to be >> as opposed to where we're at. Follow me. I >> I understand what you're saying. I think that this is what this is what we felt
met the needs of of their parents >> and the needs of most modern um homes that would be built here. >> Would it be fair to say that sometimes, you know, the conditions of the lot um
can't always meet your what you want? >> That's Yes. Yes. But that's why we're here. >> I know that's my point. So >> So all right. Thank you. Thanks, Don. >> I have a question. Good. >> Um, for the front porch, um, what is the purpose of the front porch? I mean, is
it is there going to be how much seating is going to be on there? Is it going to be used for seating? I mean, >> it's it's it's an there will be space. It's an 8ft deep porch. Um, and it will be you will be able to have like a rocking chair type porch on that. It's
not much more than that. Um, it will provide safety and cover at the front entry and there'll probably be like a small a few chairs on either side, but it's not really a huge occupiable space. I mean, you can sit in out there in a rainstorm and watch the
the >> like a half of the porch. What would that I mean, what would that what would that do for your >> I I don't think it actually does. I think what the reason that we wanted to do the porch across the entire thing is it actually unifies that whole that
whole front piece and and gives a balance to this section of the house that is this section of the house up here is only 20 ft deep. So when you and it's going to appear very long and flat. So this adds dimension that I think
changes drastically changes the appearance of the outside of the house. But I mean, doesn't the front porch also limit the amount of natural sunlight that's going to be going through those those first four windows? So, in a smaller house, I would think you'd want it's the north side of the house and you're not getting much light on that.
Anyway, >> yeah. Question I think for Mr. Weber and maybe indirectly for Mr. Clark. You said he'd be able to testify, Mr. Clark to some extent about what was there before and and would he would he would he able to go in detail about what the building coverage was of the house that was there before? I realize we don't have to take
that into account, but I'd be curious if he can. >> Well, we do have it on the We have >> It's on the >> Oh, I missed it. It's on the It's on the lot grading plan and probably drawing. >> Yeah. >> So, the building coverage was 21.98 before and now
>> 2198 is the allowable, >> right? That was allowable, right? So it was 2159 and it's going uh being requested 2715. So I I have a question kind of following up um with uh what Mr. Nelson and Miss
Chief were saying about you know the front porch. I think that there are things that are sort of nice to have but there are other ways around it. um uh you know having built a house in an area out of town where they have very strict you know rules about having a lot of
interest. Ways ways around that are you know you have those two um the left and the right with the one foot overhang. You could make the whole piece one foot out and take the porch out. Now you have some dimension to your house or you could change the um materials to give it
interest. It doesn't have to only be a porch. Mhm. >> Um, so I'm just, you know, would you consider making that porch smaller to get this to be closer to conforming because it does seem like a lot when you when you say that, you know, it's the size of a garage. It's almost the size
of a twocar garage. That's a lot of space. It's a big overage >> um for something that it seems more of a nice to have than a necessity. And I'm not sure that there aren't other solutions that would >> um get the same benefit. Additionally,
regarding the sizing, um, have you studied the houses on the rest of Hillrest there between Belleview and, uh, Woodland? Because I think there are a lot of houses there that are more modest in size. They're not all I think
I think describing the street as like you know the typical north side home is giving the suggestion that it has to be bigger but it doesn't have to be to conform with the street and would you agree with that given the other houses on
>> I mean I think that there are other other properties that have ability to to add in different areas I mean we're dealing with really sort of a narrow building envelope and and other challenges with the lot and that's essentially why we felt that this was
sort of our best solution. >> If I can, Mr. Chairman, >> you think we could have a recess so I can speak with uh the applicants and Miss Tone? >> Certainly. Uh if Miss Tong can answer one question for us.
>> Did the house that was um torn down, did it have a a front-facing porch? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Please. >> Five minutes. >> Five minutes is great. the board. Uh we're in the midst of
trying to adjust the uh building coverage and what we're dealing with is because the first floor is at a certain level, we're trying to have it level. We're running into that one foot issue. So even when we're taking away the roof areas, >> the patios are now being counted in
building coverage. And so we're bumping into trying to manage the topography here. So we need additional time. So uh perhaps the board would like to take the next applicant >> and we'll come back and be able to
provide that additional information. Likewise, there was also the chance to speak with Mr. Sneakus uh and Mr. Ball took another look at the lot coverage definition. So we're trying to adjust the lot coverage again to get rid of lot coverage. So just uh
>> a small lot >> understood 25 zone. >> So we will circle back with you and in the meantime going to introduce 32 Linux. Welcome. Thank you. Andrew Chisik from 32 Lennox. >> Danielle Chisik.
>> All right. And if you could each raise your right hand, I'll swear you in. 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 then one at a time, just please state your name again. Spell your last name. >> Danielle. And it's Chisik. C H I Z I K.
>> And Andrew Chisik. >> Thank you. need the ATM, right? >> No. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. And can you go ahead and uh tell us a little bit about your application? Thank you very much.
We just wanted to to briefly introduce ourselves and say thank you for the consideration. I'm Andrew Chisik. As I said, this is my wife Danielle. Uh we reside at 32 Lennox with our three young boys, uh Max, Owen, and Will, 13, 11,
and seven. Uh, we've lived in Summit since 2019. Absolutely adore the community. Uh, which was no surprise. Danielle and I both grew up in in Milbour, so we we knew what we were getting into when we moved here. Um, love the the property and the house.
Just looking for a way to enjoy the the property and the backyard a little bit more and looking to to do so in a manner that respects the the neighborhood, the the neighbors, the property, and the community. and the team will walk you through the details.
>> Great. Board experts, any questions for this witness? No. >> Board members? >> No. Okay. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. All right. If you could raise your right hand. Do you swear from the testimony you're about to give in this matter? The truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. >> I do.
>> And please state your name. Spell your last name. >> Peter Cororsen, spelled K O R Z E N. >> Thank you. And I know 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, there were not. >> All right. I imagine the board would like to accept you back once again.
>> We would. Welcome back. Please proceed. Okay, this is um the first plan I'm going to bring up is the existing conditions plan just to let you be a little bit more familiar with the site. This is sheet three of six. It's dated actually it's last revised May 7th,
2021. And the site is located on the west side of Lennox Road. It's located in the R25 zone district and the lot area is 45,869 square ft. You can see the house is located right
in the center of the lot. It's L-shaped. There's also a detached garage to the south of that and driveway access to Lennox Road. Uh, in back of the house is a patio and from the patio you step up
into the backyard and then there's a large steep slope area which is shaded all the way in the back and that's unusable for the backyard. Uh there's also a steep slope area that's shaded in the front yard. Uh the total uh amount of steep slopes is over 11,000 square ft
for this lot. Um, in the front there's also a uh cupboard landing and a walkway that leads out to the driveway. And there are several mature trees. You can see those with these symbols, both
conifers and deciduous. And as far as utilities go, there's underground electric, I'm sorry, underground gas and water. There's overhead electric and telephone. There's an existing sanitary sewer lateral that runs from the front of the house out to Lennox Road.
And there is some storm water management for the front of the house and that's based on a 2003 plan and permit. Uh, one of the storm water management systems is a two tank drywall system and I believe based on records that that
picks up runoff from the side of the house and there's some catch basins there and also possibly a portion of the roof on that side. Uh the other part of that storm water system is a single dry well that's located to the south of the two tank system and that picks up runoff
from the uh onestory garage detached garage. Uh in back of the house there is no storm water management. So as far as I know there's no connection from the roof leaders in the back or any drainage from the patio or anything. That's all uncontrolled and all sheet flows off of
the uh off the backyard. um towards the front because this this area is higher. Okay, the next plan I'll bring up, this is just I'm going to bring this up briefly because we're going to move to an enlargement so you can see it a little bit better. But this is the lock
grading plan. This is sheet one of six, last revised June 26, 2025. You can see it's at the same scale as the previous um survey, and the proposed improvements are all in the backyard with the exception of a sanitary sewer
lateral, which connects from a proposed pool house in the back to an existing sanitary sewer lateral in front of the house. So moving on to the enlargement which is sheet two of six dated June 26,
2025. You can see the back of the house at the bottom of the sheet and you can see the existing patios right there. Um, so what's being proposed as you move from uh the b the bottom of the sheet to the
top or from east to west is some steps, some new steps that go up into a proposed patio that surrounds an ingground pool. Directly to the back of that to the west is the pool house located right here.
