What is this? Good evening and welcome to the July 7, 2025 meeting of the City of Summit Zoning Board of Adjustment. My name is Scott Wy and I'm the chairman of the zoning board. 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 the special meeting has been provided to a newspaper record has been posted here in city hall. This meeting is a judicial proceeding. Any questions or comments must be limited to the issues that are relevant to what the board may legally consider in reaching a decision and
decorum appropriate to a judicial hearing must be maintained at all times. For the benefit of the interested public, this meeting is being livereamed on the city's YouTube page, also broadcast on Summit's government channel, which is Comcast channel 34 and Verizon channel 30. The transcript of
this meeting is also being taken using video and audio. So, we need all speakers to utilize one of the microphones in the room. Please note that the fire exits are to my right, your left, at the back of the room where you entered. City has a listening system to assist the hearing impaired. If
anyone needs hearing assistance, please obtain the system of the deis. Return it hereafter. Miss Sans, please call the role of the members. Vice Chair Zhan is excused. Mr. Yuko here. Mr. Malay here. Mr. Nelson here.
Mr. Kieran is excused. Miss Chief is excused. Mr. Fes here. Mr. Chantuli here. Mr. Nearing here. And Chairman Lyens here. You have a quorum. You may proceed. Thank you, Miss Sans. Andy Ball is the zoning board's attorney. Mr. Ball
advises the board on me board members on matters of law. It's the key interface with the applicant's attorney. Mr. Ball does not vote on these applications. Jessica Sans is a city employee as our zoning board secretary. Our board secretary works with the applicants on preparing their applications, planning
our agendas, and keeping the meeting minutes. The board secretary also does not vote on these application. Also present are experts who were hired annually by the board to provide input. Tonight we have Marie Rafé from Collier's Engineering. Also present is
John Zabbo from um Burgess Associates and he'll be acting as our board planner tonight. These experts are seated at the table to the right of the board, the public's left. They also did not vote on these applications. Our board consists of seven regular members and up to four
alternates. All members can participate in the hearings tonight, but only a maximum of seven can vote. Most application will require a simple majority to be approved. Before we enter into executive session to vote on these applications, you'll be advised on how many votes are required to pass. Each
case will begin with their applicants or their attorney giving an overview of the application process to date, the variances that are required, then hear from any additional expert witnesses the applicant may have to help explain the application why those variances are needed. board experts, followed then by
the board members may ask questions that 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 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 this case. That comes at the end of the hearing. Please be careful as how you phrase your questions. They should be not proceeded with a statement about the case, but
should be a direct question of the witness. Also, before you ask your questions, please clearly state your name, spell your last name, and provide us your address. It's important that a 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. That's the time when you can express your opinion, positive or negative, about the application. Then the public hearing is closed. We enter into executive session. This is where the board members discuss the case and then vote. You'll be able to listen in to our executive session, but you will not normally be able to
participate in our discussion. I ask that each applicant and/or their attorney, if present, come up, give a brief synopsis of their anticipated testimony tonight, including the number of witnesses and whether or not they can finish their presentation within 30 minutes. So, we will begin this evening
with 18 Sherman Avenue. Can you just come up, summarize, and tell us how many witnesses you have and if you'll finish in 30 minutes or less? Or I think we're kind of jumping ahead. He wants to know how long your testimony is going or your Just Yeah, just
you don't want us. Not yet. We'll get to you very quickly. I promise. You can leave that there. It's totally cool. Whatever you want. All right. Do Do you want to You want to tell us? Great. Yes. My name is Vincent Ho. Um, do I need to state any other information or
No, just how many witnesses are you gonna have tonight? We have one. Okay. Our neighbor Ethan. Perfect. Do you think you'll Tom Tom Conway as well? Even better. Do you think you'll finish in 30 minutes or less? Yes. All right. Great. We will see you soon.
Next. Can we hear from Representative Nine Sherman Avenue? Come on up, guys. Right here. Yep, that's fine. Hi, I'm Rob Delaney. This is my wife, Paige Schlimer. Um, we can complete our uh work in under 30
minutes. And Dave Rosen is here as our Okay. Did Did someone bring Kelly, too, or No. All right. Was hoping for a triple. All right. Thank you guys. We'll see you soon. Uh, next nine Valley View.
Good evening. Good. Uh, hi. I'm John Branchflower. This is Kathy, my wife. We're at Nine Valley View. Uh, have a small project that is going to be done by Nick Giuliani who's going to represent us and we have no witnesses and will definitely be done in
less than 30 minutes. Perfect. Thank you so much. We'll talk to you soon. And then finally, 136 Pine Grove. Hi, my name is Bob Walden. This is my wife Danielle Walden. We're the owners of 136 Pine Grove Avenue. We're here with Tom Doris, our architect. We have no witnesses and we'll be done in 30
minutes. Okay, great. Thanks. All right, with all that, let's start. 18 Sherman Avenue. We're going to swear you in. Swear you in. Before we get started, anyone who's testifying, if you could please raise your right hand. Do you swear from the testimony you're about to give in this matter? The truth, the
whole truth, nothing but the truth. And then we do one at a time, please state your name, spell your last name. Vincent Ho ho. Mary McHugh. M C H U G H. Thank you. Do you want to give us a little synopsis
about your project? Yes. Thank you. Um, good evening tonight to the zoning board and other members of the community that are present. Um, thank you for having our project on today's agenda. My name is Vincent Hoe and myself and my wife Mary McHugh have lived in Summit
since 2016. We added our son Samuel to our family in 2019 and Jack in 2024. We love our community and our neighborhood and we moved into our current home in 2020. We have lived in 18 Sherman for
over four years. The improvements we are presenting this evening have come to fruition over this time period. Like many older homes in Summit, our 1933 tutor revival needs an update to reflect modern living while maintaining its
inherent charm. We have worked closely with our architect Tom Conway to present architectural plans that preserve the character of our home. Tom was able to take a thoughtful approach to design that respects the existing neighborhood aesthetic while incorporating necessary
improvements for contemporary living. Great care has been taken to ensure the enhances enhancements will blend seamlessly with the established streetscape. Thank you for your time and consideration of our project. Um we would like to turn things
over to our architect Tom Conway. Perfect. If you could raise your right hand, do you swear affirm the testimony you're about to give in on this matter? The truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. I do. Please state your name. Spell your last name. Thomas Conway. C O N W A Y.
