Good evening and welcome to the November 10th, 2025 meeting of the City of Summit Zoning Board of Adjustment. My name is Miriam Mison and I'm the vice chair of the zoning board of adjustment. Please rise and join us in the pledge of allegiance.
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 of record and has been posted here in city hall. This meeting is a judicial proceeding. Any questions or comments must be limited to the issues there that are relevant to what
the board may legally consider in reaching a decision and decorum appropriate to a judicial hearing must be maintained at all times for the benefit of the interested public. This meeting is being livereamed to the city's YouTube page and also broadcast
on Summit's government channel which is Comcast 34 and Verizon channel 30. A transcript of this meeting is also being taken using the video and audio. So we need all speakers to use one of microphones in the room. Please note that 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? >> Sure. Vice chair on
>> here. Mr. Yuko is excused. Mr. Malay is excused. Mr. Nelson >> here. >> Mr. Curran is excused. Miss Chief >> here. >> Mr. Feskins is expected but not yet present. Mr. Chantuli >> here. >> Mr. Nearing >> here. >> Chairman Ly is excused. You have a
quorum. You may proceed. Thank you. Zach Stazinski is the zoning board's attorney. Mr. Stazinski advises the board members on matters of law and is the key interface with an applicant's attorney. Mr. Stinski does not vote on the applications.
Jessica Sans is a city employee and is acting as zoning board secretary. Our board secretary works with applicants on preparing their applications, planning our agendas, and keeping our meeting minutes. The board secretary also does not vote on the applications. Also
present are our experts who are hired annually by the board to provide input. Tonight we have Marie Rafé from Kier Engineering. Also present is present is Tom Barren from Burgess Associates, our board planner. These experts are seated at the table to the right of the board,
the public's left. They do not vote on the applications. Our board consists of seven regular members and up to four alternates. All members can participate in the hearings, but a maximum of seven can vote. Most applications require a simple majority to be approved. Before
we enter into executive session to vote on the application, you will be advised as to how many votes are required. Each case will begin with the applicants or their attorney giving an overview of the application process to date and the variances that are required. We then hear from any additional expert
witnesses the applicant may have to explain the application and why the variances are needed. The board experts followed by board me board members may ask questions of the applicant, their attorney, and the expert witnesses. Due to recent cases running excessively long, we strongly encourage applicants
and their experts to give brief and concise testimony so that we may get to as many cases as possible in a given evening. Once the board members and the board professionals have completed their questioning, the public will have an opportunity to ask questions. This is not the time to tell us what you think
about the case. That opportunity comes at the end of hearing. Please be careful as to how you phrase your questions. They should not be proceeded with the statement about the case, but should be a direct question to the witness. Also, before you ask your questions, please clearly state your name, spell your last
name, and provide your address. It is important that our court reporter be able to keep a clear and accurate public record. After all witnesses have been heard, members of the audience have their second opportunity to speak. And at that time, you may express your opinion, positive or negative, about the
application. Then the public hearing is closed and we enter into executive session where the board members discuss the case and vote. You will be able to listen to our executive session but you will not normally be able to participate in the discussion.
Um and then just to go over our cases tonight um our agenda is going to be slightly changed from what you may have seen. Um six Lwellen has uh withdrawn their application. So, um I'm going to
ask and are we going to should we just vote to carry 45 Prospect now? >> Let's do that. Just out of Is there anyone here from 45 Prospect? Madam Chair, James Weber on behalf of the applicants on 45 Prospect. If
there's anyone here on 45 Prospect, I'm happy to meet with them. Uh we're asking that this be carried. Our plans are still in flux. They have not been completely revised. We're trying to eliminate the building coverage variants and as a result uh we're moving the
elevations around and they're just not done. We met yesterday, Sunday, to give you an idea of how we were trying to work through this, but they're not done. And as a result, it would be uh uh not respective of the board's time.
Okay. >> If we could have We're coming in uh Samantha and I are coming in on the 17th. >> If there's an opening, we'd like to be able to be heard on the 17th >> certainly 17th, I think.
>> I don't know. Is that possible? >> Possible on the agenda if we have time. If not, let me carry. >> Okay. So, we can put you uh Well, assuming we have a motion to carry, we'll have one more point. Madam Chair, but we are understood that February
2nd's open and if it doesn't work for December 17th, we'd like to keep February 2nd so we can conclude this application. Is that acceptable? >> Yes. Um do we have a motion to carry? >> So can I just want to mention to this
gentleman about the property? Um I was there today and that entire property is unsecured. >> Um It's it's I mean just a note of caution to your client. It's kind of dangerous. There's a you know really big deep large pool in the back that's
empty. The fences are open. The door to the garage was open. The house is unlocked. I I just think should be >> there. There should have been uh caution tape up. Wasn't had it fallen down >> tape up. But everything's open. >> All right. Then
>> the gates are open. You can walk in >> perhaps. You know the pool is right there. It's like 8 ft deep. >> If there is going to be a board member, Madame Chair, that wants to see it, perhaps Mr. Chianuli's observations are good and we can have someone there to escort the board member through uh the
property. >> Same for safety for in case a kid walks through into the property or something. >> The same thing today. >> It's more for your your >> probably maybe want to lock that gate to that to your point if possible. Um,
>> but then the board members can't see the yard. So, if there is a a request to see it, then all we need to be uh contacted and we'll have someone out there to escort the board member through after locking the place up. Does that make sense everyone? >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Weber.
>> Thank you. Okay. So, we have a a motion to carry. >> Yeah. And a second. >> Vice Chair. >> Yes. >> Mr. Nelson? >> Yes. >> Miss Chief? >> Yes. >> Uh, can Mr. Fesin vote? He just walked in. >> Did you hear the Did you hear
>> I didn't hear enough to be able to vote. I should have >> Yeah. Thank you, >> Mr. Chantuli. >> Yes. >> Mr. Nearing. >> Yes. Okay. >> And express my appreciation to Mr. Chantuli, Mr. Nearing, and the board for advising of the uh steps that we can take to secure the property. It's
appreciated. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, we will be hearing two cases tonight. um 47 Hillrest Avenue and 32 Montrose Avenue. Um I think just to kind
of expedite this, does anyone do either parties like raise your hand if you think your case is going to take more than 30 minutes? No. Okay. So, let's start with uh 47 Hillrest. Raise your right hand. Say, state your first
name and please spell your last name. >> Jessica Roy. R O Y. >> Anthony Amechian. E KM E KJ I A N. >> Do you swear please keep your Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Thank you.
>> Good evening everyone and thank you for having us here. Um, as mentioned, my name is Jessica Roy. I am a Summit native. I grew up here. I went to Franklin School. Um, and moved back in 2020 with my family, my husband Anthony, um, and we had our three children here
at Overlook who are now almost five um, three and one. Over the five years that we've lived here, we've um, thought about how to make our house more functional. Um, and one of those things was, um, building a new mudroom on our
house, um, as well as moving our garage to be attached to the house. Um, which as a byproduct will create a safer barrier for our children to play in the in a more open backyard. Um, they currently play in our driveway, which is
sloped toward the street, and we're constantly chasing after them. Balls are rolling into the street or almost into the street. We're catching them. Um, so the design provides this uh safety function which is great. Further, we identified that there's a spot in the
back of our property that's quite unusable. Um, and it's a perfect spot to build a tennis court which will provide a great place for our children to play safe safely as well. Further um it'll be a great place um to play tennis with our
neighbors um which we've uh discussed with them as well. >> Yeah. So, I mean, we've gone through a two-year design process. We started this in June 2023. Um, we've thought through lot coverage. We've thought through the
setbacks. We've thought through trees and certain, you know, maintaining the trees. So, we've got a property with a lot of shade trees. We want to keep that going. Um, but you know, the point we wanted to make on the iterations that we've gone through back and forth is, you know, we put together a package in a
permit set that had no variances or what we thought would be no variances. And uh we were a little surprised cuz one of the things that came back was for accessory structure. And um I guess there was a new way of looking at the accessory structure definition. Um and our understanding is now there might be
language in the in the ordinance that would re kind of reward it such that the accessory structure only has a roof on it. And so this is a court. It's an athletic court. You know, we want our kids to be able to play on it. Um so you know, we wanted to kind of talk to you about the overall plan. We brought our
civil engineer. We brought our architect. Uh, but we're doing a an an add-on, an attached garage, an attached mudroom. We're going to take away about 90 ft of driveway space to open up the backyard. And um there is this spot kind of in the back of the property away from
all of our neighbors that could fit a narrower tennis court, which is what we're what we're here to talk about. And we're really excited about it. Talked about it with our neighbors. We've incorporated their input into this uh application. The other thing we wanted to note is that just last week we got
feedback from the environmental commission. So we we noted that they made mention of um some of the trees and how we think through that. So we wanted to let you all know that we had John Linson the summit for forester out uh twice over the last two years. Uh we cared a lot about this. I mean our
neighbors were focused on trees. We were focused on the trees. We want everything in this tennis court area to look very natural. And so uh John suggested you know different ways to go about it. Um, and one of the things that came up was, you know, how we would show you all of the trees. And so we put that on our
plot plan, but there was some feedback about should we have a landscape plan, which we just want to let you know, we're happy to work with you on that. Uh, we're flexible. If you all if you all think it's best for us to have conditions to the uh vote, we're happy to do that with you. But uh, overall, our plan is to construct tennis court,
and that's why we're here. Um, also wanted to just mention that the um, historic nature of our home is very important to us and we have been very thoughtful about the design um, with the detail and wanting to make sure that it adheres to both our neighborhood as well
as the original design of the home. We want it to look like it's always looked this way and actually is an improvement on its current beautiful design. Um, so we've been again very considerate and thoughtful about all the different components of um, of this uh, renovation.
Thank you. Um, board experts, do you have any questions? >> Um, you're having your engineer speak. >> Engineer and I'll wait. >> Board members, any questions? >> I just have one. Um, because you mentioned the narrow uh putting in a
narrower uh tennis court. Uh what is the reason for making it narrower? >> Uh to comply with setbacks from the back property line. Thank you. Sorry about that. Swear Mr. Clark in. >> Sorry. Can you please state your first
name and spell your last name for the record? >> Andrew Clark. C L A R K E. >> Thank you. And can you please give brief a brief description of your qualifications? >> Certainly. I'm a licensed surveyor and civil engineer in the state of New Jersey. Um my license is in good
standing. I um was responsible for the preparation of the plan. I've appeared in front of this board frequently. U last week I think was the last time and uh I've appeared in front of Chattam Burough's zoning and planning board Madison um both with some frequency.
And do you swear the testimony you're about to give will be the truth? >> I do. Thank you. Will the board like to accept this expert? >> Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. Thank you. Um, it's working. So, I'm going to start uh by describing the existing conditions briefly uh just to
set the stage. Um, making reference to the topographic survey that I prepared dated uh the plan is dated April 14th, 2025. Um, the original fieldwork, as was indicated before, was done in late 2023, uh, at the early stages of the
development of this project. So, it's gone through a couple of phases, but that's when the original survey was done. I did actually return to the site to check some things after that. There was a pool house that was added on the neighboring property that I added in uh,
in some sub subsequent survey work. Um, that was uh, just a few months ago in April of this year. So, the existing site um is it's block 11:04 lot 6 and it's in the R25 zone on
Hillrest A just about 300 ft from the Belleview intersection. Um what's existing on the site, it's primarily rectangular in shape. It's just under 60,000 square foot property. Um what's existing now is a two and a half story dwelling that's kind of
centered on the property um with a modest portico in the front relative to the dwelling itself. And then there's a terrace wrapping around the back of the of the existing dwelling. There's an ingground pool with a spa and then uh sort of a an older historic sort of a it
looks like a converted carriage house of some sort. Um it's a two-story structure that they use uh for recreation and as part of the pool house. And then to the back left is a detached twocar garage that exists. And then of course we have the paved driveway that comes all the
way from uh the entrance back to that detached garage sort of framing the left side of the property here. Um with regards to the topography, the general grades and the and the drainage flow is from the rear of the property towards
Hillrest. um behind the pool house and garage, it sort of slopes towards those structures and then once you get to that point, it's it's pretty flat uh in between and it and again gently slopes in front of
the house towards Hillrest. Um and that th that describes the existing conditions generally and then I can get right into the um proposed conditions. So, I'm going to flip to the lot grading plan, which has the same date of April
14th 2025. So, what we're proposing to do is remove the detached garage and the driveway completely. And then there's a proposed addition that's shaded on the plan at the sort of back
left of the existing dwelling to provide a a an attached garage and a mudroom uh for transition into the living space. And then the new driveway would have to be um constructed and reconfigured to uh relate properly to this addition.
There's also some extension of the porch in the front. There's the modest portico. So, they're trying to make now a wraparound porch with some screened porch area on the right side um to allow for um some outdoor use that's uh screened off from
the the bugs. And then in the back, the area that was just discussed is this tennis court area. So, um, the the width is a little constricted because the pool house is there and we want to stay within the
setbacks for the rear setback. So, we're at at least 15 ft in the back right corner and the the boundary sort of diverges away towards the left. So, it's a little more than that. It's about 17 feet at the back left corner of the proposed tennis courts.