There is a pergola on top of a patio to the south of the pool house. And um as far as topography goes, we're um going to fill in this area to make it more usable, the steep slope area. Uh currently it cannot be used because it
is so steep. Uh so in order to make that transition, there are some retaining walls that are required. Uh one of them is located right here in back of the pergola. The height of that starts at 1 ft and as you move to the north the
maximum height is 8 feet right at the back of the pool house and that happens to be where a terrace is located because there are two doors for the pool house. One of them is at the upper level and that faces the pool and then there's a lower level door that leads out to that
terrace. And you're going to hear more about the pool house from the project architect. Um to the north side of the pool house to make that gray transition, there are some steps and there's also another retaining wall, not as high as the other one. It's a maximum of four
feet high. Uh again, that starts at zero feet. The maximum height of that one is 4T right at the bend of the wall at that location. Um, utility wise, there is a uh water service line that runs from the back of
the house to the pool house. There's also the sanitary sort lateral that I mentioned previously that runs from the pool house to the front of the existing house. And the big advantage of this plan is that there is now storm water management. So, we have a very uh
substantial storm water management system that's shown immediately to the south of the pool and it's uh includes three dry well tanks and there are 15 lawn inlets surrounding this area. In addition, the two area drains in the
patio. So, that runoff all gets captured. Uh in addition to that, the roof leaders from the pool house go to the drywall system as well. Um, and I know this was a comment in the board engineers memo, which I'll get to shortly, uh, but
the, uh, tributary area to the drywall system is 4,114 square ft, I believe, and that's slightly less than the net change in impervious surface, which is 4,464
square ft. Uh, but I'd like to point out that the pool itself, the water surface of the pool is 900 square f feet. So I understand that from a zoning perspective, it's considered impervious surface, but from an engineering point of view, that water is not runoff from
that area is not going to get to the drywall system. So I believe that what we have um designed as far as the tributary area, even though it's less than the net change, is sufficient. And it's a very uh, as I mentioned, a very substantial system. These are standard drywall wells are 8 foot diameter, 4
foot deep over a twoft deep stone bed. Um the other uh uh the other feature here is that there will be a pool compliant fence and that runs from the back of the detached garage around the perimeter of the property and that leads
around clockwise and it connects to the back of the house. Uh that'll have pool compliant gates as well. Um there are some trees that are going to be removed. There's seven trees shown here to be removed uh with these bold X's here. Uh in addition to those, there's two
additional trees that will be required to be taken down. And you'll hear more about this from the landscape architect. But that's in order to provide access to the backyard um during construction, even for maintenance in the future. What we're proposing to do is take down one
um from what I understand it's in poor condition, a conifer that's located at this location right here and another one that's not shown but it's in front of the garage so that a vehicle can access the side of the garage and get to the backyard that way.
Um and the the final thing I'm going to talk about is the steep slope variance. And you can and I'm going to get to all the variances in a minute, but you could see this bold line that goes around all of the improvements in the back around that steep slope area. That is the steep slope disturbance. And that's a variance
for one of the variances we're asking uh for. And that's a an area of 4,900 square ft. So, uh, going back to sheet one, if you look in the upper right, there's a zoning data table and that indicates the three variances
that are required. Um, the one that I just discussed is the steep slope variance where the code allows 1,000 square ft and we're proposing 4,900 square ft. The second variance has to do with the
height of the pool house. uh the pool house itself um the physical height from the first floor to the peak is 18 feet but we're proposing 23.2 feet just because of the way that building height is defined per code. So, if you look on the left side
of this sheet, which is sheet two, you're going to see the uh the pool house height calculations, and you can see the existing elevations, which is what the code requires, all of these bold numbers that go around um the pool house. And because of the topography of
the land, again, this is all in that steep slope area, uh this the elevations on the west side of the pool house are much lower than they are on the east side. So, you have to take those into consideration. Unfortunately, it does um skew the uh the average ground there and
that results in artificially I guess you could say uh increasing the height of the building so that uh it becomes 23.2 ft. So that's the second variance. And the third and final variance has to do with a maximum height of walls and
fences on top of those. And that would be at the location of the maximum wall height back by the terrace of the schoolhouse. Again, the wall is eight feet. And there will be a uh guard. It's not shown in this plan, but there will be some type of a guard fence, possibly
aluminum fence that'll be 4 feet high on top of that wall. So, the total height of of wall and fence would be 12 feet and that exceeds the maximum of 10 ft. Um, so that that's pretty much my summary of the site and I can move
forward to the board's letters. I don't think there's anything I really haven't covered though. Um, unless unless Rafé has any questions. I think I've covered everything. board experts. What questions do you have for this witness?
>> So, um, so I just want to clarify, um, although the the dry wells are, um, not collecting the total increase in impervious coverage, um, you're claiming a credit for the pool because that has
some storage value to it, which is not actually getting to the dry well anyway. Is that correct? >> Is that correct? Okay. And I don't know that I take any exception with that. Um could you talk about those retaining walls? I think it appeared to me on the
plans that the um the drainage behind the walls um is is daylighting somewhere. Is that going into the dry well? Is it going somewhere else? Could you talk about that? >> Uh yeah, there's no way to take it into the drywall system because the the drainage would be on the west side of that wall, that higher wall. Um so there
would be some type of a weep hole arrangement um you know maybe multiple um and there is a um a stone riverstone uh infiltration pad that's in back of the terrace uh on the west side of the terrace that may make its way to that.
Um I mean this is you know standard drainage for a wall. There's really it is daylighting. There's no way to take it into a storm system. um the back area with the um fill that
you're putting in um behind those retaining walls to level off the property. Um could you talk about some of the grading that's going to happen in that area? Um I I don't know that I I I saw some spot grading on top of the walls, but I'm just kind of guessing that you're that you're you know working
it into um the wall height. Well, we're going to have a continuous wall height. That's probably why you don't see any spot elevation. So, we're going to make the top of the wall 112. So, that you essentially that's going to be a contour line. >> And then the bottom we're not touching
anything. So, it starts off at um 112 and it goes down to 104 by the time you get to the um to the stone infiltration area in back of the terrace. >> Okay. Sir,
>> um is there anything that um is going to mitigate the height of the wall from the neighbor's view? >> Yes, absolutely. You're going to hear a lot more about that from the landscape architect. >> Okay, I'll hold off on that. >> Um
how about um the pool house? You know, I see that there's, you know, some sanitary service going in there, water. Um are you going to have any amenities in there? Is there bedrooms? >> Uh, no bedrooms are or project architect will speak. >> Okay. >> More about that. >> I can hold off on that.
>> Um, the other the other item was um that the the pool equipment uh it looks like it's in the in the basement of that building of the accessory building. >> Um, >> so I think the discharge I'm assuming
the discharge is going to have to go into the sanitary system. >> It appears that way. Okay. Um I don't Is this something maybe for the architect to talk about? Um because there is there is something in the summit ordinance that talks about um the there there's
there's a limit to how much can be put into that sanitary system and that it has to be approved by the city engineer. >> Yeah, we'll we'll work with them. I I did see that time. I think it's 36,000. >> Yes. >> So I I just did a rough calculation. The
pool is 40 feet 45 feet w long by 20 feet wide, I think. Um, so I just assumed like a 5 foot depth and that was 32,000 gallons. So I think we're we're going to be under that. >> Okay. Um, I think uh that's all I had for now. >> Great.
>> Ed, Mr. Chairman, um, regarding the pool house, and maybe this might be a question for the architect. Um, and I probably should have maybe even asked the owners of the property. What is it about this building that will ensure the town that it will not be a
second residence property? >> I think our architect can better handle that because of the size, the full shower, the kitchen, things of that nature. You have sort of the qualities of another residence. So, that's
something that we'd like to have explored. >> Thank you. Um, you had indicated the steep slope areas are rather steep off the back area. Do you know what the gradient of that steep slope is? I'm sorry to if you don't know off hand. You had indicated that it's steep enough
that um you need to level it out to be able to use it. >> It's like it's 4 to1. So it's 25%. >> So about 25%. Okay. looking at the extent of the retaining walls that you're proposing along the rear property line. Um you're extending it out towards
I guess that's the westerly end or the leesterly side property line. Um there's a 38 inch tree there. It's probably maybe something of the landscape architect to talk about. >> Um why is the wall being extended out that far? Is it possible to reduce the
amount of disturbance on that side? Because it seems like you still have some meaningful sideyard area to use on the property. Yeah. Looks like that tree is having to be removed. >> Yeah, it does have to be removed uh just because of the amount of fill that's being placed on top of the the root zone. But
>> yeah, our landscape architect >> I figured there might be a rationale. I thought I'd ask you first and maybe the landscape architect can follow up on that. Um you had mentioned the building height measurement for the accessory structure is somewhat and I don't want to put words in your mouth more of an artificial
um building height measurement due to the measurement having to take from the existing grade. Correct. >> Well, again, not only exist, but the fact that it's a steep slope. So, >> okay, it's much slower on one side than it is on the other. >> Right. But the criteria really is likely there for the standpoint of just making
sure when you are adding height to a building that you're not artificially raising the elevation thereby creating greater impact correct off of a a building height measurement. So in other words, the reason why it's taken from an existing
grade is so that you're not adding additional slope to an area and then taking the building height from that area. Would you not agree that's sort of why a rationale like that is created? >> Um it could be. Uh we do have some landscaping that's going to mitigate any
any visuals from the pool house and also from the wall back and you'll hear more about that. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, >> is the existing non-conforming shed and foundation ruins being removed? >> Yes, they are. Forgot to mention that. >> I know you had that in the plan. I just
wanted to direct. Thank you. Has there been any other alternatives other than where you're proposing the pool house explored or do you know anything? >> Uh, not not since I've been involved. This was the original concept. >> Okay. Thank you. No further questions. >> Thanks. Ed board members questions.