Thank you. And I'll note for the board, you've appeared before us a number of times, including recently. Any changes to your credentials since the last time you were here? I imagine the board would like to accept you back once again. We would. Welcome back, Mr. Conway. Please proceed. So, um, Mr. Ho did a great job of
introducing what we're doing actually. But, um, what I want to focus in, uh, to keep this short is, uh, the three variances we're going to be looking for, which is a sideyard setback on the left side, a sideyard combined,
and a floor area ratio. So, knowing that the house was built in the 1930s, um, and in this neighborhood, which is in uh, zone R10, lot 11, um, the property is actually a decent size for
the zone. Um, but it was the house was developed very wide on the property. And also unusually uh what they did was they put the garage in the middle of the property in the back rather than putting it back like in freestanding in the back
corner. That was very common in the 30s when they started adding um garages and they weren't afraid of fire anymore. So that's created some conditions and also because what also exacerbates the
renovation uh issues is that it is a tutor. So it has kind of low ceilings on the second floor and it kind of it it's T-shaped. So um what we're doing is uh we're we're renovating the first floor and that's
already been permitted. Uh that work is uh primarily a mudroom that sits between the garage and the main part of the house. And um and then and then the kitchen. Uh on the second floor is where we're really going
to be concentrating um tonight's discussion. And that's uh two addition two additions. uh one that is over on the side on the left side for the primary uh primary
bathroom and then uh the back of the the back of the house above the garage for a new um extra bedroom. So the house is uh conforming in uh most areas. We um as I said the
lot area is ample. The lot width is is uh correct at 75. Front yard setback is uh 34 which is um better than what's required at 30. And the rear yard setback is 61 which is better than 40.
Uh sideyard setback is the condition um that we're uh really addressing and that's on the left hand side of this side of the house uh is actually 8 uh.2 ft and on the right hand side of the
house is 11 uh.45 ft. Uh we're we're presenting to suggest a a 9.0 um new sideyard setback and I'll show you that in a minute. And um the new and
the new combined we're looking uh to go for 27.3 uh combined um the current sideyard setback is at 26.2. So, here is the uh the addition uh on the front of the house. That's the only
real impact you'll see on the front facade. And we also did another rendition for Jim uh Bergmire. He had asked us to look at another condition where we would do half timber. We really would like to suggest keeping that stucco. So, I just
wanted to let you know that we we did review it with the client. And on uh the side of the house, um when you look, this is the addition that we're putting over the back for the new garage above the garage for the new bedroom.
And then on the rear, this is a new uh garage edition. Uh above there is a new bedroom with three windows across the back. Oops. As I mentioned, um the house has um the garage in the
middle of the backyard. This is the new mudroom. This is a new laundry space we're creating. Opening up the kitchen on the first floor. And then on the second floor, we're uh expanding the primary bedroom for a new uh primary bathroom and then a modified
bedroom in the rear. So, um the the floor to air ratio um is also a condition. Uh we're slightly over on that. We're at 25% and we're at 242 on the existing and we're uh suggesting
26.1 which is a 1.1 over uh to meet that requirement. Now what we are doing to the property um is we are rethinking the way the property is used. So, we've um the
problem is that the garage that's in the middle and you either have the choice of like kind of being on the driveway or being next to the house over on this side. So, we um we decide to remove this trellis and patio that's on the side,
including the brick walkway, and um and put a new bluestone patio in the middle of the backyard where they can watch the kids and be able to see everything going on rather than being tucked over to that side. Um we also itemized
uh those um changes regarding the building coverage calculations and lack coverage calculations. Burgess had requested that as an itemized to meet our um requirements. So
I'd like to present that as a exhibit. So we mark this as A1. Yes. Would you like me to go through that itemized? Would I or is that necess I mean we're just it's
just there to prove that. Interesting. Mr. Chairman, if if the architect's going to swear and testify to the numbers accept. Great. Okay. Great. Thanks. Um so the positive criteria criteria is that the proposed addition roof lines,
exterior materials, finishes enhance appearance of the house. They're congruous with the neighborhood. Um uh the volumes are contextual. Uh we've improved the energy efficiency of the house. Um and we're removing that
non-conforming patio and pergoland walkway the left side. and um and the bulks all the other bulks um standards comply. Um we are consistent with uh MUL
uh the master plan and we we um suggest that there there is more uh public good than any judgment for the work that we would be doing. Um are there any questions? Can you explain to me how you're
increasing the sideyard on the the left hand side from correct? So you're not actually removing any walls. You're just measuring from the dormer to the property on correct but the 8.2 still exists for the first time. Correct. It does. So what what we're talking about when we itemize it, it
says new um and it says it as of the dormer rather. So yes, the sidey dart setback maintains and then the new dormer is set back right that extra 10. Yeah, chair. Mr. German chairman.