And in order to affect this change, what we're going to do is implement um some storm water measures to make sure that we're ending up with a good product on the property and not causing any sort of problems. So we have one tank system
that we've actually already discussed uh relocating it I think in in combination with discussion with the tennis court people who I had the tennis court graded so that there was a sort of a high point in the middle and it was grading slightly in either direction. Tennis
court people indicated it'd be better to have one direction pitch, which actually in this case might work out better from the stormwater standpoint also because we we'll have a 1% so it's a very modest grade um from right to left and then
have the drain framing the left side and move the drywalls over. The drywalls on the left side will probably be a better location in our discussions um because there are a number of large trees over on this side. we'd like to protect them and maintain them. Whereas over here,
we're ending up placing those dry wells in the location where there's currently a driveway and the and the detached garage that's going to be removed. So, it'll be less impact to any kind of trees and the and the canopy that's there. So, that's a slight change from what I have shown on the plan in terms of the
grading. But we're going to have the tank system that's going to collect all that water and manage it um right approximate to the the proposed tennis court. And then the second system is going to be in the front yard and is plan to capture the the addition which
is just over,00 square ft. Um, and then there's a high point on the driveway that's right about where I'm indicating opposite the the neighboring house. And everything from that high point drains very gently to the street and everything else behind that will drain to an inlet
that's in the back left corner. So we're managing about 1,200 square feet of the driveway and a little less than 1,200 square feet of the new roof area um with this drywall. In addition to that, in conversation with the owners, there's a couple of spots in between the pool
house and the pool and the terrace behind the house and the pool where it's very level. Um there's not much pitch. Water does trap and pond a little bit in there. So, I've introduced a couple of um just uh minor infiltration drains and
and a couple of inlets here to make sure water isn't trapping in in that area. And that's also going to the dry well. Now, the drywall sizing, since that's sort of an undefined quantity and it's really more for localized ponding, uh
it's not going to contribute much to the dry wells. But nonetheless, to make sure this system isn't overt taxed, I have it sized up about 50% above what the the numbers would be for the um paved and roof area. So, supposed to manage about
600 cubic feet. I have 967 cubic feet. So, it's it's should be more than adequate for the area that it's handling up here. So, that's the storm water design. We're obviously um
impacting this area in the back. And then we're regrading um the area between where the driveway was. And there's like a landscape burm that's here now between the pool and the driveway. We're going to knock that down. And this will be more of a a gently graded yard area
that's there um with some landscaping around the edges. Um I did want to point out that along along the left edge of this proposed driveway, there's a line of arborites that are there shown to be removed. Those appear to have been uh
actually placed by the neighbor on lot 7 along with the little lawn drain that's right next to the drain that we're proposing at the corner of the driveway. So, there's a little bit of lawn and that landscaping that that are encroaching on our property that that will be corrected as part of this. Um,
they've been in discussion with this neighbor who uh seemed to be supportive of the application. I don't see a problem. I think it was raised in a couple of the comments as to how this screening might occur. That was one of Mr. Linson's comments. He didn't have a
lot of comments, but he did indicate that it might uh be a benefit to have some screening along the driveway, but that there may not be enough room. Some of that may need to be on the neighbors property slightly. And in fact, we're going to look at whether or not some of those arbides could be relocated uh
depending on their condition and the ability to relocate them without killing them. Um otherwise, some some new screening would have to be planted. But that that is something that's um proposed as part of this. It's we didn't
submit a landscaping plan. Um Anthony had met with John Linson a couple of times in the field and looking at this and uh he understood what we were considering and seemed to be pretty satisfied with the plan. Uh he expressed
the concern about the screening but at the time indicated that he didn't think it would really be necessary to have a landscape plan. However, we did get that comment from the environmental commission and as was indicated uh a moment ago in testimony, they're more than happy to do that. They're obviously
going to do some landscaping as part of this. It's a beautiful property. They're going to maintain and upgrade that that beauty with landscaping in addition to these improvements. So that would certainly be something that that would be perfectly acceptable in terms of a condition to have a landscape plan
submitted, but that's why one hasn't been submitted yet because it didn't seem to be warranted from discussion with John Linson in those field meetings. There are trees that are be planned to be removed obviously in the back here and there'll be some loss of canopy
behind this pool house. Um, I would just point out that obviously this would all be well detailed on a landscape plan if one had been prepared. But what remains on the property around these areas that are not going to be disturbed and even
on the fringe uh next to the garage that's being removed and the tennis courts is about 22 trees that are um larger than 12 in. And then there's another 20 to 22 trees, maybe more, that
are between 6 and 12 in. So there's almost four dozen trees that are going to remain on the property, many of which are quite large. So of the two dozen, the 22 trees that are above 12 in, 10 or 12 of those are 20 to 42 in. So, they're
very mature, you know, trees that have canopy and, you know, a good a good uh landscaping profile associated with them. I did some quick numbers on the GIS from from DP to just
check what we have for canopy. Even removing this section in the back, the canopy that will remain in this part of the property and on the left side along the fringe still puts us at almost 30% of the lot in canopy, almost 20,000
square ft. So that's actually I I did some further digging and there are a lot of numbers and studies that have been done about you know percentage of canopies and in uh suburban areas. 40% is like the perfect world. 30% is very
good. Um, a lot of properties get down to like 15% or less. And saw some studies talking about the disparity in in in canopies between poorer communities and and wealthier communities. 30% seem to be a very good
number and and we'll have that when this is done. So, we're not clearcutting the lot. um even though we are clearing this area in the back for the tennis courts. But I would also uh point out relative to the tennis court and its impact on
the neighbors. It was testified that for one the neighbors may likely play tennis with these owners. That's part of the incentive to have the tennis court here. But also the way this is going to situate because of the level of the of
the existing floor of the house and where this situates, we're actually cutting into the slope in the back. So, it's going to be sort of recessed down. So, the neighbors in the back have a pretty sizable yard that they've fenced
in. They're not really going to see much of the tennis court, especially when landscaping is added along the top of the wall that's there. same thing but to a little lesser degree on the left and the right side. Of course, on the right there's the detached garage, on the left
there's the pool house. So, those areas are somewhat obstructed by their own improvements on their properties. But, I don't think that this tennis court is going to have any negative impact on the neighbors based on that, the fact that it's going to be recessed down um you
know, 3 to six feet below the grade. And so it should have a relatively low impact on any of the neighboring properties in addition to the supplemental landscaping that will occur. And that describes the proposal. Um I'm
happy to walk through the the memos with your professionals and then field questions. >> Great. >> Um I'm trying to decide if you want to go through you want to have him go through the uh letter and then we'll address
things or you want me to ask him some questions. What do you think? >> It's up to you. We've all read the letter. So, if you want >> Yeah, I tried to cover as much as I could that was in your letter. >> So, um so some things that I am curious about. Um you went over all the the dry well systems, the sizing of them. I'm
satisfied. I know I had some questions in my letter, but I think he's addressed what my concerns were. Um so, I'm I'm okay with that. Um you talked about the the um the lawn drain that currently exists and right >> it's probably a neighbor's >> um with that.
>> Um could you talk about some of the walls that are in the backyard, the height of them, the fence on top um and what's happening with that? >> Sure. So, so we have um at the back corners the wall from the base of the wall to the top of the wall is 7 feet at
and that's the highest point is along this back side and then they come down to grade as you move forward. Um we're putting a three-foot fence on top. The the ordinance has a limit of 10 ft for the fence for the wall fence
combination. So, we didn't want to exceed that. And based on the fact that it's a seven foot wall, I don't think we need to. The three-foot fence is really for um protection for, you know, people that might be wandering around behind there or landscapers, whoever, the kids
to to have some protection for the wall. Um so they're not, you know, coming in in too much proximity for that. But just fall protection really. So, how about the um the the ends of the courts where you might have a ball going o over that
area is it looks like >> Yeah, the wall comes down and is lower, >> right? So, you only have a three-foot fence on that, >> you know, going into the neighbor's yard all the time. >> It might make sense as that comes down to have sort of the the the fence sort
of hold the top elevation and follow down to provide that. Um, outside of that, I mean, I don't know if there's other ways with like netting or something that they could um put something up that was transparent but not not so much a fence, but to protect,
but I have a feeling that's going to be also a matter of trial and error. So, they're going to, you know, set it up and then and then find out how many balls are flying onto the neighboring property because they probably don't want to lose the balls either. >> Right. Right. Well, even that if I mean
if you got the the ball going into the neighbor's yard or even just, you know, just beyond that and if it's if it's sloping down towards the road, those balls are then going down towards the road if they're in the neighbor's driveway. >> Yeah, I don't think they're ever going to get out to the road just given the
distance and the landscaping they would have to navigate. Um, they'd be pretty ambitious tennis balls at >> even even I don't know how far the neighbors like driveway or their improvements or I don't I don't know where it's located. Yeah, I mean the the neighbor's garage on the right side is
at almost 12 ft off the line. >> Okay. >> Um and and we're at 35 ft from the edge of the tennis court to the boundary on that right side. We're a little farther there on the left side. Um
well, I don't have a dimension on it, but that's about 8 feet. It's probably 16. It might be more than that. almost 20 ft on the left side. >> So, is there there I I noticed on um a
rendering that it looked like there was proposed landscaping that was Yes. No, there's >> is that going to >> Yeah, we're planning to have landscaping framing all that too to backs stop, you know, the the the wall and the fence that's there. So there are going to be
that was part of the discussion in the environmental comments I think also was about how we have arbides planned in there to provide some screening which would also screen the tennis balls themselves and there was a request that maybe some other consideration be given
to some shade trees which we're perfectly happy to do and intersperse those with the the screening that the arbivites would provide. I don't think we want to eliminate the arborites for all those reasons we've been talking about, but um we could supplement that with some other shade trees also. But
yes, there will be screening all around those three sides. >> Okay. Um is there um any plans for lighting out back to have have some >> My understanding is they're not planning
to have lighting such that you would be having night tennis play. >> Okay. Um, I think there were there was reference made to a couple of lights on the on the pool house itself, but not sufficient to light the tennis courts.
>> Okay. Um, how about any noise that might be coming from the tennis court? Is it going to be marked out for pickle ball? Um, is there >> They're they're shaking their heads. No, I hadn't been any indication of that and and they're confirming that no, there's no no plan to have uh pickle ball
involved. Um, I think that's all I had. >> Well, uh, you answered most of my questions, Mr. Clark. So, it's my understanding that, uh, the applicant's requesting a single variance. Is that
>> right? And, and I'm glad you brought that up because it does raise a a point in this application. So the variance that was flagged, we submitted for a permit and it was rejected uh under that basis that we've exceeded the maximum
dimension uh permitted for accessory structures. And it's my understanding I've I've watched a little bit of the council meeting the other night. they tabled the the there's some proposed changes to that specific part of the ordinance and some other elements of the
DRRO, but that particular item is part of a a proposed revision to the DRRO and what they're proposing to change the language from an accessory structure to say an accessory structure with a roof
so that it's clear that it's roofed structures that shouldn't be more than 24 feet in dimension or 576 ft. So I believe unless something you know unpredictable happens
that ordinance revision is likely to move forward they've just tabled it to work out some other details as I understood the the council meeting to say. So that should be coming up as a change which if we just waited for a few months I suppose then it wouldn't be a
variance and we'd get a permit. Um, but I just think it is probably helpful to know that that's already being examined because I think the discussion at least that I've had with people is like, "Wow, I've never run into this before. Never had this kind of interpretation of the
dimensional um restriction on an accessory structure applied to anything other than a garage or a gazebo or a shed or something like that." And you know, then then the question becomes, well, where do you draw the line? Does
it apply to pools and patios and so so I think that was part of the discussion that is driving the revision but yeah that is the only variance that we're seeking at this point >> and I I'll give some color on the history of that provision. So going back predating the 2020 DRRO which is the one
that we're governed by now there was this sort of unspoken um exemption of F of 576 square ft for garages that would always be excluded from the F calculation. So that dimension is what was sort of uh
incorporated into this requirement just as a general guideline as far as maximum accessory structure dimension. The idea being that it would be big enough to accommodate a twocar garage or a 24x 24 dimension. The way that ordinance was written, it covered all accessory structures and buildings, which I don't
think was the original intent to Mr. Clark's point. So that would include pools, patios, tennis courts, etc., which do not have roofs. So again, I think the original intention was to really um regulate uh accessory buildings and not all structures per se,
but the literal interpretation seems to include those other accessory structures. So Mr. Clark's right in that the uh the governing body introduced an ordinance in September of this year to clarify that one provision that would exempt things like pools and tennis
courts. So that moving forward something like this would not require a dimensional uh variance either from floor area or the 24 by 24. They'd still be governed by lock coverage and setbacks etc. Um but that ordinance has not been adopted so the applicant can't benefit from that at this point. They
could wave to Mr. Clark. >> No no and I'm not trying to >> I think the board could take that into consideration. Again, it's not on the books yet, but again, understanding sort of the history of the ordinance that I don't think it was intended to ever prohibit a tennis court, which would always require dimensions larger than permitted or certain pools, basketball
courts, what have you. Um, which are, you know, fairly I don't want to say typical, but there a few of them throughout Summit on appropriately sized property. So, that's the one variance that's required as far as I understand it. The tennis court meets the appropriate setbacks, correct? 15t for
an active accessory structure. >> Yes. And we're within lock coverage. >> All right. So, just as far as technical comments, again, you answered most of my questions. Bear with me while I get through. So, yeah, one of the questions pertain to the planting for screening proposed along the driveway, >> right?