Yeah, I one I think this will have to be addressed by the landscape designer, but I don't make sure I understood your testimony. Um the forester notes that there are four viable trees propos proposed for removal that would need to be replaced. I think heard you say there were two or three more or >> I don't know about viable but um you
know our landscape architect would know more about that the condition of these but there's seven proposed on this plan. Uh in addition to that, what's not shown um after further discussion after after this plan was developed is that two additional trees and I understand that they are in poor condition will be
required to be removed to gain access to the backyard. So that will be an updated plan. >> All right. So I I guess I want to hear from the landscape designer if those were trees at the forester plants he saw were marked for removal. And I guess the landscape designer can address that.
>> Yes. Okay. Um I have a couple of questions. One is regarding the pool because obviously um we're not in California so the pool is not all year. So there are you know eight months a year, seven months a year
the pool is going to be covered and then that would not then the runoff would be going right off of the pool cover onto the property. So, would you be willing to increase your uh dry wells to capture that runoff in the
>> It's it's already capturing it. >> Oh, I thought I thought I understood that you were looking for credit for that from Miss Rafé's comment, >> right? I I think um your your dry wells are undersized for the amount of additional impervious coverage. >> If you exclude the pool, they're well
undersized. Yes. So, they they are they are the capacity of the drywalls includes the pool runoff going to it. my you just said I'm sorry I'm confused could because you just said it's undersized and then you said it includes >> I didn't I didn't mean to say undersized
if I did it's it's um the capacity of the drywall system includes the pool runoff the way it's designed right now surface >> pardon >> it includes that as a coverage of imperous surface >> yes but what we were discussing before
was the fact that the tributary area if you include the pool the patio the pool house roof, everything that goes to the drywall system, that area is less than the net change in an impervious surface for the project. That's what we were discussing before. >> Um,
>> that was a comment. >> I have to convince myself of that. >> Yeah, wait for some guidance from M. Rafay on that because it sounded like something different when when you were discussing. Um, but I while you're looking at that, I'm gonna My other question, this may be for Mr. Snikas or
um probably for Mr. Snikas maybe Mr. Ball two questions related to the pool house one is regarding the height um given that it's actually two stories >> how does that because you know if you look at it from the back it's actually
like 20 yeah 25 feet 70 more than that because there's a little part that's not measured. It's probably almost 26 feet from the back in height. >> So, how does that,
>> you know, it's it's not sort of the typical accessory structure because it has a lower level, right? >> First of all, does that need a variance as having an extra level for an accessory structure? Because usually we only see singlestory garage, you know, pool house. I I've not encountered one
that's two stories yet. >> Yeah. What you'll see sometimes we'll see a garage though with an upper story, >> right? >> Like a half story or something, >> maybe a half story. So in that situation, the the way the regulations currently cover accessory structure is via the height. There really isn't a
story measurement for accessory structure. So that's how we regulate the mass and impact. Uh so that second story aspect of it and sometimes is in a roof area. It's either in the roof area or not. In this situation, it's acting more like a twotory.
>> So, I mean, from from one angle, would you say this this might look present as a one-story 16 ft, but from another angle, perhaps the neighbor's side, this might present as really two stories, correct? As as 25 feet in height or so.
>> Uh well, without considering the uh proposed evergreens that are back there, and you'll hear more about that. And then this is a question for probably but because we're on the topic of variances because you were discussing all the variances
for Mr. Snikus or Mr. Ball. Is there a variance required to have a kitchen and a bedroom and a bathroom in an accessory structure? Because this is something that has come up in a bunch of recent cases and none of those. It was a
important criteria that they not have a kitchen in it and that they not have a bedroom in it. So now here we have one with a kitchen and a bedroom and a shower. What is >> no bedroom? >> Uh it says bedroom right on the plan. It says golf simulator/bedroom
and then there's a bed in shown in the in the poolhouse plan. It's a sofa bed. It's there. It's either a Murphy bed or a sofa bed, but it shows a bed. our project architect is here and help discuss >> um regardless the answer to it, you know. >> Yeah. So, there's and Ed, you can chime
in if I'm missing something, but there's no explicit requirement that there be no kitchen or no facilities of a particular kind. There is a requirement in the code that no accessory building shall be used as a dwelling unit or for the conduct of a home occupation. So, that's what we're
trying to avoid with that. Okay. Um, usually, you know, if if there's facilities of that sort in the accessory building, what we would ordinarily get is a deed restriction that prevents, you know, the uh accessory dwelling uh
accessory building uh from being separately occupied or, you know, rented out, sold, anything like that to avoid that sort of multif family use. I would keep her. >> But the word bedroom, it should not have even have a bedroom at all,
>> right? Because then it's then it's habitable. >> Yeah, that's not >> Yeah, I mean it's Yeah, I mean it does say bedroom. So that's fine. >> Your copy. >> It's it's on A1. >> It's on number four. Drawing number four the >> Yeah, >> four and then in a both show one says
bedroom and the other one shows a bed. my copy. I don't see that. >> Any other questions? >> What's the outline? >> That's what it is. Okay. >> And then Yeah, it said it says bedroom. >> It looks like a duck. >> Right. And it does say bedroom on uh you
know the number four here. >> Okay. Well, let's let's save this this line of questioning for the architect. I think we're only going to get so far with the civil engineer. >> Okay. I have a question. I think it's I think it's for you. So, as as we
mentioned, we live in the northeast and the pool's not is going to be closed a good portion of the year. Beyond the pool, is that the patio, the whole outdoor area is that I mean, how is that
going to be used in the when the pool's when the pool's not open. Are And there's also the home already has an existing patio with furnishing on it. So, when is that other patio way in the back going to be used? If the pool's not open, is anyone really
going to be using that area for the those those months? >> Well, there is a pergola back there, so there's a seating area that could be used, >> but it realistically I mean, it's going to be used during when the pool is open. If not, you can just go to the patio closest to the house. Why would you go past the pool to go to the back of the
yard to get >> It would be used more in the summertime. That's correct. Yeah. >> Okay. So, is it is it important to have that? I mean, why in that location? I just almost feel like there's two patios in this house. You have one one for the pool patio and you have one for So, you have the the summer patio and the and
the winter and the >> fire. >> Yeah. Well, yeah, I was looking at the um Yeah, because the patio outside the house is pretty big. I'm just >> Why don't we ask that of the landscape architect? >> Okay.
>> Um Okay. Any other questions for this witness? Seeing none. Any question? >> Can I go back to the >> Absolutely. >> the dry well? >> Yep. >> Um All right. So, what I'm looking at is that you you there's a um
an additional impervious coverage listed on the the zoning table of 4,464 square ft. But the storm water management calculations um are only collecting the pool house, the patio,
the pool, the rear steps, and the chimney for less than that, which is 4,115 square feet. And I think that's I think that's what we're getting at. Yes. >> So, can can we and I I agree that you've sized it properly for for that, but I
think the board would like to see it collecting the total on purpose >> additional 300 square ft. Um I'll see what I can do as far as collecting from an existing patio. Maybe we can connect an existing inlet uh that's there and that currently has a pipe in it going in
a different direction or something like that. I'll see what I can do. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you, Marie. Uh, any questions from the public for this witness? Seeing none, um, what you want to bring up the >> If I can Yes,
>> sorry to interrupt. Uh, the road and the application is going to request an adjournment. >> Okay. >> So that the plans can be revised to address the expressed uh, concerns of the board with regard to the building coverage. It wasn't as simple as we thought it would be. Again, because of
the elevations of the first floor, the topography, we're still running into building coverage even with just moving to the patios. So, >> okay. >> New date. >> Yes. Why don't we let's take care of that business. Let's finish up with these guys. I'll make you
>> Can I then let the rodents? >> Yeah. Yeah. Just if Jim, if you could stay and then let your clients go, I think >> just to not interrupt their flow any further, that would probably be best. >> Yeah, of course. Great. >> All right. If you could please raise
your right hand. Do you swear affirm the testimony you're about to give in this matter? The truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> And can you please state your name, spell your last name? >> Uh, my name is Zachary Goldstein. Uh, Goldstein is spelled G O L D S T E I N. >> Thank you. And can you briefly describe your background and experience for the
board? >> Sure. Uh I'm a principal at John James Architecture in Maplewood, New Jersey. Uh I received a bachelor of architecture from Syracuse University. Uh and I've been been a licensed architect in New York since 2015 in New Jersey since 2016. Uh I presented to various historic
and zoning boards throughout New Jersey. My license number is 201188 and is in good standing. Uh I am also a member uh in good standing of the American Institute of Architects. >> Any questions from the board or would you like to accept his credentials? >> We would. Great. please proceed.