Yes. A couple questions. Um can you I you testified that you feel this application if approved would benefit provide general public benefits. Could you be more specific? What kind of public benefits? Not not just for the property owner but public benefits. Well, we're bringing the house more up to the
neighbor neighborhood standards and the and the town standards. Uh the front facade and all the volumes that we're working on are all within the um the built environment. Uh we are um we are
renovating existing vintage house and bring it up today's standards in a contextual way. Um uh we're not impacting the streetscape in a negative way. Um and we're also
moving the um activity in the house in the center of the property behind the garage in the middle of the backyard rather than being pushed up against the adjacent um neighbors. Okay, good. And one other question, the reduction in building lot coverage um by
taking out the pergola and the patio and so forth. Yeah. The forester notes that creates an opportunity for some added privacy landscaping. I don't know you want to address that. Does the applicant want to address that or what you might do? Sure. Um so as it exists on the left hand side
of the um property there is a fence. I believe it's probably between 7 and 8 ft. The neighbors actually do have a tree that does provide a lot of coverage. There is quite a bit of privacy, but there is room there to maybe put like a privacy arbor um if we
felt that that was necessary. Okay. Thank you. I maybe I didn't see it, Mr. Conway, but do are are there any um attic conditions that adversely impact your F calculations?
No, it's not the attic. It's not the condition because of it being deter. It's just that the F tends to be stretched because of where the volumes are. So rather than a colonial which tends to be box and is a much more
efficient layout, it tends to push the volume. So you have to walk through spaces to get to the different wings of the house. All right, that's a good explanation. Thank you. Uh any other questions from the board for this witness? Yeah.
Seeing none board experts, what do you have for this witness? No questions, Mr. Chairman. Well, since they're reducing the amount of lot coverage, um there's no need for any um any storm water mitigation. Are you changing any of the grading on the property at all with any of this? So, I
I have no further questions. Okay. Some observations. Yeah, sure. Okay. Um, before we let you wrap up, any questions? Questions only from the
public for this witness. Seeing none, Mr. Chairman, um, Mr. Just wanted to clarify something from our reports because we have a number of, uh, F variances on tonight. We really didn't address the statutory criteria
for that form of use variance. This board is used to D1's use is not permitted in zone and you've heard reference to the Medici standard and how difficult the D1 standard should and is. But what we're dealing with here is a D4 which is a floor ratio. The lead case on
that is Randolph Town Center versus Randolph. I'm sure you're all familiar with it. But the standard there is more akin to Coventry where there's a relaxation of the standard. It's not a D1 where the courts have said that it's kind of like because the use is presumed
as permitted. You kind of treat the deviation as a variance almost and what you need to focus on is whether the site can accommodate the deviation that's causing the variance variance the other aspects of the application with respect
to the sideyard that is is bundled into that but also a consideration under the C. So, I just wanted to remind the board we're dealing with a D4, not a D1. The standard is lighter, but still has to be to the standard for negative criteria. U
so that there is no adverse impact even though there's a presumption that it's it's a use that's permitting the zone. And just a couple of observations. I mean, the applicant is working within the existing building footprint. Uh I think that the changes are modest in terms of of what what is being created
here. uh but it caught my interest was that they are bringing the property into conformance with building coverage and lot coverage which is two factors of intensity uh that that I always focus on when I look at these type of applications and plus the character of the neighborhood is also a consideration
for that's all Mr. Excellent. Thank you. I don't have to repeat that on the other fours. We'll keep that in mind. Thank you so much. Uh is there anything you'd like to say in conclusion? No further comments. Thank you.
All right. Thank you so much. And now, uh looking for any comments from the public. Sure, please. From here, you just come up, state your name, spell your last name, give us your address. Uh
Ethan Visman, V A I S M. I live at 14 Sherman. Uh I'm fully supportive of Let me just swore you in quickly before you do. You swore from the testimony you're about to give in this matters, the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. Yes. Thanks. Uh I'm fully supportive of Vince Mary's
project. I think it's it's great for our our beautiful neighborhood. So great. Thank you so much for that. Okay, Mr. Ball, how many votes do we need for this? It's a D variant. So we need five votes to five in the front. All right. So with
that, we'll go into executive session. Who would like to begin? Well, do we have any conditions other than I'll not I have not noted any. We do not have an engineers report that we're going to refer to in this one. So that strikes our usual condition. So unless
anyone else heard anything concerning that requires any conditions, I don't have any noted. Okay. All right, Tom, since you brought up conditions, you have to go first. No problem. No problem. Um, as has been mentioned a couple times, I I I want to
compliment the applicant for bringing the building coverage and lock coverage into conformity. That that's a definite plus. I do hope we do some kind of landscaping over there. I'm not sure we need a condition, but I'm sure it sounds like you want to. So, that that's a good thing. Uh, I think it's an attractive plan. I think you're you're maintaining the character of the house, which is
always a good thing. Um, I see no negative impacts to the to the public uh to the public good and I see no no negative impairments to the zoning plan. Um, the engineer noted it's no issue with water management, so we don't have to address that. So, I I can support the application. Thank you so much, Tom.