>> Um, so just to understand, I guess it it's whatever the board might want to see occur there, which could happen um in the form of solid fencing or landscaping might be more appropriate. Again, the issue being that the neighbors okay with the planting on their property. Yes. sometimes creates a maintenance.
>> No, for sure. For sure. >> Yeah. I mean, given that they planted the arborites that are there, but just not on their property. >> Yeah. I mean, it happens. >> Um, so so you know, they're obviously willing to maintain the landscaping such as it is. >> And my final comment would be just a
standard provision to screen the uh AC units. >> Of course. Of course. >> Um, beyond that, I have no further comment. Thank you. >> Thank you. Questions from the board? I just have a theoretical question. Is it possible,
>> excuse me, under the accessory structure ordinance that they're reconsidering that they could make the tennis courts and pools more restrictive? >> I don't result of the pending ordinance. >> Well, maybe Well, you're separating uh tennis courts and pools and other things
like that from garages. So, could they say could part of that new ordinance be >> pools and tennis courts need to be x size or a smaller percentage of the lot coverage? >> I I think the in theory that could be a provision that's considered right now
it's not currently provision. The the only line that's been included um and I could read it. >> I think they changed. >> I don't think we should obviously we shouldn't consider this proposal for our vote. >> I I'll read the language in the ordinance as proposed existing ends. So
right now section 35-9.8B2 states in residential zones no accessory building or structure shall have a floor area floor or ground area in excess of 576 square ft nor shall any dimension be longer than 24 ft. The proposed language
is uh intended to state in residential zones no accessory building or structure with a roof shall have a floor or ground area in excess of 57. So really it it is intended to focus on those structures with a roof or or a building per se. Um
so I don't think that would limit the area or dimensions of other structures without a roof. >> I think the ordinance would be silent meaning that as long as you uh comply with the other parameters in terms of coverage and setbacks, you'd be compliant. >> Yeah. >> I just do want to note that it hasn't
been adopted. >> Has not been adopted. >> No. >> Correct. >> I have two questions. Um, what's the surface of the tennis court that we made? >> True. Like >> no, not hard. >> Oh, paved. >> Yeah. Asphalt.
>> Asphalt. Okay. And then also the back of the um carriage house has doors. >> So, does it does it just go out onto like ground? Like there's no >> That's what it does now. >> There's there's no there's no hard surface. >> There's nothing there now. >> Okay. No, >> it's just weird because it just goes out.
>> I know. And and it is a little it is a little bit weird, but that's that's how this design then integrates into where those doors come out. So you would walk out those doors >> right onto the tennis court. Now, >> any other questions? >> Well, I guess while we're at it,
pertaining to the carriage house, what sort of utilities go into the carriage house? >> Well, I actually have been in the carriage house, but I know there's definitely a gas line that runs in there, and there's a couple of AC units next to it. So, I mean, it's a twostory
structure. Um, >> I guess the question would be, um, I don't think we have floor plans for it. At least I'm not seeing them. Could it be used or has it been used as a uh an accessory dwelling unit or as as a dwelling?
>> I don't believe so. It it certainly didn't look like that when there >> could be though. I guess the question is whether or not it has a full kitchen or a full andor and full bathroom. It would need both. So I mean that's >> No kitchen. >> No kitchen.
>> So I guess the stipulate that it could not become a dwelling unit. >> It it does have a bathroom. >> I don't know. >> Yeah, I was in it many years ago. >> Don has been everywhere. Just >> for the time.
>> Yeah. >> Um just a couple questions about the um the retaining wall. So it's 7 ft high. What is that? The height on the back of the wall that sort of the what you're going to be screening the neighbors
from. That's the height. And then in like where is the center? >> No. So from if you're the neighbor, you're not going to see the wall necessarily cuz >> it's foot fence. you'll see sort of the fence and you know, >> okay, >> uh, you might see the balls flying in
the air above the 7 foot wall, but but but the high side of the walls in the back and then the low side is the tennis court itself. >> It's a retaining wall. >> Yes, >> correct. >> Okay. So, you're if you're on the tennis
side, you see the full seven foot, >> right? You'll see the wall on the tennis court side. That's right. And so so the neighbors aren't going to be looking at a wall if that's the question really. >> Okay. And then the other question I had was about the the plantings. So I see
that from the wall to um the property line you have about six feet on one side and 7.8 ft on the other. >> That's right. >> So there's some all of these trees right have >> and there's a fence there, right? Is that fence gonna
>> Well, there's a fence there's a fence that's on the neighbor's property. the post and rail fence that's there, but it's a few feet onto the neighboring property. >> Okay. I was just wondering if you think that's sufficient space for the roots and everything. Um, >> but there's that there are no other structures or anything it's going to
impact because sometimes even with the retaining walls, you put big trees, you know, 5 10 years later, you have the the roots. >> Yeah. I mean, I think the good news up in that location is there's nothing else they're going to in interfere with as they mature. So sometimes when you put
them right next to a driveway and there's only three or four feet in there, it starts to stretch out and impinge on the driveway itself. That's not the case here. It's just going to fill out that space really. >> And then um the the property owners said
they wanted to keep it as natural looking as possible. And I I realize this is also, you know, the environmental commission comment, but >> I think 10 arborite back there do provide a lot of screening for the neighbor, but it's the opposite of natural looking. So to
>> right. So I think yeah I I I did attempt to comment on that a little bit earlier that we did discuss that memo and um the the implications of it and these owners are perfectly willing to mix in um a little more variety in that in that
screening rather than having you know a pure wall of arbides. Um you know put put back a few shade trees interspersed and >> um I mean can we put that in as a condition? I don't know how many trees. I'm just thinking this is such a beautiful property um that
and it's so natural right now that the arborvite almost feels out of place and I but I recognize it has a purpose. So yeah, it does provide good balancing >> the purpose the function and kind of retaining
um the you know what this property looks like. >> Yeah, understood. I I mean I I guess that would be up to the board as to how they would uh integrate that in into any kind of um deliberation. Um either the submission of a landscaping plan as was
suggested um you know for review and approval as a condition or or if you want to stipulate uh something specific relative to the arboritees I suppose that could happen. It might be a little harder to do but >> either one's perfectly accepted.
>> That's up to you. Yeah, you can do either one. >> Yeah. Okay. Well, I guess we can discuss that during >> but there's no there's no owner opposition to any of that idea though, just so it's clear. >> Okay. >> Just you had mentioned a few minutes ago about the possibility of in the future
once they realize that the tennis balls, you know, go flying as the kids get older of possibly putting in some netting >> with um >> Yeah, I'm not a tennis expert, so that's just me talking about things I might have seen. I try not good at um
would there if those netting or that netting was to be installed in the future I'm worried about the height of the poles sticking you know we want to keep it as natural as possible then you got these 40 foot 30ft poles with nets on them going around a tennis court or each
end of the tennis court that kind of defeats the purpose of of uh if that happens I'm not saying it will but I'm just kind of curious. >> Yeah, I mean I I I think if it's if it's treated as a fence um and and and there are limits to
heights in in the ordinance with regards to fencing. So I I suppose if it's treated as a fence and and and they applied for that and it didn't satisfy the ordinance, then they'd have to come back in front of the board. >> Couple thoughts on that. So if you did
something like net posts, I think you might be governed by the accessory structure height limitation of I think it's 12 or 15 feet. >> Yeah, something like that. >> Um, another thought is while your client's here, if they wanted the option of maybe having a 10ft fence like suggested by the board engineer, you
might ask for that now while you know the ordinance only allows up to I think seven feet in the rear yard. So if the board would be willing to grant 10 ft for that those two areas, it could be there, you know, at their option to install it or not. It looks like the
landscaping proposed might uh suffice as well. You know, if it's just a wall of evergreen or plant things, it might contain the balls also at the end. But um they have options, but I think they might want to leave. >> It would create some flexibility in in
terms of what what options they have if if they decided to pursue that. Yeah, that would make sense. >> I'm just saying you're here now. So >> Yeah. No, I agree. I agree completely with you. That would make sense. >> So you're Tom, just to clarify, you're talking about the sides of the court because the back they are already at 10 ft. So one idea was that potentially
they they install the fencing up to the height so it has a consistent height where at the low point would be about 10 feet which >> depending on how you read the ordinance, somebody reviewing it from a zoning perspective might say, "Well, we only allow seven feet." So >> just throwing it out there. That's an option. They may say we don't want to do
that and we just leave that alone. >> Just a comment. What do what do the tennis experts say? They have the slope of the court. >> I'm not sure I'm not sure we had they may be more expert than I am in terms of tennis if they're building a court. But um I I I I don't know 10 ft
>> and that would be your suggestions if so what what that would mean is like here we have the 7ft wall and then a three-foot fence. And so as we come down the sides those walls come down. So the idea would be that a fence could
continue at the same height and all the way down here where there's no wall it's 10 feet high and then back at the top it's it's you know whatever the wall is and and the difference but it's still at the same elevation. I think that's but
what's being pointed out is down here if that fence then became 10 ft high that's actually a variance because the fence is only allowed to be seven feet I think. Well, right. You may not want to do that. The netting might suffice or the landscaping or you just fetch them from your neighbor's >> yard.
>> But if we're here and it is a variance and we ask for that permission to have this fence that comes down the sides as high as 10 ft, then they have the ability to make that adjustment if they need to. >> So, I was kind of thinking if you're going to go the netting way, maybe now
is >> Yeah. And maybe it is just netting, you know, uh versus a a fence all the way up, you know, just for aesthetic reasons, >> but the net posts the that's up to 12 feet tall. Is that >> you know, we've we've run into this with like batting cages that get installed in
people's yard. And it's a question of what is this? How do you rate? So I think absent of anything specific in the ordinance, we kind of look at it as an accessory structure accessory structure, you know, which has a a maximum height of I think it's 15. >> It's 15 feet. Yeah. >> So which is reasonable but might be too
high for certain things to >> I would say but in this situation >> give them flexibility control from our side. I agree. >> Any other questions from the board? Um, questions from the public.
Seeing none. Um, and then the architect. >> Can we have our architect here if you'd like to hear about the architecture? >> Just I actually just thought of one thing. The excavation that's taking place. You're going to remove about 5t of excav. >> That's those that doesn't.
>> Yeah. But less down here, it's going to vary, but you know, it gets more at the back, but less at the front. >> I just Right. >> Yeah. For the architect, I just had one question. Um, and so maybe maybe it doesn't require a whole presentation. >> He's here.
>> If we don't need to state your first name and spell your last name, please. >> Michael Derono. D I capital G E R O N I M O. >> Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth? I do. >> And can you just give the board a brief
qual uh record of your qualifications? >> Sure. Um I am a licensed architect and planner. Um been working in architecture, planning, and urban design for 30 years. I'm licensed in the state of New Jersey as an architect in the state of New York and the state of Pennsylvania. Um I'm also licensed in
New Jersey as a professional planner and I have the AICP credential which is the national credential for planning. Uh I've appeared before this board numerous times. for your for other boards in the state and other states. Um and happy to answer any questions. Um
>> we'll accept your credentials. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Um so in I can instead of doing the presentation, I'm happy to answer any questions and if there's something specific that anybody wants to look at or talk about, I'm happy to do it. Um I
can go through just our quick proofs really quickly. board experts will give them the >> okay >> opportunity to ask any questions first if there's any. >> I don't have any at this time. >> Yeah. As far as I'm aware, the the entirety of the uh building improvements are conforming. >> That's correct. So, all the approved
proposed improvements to the building, the architecture itself are conforming um as far as setbacks, coverages, floor area. >> Correct. >> And there's an effort to maintain the existing historic character of the home as far as material design. >> Exactly. It's a 1890s home. We're trying to match the historic details and give
it a sense that the improvements were seamless with the original design. >> Okay. >> One question that final question, one question that came up uh was whether the extent to which the floor area calculations on sheet 2 capture all of the um I guess proposed areas of the
house. In particular, I think the mudroom >> whether or not that's included. >> They do. So um we're adding um the the attached garage and the mudroom. So we
it's a threecar garage that's proposed. So, 576 ft is exempted. So, the additional garage space for that third bay um is 279 square ft. Um the mud room itself is u I believe it's 279 or
similar. Um and then the loft space above the garage is 607. We did account for the the pool house um both the ground floor and the spaces on the second floor that are um higher than 7
ft in height per the the uh ordinance. >> And the mud room itself is listed as house first floor that's the 279. >> That's correct. Yes. Um and then per the ordinance uh floor area for screen porches is counted towards that. So, we did count the portions that were
screened of the new porch. The portions that are outside of the new that aren't screened are not counted. It's floor area typically for the DRRO. >> Thank you. Uh, no, no further questions. >> Okay. Um, are there any questions from the board? >> Just one silly one. Maybe you're not the guy to ask.