>> Appreciate it. >> Um, >> so ju just to give a little bit of background, I know that we um that Pete had kind of presented a lot of other kind of like civil information as well as the zoning, but um just to kind of touch base on on on overall kind of
reason for the application, um uh Andrew and Danielle Chisik request permission from the board um to build the new pool house and and pool um located at their property at 32 Lennox and Summit. Um and as Pete had mentioned, uh this requires three variances. Um one for the max
structure height of the accessory structure, one for the fence wall, uh max height, and one for the steep slope, uh disturbance. Um all of these variances are driven by the existing sleep steep slope present at the rear of the property. Um if not for those
exceptional topographic conditions uniquely affecting the property, the proposed pool and pool house um would comply with the zoning as of right. Uh given that we comply with the applicable setbacks um are more than 700 square feet under the maximum lot coverage are more than 1,900 square feet under the
maximum building coverage or more than 4,000 ft under the maximum floor area ratio and comply with the maximum 24 by 24 dimensions of an accessory structure. It it's a very large property. The property is nearly an acre where the minimum in the district I think is 25,000 square feet. So, um, everything
that's proposed is really in keeping with the scale of the property in the neighborhood. Ultimately, all the requests here and the reason for the variance requests is just driven by that slope. And I think you you saw on the civil engineers drawing the the steep slope um occupies almost 40% of their
rear yard. Um, so very it's it's it's it's a very peculiar circumstance where there's so much steep slope in the backyard. um that impacts things like you know kids kicking a soccer ball and all of a sudden it just rolls down the hill fast and runs into the fence at the back of the property. Um so that kind of
dynamic um is is what's driving the variances. Ultimately the pool and the and the the pool house are kind of normal size like at 20 the 24x 24 footprint of the the pool house um is you know in keeping with the the kind of maximum permitted uh in the district.
It's it's just it sits on the the slope. It's situated towards the rear of the property. Um, and that's a way of respecting the neighbors and and and and kind of keeping the the pool house kind of further from their kind of principal
structures. Um, and I think one of the things that it does that um is significant is the pool house is, you know, location in in the corner here. This is where the slope goes down the lowest. And so it it basically gives a little bit of life to what would
otherwise be a retaining wall continuing to the corner. And so in some ways uh that that you know I think the board had mentioned that that back wall is tall. And in some ways we saw that back wall being tall and part of a building is and having windows and uh being more transparent as being um a kind of
softened way of of kind of having that that rear kind of part of the pool house. Hypothetically, we could just have the, you know, retaining wall come across there. But I I thought that would actually be um more extreme and this way it breaks up the retaining wall. And I I think um ultimately it's a walkout
basement. It's I think it's a very common thing when you're on a steep slope that like on one side you would have one story and on the on the back there would be a kind of walkout basement just necessitated by the the slope. Um the the design of the pool house is really in keeping with the
character of the neighborhood and has kind of traditional detailing. This gable um is designed to um you know kind of mimic the kind of uh roof slopes of the existing primary structure and kind of hearken back to them. Um ultimately when we talk about the height of the
structure, you know, the the the the additional height is really what imbuss the structure with some additional architectural character. Hypothetically, if this was a flat roof, the building would be lower, but that wouldn't I don't think that would be better for the neighbors. Um ultimately, like, you know, part of the reason why this roof
piece gable sticks up on the front is really just to have a roof slope that is in keeping and and kind of matching the architectural character of the main house. um it's not um a kind of exuberant kind of desire to have a huge pool house. It's it's really just to have a kind of beautiful cross gable uh
present at the house. Um and uh the um I think the the board had mentioned um um I just want to address kind of head on the the topic of um whether this
would be like considered a like a a second dwelling unit on the property. That's certainly not the intent. And if if there's anything mistakenly in the drawings that suggests that um the homeowner would be happy to sign like any kind of documentation like legal documentation that would kind of clarify
that the intent is in and and that they're not permitted to use it as a second dwelling. Um ultimately the the kitchenet doesn't have a cooking surface. There's no way of cooking food inside the kitchen. It's really just accessory to the pool uh as a means of you know having kind of like an indoor
space next to the pool. Um and um the basement is is really just resulting from the the steep slope. Um and and um is you know the extra space there is just the space that's left after the pool equipment is housed in the in the
bottom of that structure. Um >> yeah. >> Right. >> Great. So on that note, um I think the the combination of updating the plans to reflect that there's no bedroom in the accessory structure, uh as well as I
mentioned a the filing of a deed restriction that indicates that that accessory structure is not going to be used as a dwelling unit. Uh those are I imagine what the board would be looking for to add that level of comfort. That's the intention. >> I think the homeowner would be happy to do that. Yep. Great. >> Yes. >> Great.
board experts, what questions do you have for this witness? >> I don't have any at this time. >> Okay. Uh, some quick questions. You had indicated um from your standpoint and offering this as an architect is that the twotory elevation is or a walk out
basement is somewhat typical of houses that have slopes and things of that nature. Is that what you intended? >> Yeah, that's right. Um but yet in this situation this pool house is being placed what 17 ft from the rear lot line thereabouts. >> Uh approximately. Yeah.
>> Okay. At the accessories where where Yeah. >> Not at the principal building. Correct. >> Um no it's further than that. Um it's further than 17 ft. Uh I think on um I think we're at the principal setback. I
think 15 is the accessory. The 15 is an accessory. Your principal building set back is 45 ft for that rear yard. >> For the rear, right. Right. Yeah. We're not at the 45 yard. >> Yeah. Essentially, it's still a twotory elevation. Even closer than a principal structure would be on that back elevation. That that walk out. Correct.
>> Um it's not a principal structure by any means. It's the size of a two-car garage, >> right? But you had indicated for the board that it's acting like a walkout basement um on a house and therefore it's somewhat characteristic of the neighborhood or characteristic of a
single family home. It's somewhat unique in the situation. >> It's characteristic of a steep slope I think of of having a prop a structure on a slope. >> Is that what you intended? Okay. I just wanted to clarify what you were intending by that statement um for the board's consideration. >> It's kind of like the the basement's
just there. Like hypothetically, let's say that we there was no occupied structure. Let's say it was a crawl space um underneath the basement. I think the net result of the neighbors would just be a a big CMU wall >> as opposed to a wall that has a nice beautiful door and window in it. Um so
that's that's kind of how we got there really. >> Okay. I know you want to offer that as well is that it has some transparency windows and things that >> Yeah. >> instead of just being a tiny wall. >> Exactly. >> Okay. Um, as the architect, did you look at any other alternatives for the
placement of the pool house or was this offered as a way of addressing that situation with the rear wall? >> Um, there's a number of factors that are at play when you're locating a pool. For one, you have to think about light. Um, I mean, you know, if you want the pool to kind of function well, you'd think, okay, we want there to be sunlight in
the pool. Uh, fortunately, it's a very there's gorgeous trees on all sides of the property. Um, and so that means that um you want to be kind of spaced um so that south, you know, and east and some some west light can can find their way into the pool. So this kind of corner is the area where it's far enough from
trees that you you still might get some sunlight uh given the like, you know, 100-y old trees that are in the area. Um so that that kind of suggests maybe this this side from like a sunlight perspective. Um, I think ultimately, um, the the the house as it's designed has a
kind of bar that continues out in this direction. And so I think we were kind of looking at the accessory structure as having a kind of subtle relationship to the gable that kind of extends out of the house this way. Um, and and felt like on the property that felt like a nice connection. Hypothetically, if you
like put the pool house and the pool here, it's kind of like you have this kind of mismatch. is I think we create this really nice corridor of um kind of rear yard here that I think uh from a design perspective feels like it belre
you know based on the design of the the existing house and the kind of L structure of the house um and I think ultimately just when it comes down to the steep slopes the steep slopes again they occupy like a really significant part of the backyard so if you took the tact of like trying to like not disturb the steep slope what you would
ultimately do is you'd have a pool that would be really close to the house and and then a really steep slope that you wouldn't be able to use. Um, and I think just given the size of their property, um, which is nearly an acre, you would be killing like thousands and thousands of square feet of of use and it would be
impossible for kids to play on a slope that's that steep. I mean, it's like a ski slope. It's that steep. Um, so I think um just given their property, this was the kind of a seen as the I think sensitive to the neighbors, sensitive to the architecture of the house and um just like an effective way to have you
know beautiful pool in the backyard. >> Okay. You understand that there's a variance needed for the for the accessory structure. What is it about the design that requires that? It's obviously the walkout basement component to it, but is there relief? I'm sorry.