Yeah, I I concur. I mean, this is, you know, pretty straightforward application. Again, there are no negatives. Uh, it's in my old stomping ground when I grew up, so I'm kind of familiar with the neighborhood. So, um, I can support this project and good luck moving forward. Thank you. Just to keep it simple.
Okay, great. Um, I agree with my colleagues. I I applaud your uh sense of modesty, right? There's a lot of cases that come before us that really ask for the moon.
Not that we ever granted unconditionally, but uh in this case uh I appreciate everything you're doing to maintain the character of the home. Uh I think your variance requests are incredibly reasonable and so with that I
can support your application as well. Thank you. So do we have a motion to approve? To approve. Second. Jessica, can you call the role, please? Absolutely. Mr. Yuko, yes. Mr. Malay,
yes. Mr. Nelson, yes. Mr. Feskins, yes. Mr. Chenuli, yes. Mr. Naring, yes. And Chairman Ly, yes. Good luck. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Next, uh, we have nine Sherman. I'm done. home. Which one? Button three is the All right. Swear the applicants in while you get set up there. If you could each raise your right hand. Do you swear from the testimony you're about to give in this matter? The truth. The whole truth.
Nothing but the truth. I do. I do. And one at a time, please state your name. Spell your last name. Robert Delaney. D E L A N E Y. Paige Schlimer. S H L E I M E R. I'm holding on to Schlimer for some reason.
Thank you. Welcome. Do you want to give us a little introduction while your architect sets up? Yeah, sure. That'd be great. Um, first of all, I appreciate everyone being here tonight uh to to hear our our story. Um, so Paige and I, um, Paige grew up in
Summit. I grew up in Westfield, so when we got married, we made the decision to move to Summit, um, which has been a great decision. We moved, uh, to Summit in 2020. Um, we currently live on Oakidge A. Um, and we actually really like our house and and have really
enjoyed our experience to date. Um but when the opportunity came up uh to buy a house on Sherman, uh it was too good to pass up. Um for a couple reasons. I think there's a couple big reasons. Um the first uh you know,
we definitely value the ability to walk to town and be close to, you know, kind of close to a school, closer to action where we live today is actually quite removed. Um but the more significant reason is, uh Paige actually grew up on Sherman Avenue. uh and her parents still
live on Sherman Avenue. So, um for us, this is kind of a no-brainer of uh our two boys. I should have mentioned our two boys. We have a four-year-old and an almost one-year-old uh our two boys having the ability to uh walk to grandma and grandpa's house. So, we're really
excited um about moving to Sherman. Um what we're proposing here is some adjustments to the house that um we think uh will make the space more livable for our possibly growing even bigger family. Uh I heard I know you
heard me mention two boys. So I think until until we get a girl, it's probably it's probably going to be more kids. Uh and um you know enlarging the master bedroom and more living space. Um, so Dave will get into all those details,
but that's us and and uh that's why we're here. Excellent. Thank you so much. Mr. Rosen, can we swear you in? Do you swear affirm the testimony you're about to give in this matters, the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes. And please state your name, spell your last name.
Dave Rosen, R Om. I'm a partner at Rosen Kelly Conway in Summit. And you've also appeared before us a number of times, including recently. any changes to your credentials since the last time? Nope. Everything good? I imagine you'll be accepted back once again. We will come back, Mr. Ros.
Thank you. Um uh so as Rob mentioned, uh this house, uh coincidentally, same block as your your prior the prior application, but even more of a coincidence is that it's the block that
Paige grew up on and that her parents are still there. Um anyhow, so we're here uh to do the the picture shows um shows the front of the house. The house will look like this essentially when it's done. No change to anything of the
image that you can see. The only difference really is that from the street is that in the back left corner there's a new mudroom that we're adding. So, in in addition to that mudroom, we're expanding an office to make it into a family room and opening up the uh
the informal parts of the house with the kitchen, breakfast area, family room, and then adding a primary bedroom suite um on the second floor. on the third floor in the back. Although it doesn't look like it from this photo, there is space in the attic. And we're just sort
of cleaning up the back of the house because across the back of the house there are um I'll just show you in a second here. There are three dormers across the back. There's a dormer set back over here. Um on the right in this
photo there's the central part which is a peak but then it stops and it sort of collides with another dormer uh that's across the back. We're cleaning that up to make it one dormer and I'll show you that in a moment. Um
we are not adding any uh additional floor area on the third floor. Uh there's currently 280 some square feet up there. Um which is storage and we've just called one of them an office, but
it's not real space. It it's fairly low in most of it. Um so we're not adding any additional square footage up there, but it takes up about 2.6% of the uh floor area ratio.
Um just to show you uh just going back. Oh, the the other thing that we're doing um is you can see on this image of the garage, we're removing that piece on the right, the shed. So, there's about seven or
eight feet of width there. It's a non-conforming garage because it's too wide. It's wider than what's permitted for a detached garage. And we're removing that part um with the idea that those things that somebody else had stored in that shed part would then be
in the main body of the garage. And that allows us to be able to reduce the building coverage, which doesn't quite balance out uh the additions that we're adding are a little bit bigger than that, but we wanted to make an effort to um to take away something that wasn't
critical in order to allow the kinds of things that we do want. Um, just going back to the image of the front of the house. So, this is the obviously the photo of how it is. And then on
drawing V5, it's a little bit smaller, but you can see up here that's the existing house. Everything remains on that. The only uh change is that in the back left corner set all the way at the back of the house is that mudroom. Otherwise, the streetscape remains the
same. Um, and uh I'll show you in in another image that this house is on Sherman and it backs up to the fields of Lincoln Hoverard School. So there isn't a neighbor to the back. So we concentrated the addition uh in the back
uh both on the first floor and then uh above that on the second floor. Let me just see. So so again the image uh of the house. So the variances that we need, there are three of them and they're listed here. And I can make this
a little bit bigger. This is in the project narrative which you have. Um and it's just showing that the lot coverage is being increased by 68 square ft.