>> That's okay. >> Maintenance for the tennis court. >> How do you do that? Do you have to bring machines back there or anything like that? >> I am not the guy to ask. >> Okay. No. Um, >> yeah, I was gonna say
>> probably should have asked you. >> I I'm not an expert, but I did belong to a swim club for a while that had tennis court maintenance, and they had the hard true, which is a different kind of material than what we're doing. Those actually require quite a bit more maintenance. They have to be raked out all the time and replenished from time
to time. The paved surfaces really just have to clear the the leaves mostly and uh there's not a lot and and occasional painting. Yep. Um, my question was really was where the mudroom was counted. So, that was the same, but then I'm looking at the plan and then it looks like everything is
existing also except for the pantry. Is that existing and just being >> it uh the space is existing. It's being reconfigured in terms of its use. It's the current mud room. So, but it's >> so it's already >> it's not new footprint. Yes. Correct. >> Thank you.
>> Any other questions from the board? Any questions from the public? Okay, seeing none, um are is there anything else that you'd like to say before closing or >> I I don't think so, I think we've
covered it and uh we would submit this to the board for its consideration and thank you for your time. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Just noting that there is no public for this does not appear to be any public for this case. So, we don't have any public comment. Um,
so who we'll go into executive session now. Um, >> so the uh can I just clarify with the applicants as to whether you are requesting the variance for the 10ft fence in the rear? >> Yeah. >> Yes, you are. Okay. >> Yeah. And so
>> actually if we can expand that I think we should leave them the flexibility that it's whatever accessory whatever structure to control is limited to 10 feet whether it's a fence or a pole with screening with netting. >> We can certainly make that >> I would recommend that because
design-wise it may not look as well for the fence. >> Yeah. >> And the screening may be less impactful on the neighbor or on the um >> a little softer looking. Yeah. potentially was one other question. Sorry. Was this the porch the wraparound porch was that
included in the um imperous cover calculations for the it was okay >> for the storm water? I was >> Yes. Yes. >> So um what are our conditions here? >> Okay. So, our conditions are compliance with the conditions set forth in the
board engineers me memorandum. The applicant shall provide screening for the AC units. Uh, there shall be a 10-ft limit on fencing or other accessory structures on the sideyards of the tennis court. As was just discussed, the carriage shall not be permitted to be used as an accessory dwelling structure.
And then either one of these, as the board's uh preference, uh, both of these were offered by the by the applicants. It's either submission of a landscape plan for review and approval by the city forester and environmental uh commission or supplement the proposed shading uh around the tennis court with shade trees
other than solely arborite in whatever specific bure would like. >> Okay. Thank you. >> You said 10 foot structure. I think it was a beer. >> I think that we said accessory structure because the pole could be up to 15. Maybe if you clarify the purpose of it,
you know, fencing or netting to contain, you know, well, whatever, however you want to work it, but >> Okay. But one, you just said 10 ft, but I don't think we want to limit the 10 ft if it's an accessory structure and a pole. >> Right. So there to distinguish between the two. If it's fencing and netting, if
it's netting, presumably it could be a little taller. If it's fencing, it would be capped at 10 feet. So >> So 10 foot limit on fencing or netting on the sideard of the tennis court? >> Fencing, noting. So it's 10t on fencing or 15t on netting
per that's the ordinance of >> right. So there's no >> you could be silent. You could just address >> you don't have to say it. You don't need a variance for that. Okay. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Perfect. >> So we're the 10, >> right? We don't need to add the No, we don't need to add the 15t
>> because Yeah. >> Well, 10 foot >> the 10 foot. Yes. >> 10 foot. Yes. Yes. But the netting is not >> right. Okay. Who would like to start? >> I can support this application. I think
it's >> Mr. Nearing, can you uh speak into the microphone? Thank you. >> I can support this application. I think it's a nice plan. Very very thoughtful redesign of the structure itself. And they've done done whatever they could to get the
tennis court to comply with the um with our bar with our rules. And I agree that if it was a pool or a patio, there wouldn't be this discussion because I don't see much difference between a tennis court and a pool or a
patio in terms of accessory structure. >> Technically, they're they're all considered to be the same. So, it's it's the issue of whether or not they have a roof that's being clarified in the ordinance in the forthcoming ordinance. So, technically, pools and patios would fall under that. >> Oh, okay.
>> But again, I I don't believe that was the original intent. That just is the current interpretation. >> Okay. So, I still support it. >> Anyone else? >> Listen, this is an application that I think we've spent way too much time on.
It could have been much quicker. I think we did help improve it with clearing up this 10-ft fence. Um, but it doesn't impact anybody. It's permit. You know, from an F point of view, from a lot coverage point of view, it's a technical issue that I think candidly will get resolved in the DRRO. But from my point
of view, there's no detriment to it. There's benefits. They're improving the neighborhood and it's for use with our kids. I wholeheartedly support it. I think we should move quick. >> Yeah, I I I can support it. Um it's it I mean it's a large property and they've
uh considered lowering the width of the tennis court which I think was good rather insisting they have a full full-size court. Um um I I could support this. >> Well I could also support this. I think
that it is you are here sort of on a technicality. Um and uh it even though it doesn't really matter for in terms of what you're asking for for the variance, it was really nice to see what the historic preservation society had to say
about the work that you're doing to seamlessly integrate everything that you're doing on the property, which is um nice. And it is it's kind of great to be able to use some space find a use for a space that is otherwise not very functional on your property. So um I
think that said I think we just need would need to decide which just have them submit a landscaping plan or and you know or do we want to with shade trees? How about with shade trees as specified? you know, it's um and and
we'll leave it to the forester to decide how many and where, you know, is that people >> that's acceptable. Sure. >> I would vote to just leave it to Lson. >> Anybody else on that? >> I I knew what you said. You just leave
it to the forest to decide how many trees. >> I personally would like it to say with a mix of some sh trees, but that's just me. Um, if everybody else is good with just the forester, that's that's fine. >> I I agree with you, but whatever's, you
know, hopefully he comes back that way. There is a lot of being trees being removed but >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah, >> it's just that the requirement for replacing trees does not require them to be necessarily always specific trees. And that was what the environmental commission's point was. It sounds like
the property owners don't have an issue with it. So maybe if we just say, you know, including shade, you know, proper screening, including a variety of shade trees as agreed upon with the forester or something. >> I'm okay with that. Yeah.
>> So I'll just read the condition just so we all we're all in agreement. Submission of a landscaping plan with proper screening including a variety of shade trees for review and approval by the city forester. >> Okay. >> Motion to approve. >> Second.
>> Vice chair. >> Yes. >> Mr. Nelson. >> Yes. >> Miss Chief. >> Yes. >> Mr. Fes. >> Yes. >> Mr. Chantuli. >> Yes. >> Mr. Nearing. Yes. >> All right. >> And next we have 32 Montros.
I think that needs to go the other way, I guess. Yeah. Waiting for them to set up. Yeah. Let's do it. Yeah. >> Hi. Can you please state your uh first name, spell your last name for the record please? >> Francesca Lavine. L E V I N E.
>> Douglas Lavine. L E V I N E. >> Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. Okay. Do you want to give us a little history of your property and what you're requesting here?
>> Sure. Um provide a quick intro and answer questions before we hand off to our architect. Um we moved to Summit in 2017. We've been residents of uh 32 Montros for eight years now. We have two children, ages five and eight. It's the only home 32 Montros that our kids have
ever lived in. Um we're deeply involved in the neighborhood. Our kids are their best friends live in the neighborhood. Um our families are very close-knit. We just vacationed with our neighbors um last week. Um we're deeply involved and invested in the neighborhood. We're involved in the community, the schools.
Um tried to be good citizens. I'm an assistant coach my son's travel baseball team. Um Franchesca's class mom at both Wilson and Washington schools. We're both members of the Elks and we're very involved in the community. Rationale for the project. Since we love the
community, we want to stay there. We don't want to move. Most of our neighbors have already renovated their homes in the past couple of years and they intend to stay longterm and so do we. The house isn't workable though as two little kids continue to grow and the plan we've presented is designed to correct that. Um the additional space
while modest will allow for two equalized bedrooms for the kids. Currently one is a good size but one is very small. Um the primary bedroom will be will be um will have separate full bath. Currently there's only one full bath in the entire house upstairs.
updated hall bathroom. We'll have two sinks. Currently, there's only one. Um, we will have one guest room, office. Currently, there is no guest rooms or offices in the house. Um, we will we are adding for parking for four in the front of the house. Currently, there's only two. There's front to back parking. Um,
so you have to move the car to get out the other one. There's pavement that goes down the side of our house, but it's too narrow to open the doors, so it can't be used for for parking. Um, we're asking for an additional storage shed in the back since we don't have a garage. Uh this is where we will be able to put a lot of our our our things. Um new
drainage in the backyard so our kids can play out there. Currently water sits um when it rains and we also have rain off or runoff from our our neighbors um kitchen yard. So it could take several days to dry. So that's that's been addressed as well. We explore the option of adding a garage, but given our
undersized lot, it's not possible without enormous expense or loss of livable space. The scope of the project is respectful to the neighborhood and the town. We spent considerable time making sure the house will fit with the surrounding area.
Um, we will be upgrading the landscaping and outdoor entertaining space which will increase the curb appeal and better utilize the lot. A couple of the design notes which Rob will walk you through. We're not expanding the footprint of the house, only a marginal space in the rear to account for a pantry. We're adding a porch in the front of the house which
curb appeal and a place to sit and watch the kids play. Uh we're we're adding a mud room will help greatly with kids backpacks, shoes, coats, etc. We have a double height bump out on the right side of the house that will add additional curb appeal. Um no trees will be removed and we will be adding two large green
giants to the rear to enclose the entire backyard. Uh the entire project is to satisfy the growing family while staying in the neighborhood. There's really nothing in the plan. Thanks for your time and consideration. Let us know if you have any questions.
>> Thank you. Um, do our board experts have any questions for the homeowners? >> Um, no, I don't for the homeowners. I'll ask for >> same I'll >> any questions from the board and there is no one from the public here
so we can um room has cleared out. Okay. Um, so would you like to introduce your expert who >> Rob Forbes? >> Hi, how are you? >> Hi. How are you? Can you state your first name and spell your last name for the record, please? >> Sure. It's Robert Forbes, F O Res.
>> And do you swear affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> Thank you. And can you give a brief qualification of your record of your qualifications? >> Yeah, sure. Um, I graduated from NGIT with a bachelor's of architecture 2007. I became licensed to practice architecture in the state of New Jersey
in 2014. My license is a good standing. I've been practicing kind of in all these local towns, basically focused in residential architecture since then. I've appeared before this board before. um Madison before Chattam Burough, Chattam Township. I can mo most of all
the local towns. Um >> any questions from the board or >> Nope. >> Nope. Good. >> I'm going to or >> you have to turn it on. >> Good.
Okay. So, um, just to start off, this is 32 Montro A and Summit. Um, it's lot 13, block 505. It's in the R six zone. Um, it is 6,250
square ft of lot area. It is an undersized lot from lot width. Um, the lot it the zone requires 60 ft. It's only has 50 feet of lot width. Um, and it's kind of creates some existing non-conforming hardships. Um, well, one
specific non-conforming hardship of there not being a garage on site. Um, we tried very hard to design this house not to need a variance. Um, we actually submitted for a permit. Um, and then we're
found out that the fact that it had no garage was going to trigger us to the board no matter what sort of improvements we did because we did not have one enclosed space for parking. So that's kind of what now has triggered us being here. And then as part of doing that, we tried to kind of enhance the
design a little bit with things that we were kind of finding as shortfalls in the design. Um, and we now have a I would say a marginal variance for lot coverage, F and building coverage, which I will walk you through. Um, I'm going to the
site engineer is not here tonight. I'm going to walk you through his site plan, which I worked closely with him kind of coordinating just to kind of get a concept of the site here for us. The existing house here, it's built in uh 1952. It's a post-war colonial. Um, it
has a long narrow driveway that goes down the right side of the house. And per the planner's report, the and technically this counts as four spaces, even though, as you heard the homeowner say, it's really hard to navigate these spaces in the back. There's a chimney
that almost makes it impossible to actually park cars and get out of those cars. And there's some arborites along the right side that are the neighbors that they have to keep trimmed. And even though it kind of looks like you can park four cars there, they really can't.
And they always park up front here with these two spots. As you kind of go past the site, there's then this existing shed that's in a non-conforming location. It's too close to the property line. It's only um I think it's like a
foot and a half off the property line. And there's this raised elevated deck. if you visited the site. Um, the house needs some updating, needs some work, which I'll walk walk you through on the architecturals. What we're proposing to do here is to remove
all of this lot coverage that's on the right side and give us an 18t wide driveway to accommodate two cars wide. And we're hoping to stack two cars each. So from the planners report um we only have 31.5 ft from the rightway to the
edge of this curb here which um by definition the parking needs to be a 9 by8 as a spot. So we can't technically park four on site but if we were to use the rightaway that's an extra 10 ft in reality we can.