Is there any adjustments that could be made to the roof line or would that totally divorce it from the relationship of the roof lines to the existing house? >> I think at the end of the day, I think it's really hard to argue that this house that this roof shouldn't have like a pitched roof like a gable or some sort
of, you know, hip. Um, like I think that that's the most sensitive way to design the structure. Um, and so I think a flat roof as an example would would not really help anyone. It might like you know on a technical basis the numbers go down because the roof is lower but I think from like a practical perspective
of how we like you know residents of the neighborhood would enjoy the the building I think it's better for it to have a slightly steep steeper slope that is more attractive architecturally. Um >> and if you were to reduce the the slope
of this of the uh sloped roof uh would that what would that do to the architecture? I think it would be less attractive and I don't think anyone would benefit from it. >> Do the do the slopes relate to the existing house? >> Yeah, we're trying to kind of match the g there's like a gable that comes um
there's a gable here at the end of this part of the house and we're trying to match that slope >> and you know what those slopes are and so the pitch of this roof is pitch. >> Yeah, we're 9 over 12 and you know we can't be totally exact with it but that's our that's our kind of >> but in your professional opinion it's
close to yes. Okay. Thank you. No further questions. >> Thank you, Ed. Board members, questions for this witness. >> Um, well, >> J Mr. Ner, please. >> You said you had if you had a crawl space, it wouldn't look that good, but
you have a crawl space with windows in it, too. I mean, you could make it attractive by reducing the height of that basement. Yeah, I think in that perspective, if it was a crawl space with windows, it would look the same to the public, but there would be no benefit to the homeowners. Uh, and the pool equipment wouldn't be able to be in
the basement. So, it would have to be on the outside. So, in some ways, I think that having this structure in the basement allows us to conceal from the neighbors equipment that maybe is not that attractive. Um, but you're right. >> Mary.
>> Yeah. Um I was just you know if you there's a whole this is a huge property as you said and there actually is a very large flat piece of backyard there. Um I was back there today. Um, and I'm just wondering why
why not pivot this 90 degrees so that you're not impacting all the steep slopes and so that you don't have to have a 12, you know, is this there's the >> is there a 12t fence here or is that the other property >> wall? >> Wall and fence 12 ft, right? Um, which
is which is a, you know, requires a variance. I I feel like there's a way to do that accomplish this without having to disturb as many steep slopes and having the variance and the just wondering one you know why why
not just pivot it and try to have fewer steep slopes it seems like if you turn this 90 degrees because it's a rectangle you would be impacting less. >> Um when you just look at the dimensions of it um we've like looked at it like so many different ways. Um, but ultimately when you look at the just the sheer dimensions of it, when you rotate this
pool, it makes the only way to have a pool house that functions and still have like a place for um like to have a a patio around the pool. The pool house would have to come substantially closer to the property line uh than it is um to do that. And I think the reality is that
like the variances that would still require a steep slope disturbance. That would still um disturb like a very significant like thousands of square feet of steep slope even if we rotated it. >> Suggesting rotating the whole thing, not just the pool, which would put the pool house in a different spot, too.
>> Oh. Oh. Okay. >> Yeah. The whole take the whole thing and rotate it. >> I still think that would be a really large disturbance to the steep slope. I mean, that would be my my >> I mean, is is part of what's driving this design um the desire to have the pool house be two stories and that
you're using the steep slope there as a benefit of the it's like a benefit because you have the walk out basement there and the extra as opposed to having more excavation in the lawn. No, >> I I just wanted to add that part of the
project was also um to try to benefit from flattening the the yard a bit. The more we've lived there, the more you know, we think it's a safety hazard as you suggested. The kids have a hard time playing. So, it's a a combination of the the two things um that were important to
us as we began the project. >> Yeah. Like the flatard was part was part of the goal as well. Correct. >> I have a question and I don't know the terminology for it, but the peak of the pool house with the um arched window
that is all decorative. Correct. I mean that's I mean I know that little the little triangle points in the front that's all decorative and that you're trying to match it looks like you're trying to match above the front door of the of the primary residence. Is that correct? That same type of window. Yeah,
I think we're picking up on details of the primary. >> I mean, I I know you mentioned like, you know, how it affect the ne the neighborhood. Nobody's going to the neighbors aren't going to see that. This is way in the back. So, anyone walking down the street does not see this. >> Could that piece be removed? And then are you saving a couple of feet in terms
of the height >> like we could have a flat roof? >> Well, I made small. I mean, there was I'm that's peak is sticking out is is the tallest part, right? And that's what creates the 18t maximum. Correct. >> Yeah, that's right.
>> So, if that was smaller in scale, >> we could have like a shallower roof basically and it would >> I mean at least you you know in terms of the maximum you're not you're not the height is at least you're at least reducing the height. It just I just think that that design
there is there another way to do it where it's it's not as you know like I said >> I think the code like so the I think the code pro provides for 15 uh like as of right for the accessory structure and then 18 uh if you're trying to match the
kind of roof uh pitches of the existing house. Um so we kind of were taking take learning from the code in that way when we when we did that proof pitch. I think at the end of the day, it's not as though the homeowners were really like, you know, ask insisting that um we have
uh like a steep slope roof. It's really just we thought that was most attractive and I I don't think anyone would benefit by us making it a little bit like of a shallower slope and having it not match the main house, but I totally appreciate the the the thought on it. I mean, you're right. We we we certainly could
make it >> I understand because it's the it's the variance is the pool house. It's a non-conformant height. >> The height, so >> 23.2. >> So the 23.2 is driven by the average existing grade. So the reason why the average existing grade um um drives up
the height to 23.2 is because on the side of the pool uh where where um we have uh that higher grade um it's only coming up to 18 at its absolute peak. But on the other side where the slope is lower at the bottom of the hill, when you measure it, that is closer to like
26 ft. So if that So if that point is gone, that's not going to affect that's not going to change its calculation because the rear part of the >> Yeah, it's mostly the rear that drives 23.2. >> Okay. So I see what you're saying. >> But it would be less than 23 if you made that 15 ft. Then it would be
>> 20.2 ft as opposed to 23.2. >> Yep. >> And just asking that, what is the slope of the main roof of the house? I know you said this matches the slope of the roof over the entry door, but the rest of the house has the roofs are actually
the line is perpendicular to, you know, what you're seeing there with the pool house. So, it almost doesn't seem like that's a it's not really a carryover with the style and it's not connected. So, why do you feel like that needs to be No one's seeing that and the front of
the house, that little bit over the doorway at the same time? not the front of the house, the the at the back of the house, it's I'm sorry, I don't have a drawing of it. The there's a like a the house is like an L shape. >> Um, and this piece of like bar of of house has a gable at the end of it. And
it's kind of like the closest gable that's near that gable. Um, >> but you wouldn't see those two at the same time. You're either looking at the pool house >> or you're looking at the back of the house, right? >> Yeah. I think maybe if you were, let's say you were standing here. I I don't think this that the that the roof is is
a like a driving thing. I think truthfully, we were just trying to make it look as beautiful as we could. Uh and that was kind of where it came from. Um and there was probably is a view where if you're standing in the yard here, you would have a view towards both gables,
but at the end of the day, again, we were just trying to make it look beautiful and traditional detailing that matches the neighborhood. Um, yeah. >> I have a Okay, I have another question. >> So, okay, the pool house floor plan, 576 square foot for the whole thing,
upstairs and downstairs. >> That's uh just the foot that's 24 by 24. Uh, so that's just uh upstairs. >> So, the downstairs, how much how many square feet is the whole pool house? >> Uh, it would be uh if you counted the basement, uh, it would be double that.