That's it. We're uh the lot coverage. We were able to remove a portion of the garage. were able to uh reduce the size of the patio, eliminate a walkway. Um, but as noted in the engineering report, a big part of the lot coverage is that
the driveway extends from the from the street all the way to the back left corner to get to the garage. And so that's that uh causes the uh the need for this or it's it contributes to this uh variance. So it's currently 37
and change and it'll be 37 about.7 37.7. So it's an addition of 68 square ft and about 0.6%. Building coverage which is allowed to be
18% is currently essentially 18% and we're increasing it um by adding 126 square feet um so that it goes to 19.1. So the building coverage will be over by 1.1
uh%. A little little more than that and floor area ratio is is going to be 28.88%. And as I mentioned about 2.6 of that is in the current attic. Um we are not changing the statistic although we're
moving a a little piece um of that floor area just to make the uh that third floor look a little bit better. Um so we would we have a total variance of 3.88.
It would be about 1.2 1.3 if not for the existing third floor. Um there are a few other things uh that are in this um uh the project narrative that I mentioned. I'm just going to get into them now instead of a little bit
later because it's going to be um it'll just be a little easier with regard to the um floor area ratio variance. We have to show the positive criteria and uh and show that the negative criteria are not uh significant. So, I've just
highlighted this is exactly what you have. I just highlighted some of it so you could look at some of these things. Uh, and the proposed additions, new roof lines and new exterior building materials will all enhance the appearance of the existing house. That
was um also repeated by the historic preservation uh commission representative. Uh, energy efficiency will be greatly improved. the the house has very limited insulation in some areas like in the attic especially. We'll be doing that um with the spray
foam and so on making it much more code conforming um better windows etc. Uh, one of the things that we're doing is even though we're only adding to lot coverage by 68 square f feet, we're adding storm water management that as
noted in the um in the engineers report that can accommodate over 700 square ft of the the rainwater coming off of that. that's considered um a real benefit to the community uh both its immediate
neighborhood so that water is not spilling out onto adjoining properties but also even more than that because the water is captured held on site and then percolates into the soil so that it doesn't go down and cause flooding elsewhere in summit or um in in other
communities. uh we are moving toward compliance with the garage by re reducing the size of the non-conforming garage and just as a comment all of the other statistics the the height the setbacks everything else
is uh is conforming and then for the negative criteria we need to show that we're not doing something that could adversely impact either the adjoining properties or the character of the neighborhood or the the purposes of zoning in the intent of the ordinance.
And uh that's to me that seems pretty clear that seemed to be um uh repeated in some way in in the planning and um and engineering reports. I can go through those a little bit more if necessary, but it does not have any
adverse impact on the adjoining properties. In fact, it probably reduces some of the flow of water that may in a heavy rain may move either on the driveway and out to the street or from this property uh toward other
properties. And the proposed additions do not significantly change the view of the house from the front uh the perception of the overall size of the house or the density of the neighborhood. Um that was very deliberate uh in how we were adding
on. There was there were options to perhaps add to the side of the house and have a little bit more space, a little more play area in the back, but we added in the back because there isn't a neighbor in the back. Uh the screening, as John Linson, the forester mentions,
uh the screening is good and so uh we wanted to maintain the feeling of this neighborhood. Uh, a lot of times when additions and renovations are done, there are big changes to the way the the streetscape feels. This is a quiet,
level street. Um, a lot of people walk their dogs or just walk themselves uh in the neighborhood. And so, it's something where we didn't really want to have something that felt like uh a significant change.