Um, we can talk through ways we can remedy that if you guys if you all feel it's important to technically have 36 ft from the road to the to the edge of the curb here. Um, I'll talk you through that as I get into
the lot coverage. We're adding a new walkway. We're adding a front porch. The existing uh second floor of the building, which I'll show you, has this the second floor overhangs in the front. So, this porch really helps to conceal some of that overhang and and kind of detail the front facade a little bit,
which I'll show you on the architecturals. We're adding a very small pantry to the back of this um kitchen to make the kitchen more functional. We're also adding this kind of twostory element along this right side, which we really think helps
break up the right side. It helps us get a more functional bedroom on the second floor. Um, and I didn't want to hang hang it on the right side, which I'll walk you through on the architecturals. If I only had second floor space and hung it out and didn't have first floor space, I could actually delete my F
variance, but I think it looks significantly better to do what I did. I'll show you that as I get there. We also have remove the rear deck and push the patio down onto grade, which really, I think, helps open up the rear yard of the site where it looks a little crammed back there because the deck is kind of
hanging above the ground. I think that's very helpful. We're also removing the old shed and putting a new shed that is only 4 ft deeper but rotated and in a conforming location from a setback standpoint. This is really to take the
to help kind of take the burden of not having a garage on site. We need a little bit more storage space um just for the bikes and and whatnot. Um but all the cars would remain up front. So just walking through some of the variances that we have. We have no
garage. So that's the one variance, right? So we have no in we're required to have one enclosed space. We do not have that. From a building coverage standpoint, we're ex we're required to be a max of 20%. We're existing at 18.7.
We're proposed at 21.5, which is a deviation of 1.5% or 95 square ft. Um, so like that existing shed that was removed was 96 ft. Just to give you a sense of what's
actually creating that. It's a little bit of a combination of the additional space in the shed, the front porch, which we think is inherently beneficial to the neighborhood, the pantry, and the box window. Um, and this little second floor can
lever in the back that I'll walk you through in the plan. From a lot coverage standpoint, we're required to be 40%. Max, we're existing at 41.4. We're proposed at 41.7. We have a.3 increase or 21 square ft. So, we're
really trying hard to kind of not intensify this site any more than it already is. From an F standpoint, we're required to be 35% max. We're existing at 26.8. We're proposed at 35.3. We are 3% more
than allowed. Again, that is 17 square ft, which is which would this box window is 22 ft times two floors. So, if I could delete one of those floors, I would be conforming from F. So, it's very marginal
um what we're asking for here. Uh just since I'm on the site engineering page, try to address one of the comments. I normally wouldn't have even had a full grading plan done for a project like this because there wasn't that much more
than 300 ft of disturbance. We would have probably done it in-house, but because on this site kind of to the right of us is a corner lot that faces um gates. It's 34 Montros is the
address. It has a long driveway. That's a gravel driveway and water sheds down that driveway. So, water is pitching from this right side to this left side. We're not changing any sort of the drainage patterns on the site. There's been an ongoing problem at this
site where Gates doesn't really have any storm storm drains. So, in a rain in a rain situation, there's water that actually runs from the street down the gravel driveway and into these backyards
and kind of sheds across these backyards. So, this trench drain is not to really pick up our water that we're trying to like not not keep on site. It's trying to really take almost the street water from gates and get it back to the street. Um, and I have some
pictures that I can show you of this gravel driveway. This has been an ongoing problem um for some time. I'm a little bit more familiar than normal with this uh property cuz my brother actually lives next door. So, we've been dealing with
uh this. >> Hopefully, he's not the water guy. >> Uh he's not the water guy. He's he's started to manage some of the water and and Doug is trying to manage some of it as well as it moves down downhill. Uh I'm going to get to
my set of drawings, the architecturals. So the building conforms from all setback standpoints, height standpoints. Um there's no no variances for that. You could see this is the front facade. The existing gutter line, the existing second floor has like a 6'6 plate with
really low windows. They don't meet egress. It kind of clips down a little bit. Um, there's small rooms, so we're kind of ripping the roof off the second floor, lifting that front wall, adding some detail under this overhang, adding this front porch. Um, turning
this kind of colonial revival into almost more of like a a Georgian shingle revival, um, which has vernacular styles in the area that we can kind of relate to. We're adding this front dormer. As I come to the floor plan,
you can see we've removed the driveway. This driveway stops. We have a little walking path into a side entry mudroom. This is a walkway to the front door where the front foyer is. We've kind of opened up the floor plan. Use the scissor stair to kind of keep the air,
you know, keep the staircase areas kind of as concise as possible. Have an open space across the back. This is this little pantry or scullery that we're adding. You can see the new steps down to the patio. They come up to the second floor.
This is the This is kind of the big addition that we're doing is right now the second floor ends here. It's a three-bedroom, one bath. They're adding this primary suite across the existing first floor that's already there below. So, we're getting kind of one, two,
three bedrooms plus a primary suite. This is where I really need to do this projection here on the right side, which again conforms to setback because I'm always trying to at least maintain 10 feet dimension as the minimum dimension in a bedroom. I feel like once you get smaller than that, the rooms start to
really get a little cramped. And then we have a staircase up to kind of an unfinished attic. I'm sorry, a finished storage attic. Um, this has a very small basement just below this original area where the ceiling's really low. So this is just
trying to add some little storage space for them. The ridge is set at 6'11. So there is zero space above 7 ft. I know that was one of the questions. It is tagged here. Um so this finished attic space conforms to the ordinance.
Here's our side and rear elevations. That heavy dotted line is the existing residence. The the building height's about 26 feet existing. We're we're only pushing it up about 5 ft to 30 I think it's 30 foot five in again it's that's
about 4 and 1/2 ft below what maximum height is. So again we're not approaching max height. We're trying to be conscious that you know this is a smaller site and we're not trying to really intensify it much more than it is. And we we feel like again there's the
house to the right's on the corner so it's far it's like that's its backyard. So, there's a lot of air and space between these lots. Um, and that's that's really uh really it. I can answer questions.
So, again, we've scaled this building into the neighborhood. We've trying to use the porch to be respective to the neighborhood and the scale of the neighborhood and, you know, really excited about this project. >> Thank you. Questions from our board
experts. So, um could you talk a little bit more about the um the drainage and I understand that you have the um infiltration drain in the back along the property line collecting that water
>> and it looks like it's taking a really long distance. Could you talk about why that is and why it's y >> going into a neighboring neighboring frontage for that? So, I prepared um I took some photos yesterday. Took these myself.
Um I just figured I should >> and I can mark this as an exhibit. >> Yeah. >> To mark this >> A1. Is that >> A1? >> Yeah. So if you look at this uh photo E here 34 Montros you can see this is at this
is those arborvites are along the driveway of ours right so you can see this is the street up on gates this is where the driveway doesn't it doesn't go up before it goes down and the water just runs off the street and runs down
this driveway. Um what we're doing um right here we're we're kind of this is where this driveway's fallen is. We're adding this large trench drain and then we're picking up water and we're wrapping around this way simply because of the contours. We cannot get pitch to
get directly out here. So, we're we're kind of coming around our site to where the the grade's the lowest and then just moving down the rightway just a touch until we can get low enough to get daylight access. >> So, your daylight access is in front of
the neighboring frontage simply because you can't get >> we cannot get pitch. >> Correct. >> Um and um do you feel you have enough cleanouts on there since it's such a long run? It's probably a good idea to make sure that there's roots that are
not intruding on it. I see that you have clean outs. They look like they're on the face of property. >> Uh that's just I think that's just the arrow that he's pointing with an arrow to it, >> but yeah, there's a cleanout up here at this corner. There's a clean out back here. Um
I I I think there's sufficient cleanout, but I would I I'll bring that up with them to ensure that there is >> just because it is such a long distance probably help the property. >> Absolutely. Yeah. Make it easier to sneak out. >> Okay.
>> Oh, there's one up here too in the front corner. >> Great. >> So, we have three of them currently. >> Um, do you know if the applicant has spoken to the neighbor about their landscaping that's in front of there that's in the rightway?
>> I have I have spoken to the neighbor about the landscaping in front of it. Yes. >> Is that is that the neighbor that you have that you >> That's my brother. Yes. Got it. Got it. Okay. Um yeah, I think I think that's all I had. You know, there your your increase in impervious
coverage is less is significantly less than 300 square feet. So there's no um storm water mitigation that's required and I can see that they are working on something because they do have a localized problem. >> Can I just ask you a question about that? is with the discharge to the
street does that that's not t even though I recognize the problem that it's trying to resolve which actually is not supposed to is not like allowed like you can't be discharging street water into somebody's driveway it's supposed to go the other way but I I understand you're
not the only house that has that issue um or that let's say suffers from the what happened the consequences of that issue but does that require like um any special permit for that because it discharging to the road is not something that >> a road opening permit, right?
>> He'll have to have a road >> and it would be ideal to keep it on the property, but it sounds to me like, and I didn't specifically ask that, so maybe we should just talk about that. Is there a reason why you can't store the water on the property? >> I mean, it's it's a it's a significant
amount of water. Um, the soils in that area are primarily clay. It is a high water table. They do have a low basement ceiling height with a sump pump that pretty continuously goes off. So, it would be a a lot of infiltration to try to put on site. I'm
not going to say it's impossible. I'm not not the site engineer, but it would be a a lot of water to try to keep there. >> And again, it is street water that we're trying to put back in the street. >> Right. Right. It just becomes a problem when you have a a point source now, you
know, where it was was kind of coming from a larger area and now it's discharging. spot, you know, you risk icing conditions and things like that. So, would be the only concern that would come out of that? >> Well, I I think some of again it's a
trench drain, right? So, some of it is going to dis disperse into the ground a little bit, right? Not all of it's going to collect into the pipe that's sitting in the trench drain. Um, and there is a similar there is a similar setup one lot down that if there is any overflow, it
gets hit again and gets dispersed. So, this this is a the water has been just shedding through these backyards for years and they're trying to trying to control it. It's just hard to keep that all on site given the soil conditions
that are out there. >> Um, just and I can't I can't tell from your picture of the driveway, the neighbor's driveway. This is kind of this is a little off topic, but the the picture we had of the neighbor's
driveway, it looks to me like they have a um what I'm looking at in Google Street View shows that they have a down spout coming from their roof discharging right to their driveway. So, they may be having like half of their roof coming down into the driveway and contributing even more than what the road runoff is.
>> Yeah, I haven't had conversations with the neighbors. Maybe Doug has. He could give you more insight of what's gone on here, but I know that they've been trying to get this issue resolved for some time. >> Unsuccessful. >> Just a sidebar thing. >> Yep.
>> What What about the parking? Do we want to touch on that? The parking thing? >> Well, hold on. Or let Should we You can talk about impervious coverage. So, >> so do do you want to talk you can you can discuss the park?
>> Yeah. So, so the um I was saying like if if we wanted to hold 36 ft from the road and increase the size of the driveway another 4 1/2 ft, I'd have to increase my coverage by 84 square ft, which it would push my lock
coverage from the 41.7 to 43.1. Then I could legally say I have four spots on site. I would rather have more green on the property because the reality is I really
have 40 one and a half ft to the road to park. So I >> So um so you're suggesting that if you were to count the rightforming driveway or a more conforming driveway that it
would increase the impervious coverage on the lot and you would prefer to not do that. Well, if I was to address the RSIS standard comment, I can do it. I just have to increase the >> lock coverage on site.
>> Clarification. The variance is because you don't have one parking space. Is there a code variance that you're required to have four offsite parking or is it just is there a >> So for a four bedroomedroom house RSIS
requires two and a half spaces which would round up to three spots on site. So I guess I would need a parking variance. I I I have to I I'm not sure on this. I would need somebody >> there's so there's the one variance from
not having a garage which is in condition and your testimony is that it can't fit. It can't accommodate. >> Um on the one hand we have a driveway that >> arguably fits x number of cars even though they're saying practically it doesn't because of the landscaping and the bump out. And so the question is you
know is what they're providing can that can that accommodate the amount of house and bedrooms that are being developed. Um the ordinance requires two spaces per unit. Um so that's the city's ordinance. RSIS, which is the state standard, requires 2.5 for the number of bedrooms. That rounds up to three. So the question
is I I think can can the required number of parking spaces be accommodated on site? One observation is that there's no sidewalks in this neighborhood. So the the where the lot line ends and the rightway begins is is an is an invisible line that nobody would know if not for
looking at it on paper. So, you know, people can uh park cars in a tandem configuration that backs up all the way to the curb, probably with a little wiggle room in between. So, it's not it seems to be it not be an uncommon condition in that neighborhood. I'm just
looking at aerial maps on Google now that a number of driveways have this exact condition where the cars basically park up to the curb where in reality the property line starts five or 10 feet into, you know, from the curb. Um, so from a compliance standpoint, it's it
complies with the ordinance. They might need >> an exception from RSI. You know, it's a minor deviation. I think um from this point, um the ordinance permits a maximum driveway width of 18 ft, which is what they're proposing. So again,
it's that distance requirement. >> Technically, it's not being accommodated on the law. So, if the city puts sidewalks in, >> they'd be brought on the sidewalk if they have more than two cars, >> right? But then that would then that could um they could come back later on and say, "Hey,
>> well, their options could be to elongate the driveway closer to the house, right? Is on street parking permitted >> in that?" >> Not overnight. >> Probably. >> Not overnight. That's citywide. >> Okay. >> So, just a clarification on this. Our ordinance which we are what grants has
the discretion of granting a variance for does not require a variance for this proposed scenario but the state mandate do we even have juris >> which supersedes technically the municipal standard >> technically >> right do we have jurisdiction to be able
to wave that no we don't have jurisdiction wave the state requirement >> so it's three cars parking is the state requirement basically >> right but our ordinance says two >> is what I'm saying Yeah, >> theoretically we >> need >> can't even approve this. We couldn't
approve or reject that >> requirement is what I'm saying. The only thing we can appine on is variance for not having one covered space, >> right? I I mean applicants do request deviations from RSIS standards on a routine basis and I haven't seen any
that go to DCA. Like technically they're supposed to get approval from the state for a deviation. Um off I I've never seen one actually get to that level. I think that's a technical require I mean how have you dealt with RSI deviations storm water it's it's you know driving
dimensions >> um so how how do you see >> right I mean we >> at the board level and we can accommodate it we we can accommodate it >> well the board can ask them to accommodate that there there is a
provision in RSIS which does talk about being able to deviate from the standards of the administst level. So there is some amount of a fudge factor. I forget exactly what it states. I could find it if interested. But um on the one hand, you're supposed to comply with it because it supersedes. On the other
hand, there's kind of an out where um I think you can't be more stringent, but you can reduce the amount of parking that's required if that makes sense. You can't, let's say the state requires three, the city can't say you owe five, but you can allow for less given certain circumstances if there's a
justification. That's my limited understanding. >> And this is only because they want to build an extra bedroom. >> It's it's based on the bedroom. >> So the So the currently the house is three bedrooms, >> right? >> I don't know. Is it? >> Yes. The current house is they're not
adding more, but they are shrinking the dimensions of the driveway. Technically, >> what's the what's the So what's the guideline for a threebedroom? >> Two. >> Two and a half, >> which drives up to three. >> So two and a half for for a threebedroom and for a fourbedroom are both two and a half. Two for threebedroom, two and a half for fourbedroom.