>> Okay. And, um, also um there's a kitchenet. I know you say that you really can't cook, but I mean they have they have equipment that fancy toaster ovens that you can cook. So you have a wash refrigerator, beverage refri, regular refrigerator, beverage refrigerator, dishwasher, sink, that's a
kitchenet. Right outside of there, there's the the patio and the patio has an outside kitchen. Um just, you know, is there a reason why you need two kitchens right next to each other? um for like I guess for an area of the
house that is only going to be really used part of the year and there is also another patio. I just >> that wasn't really part of the variance request in particular but um yeah I think ultimately like they were thinking of this as an amenity to the house where they would serve food and and entertain
their friends and so there would be ideally like places for them to prep food and and then cook it and the grill outside. I I know it's not part of the variance, but the whole thing is because of the size of everything and because you have the patio and that's where the pool house is. If everything was just if if you didn't have the outside kitchen,
then maybe the pool house could come closer to the house. There's just there it does affect it. So the pool house wouldn't be as far back. It wouldn't be in the steep slope. So it does. You can't just say because it what one thing that we're asking doesn't have to do with the variance. It does. It's the whole scale. >> I app I appreciate that. From a lot
coverage perspective, we're still um 700 feet under. Correct. But you're it's the location of the pool house that's causing a lot of the issues and the location is there because of you know the size of the pool, the size of the patio and where everything's pushed back. So if the pool was to turn a different way and you put the pool house next to it and you didn't have the
outside patio, we might not be dealing with all these issues >> I think we still would exceed the thousand square feet significantly. But I appreciate the comment. I know what you mean. >> Is there a heater for the pool? >> Uh yes. So, there's going to be gas to
the structure, the pool house, >> I believe. So, yeah. >> Any other questions for this witness? >> I just go ahead. >> I was not able to make it to the property currently. Right now, is there any flat yard in the backyard at all?
>> Uh, you can kind of see maybe I can um like this area is is significantly more flat than this area. >> You can kind of see where there's like a bunch of lines. like this is it's like it's it's I mean it's not just literally like a technically a steep slope. It just is. It's really steep along the back here.
>> And this area is more flat. >> So So where that flat area is now there's no possibility of of doing the project in that area. >> We're we're using like we're we're kind of going um backwards. >> Uh and so we're using a significant port
part of the of that. Um yeah. And how many um you're going to be filling in part of the rear yard with with soil approximately? How many tandem dump trucks or cubic feet do you think it's going to take to fill that up? >> You know, I think the civil engineer
could speak to it best, but I I think the the thing is um because we're excavating for the pool, that might as long as the city permits us to, we can that way we have we don't have to trans transport as much on site. Just kind of moving it around. And what's the overall
square footage of the new pool area, patio, you know, the whole area? I was looking for that. Maybe I missed it. I didn't >> increase in the building coverage or increase in the lot coverage would be the easiest way to say it. Is it on the forms?
>> Okay. I was looking for it. I couldn't find it. >> Yeah, it's it's on sheet one of the engineering drawings. You'll see a lot coverage breakdown table >> up in the the the >> should be in the lower left, I believe. >> 5500. >> Oh, okay. I was covered it with piece of
paper. Sorry. >> 853. >> Yeah. >> So, everything's outlined there. If you have a specific question about an area, I have a graphic where I can tell you what that is. um
pool coping. So So the the new proposed patio >> Okay. So the patio around the pool is 2,275 square ft. >> 2000 >> and we're disturbing uh 4,000 and change of
>> 4,900 square ft of steep slope disturbance. Correct. And part part of that disturbance, just so it's clear, is um just new grass that's at a level uh that's level as opposed to sloping off. >> So it's not as though that disturbance is all patio.
>> I just want to >> And again, I wasn't able to make it to the property today, but um in relations to the backyard behind the pool house, how far is the neighbor's house from the
property line? Any clue? I don't know. >> I'm sorry. I didn't hear. >> Okay. >> But thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Nelson. Any other questions? >> Seeing none. Any questions from the public for this witness? Seeing none.
Okay. Why don't we hear from the landscape architect? Randy Friezma. Um, F R I E S E M A. >> If you could raise your right hand, do you swear affirm the testimony you're about to give in this matter is the truth. The whole truth is nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> And sorry, can you just repeat your name, please?
>> I get that a lot. Uh, Randy Fma. F R I E S E M A. >> Thank you. And can you briefly describe your background and experience for the board? >> Um, I've been a landscape architect in town for 20 years. Um, spoken in front
of Summit, Short Hills, Verona, um, several others. Went to Penn State for my degree. >> License in New Jersey is in good standing. Y. Any questions from the board or would you like to accept your credentials? We would welcome please
proceed. >> Um to address the screening we obviously have shown and everything on here is we haven't gone through plant choices or anything like that knowing that Mr.
Linson was going to have his suggestions and recommendations and to meet regulations that since there will be some tree removal that we'll have to replant to kind of cancel that out. Um so we
know we have to shield this property and this property. This house is actually much closer to this property line, which did drive the fact that we've pushed the um the pool house to that corner because if it was over here, you'd actually be
closer to this house and this house. Um the other plant material would be more shrubbery, flowering things for the pool season and a couple shade trees for coverage in the next
several years as they mature. Um, but we figured we would meet with Mr. Linson to get, you know, what credit of what height, what species, that sort of thing. But green giant, arborites, junipers, things that do well in this area. >> Uh, board experts, what questions do you
have for this witness? So, I guess one of the questions I had asked earlier was about the screening to the back um and how that would mitigate the the visual effect of the walls and the fence on top of it. Um can you talk about how tall those um that will meet
we'll meet with Mr. Lson about that because we'll have to meet the regulation of the trees that are going to be removed. Oh, and to answer the one question from earlier that there's um an X through a 36 or 38 inch oak the top left corner
that actually had uh lightning damage to it. So, the top has been ripped out of it. So, it's to be removed anyway. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Ray. Uh board, what questions do we have for this witness?
>> Oh, and you have So sorry. >> Sorry. She addressed one of my questions. I appreciate that with the tree removal because it seems when you do a curve, a linear alignment of that wall to avoid the tree, but you're saying there's no value in saving the tree. So, I appreciate that. Uh the wall design, are you in charge of uh the
selection of material for the wall? >> We'll go through that with the client. >> Okay. That's something that's similar to what the architect illustrated, which is a it's a CMU pre-cast CMU wall, but it has a random look to it. >> We would want to do that one actually shows like a different pattern at each block. We would rather do like a single
block that shows a random pattern. So like the labor of installation is faster than trying to recreate a custom wall. >> But it has a random look. >> Yeah, we can do that. After those trees grow, you nobody will know there that wall is back there. >> Understood with the initial impact. >> Absolutely.
>> Because of that design and also the color of it. >> Is there a choice of the color or are you going to make it more earth tone? >> More earth tones is what we would suggest. Yeah. >> And concrete. That's all. >> Exactly. We don't want it to look like target. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Any equipment on the outside that needs to
be screened uh of AC equipment or anything of that associated with the pool house? >> Not as far as >> there will be a commen I think to cover. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Obviously that would be screened. Please have that. Okay. That's not shown
on any of the plans though. >> We would show that >> any uh I'm sorry if I didn't ask this to the height of the pergola. Is that going to be less than the maximum height permitted by res? >> Yeah, we'll make sure that's
>> Thank you. And then also any exterior lighting. >> We figured there would be like sconces on the um the front of the house. Yeah, you have it on your >> but it'll be screened. It won't be flood lights. >> No, nothing like that. Very tasteful.
>> Yeah. Okay, no questions. Thank you. >> Thank you, Ed Board. What questions do we have for the landscape architect? >> I just I know what says the um to be determined five to six foot evergreen
trees. Um is there any consideration to putting in larger or taller trees so that you don't have to wait for them to grow to hide the wall? >> And that's what we would find out from Mr. Linson because we know we'll have to >> Your client could say, >> "Oh, absolutely. they can direct us to that too, but we just don't want to suggest something taller and we don't
have to start with that cuz we obviously want it to grow fast and sometimes there's not like a benefit to starting with something that much taller when they like green giants will grow 3 feet a year. So dollar cost average.