Um, in going through the drawings, I'm not going to go through them in tremendous detail, but on V1, it shows the this area that's in the sort of yellowish color. And that is that all remains, but we're adding in
the back right corner to square that off. And we're adding the mudroom that I mentioned in the left and the garage, which is all the way in the upper left. On these drawings, you can see that uh the garage uh the proposed garage is significantly smaller by taking about a
third of that existing garage away. Um and on the left, as you can see, the same statistics over here in the blue and green that I mentioned um that I mentioned earlier for the for the
variances. So looking at the first floor, I don't know if you can see that much about it, but in the area over here, this we added a little bit. So we squared off this corner. And uh as I mentioned before, added the mudroom over
here. In moving the mudroom, we also shifted the driveway over to the left a little bit. Uh just to go back for one second to the um to the photo. Uh, in the photo that shows the back of
the house, you can see that there's an area where it's just lawn. So, we have the room to move that driveway over. And just for reference, at the back of the house, this area in here about the the back corner of the uh of the pickup
truck that's there, that's about how far out the uh the new mudroom will go. So just going back to the first floor plan. So that's the first floor plan. The other thing we did is in the center of the house, it's it's much more compartmentalized. It's a little more
jammed up. So we took out uh the powder room that's in this area and moved it back to the mud room so that now when you come in the front door, you can see all the way through. We don't have any separation. The kitchen is mostly remaining but a little bit modified. And
you can see back to the breakfast area and then the family room. There are no walls in between that. So, it's all one open space. So, it's more efficient and so we don't need um we didn't need to make the house any bigger. The last
thing is I just wanted to mention that the back of the extent of the back of the house that's where the back of the house will be. So, there's no the back of the house is here and that's that's the line that we maintained in going
across there. Uh on the second floor, we have added the primary bedroom suite. And on the third floor, there's a diagram here with a lot of different lines to show that we have we have not
changed the floor area at all, even though we've cleaned up the appearance of the back of the house. Um we did ren we're renovating the basement. We're making some doorways uh that are currently shorter than Rob. um a height where he could actually walk through,
but it's mostly storage and we're calling it an office on the third floor. Front of the house I showed you. And then just coming just quickly on the back of the house, you could see that there are in the upper part
in the upper part of the top drawing, you can see all those different roof shapes. And so we tried to clean that up a little bit by just having that come across as a as a single uh shed dormer. Um going through the the comments I
could run through these. I made some comments. Um there is an I I mentioned it's in the engineering report that this the property which is has the blue line around it. This is all Lincoln Hubard
the school the parking lot and then the school is in the lower right of that and so we don't have as I mentioned before we don't have the neighbors in behind the var the variances are listed the general comments sorry uh the storm
water management we're providing for taking over 700 square ft of roof area even though we're only adding um less than onetenth of that uh of new covered um lot coverage. Uh the removal of four trees later on
John Linson in in the comments indicates he actually indicates five trees. Uh one he thought might get removed so we left it with his note but he had no objections. Air conditioning units will be will be uh screened and then the
variance relief as was just described and just going through there are a number of these police department the no objections fire and um uh board of health and so on and so just coming down into the engineering report items five
six and seven it says for the applicant to confirm in testimony and I've covered these the first one is that the garage Sorry. The what the addition is number five just says it's currently improved the two-story dwelling and so on that is
correct. Um item number six uh there's an existing survey that is it's accurate. Number seven um that we're seeking variances for the construction exactly as I've indicated and the engineering report lists them here. It
goes through in item nine, building coverage, floor area ratio, and then although it's not in 10, sorry, 10 is floor area ratio. And then down here, this is uh impervious lot coverage, although it's not uh written quite the
same way. Um, no objections to the um storm water management. Just continuing on, sorry, the John Linson's comments, even with the uh proposed removal of five undersized trees, the proposed improvements are still well screened. No
objection. And then continuing on to the um uh James Bergmire's report from the Historic Preservation Commission, small first floor addition setback, but visible from the street has no effect on the visual integrity of the front
elevation. Uh the rear two-story edition is not visible from the street and then a variety of things that are compatible with the existing structure and uh no objections there. Um then uh that uh that's that's it. So
we're here for these three variances. We're providing the storm water management um in order to be able to make the property better than it currently is. and I'll be glad to answer any questions. Great. Uh, board experts, do you have
questions for this? Um, just a couple clarifying things. Um, thank you for going through that. That was that was you answered pretty much everything in my letter. Um, is there any changes to the existing downspouts
that are not being collected and going into the sea pit in the backyard? uh some of the existing uh roof the gutters and the leaders are going to be redirected to the storm water management system that's that's proposed. Uh cuz
currently there isn't any storm water management and so they just sort of come down and uh sort of go out into the yard or into the driveway and then out to the street and so on. So several of them we have not determined which ones uh but
particularly those on the back of the house um will be directed toward that toward the new storm water management. So the one thing I just want to make sure of is that the storm water system is sized appropriately to accept whatever storm water is going into it. So if there's only going to be a
tributary area and it's only going to be 743 square ft, I'm happy with that. But if you want to take the whole house and put that into the dry well, that dry well really should be um sized to accept all of that. Uh yeah, I agree. Except in a in a minor
storm, taking a lot of that water in is would be fine. I mean the it really is sort of a net difference, but we would probably do it the way that you prefer, which is just capture the water that would be appropriate to in a in a in a
significant rainstorm, put that in the storm water management and the rest could continue to do what what it currently does. It currently does. Okay. And we would probably choose those that flow out into the yard to remain rather than those that go to the driveway. Okay. Thank you. That's good. Um,
and I may have missed it, but did we talk about any architectural plans for the for the garage or is that is it just taking off the side shed on there and putting a wall in and it'll be just a symmetrical little
not changing or correct like that. Right. Yeah. Um, and I think that's that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you. Great. I have to check. Great questions from the board. I have one question. You had mentioned during and maybe I just heard this wrong that you were bringing the garage more into conformance. Yes. Is it going to be in
conformance? The garage itself will be conforming, but there's a a setback of 1.9 ft rather than the four that's required. So that's why I I didn't want to mislead on that. So the garage itself, yes, it's conforming except in its location
because it's going to remain where it is. Thanks for clarification. Thank you. And the 1.9 ft, that's what it is now. Yes. Yeah. Just a a couple questions. Was there any thought to moving the garage forward to to alleviate that problem? Uh we haven't really gotten into that.