>> Is it two for a threebedroom >> for single family use? Single family dog. >> So if it's two then you're good. I thought you said it was two and a half. I didn't know because we have a four bedroom. >> Oh well then in that case I'm sorry. >> So it's one of it's because of the addition that is is changing the whole
thing. I just do want to pull up the specific standards governing this. Uh the New Jersey code section 5 col21-4.14 parking number of spaces under the residential site improvement standards allows for local reviewers to allow for fewer parking spaces when warranted
based upon household characteristics access to mass transit geographic location or off-site parking resources. So we do have authority to uh uh lower lower the amount of required parking spaces based upon those characteristics. >> That's true.
>> Right. >> Right. >> Right. You can't ask for more. You can you can grant less. That's >> so it's up to the board whether or not they're convinced that they can you know they I I suppose they can come back in the future. They have it seems like they have two vehicles now. You know
obviously kids get >> no no young drivers yet. Yeah. But it's not uncommon in that neighborhood that currently does not have sidewalks. That's the parking issue. >> And we we have about eight we have about like 8 ft of planting from the house to
the driveway right now. So we can accommodate that. We would just prefer not to. But >> let me just clarify. You have how many parkings? You have how many bedrooms? >> Four. four bedrooms. So, I'm seeing that
it's two and a half parkings parking spaces per unit. But if I go down to the footnotes in it, it said um >> round up for multifamily >> results in a fractional if it results in
a fractional space for the entire development any fraction of 1/2 or less may be disregarded. Oh >> well a fraction in excess of one half shall be counted as one parking space. >> So what do they say?
>> So we round down basically rounding down. >> Oh so we can >> how do you get a fractional parking when it's two or 2.5 >> a moped? Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Um so no deviation potentially from that perspective. >> I mean it's a pretty common practice in
that neighborhood. You got you got a park >> and the city ordinance requires two spaces so that you're complying for that perspective. >> Great. >> Marie, do you have any other questions? >> Questions. >> Tom, >> I just to reiterate the the um variance relief that's being sought. You have the
four variances. We covered the parking issue. The lot coverage variance. Um the R six zone allows 40%. You're at 41.7%. That's a deviation of 108 square ft except that you're only increasing the coverage by 21 square ft. You're requesting a building coverage variance
where actually it looks like you're reducing the building coverage because I don't think you factored in the deck into the existing >> technically we did not actually do yeah we did not count the deck >> and the the overage is only 95 square ft
um and the F uh is 35% you're at 35.3% that's uh a deviation of 17 square ft. And I think you mentioned that the one architecturally pleasing aesthetic compound is really what's driving that. Also note that the 8x6 shed itself is
122 square ft which exceeds both the lot and building coverage variance. So really it's the shed that's kind of driving it which would seem to be a low impact sort of >> Can you clarify what you mean about reducing building coverage? So in the
coverage uh chart on sheet two of the architectural plans um it shows existing conditions and proposed conditions in the building coverage calculation for existing conditions the uh 311T deck is not considered
>> uh where arguance >> right >> wait but so that's the lot coverage are we talking about lot >> no building coverage building. >> Okay. So, figure two. Okay. >> So, you'd add 311 square ft to the total.
>> Okay. Which >> because of the height above grade. Is that why? >> Yeah. When it's 1 foot or more above grade, right? Um I'm just trying to see if that gets you. Well, it gets you to approximately what's proposed. So, it's not a
significant increase. Let's leave it at that. We're proposing 1,345. >> As far as other >> looking at Wait, is it figure-2A? Is that >> that's lock coverage? Okay. Which >> Well, no. If you go to the lock coverage
summary, right? And you see the the first tab here is building coverage. It's highlighted. >> And we've got the dwelling. >> Mhm. the overhangs, the porch which is zero in the existing and the shed which was 96 existing. So
if you added 1031 44 96 and 311 that would be the technically the existing. >> Oh, but with the 311 doesn't count wasn't counting in the building coverage. >> We didn't count it but >> right. >> Right. So in effect it's a net decrease
is is just my point. So they still technically need a variance, but they're actually reducing the site's building coverage by eliminating the deck. >> I'm sorry. I'm >> I think if you just building coverage is 1031 + 44 + 96 existing.
>> No, the 3 Well, the 311 is showing up coverage, not building coverage. >> Right. I'm saying that was an area been included in in building coverage. >> Decks count building coverage when they're above a foot. Got it. Right. Right. Oh, because it's over a foot above grade. Is that
>> correct? >> That's the threshold. >> Got it. And now that it's ground level, it doesn't count. >> Sort of. >> Okay. Interest. Yeah. >> But but again, the deviations are are what they are. Uh I'll leave it at that.
And beyond that, I don't think I had any further comments other than screening the the AC units. >> Yes, of course. >> That's all I have. Thank you. >> Far enough away from the property line.
>> The requirement is 5 ft and I believe they meet that. I'll I'll verify that. >> Want to make sure they didn't have to come back. >> Yeah. No. No. Good to look at that. Um I think we did and I think they measured that there. >> It looks like it's two
>> two units. >> Two AC units. >> Two units. >> Right. So there's no setback, but the the lot line is the darker blue line all the way. >> Yeah, just no dimension. >> There's no dimension, but it it looks like it's more than 5T.
>> The left side is 10.03 ft. >> Okay. >> So we should we'll have plenty of room to fit it. >> Okay. So the ACs will be at least 5T. Yep. For the side. Okay. >> And screened in accordance with >> Yes. >> requirements. questions from the board.
>> Yeah, I have just one you might have covered before and I missed it, but um these two drains that are there um to the neighboring property to the left on on your property, the you have a drain
tube running to that drain furthest to the front. Where did those drains go to? Where are they draining to? >> The neighbors drains. >> Yeah. I'm honestly not sure. I'm not sure where my neighbor's drains go
>> because there's a there the drain tube on the left side of their house runs into this little pit and there's a great and it's showing. >> Are you talking about Are you talking about our house or the neighbor's house?
>> The neighbor's house. What do you know where those drain to? Where are they going to see? >> I think he's talking about Steve's >> to the left. If you're looking at your house to the left, >> talking about our one of our leader pipes or >> looking at the house to the left. >> There's an inlet in the yard.
>> Couple of two here. I didn't see the one in the back, but I did see this one and there's a your your left. So I guess he said they also >> my understanding is everything drains down the hill away from my property
because there's a catch basin in the street bottom of the driveway. So lift up that driveway side of the house down the driveway. It actually connects >> underground to that catch basin. >> But what I'm asking is where are those
drains drained to? Is it a storm drain? Is it where are they going to >> I'm confused. Are are you asking us where the neighbors drains go? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> But also
>> one of their downspouts and it >> their down spout connects to it. Is that what you're saying? >> Their house and it's draining into that pit. That's >> That'll be that'll be removed. That >> What I'm asking is where those does anybody know where those drains
draining tube. Is it a storm drain? Is it a dry well? >> Call your brother. >> Well, I I I know what goes on on his property in general. So, in general, there is a there's a drywall in the back behind his garage in the driveway. Everything drains towards that drywall
and then there's an 8 in overflow pipe that connects to the catch basin in the street. All that was done by permit. >> Okay. So, well, that's >> But I don't know for sure where those two. I don't I can't >> I only saw >> say for sure where those go. >> I see one in the back.
>> There's a down spout on the back of our house. >> Yeah. >> You connect to >> Sir, can you speak into the microphone? Thank you. >> There's the down spout on the back of our house when I bought the house. Um used to connect to a like a black pipe that would went directly into Steve's
house. When I bought the house, I was like, I don't know why this is. It's we're draining into your home. All I was I was just trying to find out where I because I noticed that and I didn't know when I was looking be it it looked like it was on the neighbor's property and
technically you're not supposed to drain your stuff over >> and so I remedied that. And so if you looked at the house now that's disconnected. It's still in the ground because I didn't rip up the ground that that pipe but there's nothing going through that pipe. the the water now from our gutters comes down and I'm no
engineer, but I I put on the side of the house that runs down the side of our house at a slight pitch. It goes to the front of the house and drains out to the front of the house. So, there's nothing that's draining from my house to his house because look, >> yeah. Yeah. Yeah, it looks You're right. It does look like that because but but
it's not actually connect if you actually look at it, there's nothing connected to it because before his brother spent a lot of money redoing all of the drainage. They had a big water problem and I didn't want to contribute to it. So I and again we bought the
house like that. I removed it. >> They're going to be independent systems. >> Yeah. It almost it almost looks like that's the drainage system for your brother's house and >> probably somewhere along the line the previous owner said, "Hey, >> get ahead." You know, I sh I share a
drainage with my neighbor's house. We have one pipe between two properties. All of our leaders go to that and then it goes I'm not going to say where, but it goes >> that comes in front of us. >> Um any other
>> Yeah. Just I'm and I know you explained this, but just please explain it again. >> That drainage pipe of yours comes out to the street and then goes in front of your the neighbor's property, which happens to be your brother's. >> Why does it is it it's underground to connect to the drain the storm drain or
is it a >> No, it's it's going to daylight. It's so it's not going to be in my brother's property. It's going to be in the rightway, right? That in that 10 ft that's kind of town owned. So, we're going to come down the side of our of the Livian's property and then in order
for us to get the ver, you know, to get the amount of pitch we need from this corner to there at that point, we're still underground where if we just slide a little bit down the road, then we can daylight and get pitch. >> So, your so your explanation is before
it makes that left there's not enough there's no daylight there. No, like the you can see like the road if we were to come straight out there. >> You expect me to read those numbers? >> The road is like >> 283 283 and a quarter I would say where
we're daylighting down at 2 >> 281.77. So we're able to >> we're able to pick up a foot and a half of elevation change there. >> Now, will any of the sump pumps connect to this drainage?
That that's not proposed currently. No, we're not adding new sump pumps. The sump pumps working now. What's it connected? >> Where do they go? Where do they go now? >> Street. >> I have a question. So, um I would say this is a little bit of an unconventional lot. Like you said, it's
50 ft. So, it definitely makes it a little tricky to put that garage in the back. Um the shed is counting towards your building coverage. One of the things that's pushing you over. However, if it's a garage, you're exempt. Is that
right? Like 576 ft up to not lock coverage and building. >> Not unlock. I'm just wondering did you consider it's unconventional and Summit also has a restriction on frontfacing garages but everybody on your street has a front-facing garage of
putting a garage in the front of the house and incorporating that into the architecture of the house >> like a like in this area >> kind of maybe in front take where your entrance is and to the right of the entrance from there maybe to you know close to the property line two feet
whatever you're allowed for a garage. Um, >> yeah. So, we we looked at all options. In order to do that, you'd have to you'd be getting close to having to tear the house down. I mean, you have you would have to fill in the existing basement in part of that area. Not to say that's
impossible, but um >> fill in I'm talking about where like putting it on top of where you're where you're saying you have 8 feet, right, of landscaping. Get rid of >> Oh, and then you put a garage right there. That is a twocar garage
>> forward of the house. >> Yeah. >> I'm just wonder Summit has a design regulation that is really against the snout designs. >> Um you're not allowed to have a garage more than 8 ft in front of the front, >> but you're also not allowed to not have a garage. So I was wondering, you know, it's a sort of a
>> there's a Well, again, you still have the coverage issues, the building coverage. Um >> beyond that, it looks like the front yard setback is established. You'd be >> that much closer to the street. Um, I'm not trying to be a naysayer. I'm just flushing.