>> Anything else? No. Any questions from the audience? Seeing none. Okay. Is there anything that you'd like to say in conclusion? >> Yeah. I think ultimately um like I had said I the the request is really just driven by
the the steep slopes that are present in the slight and everything that that is all the variances are kind of tied to that steep slope and um at the end of the day we're under block coverage building coverage every f complying with the setbacks and um we're just um I
think the the um the mun municipal land land use law in um in New Jersey I think uh provides for uh the need for variance driven by exceptional topographic conditions uniquely affecting the property which present a practical difficulty by the homeowner to comply with. Um so this is
the C1 justification uh that you know the municipal land law specifically is in place to address and I think our requests are in keeping with those kind of guidelines. >> Great. Thank you. One more question before um just in looking at this
proposed terrace. If there were not a terrace, would you need a variance for a 12 foot, you know, would would would we be at 12 feet with a fence or or no, we wouldn't, right? If you didn't have an behind the
pool house, I mean, is there really a need for that terrace? that cuz it's driving isn't that what's driving the 12 foot >> the variance to >> just to talk about it for a second the so this wall on this side here is is a foot 1 ft tall and then on here here
when it goes to the absolute tallest part of the wall it's 8 feet right >> and then it would have uh just fall like a fall guard just so that you know nobody falls off the edge of that wall and so that like those aggregate if you had the eight feet at its tallest plus >> yeah I understand where does the eight feet begin where does it begin to be
eight feet tall the wall. >> Well, um it's it's eight at its tallest. So, >> it said it was at the terrace. That's why I was asking. >> Yeah, the terrace down here is is where it's at its peak. Um so, at about the half point, it would be roughly say 4 feet tall. I think Pete, maybe you can
speak to the grade a little bit. >> So, the 12 12T is at its highest. >> We're we're not touching um any of the grades on the west side of that wall. So this all slopes down like this. >> Where is the 10 foot mark on that wall?
10 feet where your wall plus fence is 10 ft in height. Where does that happen and then it exceeds 10 ft after that? >> You'd have to interpolate between 12 feet right here, which has nothing to do with the terrace. This is the existing ground by the way. So that's the maximum
height of 12 feet and zero. >> The terrace is built up, right? So I've just >> No, it is not. It's that great. It's that great. It's a 103.5 elevation. >> This bottom of the terrace is just >> Oh, I was looking at the this this drawing here makes it look like
>> the terrace is Oh, is >> that the the yard above the terrace? So this this terrace here >> is like at the basement level at at the basement level of the pool house. >> Okay. >> And it's that basement level is basically at grade. So like like this
slopes down and then this grade at like roughly 103 is just where the existing grade is. >> Okay. So you're having like a porch above the terrace back here. Is this >> this retaining wall is what's holding back like the the floor level of this um terrace up here. >> That's that's the terrace. That's the
pool level. >> Is that that's the pool side then? Because this looks like these are the stairs that go down a lot >> around, right? Like that that landscaping that's all the pool wraps around. >> Hold on. I'm looking. Here's the
>> So, this is here. Okay. And there's no Okay. >> If you look at this, >> all right. East right side elevation. See this? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> You're seeing that the fencing that's here. This is this this area is down below. Go
down the stairs. >> But that elevation you're looking at is looking at >> not only this wall which is down below, but the fence that sits on top of it >> which protects this is which is all at >> Yeah. It's just the crosssection of it is weird. >> The yard granite yard. >> And before we keep going, I I neglected
to mention before I know these handouts that we're looking at the revised plans, uh we're just going to mark that as A1. Great. >> And that I have a prompted me to ask one more question if I may. Is there any drainage needed at that lower terrace
since that is such a low area and and we talk about daylight or water running out from out behind the retaining wall. Uh yeah, I mentioned that before. There is a uh stone infiltration trench, you could call it that. It's a pad and it's it's on sheet two of six.
>> So it's a very small area of that patio. So that just sheet drains onto that infiltration trench. >> Then it just percolates through the ground. >> It does. >> No effect on the neighbors property. Are they lower, higher? Same level. >> They are uh for the most part it's flat
back there. So it should function very well. >> And I think just from the perspective of the neighbors, like currently there's a really large slope and all the water is just flowing down that slope towards the neighbors. And as part of this work, we're going to be grabbing like a really significant percentage of that water. So
the neighbors the drainage from the perspective of the neighbor >> I have a I have a question sorry I'm I'm probably going should have asked this earlier what is the purpose of the pool a pool house in your in your opinion like in general I mean I my opinion is a
pool house is where so you don't go back into the house if you have to you know you need to use the bathroom you know um maybe get changed This pool house has a living area, a kitchen, an island with seating for five, a bath, a separate shower area, a
golf simulator/den downstairs. Is it necessary to have all that in a pool house for like I said in the back? Is is there did you think about any other way to create to meet the needs of a pool house without making it, you know, you
know, 1100 square feet? Um, I I think it was an amenity for for the home and I think it it's in keeping with like the amenities that are common in the neighborhood. When you look at the kind of houses in the area, I think actually the F like maximum allowed F in
the R25 district is is like almost indicative of like this house relative to maybe other houses in the district where I think they have over 4,000 square feet of of floor area that could be added to the property that isn't. And I only say that to say that like um it's
not as though this is this property is built out with like a crazy huge house that is totally out of out of scale with the the the property. It's actually like you know at 4,000 square feet under it's significantly smaller. So um it's I just wanted to mention that as just like a
kind of macro comment, but I think ultimately it's a pool house that um we we've done many pool houses in in other neighborhoods where there isn't a 24x 24 maximum on the footprint. Pool houses are often significantly larger. Um like in Bilburn, they're often significantly
larger. The I would say the 24 by 24 requirement means that they're relative to other kind of similar towns uh with similar housing stock that's actually pretty small. >> But if you cut it in half and you did half of that and like you know just and just did half of it, you wouldn't you
wouldn't be it wouldn't go back as far on the property, wouldn't go back into as far into the steep slope. you you could be avoiding a lot of this. That's that's my my question. It just seems like it's it's it's
you're asking for a lot a large pool house, which like I said, which is a lot more than a pool house in my opinion. Um and it's going to be, you know, it's it because it's so big, it's going further back on the property. It's going further into the steep slope. It's, you know,
adding all these things. I just think that there is there was there another consideration on how to figure this out without coming in for the variances. >> I think the variances at the end of the day are are not really about like the size of the the pool house. The the the the variances are really just the steep
slopes and just because like 40% of the backyard is steep slope. It would be extraordinarily difficult to put a pool and a pool house as you'd otherwise be permitted without touching like more than thousand square feet of this area. And at the end of the day, a lot of the
a lot of the steep slope disturbance is not pool terrace, is not pool house. It's um it's like sorry, it's this portion of the yard that we're just trying to make flat so that they that like kids can more easily play on
it without like balls flowing down the hill. So like a lot of the steep slope disturbance is not this steep slope. It's actually a lot of it is over here and that's just for flat yard. And what about the yard that's behind the garage? That's pretty flat. There's a pretty flat area. It's not even in the picture.
>> Uh behind >> you can kind of see that over here there's like a lot a pretty dense grouping of lines here. It's not as dense as the like super steep area at the back, but it's still like a slope. >> Yeah. The part um >> there's a step back and it's on a pretty good >> I'm not talking about that. I'm talking
about the part below the stairs. Before you get to the stairs, between the garage, between the garage and the p and the patio before you get to the stairs, there's a, you know, a flat area there. >> Yeah. I mean, there is some some some sections of the backyard that are flat. >> Okay. Just want to make it clear. Thank you.
>> You you said 40% of the rear yard is steep slope. >> I'm like eyeballing it. So >> So that means 60%'s not >> um Yeah, exactly. >> So why couldn't you build on that 60%. >> Well, it's two levels, just to be clear. There's like We need a microphone.
>> You can say >> the Yeah, there's there's like a series of like like this is a low kind of area of the backyard that's uh an existing kind of sunken patio. >> Um and then there's an area here that it's not flat, but it's it's it's not >> But if you were to if you were to fill that in, you wouldn't we wouldn't
disturb the steep slope. >> I think if you were to put a pool and a pool house here, what you would end up doing is eating up the entire backyard with pool and pool house. And then >> you made it smaller. >> Um, no. I I mean I just I think just practically just the size of a pool and a pool house with the setbacks that are
required. I think you would eat up most of like the usable space of the backyard and then they'd have thousands and thousands of square feet at the back >> they own but can't use. >> Been there since god knows when. >> Yeah. And I think ultimately them
disturbing it is improving the drainage of the of the neighbor. Thank you. Mr. Ball, can you run us through conditions and number of votes required? >> Certainly. Um, so it's C variances are
all we're talking about here. So, four out of the seven members are required to approve the application. Um, the conditions I have noted are first are usual compliance with those conditions noted in the board engineers memorandum. Uh second, that the plan shall be revised to reflect that there's no
dwelling unit or beds in the accessory structure. Third, the applicant shall record a deed restriction to confirm that the accessory pool house shall not be used as a dwelling unit. And um I know we're just talking about the landscaping plans. Uh so fourth, the landscaping plan shall be submitted to
the city forester for review and approval. >> Great. Thank you, Mr. Ball. Who would like to begin our deliberations? Mr. Nering, >> I'm still disturbed by the height of the pool house. That's that's really high.