Um if we did that, we it would probably not require we wouldn't need to come back here. That's still an option for us. We would make the garage so that we did not change the statistics for building coverage. That's the critical one. lot coverage would be very slightly
reduced because the length of the driveway. If we take two feet or something off of the driveway, um that would make a difference. We haven't looked that carefully at what the condition of this garage is. Um but the intent right now is to take off the
non-conforming part, that shed, and leave the rest. We could still do the the other part um bringing it further into compliance. um if you find out there's problems with the garage structure. Yeah. And can you explain to me what the proposed window wells
are for? Are those egress window wells for use of the basement? Well, it's just it's it's mostly to let light into the basement. Um and so there's the windows can be can appear to be full height windows in the basement instead of little tiny ones. They would
provide egress. Um there's currently one stair to the basement. The windows would provide egress, but we're not putting um a bedroom and so on down there, so it's not required to be that, but they would serve that. Yes. Mr. Rosen, could you approximate the
distance of the reconfigured driveway edge to the property line? It looks consistent throughout. I'm just curious if you happen to remember what it was. Uh give me a second here. Let me just see if I can find
which I find my drawings. Um, yeah. So, it looks like it's it's I mean it's straight as you as you mentioned. Um, it's probably about it's at least 4 feet. Okay. Maybe maybe a little bit more than that. It's certainly much more than the two feet
that's required. It's at least double that. Yeah, that's what I wanted to hear. Perfect. And then um looks like most of the tree removal is related to the reconfiguration of the driveway. Yes. And that there's no way to use the driveway unless you remove those trees. Correct.
Right. There are four trees that are indicated. I'm going to blow this up just a little bit so you can see it maybe a little bit better. Um I it still may not be terrific because they're very light. But there are two trees shown over here uh to the
left of the driveway in line with the front of the house. By straightening it out, those two would be removed. And then there's two more uh farther back sort of roughly in line with uh to the patio. And those we've shown one of them
removed. Um John Linson felt that it may be that both of them are removed. Um and then there's one by the patio. Let me just see. So the one by the patio which is shown on the proposed as where that curve is
uh that one could stay or be removed. Okay. It may be the thing is that um in the conversations with John Linson it was shown as being removed because we're adding there. So the addition is not there but it's going to cut the roots so
much that the tree would not survive. And so whatever gets taken down will be replaced uh with the appropriate size trees. Great. Thank you. Any questions from the public for this witness? Please, sir.
Questions only. Yeah, come on up. Hi, I'm uh John Coglin. I live at 11 Sherman Avenue. We haven't met um but I'll be your neighbor. Um, I was wondering, is there a contemplated the addition in the back? Will that have a basement underneath it? An extension of
the basement? Uh, it probably will. Yes. Okay. Um, on June 11th, there was a notice of violation sent to 9 Sherman Avenue about
sump pump discharge onto the street. Um, I'm just wondering that the the ball fields at Lincoln Hubard many moons ago were a marsh and so there are always big drainage issues there. Um, if there's an addition to the basement in addition to
uh the violation that's already been noted with the sump pump discharge, will there be a remediation so that there's violation of the existing and no violation of the addition? Yeah, let me uh so one of the other reasons that we
wanted to make the storm water management a part of this is because the prior owner, is that right? The prior owner got the violation or did you get it? We got it and we're addressing it right now. Okay. So that sump pump uh
discharge will be sent to a a better place so that it's not flowing either onto the street or onto some other somebody else's property. Um the the note in the engineering report says that since the uh correct me if I have have
this wrong, but since the change to the lot coverage is less than 300 square ft um that the storm water management would not normally be required, uh we are adding 68 square feet and we're adding
over 700 square ft of um of imperous area, meaning roof area that would be sent into this. So the sump pump um discharge will be corrected as a part of this if it hasn't already been
great. Does that does that answer your question? Yeah. And the other thing the other I think they're as concerned as I am. So that answers their question. Okay. The um the the other thing is that knowing that uh Lincoln Hubard there there's sort of
a low area there. the property this property is quite flat and the back the fields of Lincoln Hover are quite flat but wood going up to Woodland Avenue there's obviously a big slope so the water moves down in this direction and we wanted to make sure that the uh we
were not contributing to that flow of water but actually taking more of the water out of that system putting it into the tanks underground and letting it just gradually dissipate into the soil
thank Thank you, Mr. Rose. Mr. Delane, do you have anything in conclusion you'd like to say? Uh, no. I not you. No, we appreciate everyone listening and uh
but I would say on the drainage if you're concerned, it's definitely something that I want to address. My parents live on the road and I am aware of it as we're also aware because of the notice. Um I think a lot
of what's contributing to it is Lincoln Hubard. Um but yeah, I have little kids. I don't want them playing in a in a marsh area in our backyard and I don't want drainage in the front. I've heard it becomes icy. So it's something that we plan on addressing with all these
other additions and improvements we're making. And we weren't aware when we bought the house, we kind of figured there probably was some challenges with the water, but we weren't aware of this issue until we got a letter and so we've got a contractor over there a couple weeks ago to figure out what to do at least temporarily. And we haven't lived in the house. It's
just been renters. So, okay. Thank you. Um, now I'll open it up to comments from the public. Please welcome back, sir. We're gonna have to swear you in. Sure.
Do you swear affirm the testimony you're about to give in this matter? The truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. Yes. And just once again, please state your name, spell your last name. John Cogland. C O U G H L A N. And I live at 11 Sherman Avenue next door. Thank you.