>> No, I'm just I'm just wondering if that was, you know, >> if you did it to the right of the house, >> we tried it to the right, >> you'd have a really tight setback of like 0 feet, almost 2 feet. >> I don't know if you would get access to the >> So, you're 35.7 ft from the right away
and you're you need to be 32.4. Okay. >> Right. I was going to say I I mean if you replace the shed with a detached garage, but that's you know more coverage trying to get back there >> and it's just hard to get around the building. They have trouble already getting around it. >> Is there a size requirement for a garage? Like you put like a little tiny
>> 10 by 10 by 20. >> Okay. You can't put a tiny little like where it looks like a garage but really wouldn't fit a car. it. You need the minimum dimension for that reason so that it practically could fit the car. >> I mean, >> or you can't cut it in half and >> a 2025
car. >> No Suburban. >> Yeah. >> I mean, it's a it's a tough if you were starting fresh. It change. You know, you could accommodate a garage, but it's pretty hard with the existing house that's there to accommodate it. And I
think um I think the end result if you tried to force it in from a neighborhood context, the house would look a little out of place. >> Are there other houses on this block on the street in this neighborhood that do not have garages?
>> You guys might know better than me. >> There are a few. >> There are >> We're not We're not the only one. There are a few there. There's one on >> Webster. on Webster close towards um Morris. >> Yeah, there's >> near the Midas. Yeah, there's one over
there. We just have a very narrow lot. We had we have two we raised two kids with nowhere to put a stroller with nowhere to put like the stuff you would normally put in the garage because most of these garages are too small to put a car in and so everyone just used them to store it. That's why we we thought about
putting on the side but then we couldn't get access to the back of the house as you mentioned. um putting the front number too close to the front of the house and now it's too tight to to park in front of it. Um you can't put it in the back because it's too narrow to get on the side of the house. And those trees are beautiful that go down the
side of the property, but they grow. And so every two months you get less and less space as those trees uh it there's there's there's nothing more than we want. We wanted a garage. Um it was the first thing we talked about, but there was no way to do it without completely
tearing the house down. Um, and so now that our kids, our youngest is five now, we don't use a stroller anymore. Um, we think that now the the issue is bikes and and toys and things like that. And that's why we're asking for a larger
shed to be able to accommodate that little garage. >> Any other questions from the board? >> No. And no, no public is here, so no questions from the public. Um,
guess we can do you have anything you want to close with here or anything? >> No, I think just thank you for hearing the case. Again, we we've kind of tried to very carefully design this um from the start and we really feel like what we're proposing um is a benefit to the
site and the neighborhood. Um I think there's visually more green space. We think the porch helps to scale the building down into the house, into the neighborhood. Um, there's plenty of light and air. We have the neighbor's rear yard adjacent to our right. The
site's very buffered with trees over uh all around. We're adding two trees to kind of complete the buffer. Um, and we hope you and thanks for listening. Hope you guys uh see favorably on this. >> Thank you. Um, what are our conditions? We only
have two conditions. It's uh the basic compliance with the conditions set forth in the board of engineers memorandum and the applicant shall screen uh AC units uh in accordance with the city's requirements. Additionally, because this is a DVR, it requires five votes. Uh just want to let the advocates know.
>> Yeah. So, um typically we would have seven board members, but today we only have six. So, um, you will be able to hear our executive session and kind of know how it's going and then before we go to a vote probably, we'll just ask
you if you want to continue for tonight with a vote or if you want to >> hold off until there's seven members. >> Yeah. So, that's basically >> how would that work though with the people who work here? >> They would have to watch it on YouTube >> and become familiar before they could
vote on it. Okay, thank you. Um, who would like to start executive session? >> I can start this one. Um, I have a very similar situation uh with my property when I built my house back in 20 1999. Narrow lot, 50 foot wide, but mine's a
little bit deeper. Um, I fought for a garage. I really did fight for a garage because, uh, you don't realize I never had a garage growing up and I always wanted a garage. I have a two-car garage. It is unfortunately not able to fit two cars, fits everything else. Um,
but that being said, I understand the issue here. Um, you know, you're you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. So, I can support this application. Um, it's really there's there's really not much more they can do. Maybe they could change this the size of the bedrooms,
but then you get into is the bedroom big enough? Is it really worth it being a bedroom? Maybe it's an all kinds of things going in here. Uh, I don't think it's a detriment to the neighborhood. Uh, it's definitely going to improve the character of the house. Is is punk parking in the front of the house the best scenario?
Not always, but I think in this case it it's uh it's happening now, so it's nothing really different. So, uh, I can definitely support this application. >> Anyone else? >> I I sorry. >> Yeah, I can support this, too. It's a
tough lot. It's really narrow and um you know the renovation is is relatively modest. I don't see any negative impact. Um that neighborhood has a wide variety of all different
types of houses. It it um I I can support this. I I I have a concern that, you know, it's a threebedroom on a, you know, a small lot, no garage, and now
it's because we're making it into, you know, because make into a four bedroomedroom, all these other, you know, you're making it the house bigger, but you can't make the lot bigger. So, you're dealing with all these Yeah. So, a fourbedroom, you might have, you know, something more more kids, more stuff.
It's almost like you're adding I don't know I almost I almost feel like that's creating all these other extra needs because of you know maybe not this family but another family comes in and they have you know they have three kids
and then they have more bikes and there's more stuff and more cars. I I just I'm just I'm just conflicted um on that for this reason like everything like that triggered. It's not like it's not like it's not like you know we have
some needs and we're going to just make you know get an extra bathroom full bath and keep it as a threebedroom but maybe like you know just change the bigger and the rooms make them bigger but the fact they went to a four bedroomedroom um I just think you get a point get to a
point where just house is getting like I said everything else you know could possibly move more cars more bikes etc. So, I'm not um I'm not sure how I I want have to hear everybody else's.
>> I guess I should speak up then. >> I I applaud you. I think you've approached this very pragmatically and very restrained. You're taking a bad situation, you're trying to improve it. It's existing non-conforming with a with not having
the garage. You're trying to address that as best you can. The increases to the house are very modest. We're talking less than 100 square feet, less than 22 was another number. This is not like 1% that's 1,000
ft. This is a very very small change. The and if you remove your shed, you would be conforming with one of those elements itself. I think the fact that your neighborhood already has this condition, not only just you, but also other people in the
neighborhood, I don't see a downside. I don't see that negative impact. I see it as a positive impact. You're investing in the community. You're investing in this this house. And again, it's a very very thoughtful restraint request. For
that reason, I can support this. >> Mr. Naring, did you >> I could support this as well. for exactly the same reason Mr. Feskins stated. It's a modest improvement, but I think it has a big impact to you and your family and it's uh in keeping with the rest of the character of the
neighborhood. So, I I fully support it. >> Um I am generally supportive of this as well. I I mean the 21 square ft of lot coverage is is one of the most modest asks I think we we see here in front of the board. That said, the one thing
that, you know, slightly troubles me is the aesthetics of this driveway and having four cars parked like in front of the house and if the requirement is really only for two cars. I'm just wondering whether that
driveway could maybe um like across the street you have a drive now they have a a onecar garage built into their house but you have sort of a maybe a twocar driveway that tapers um and then you know it's a onecar drive-in. It just looks I I think that
the architectural plan is is really nice and I think the house is will look beautiful but I feel like that the hardcaping in the front is just so heavy. Um, and I'm just wondering if you know, given that that's actually not required, you know, could this be
something where and then you're also you would be not over lot coverage. You wouldn't need a variance probably for lot coverage if you tapered your driveway a little bit just to, you know, on the I don't know to soften it. Maybe I'm I'm the only one who's looking at it like flat on paper, but um it's a lot of
it's a lot of asphalt in your front yard and the house is so pretty that I feel like it would look nicer if you had just a little less asphalt. But that's, you know, I'm kind of interested to hear if anybody else has a >> I agree, but I have an issue with the u
with the with the larger driveway with, you know, parking lot basically in the front yard. I agree. I think it's it is too. It is a lot of hardcape. >> I mean, and I 18 foot wide driveway. >> It's permitted in the R six. >> It's permitted, >> right?
>> But with a garage, right? So there's I think or like typically it's just that there's nothing kind of softening it. I feel >> so you could ask for landscaping. Um to your point, you could I think you're you're saying you have an issue with sort of the straight end versus a more
curve linear. >> Yeah. I just yeah because I think it looks I like I said I think the architectural plan looks really nice but at the end of at the end of the day if you do have four it's just a lot of the the driveway is almost as big as the
house in terms of square like footprint it's a different little different shape but it's just a lot of a lot of driveway in the front yard and I'm just wondering if there's anything that can be done to just soften that a little bit and that may that softening may even get rid of
the variance for the lot coverage cuz it's 21 square ft. So, um >> well, there's the driveway. There's also the walkway that's adjacent to that. Um I don't know what the width of that is, right? I mean, practically, you know, obviously once you have cars in the
driveway, it may be hard to navigate and make your way up to the house. So, that's probably why they have the walkway. >> You wide driveway, you're you're walking on the grass. >> It's not luxur Yeah. It's not Yeah. >> terribly wide. I mean, you you pro you could potentially be parked on the
pavers on the walkway a little bit too, depending on your cars or your, you know um Okay. >> I mean, >> vice chair, would we want to hear from the architect and get their opinion on this technically since we're in executive session?
>> Sure. Yeah. Do you have a >> Well, I think um could we take a break and I discuss with my client or >> Sure. >> I would suggest a short break.
>> Yeah, five minute break. Is that good? >> Perfect. >> Just go outside for a second. like Oh, from a distance like not no Okay. All right. We'll come back into session.
>> Okay. Thanks. Sorry to take a little longer than we thought. I think Doug's going to try to start just with trying to explain some of the reasoning behind why they wanted to do this this way. Yeah, it was always part of the plan to have a double width driveway because I spend
200 nights a year moving our cars around to try to get them out because they're front to back and park it here, park it here, park it back, go there. It's it's more than half the year I'm doing this. So, I really wanted to have a double width. There are other houses on Montros
on Colonial that all have double width driveways and many of which have sidewalks on the side, especially on Colonial. And so I didn't think it was out of character for the neighborhood. Um since we not only would we wouldn't be the first, but there are many many others
that have it. um if we have a cut that comes along the center, then that doesn't sort of address our issue, which is having to move the cars um multiple times. So, I would prefer not to have to do that just
because it's that's one of the whenever you go into a renovation, you have, you know, 10 things you're trying to address. That was one of the things that we're trying to address from the get-go. Um, well, I was just wondering if you if there was a way to make it like a threecar driveway. I mean, the the
requirement is two, but you eventually will have teenagers and possibly a third car or something, you know, um where, you know, maybe at the street level it's two, but then on what you pick aside where you're parking tandem. I don't know. It was just a thought. it would
make the front yard a little greener and since you're not required to have four car parking for four cars, um it was a thought just cuz with the right of way and you know you're it's probably it's more than 40 feet
length of paving by 18t wide. So, it's um you know, decent. It's a decent part of your front yard. And I it seemed like it might just uh soften it a little bit to make it a threecar driveway as opposed to four. Um
but >> I agree 100%. Um and I don't think I would mind if I lost a spot. You have four spots. It's just the going out every single night and moving the cars around is is my only concern. And if you
have it, I I just don't know where >> if you have four cars, you're still going to have to move cars around if you have cars in the front, right? That's 100% you're gonna have to back out. So this Yeah, I'm just saying if you had a threecar driveway, you could have one, two, three. I can't tell you how to how to design it. I'm not saying that you
have to. I'm just >> I was just looking at this thinking it's a lot of hardcaping in the front yard and and you know with the walkway that maybe that would soften it. But um All right. Thank you. Thank you.
>> Um All right. So, >> are does are do our board um experts have any questions or comments or >> We're just I mean we're wrestling with the same issues, you know, trying to solve their issue of maximizing parking
and and to see if there's a way to soften it. But um >> you know I the only thing I thought was if you had a the front the far end where it's closest to the house you had one drive one space and then the rest of that is green and then the part closest
to the road is the two spaces wide. Um, it would just give it a little more green, but and it it would get rid of a variance, >> but I don't know. >> If we were to go that route, I would suggest the opposite. I think having a
larger pave area closer to the house would actually be better versus because it becomes this like a grass island. >> Yeah. Yeah, I know what you're saying. I think that would be up to I I guess that would be up to them for what they think would be the most functional. >> Yeah. So I would and unless they were
trying to push like kind of bump it closer to the house so it almost like a staggered. >> I I think we're you know splitting hairs here. I personally I think again I'm I'm I'm for what's presented. I'd certainly be okay with the shrinking of it but I
think what's presented is enough for me. >> Okay. >> Can I How many kids do you have? >> Two. >> Okay. So you're you could conceivably wind up with with four cars at some point in your life, right? So, as I said earlier, my lot's very similar to yours. I have a long narrow driveway. So, I
move cars. Actually, it gets to the point where who whatever cars at the end of the driveway, whoever has to go somewhere, they just take the last car. So, I I can and I have a van, a big van, and my daughters hate it. So, it calls the president van. But anyway, um I can feel
your pain. >> Too much info. But, you know, I'm just trying to I understand what you're saying, but you know, it's in that neighborhood. I know there's a house at the end of Montrose on the corner of Lafayette that has a rather large parking lot or parking space, I should
say. Um, it's not uncommon for this neighborhood to be like that. Um, there's there's you're kind of like a buffer. I shouldn't say buffer, but you're between neighborhood business and then larger residential. So, you're kind of the intermediate zone there. So, you
know, different things can happen in that, but but parking, I I understand on such a narrow lot how it can become an issue from personal experience. So, I can still support this the way it is and um I can feel your pain.