Really 6 feet, 7 ft more than the regular allows. I don't know. I don't have any suggestions on what to do about it, but it's just high. >> Thank you, >> Alison. I I I think you know there was been a lot of stuff that we discussed
that you know things are big things are high and I feel like there's no nothing has been um no additional proposals were have been discussed by the experts um they didn't come up with any other alternatives
um and ways to you know work around it and make it make us feel more comfortable with it. So um I I I can't support this Tom, >> Mr. Tangel, >> you know, I'm
I'm a little concerned about that. There's there's a lot of outdoor entertaining area around this house. It is a large, very large property, but most of it is
steep slope. And we always try to keep people from disturbing too much of a steep slope. I just think there was there's a better way to redesign all all this all this outdoor entertainment space. You know,
there's a large patio right in the back of the house. There's a fire pit and now there's going to be another patio. I I just think there was a better way to reconfigure this to fit a little bit closer to the house and not
cutting back so far into that deep slope. >> Anyone else? >> Um I Oh, yeah. Go ahead. >> Yes. So, um I'll say the only thing that disturbs me somewhat about this application is is the height of the pool house. I mean, there obviously are there
are no coverage variances needed. No bulk variances needed. No setback variants needed. The uh steep slope variance seems to manage very well. You know, they're they they're addressing everything we need them to do with it to address steep slope variance. Um
yeah, so I mean it really the only thing that bothers me about it is the height of the pool house. I I wish it could be lower, but like I said, there really there's no bulk variances, no coverage variances, no setback variances. So there's there's no I don't see any issues with that. For me, it's the only
thing I'm concerned about is side of the pool house, and I'm still not sure how I'm going to vote, but that's my only concern. >> Um, no, we're in executive session. So, I I think that the um I I am concerned about the height he
height of the pool house, but that that also relates to the 12-oot fence and just being above a height variance and how that impacts other people, backyard neighbors down the road. I don't know that we actually have
enough answer on the landscaping to say that that's going to be enough to uh minimize the impact of having sort of a 12t wall behind that that's a visual for them especially you know if they're looking uphill um then they may see it
more you know not less because of landscaping. I also, you know, I was at the property as was mentioned multiple times. It's a really large piece of property. It's a beautiful property. Um, I do think there is a lot of flat area in the backyard. I didn't find that the
swing set seem to be pitched or anything like that. I mean, I I looked at all of it. Um, it seems to me that there are other ways to have presented this to minimize the steep slopes and to not have to have that 12t height variance and the 23
foot, you know, pool height and that there's, you know, there are a lot of things we want and there are things that are nice to have and then we sometimes have to figure out how we accomplish them. You know, I think there are other ways to accomplish having a pool and a
pool house on this property without extending so far into the steep slopes that you need a 12ft wall um without, you know, extending so far into this steep slope that your building height becomes 23.2 ft. So, I'm,
you know, I'm troubled by that and just the extent of the the retaining wall. So, I think you guys hear um how this is probably going to head in terms of a vote. So, I'm going to give you the
opportunity to either let us conclude our deliberations and vote or would you like to go back and maybe consider some redesign options and then come back before this board? Uh yeah, I think in light of the
comments, we'd like to just consider everything and we respect all the comments. Uh no question. Um and so I think we'd just like to kind of consider them and and make some adjustments that address them specifically uh and come back um uh you know soon as soon as possible. Okay.
>> Um ideally without the need to renotice. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Jessica, you want to handle that now or do you want to in terms of >> we would need to handle it now. >> Okay. So, the next date would be February 18th, 2026.
>> Uh, sure. Yep. That'd be great. >> Um, can we get a motion to carry this without notice? >> So, move a second. >> Second. >> Jessica, can you call the role, please? >> Vice Chair Zon. >> Yes. >> Mr. Yuko.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Nelson. >> Yes. >> Miss Chief. >> Yes. >> Mr. Chantuli? >> Yes. >> Mr. Nearing? >> Yes. Chairman Ly. >> Yes. All right. We'll see you in February. Thank you, >> Mr. Weber. Thank you for being patient. Appreciate that very much.
>> He's paid by the hour. >> Tough crowd. >> Did I just Did I just hear that >> on camera? >> And he's And he's worth every penny. >> Absolutely. >> Please, Mr. Mr. Weber, >> can we have a date to carry this uh
application? >> This one is for >> uh the first application >> 71 Hillrest >> 71. >> Thank you. >> So this is for 71 Hillrest. This would
also be February 18th, 2026. >> Very good. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Weber. >> Do we have that motion? >> Oh, yeah. >> Yes. Can I get a motion to carry 71? So move. >> Second. >> Jessica. >> Vice Chair Zon.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Yuko. >> Yes. >> Mr. Nelson. >> Yes. >> Miss Chief. >> Yes. >> Mr. Chantuli. >> Yes. >> Mr. Nearing. >> Yes. >> Chairman Ly. >> Yes. >> Just to clarify, was that with notice or without? >> Without. without >> Oh, wait. Do we have other business,
Jessica? We got to >> have two resolutions. >> We also have the schedule 2026 schedule. >> All sorts of things. >> So, what do we take care of the um Do we need to do the close session first
or we can >> You're the order is up to you. So, you can >> Okay. >> Handle those. >> Why don't we just knock out these resolutions then? >> Okay. We have two resolutions for memorialization. Up first is 47 Hillrest
Avenue. Zoning board application number ZB-25-2312. The eligible members to vote are vice chairs on Mr. Nelson, Miss Chief, Mr. Chantuli, and Mr. Nearing. Could we get a motion to approve? >> So move. >> And a second. >> Second.
>> Thank you. Vice Chair Zon. >> Yes. >> Mr. Nelson, >> yes. >> Miss Chief, >> yes. >> Mr. Chantuli, >> yes. >> Mr. Nearing, >> yes. Okay, up next we have 32 Montrose Avenue, zoning board application number ZB-25-2310.
The eligible members to vote are vice chairs on Mr. Nelson, Miss Chief, Mr. Chantuli, and Mr. Nearing. Could we get a motion to approve? >> So make a motion. >> Okay. And a second. >> Second. >> Thank you. Vice Chair, >> yes. >> Mr. Nelson, >> yes.
>> Miss Chief, >> yes. >> Mr. Chanuli, >> yes. >> Mr. Nearing, >> yes. >> Thank you. Those are the only resolutions for memorialization. >> Sixth Wellen. >> Oh yeah, there was not. >> No, that's okay. Withdrawn.
>> Can I ask a question about bridge 19? >> We're not adjourning at anyone. >> Yes, >> we're Hold on a second. Um, do I need a motion to go into >> do the schedules, too? >> Do you want to do schedule one?
>> Yeah, we can do the schedules first. >> I think everyone has a copy, right? >> Yes. >> Next year's schedule. >> Yes, >> it's in the packet. You got it. >> Does anyone need it? I have two extras
if anyone didn't uh bring it. to just vote on. >> Yeah. Just any any comments before we vote on the schedule for next year? >> No. >> No. >> All right. Can I get a motion to approve the 2026?
>> So moved. >> Second. >> All right. Great. >> Vice Chair. >> Yes. >> Mr. Yuko? >> Yes. >> Mr. Nelson? >> Yes. >> Miss Chief? >> Yes. >> Mr. Chantuli? >> Yes. >> Mr. Nearing? >> Yes. >> Chairman Lyens? >> Yes. >> All right. Great. Can I get a motion to
go into close session? >> So, I'm just going to before we do the motion uh read the resolution into the record. >> Thank you. >> Whereas the open public meetings act permits the exclusion of the public from meetings of public bodies in certain circumstances set forth by statute. And whereas the zoning board of adjustment of the city of summit is of the opinion
that such circumstances currently exist. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the zoning board of adjustment of the city of summit as follows. One, the public shall be excluded from the discussion of any action upon the herein after specified matters. Two, the nature of the subject matter to be discussed as follows. Confidential personnel matters
review board professionals RFQ submissions. Three, it's anticipated at this time the above stated subject matter will be made public in approximately 30 days or at such or yeah, that's unnecessary. >> Okay, great. Thank you, Mr. Ball. Can I
get a motion to go into close session? >> Some moved. >> Get a second. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I. >> All right. Great.