>> Okay. Any other comments or >> um and I guess there is a note that there's a landscaped area ahead of the driveway. >> So I think if that
>> um if that is something that really breaks up between the house and the driveway and gives a little bit of of softness to it. I could >> again we're talking Sheriff, if I could just interrupt. Yep. >> Would >> that's to the left, plan left.
>> If we were to ask for some kind of landscaping room planned right in that small buffer between the current proposed Belgium block and the neighbors, would that help kind of soften uh from a landscape point of view? >> I mean, it's you're talking about it's
only two feet though, right? that you're talking I mean if there's something that could be put in the two feet >> uh the arborites I believe stopped at the property line or I'm sorry the the building line >> if uh something like boxwood something
>> yeah I mean I think with yeah maybe some kind of landscaping around you know where it's possible obviously there's a walkway there too but um just to soften that and I I think that's really it's 21
square ft that you're asking for. Again, I think that's very modest. Um, but you know, you just don't want the property to look over overbuilt. >> I I have an idea. What What if we were to pull the walkway a little off the
driveway? Like so the same twoft kind of landscaping that we have here. If we had two foot of landscaping there with stepping stones where you could access the driveway in between cars or something that might soften.
>> I think it would, but I also think that that that driveway is for two cars is still like a little narrow and you might end up, you know, I don't know, especially with teenage drivers and all of that. You might end up sometimes parking off of that a little bit depending on what kind of cars you have
in there. I mean, it's 18 ft is wide enough. It just it depends on what kind of curbing you have and all that. So, um, if that's going to be I don't know if that's flush or whatever. I think that I mean I could I could support it. I would like to see some landscaping to
uh Mr. Feskin's point. Maybe um maybe if there is something that could be put in that twoft buffer. My concern is that then you don't, you know, maybe move the driveway over a foot so that you have space to do something there. Um,
>> well, there's um there's these u they call them pencils. They're very narrow and they >> Yeah, you just because you don't want it to when you're opening your car doors. I mean, it's not very practical to have a lot on the side there. So, I don't
know if that's the place for >> Well, they don't they don't spread. Yeah, >> they only get >> about and they grow straight up. >> There was a comment from the forester about it just kind of reminds me about two trees that we did not talk about um
where is it that need to be placed or replaced right and I think that would have to be a condition just meaning the foresters. >> Yes. Um, is it you may actually making
the driveway apron narrower? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Well, no, but that's that's I think in this particular case it's a good thing, I think. >> But I don't know. >> And that's in the right of way anyway, so it wouldn't really count towards
>> their right. >> Yep. Um I'm trying to find the little the two proposed evergreens for the right rear corner of the property must be 12 to 14 ft in height. >> Okay. >> In order to So these are these two evergreens here that we were planting.
He just wants them to be >> 14t in height. So yeah, >> in order to provide partial screening of the neighbor's deck, >> I have something to say about parking. Um the houses in the area that do look
like that and as far as what I recall that do have the two um sideby-side parking usually there's a garage in front of one of them. So it's like a it's just a so this is this leads up to nothing. So it's a you know visually it's not even there. It's just a cement slab. Why can't one of the parking
spaces be on the side of the house, right? And then just have the same cutout that you're saying, you know? So why can't this is one spot, this be another spot, and that be a third spot? >> This is is this this is now an entrance to the house. >> Entrance. Yeah, but the ent the side
entrance is right next to the front entrance. So that you know, I don't see those those entrances seem very close to each other. So I don't see why you can't have a a parking spot there. I just think a driveway that looks like it's not even because there is no garage. doesn't even look like, you know, just
looks like it's just a parking, you know, slab with big concrete slab. It doesn't it's not like you're looking and say there's the garage. That makes sense that there >> um please come up to the microphone.
That's what I was >> just to respond to that. Um, even without that uh side entrance right now, if you have the car there, you can't open the car door because it actually hits like it'll hit the side of the house if you're pulling up
like past the house. You can't get out of the car on either side. I mean, >> was to the whole driveway. So, so because the original picture >> as as it is existing right now. So, >> what? >> No, that's a driveway. You you can see in picture
>> it says 11.6 ft wide. >> Correct. And there's a but there's a chimney that that's that's not dimension to but and you have these arborvites like it's dimensioning to a lot line but the arborvite is kind of >> creepy. >> All right. Well, we've kind of gone out
of the very much out of our norm for executive session here. So, I think let's let's get ourselves back on on point and try to um wrap this up one way or the other. Um so, we have what are our our conditions?
>> So, we have compliance with the condition set forth by the board of engineers memorandum. The applicants shall screen the AC units in accordance with the city's requirements and the applicant shall uh uh plant replacement evergreens uh of at least 12 to 14 inches in height.
>> Where were those? >> Wait, it's on the plan. >> 12T 12T 14T in height. Okay. In the back in the rear of the property behind the shed. >> Yes. In the rear of the property behind the shed. Okay, those are the conditions. And I
guess before I wasn't trying to cut people off with the executive session, if there are other comments that people want um to make, I guess um for to Miss Chief, I would say that um I agree that there is space for right in the front
here where the sidewalk for that to be one parking space. And I I was thinking the same thing where you were saying where it's like there's no garage to sort of buffer or soften it. That was one of the reasons I asked about the consideration of a front garage. And I guess the shed, does that
need to be um Tom, that needs to be in a particular spot by zoning? >> I think they have it four feet away. If they're four and 1/2 ft away from the side >> and that's what it has to be like has to be >> it. That's the minimum. Or can it be? >> Uh well, the minimum's four. They're at
4 and a half on the side and from the rear they're at 9.1 where four is required. >> So I mean for a shed of that size Yeah. seems reasonable. >> Yeah. Okay. I I mean because I guess that I was just wondering another
thought about pulling it forward but there's not actually space to do that with the the width of the property. I I guess it wouldn't necessarily reduce any impervious cover. it would just change the look of the driveway if you if you did that. Um,
and then you do have the parking right next to the side of the house which um gets trickier for backing out. So I think that's a you know depends on how important that is to you. Uh but I I
think for me it it results in the same amount of impervious cover. So, I think at this point and having I appreciate um you know all the back and forth on this which maybe seems like a little overkill but in the end we're all trying to make
sure that it's the the best result for the neighborhood too. Um, so I I think that I I could support this um with the understanding that there is going to be some landscaping around this driveway in the areas that are marked with
landscaping. I'm not sure if um, you know, they want to work with their neighbors. If the neighbor wants that driveway landscaped, maybe there's something that could be put on the shared property line to give it a little space. That's not something that I think we can mandate. Yeah,
>> you can't on the property line. No. Yeah. On their property. >> I just don't think there's enough I I two feet's not a lot of space for landscaping that's going to be effective without actually growing into their cars on that side. So, um yeah. >> Yeah. And the driveway I mean it's a
asphalt um driveway also, >> right? It says paved. That's okay. I mean maybe maybe even maybe even that maybe if it's I don't know more decorative. I don't know. I feel like I I'm just thinking a big black
rectangle in the middle of the front yard is what I'm saying. Yeah. Um well, is there anybody else have anything that they want to say? Anybody's >> I think we can respond to that if you'd like.
>> Oh, um >> they're they're up. >> Yeah. Okay, let's let's Yeah, >> they're they're amendable to a paver driveway instead of pavement. >> I think that would probably look nicer in the in the scope of, you know, how
big it is. Um, do you want to make that a condition? Are you willing to make that a condition? PA driveway. >> Can I do it? Motion to approve. Well, just >> not to complicate that, but if you're talking about pavers anyway, you could
probably incorporate the driveway and the walkway and kind of just have it be one thing where >> right >> 18 feet dedicated to the driveway and there's some amount for the walkway. So the width is >> so can >> a little >> be a little flexible >> wider, right? And then I could >> so like 18 feet for the driveway and
three feet for the walkway or something. Is that >> something like that but incorporated in the same design to minimize the visual impact? >> Yes. And when there's no cars, it just looks like a >> you can park wherever you want. >> Yeah. Yeah. Right. >> That sort of thing. >> That's nicer.
>> And just on that subject to the point about the apron, um should I mean because you don't want >> if you're consolidating now, you could probably taper it a little bit, >> right? I'm just wondering like you know when you're turning and pulling in and blowing snow out of your driveway and all that, sometimes the apron does help
and there's not one. But I guess if we're giving this flexibility >> to flare it out, you're talking about >> Yeah. I mean, there's >> straight shots. Probably >> it's especially with the three extra feet right? >> I think it's okay. >> Yeah. So, okay. So, like 18 foot PA
driveway that will be um how do you word that? Sort of adjacent to a like a similarly or incorporated. I I think you're gonna because I'm thinking about the zoning officers who's gonna review this and so
I think you're just going to consider the maximum width of the whole >> Okay. So 21 feet maximum width for this >> whether it's 20 or 21. >> Well, how big how wide is the walkway on the >> I think >> plan is it three is it three feet? >> It's hard to
>> then you don't need the Belgian block which is >> I'll get my scale. Hold on. to 10 it is 3 ft. >> Okay. So 21 ft and you're saying because we don't need the Belgian block now. So
>> that's up to you guys whether not to exceed >> that dimension works for you guys. So, and if you I mean they probably wouldn't put block in. Yeah. >> At that point. So that >> Yeah. So >> I would >> um So 21 ft not a walkway driveway
combination not to exceed 21 ft in width >> or is that >> sort of how you would right to be of the same material? Yep. >> Right. To exceed. >> So what's the zoning officer going to say with a 21T? Well, if it's in the resolution, it'll just be
>> that dimension, I think. Okay. Okay. So, let's try this to make sure we all agree on the the conditions. So, we have compliance with the conditions set forth by the board engineers memorandum. The applicant shall screen the AC units in
accordance with the city's requirements. The applicant shall install replacement evergreens which must be 12 to 14 ft in height in the rear of the property behind the shed. And the act shall install a paved walkway driveway combination not to
exceed 21 feet in length >> with >> with I have with I said like you said >> you said I have paved walkways >> paper walkway driveway combination not to exceed 21 ft in width.
>> Yep. >> Okay with that. >> Can I do it now? Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Given the opportunity, too. >> Oh, yes. Um, so would you like us to proceed with the vote at this point?
>> Yes. >> So, Mr. Feskins was the motion and was Mr. Nearing this second. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Vice Chair Zon. >> Yes. >> Mr. Nelson. >> Yes. >> Miss Chief, >> yes. >> Mr. Fes, >> yes. >> Mr. Chantuli. >> Yes. >> Mr. Nearing.
>> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Good luck. >> Thank you. >> We do have some resolutions for memorialization tonight. First up is 15 Middle Avenue, zoning
board application number ZB-25-2299. The eligible members to vote are vice chairs on Mr. Nelson, Miss Chief, and Mr. Chantuli. Could we get a motion to approve? >> So move. >> Thank you. Thank you. And a second. >> Second. >> Thank you. Vice Chair Zan. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Nelson. >> Yes. >> Miss Chief. >> Yes. >> Mr. Chantuli. >> Yes. >> Thank you. And next up we have 57 Hobar Avenue. Zoning board application number ZB-25-23000. The same members are eligible to vote. Could we get a motion?
>> So move. >> And a second. >> Second. >> Thank you. Vice Chair Zan. >> Yes. >> Mr. Nelson. Yes, >> Miss Chief. >> Yes, >> Mr. Chantuli. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Next up is 8 Irving Place Zoning Board application number
ZB-25-2304. Same eligible members to vote. Could we get a motion? >> A second. >> Second. >> Thank you. Vice Chair, >> yes. >> Mr. Nelson, >> yes. >> Miss Chief, >> yes. >> Mr. Chantuli, >> yes.
>> Okay. And last up, we have 23 Oxbow Lane, zoning board application number ZB-25-2296. The eligible members to vote are vice chairs on Mr. Nelson and Mr. Feskins. Could we get a motion to approve? >> So moved. >> Second.
>> Vice Chair. >> Yes. >> Mr. Nelson. >> Yes. >> Mr. Feskins. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> And >> no minutes tonight. >> Can we get a motion to adjurnn? So moved >> second.
>> So for this December 8th meeting, do we all have to be present like available for Zoom? How does it work? >> So we're going to carry it is what? >> But but we have to we all have to say all in favor >> I sorry we did that.
>> Okay. >> Jess, is that the beacon? >> Yes. >> Is likely going to carry? >> Yeah. So, what we've been talking about is that um Mr. Simon was not available for the ETH. So, we're going to >> are we are we going to be voting on that? >> This is for sure. What I've been told is
that December 8th, we're going to probably do a Zoom meeting and just vote to carry it. We're going to vote the count