Just a few comments. Uh 17 years ago, I purchased a home on Sherman Avenue. Uh the value of the home included the neighborhood. One reason uh myself or anybody else in this town is willing to make a significant investment such as that is that I knew zoning regulations
concerning things like building coverage, lot coverage, and floor area ratio would preserve the appearance and character of the neighborhood. No doubt it was what attracted the new owners of nine Sherman to the neighborhood. Zoning regulations are established by the
community for the good of the community. Over my 17 years on Sherman Avenue, I've considered and made improvements to my home, but I understood that they would have to comply with zoning regulations. Otherwise, by varying from the zoning regulations, I would appro be appropriating some of that common good
for my neighbors. I know variances are granted, but certainly only for compelling reasons. Otherwise, have why have zoning regulations at all? As they said, the owners of Nine Sherman Avenue have yet to live in the house.
Summit have has a diverse and varied collection of properties that include larger homes on larger lots. Surely, one can be found in Summit that wouldn't require a variance to the city's zoning regulations and compromise the nature of the neighborhood.
That's all I have to say. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Ball, can you run us through conditions and number of votes? So, I have our usual condition noted, compliance with those conditions noted in the board engineers memorandum. Um, I
know there has been some talk about storm water and I wonder if we want to consider a uh retaining storm water jurisdiction as we often do. I see some I was going to suggest that. See some heads nodding. Yes. Um so what that means is the board
will typically retain storm water jurisdiction for a period of two years after any uh improvements are completed. If any neighbors or anyone around sees any issues with storm water, they have the ability to raise that issue to the city and bring it back to the board so
the board can address those issues moving forward. Um so any issues with including that as a condition of this approval? I don't I don't really know what that mean. Yeah, I would defer to to Dave on that.
Uh yeah, that's fine. What it means is that in the event that either the storm water uh if the soil doesn't percolate meaning if the water goes in but can't flow out if there are problems with the design of the storm water management where for some reason it doesn't
function as intended then uh the board through the um the municipal offices can require that like a second a second strategy is is implemented in order to solve the problem um in the way that
we're committing to. So it it's pretty straightforward I think. No, that sounds totally reasonable. And it's a period of two years because there can be different with the seasons and if it's a dry year, a wet year, whatever they we just want to make sure that things Yeah. It's good sense.
Yeah. And similarly, I don't know if you're going to do a landscaping, but with the trees that are removed, we'll meet the requirements to put in additional trees and they'll have jurisdiction for that. So, if something gets installed and it dies within 2
years, it gets replaced by by you to make sure that the commitment that's made here is followed through on. So, I don't know if we were intending to maintain landscaping jurisdiction. I will note the city code has the replacement requirements in there
already. So I don't necessarily see the need for that in this case, but I think we're good with those. Okay. So those two conditions um similar to the last one, we have a devarian. So five votes are required to approve this application. Great. With that, we'll enter into executive
session. Who would like to begin? Oh, sorry. Um it the the best thing I can say is I think this is a very modest um addition and work to that with the exception of the of the the um being over with the
floor area ratio but that's already a pre-existing condition so you're not really making it worse. You're just adding a little bit to it. Um I am troubled by the the neighbors comments about the water conditions but since we're maintaining control of that for two years I feel a little bit better about that. Um, I can support this
application. Uh, I just need to make sure that the that the the the applicants um follow through on those violations that you received for the sump pump and make sure that that it it definitely falls into this storm water management process. Right. So, I can
support this application. I don't think I don't think that the negatives outweigh the positives. So, Tom Scott. Yeah. I mean, I know we're not supposed to compare applications, but your the earlier application on the same block was a less of an ask. This is a somewhat of a bigger ask, especially in
the four area ratio. Um, but the positives are that you're maintaining the the front streetscape, the look of the house to the front. The backyard has been mentioned a couple times, backyard neighboring is a open space of the school property, so there's no direct
backyard neighbor adversely impacted. Um and um you're doing a positive thing in terms of adding the the storm recharge system where you theoretically didn't have to but I think there we've heard overriding considerations which probably makes a very good idea to do something with the with the storm water
management and that we're going to retrain restrain retain jurisdiction. Um, I think there's ample there's been ample testimony that the positive criteria are met and um, there is not a significant negative impact on the public good and the zoning plan. I can't
say there's none, but I don't think it rises to the level that uh, I would want to vote no. So, having said all of that, I I I can be in favor of this application, too. Um, I re, you know, just to expand on what they've both said because I think a lot of what they said is very
consistent. the the fact that you're bringing the garage more into compliance and I think there is a as you evaluate the reconstruction of it if you can bring it further into compliance but I would not require that benefit I think is one of the contributing things here
also when I look at the F I look at the way you designed it you know is there ways to shave it off but you're really kind of boxing it in and I think it's a natural kind of evolution of where this would normally size out to be so when you factor in that it really is all behind you. You're making good efforts
to bring things more into compliance, providing the storm uh water management, which is something that is so much of an issue throughout the entire community. I can see that the the benefits of what you're doing more than outweigh any of the detriments. So therefore, I can support this.
Thanks, Jay. I too can support your application. Um I I think you're Jay hit the nail on the head. you're the fact that you're making an effort um through the garage reduction to come closer into compliance
is is noteworthy for sure. Um, I appreciate your neighbors comments uh about uh people trying to uh not apply for variances, but um you know, we we're
here because the zoning is not a a perfect document and we we try and hold people as close to conformance as we can. Uh, but we understand that it's not a one-sizefits-all document, and I think
this is a perfect case of that where you're trying to get as close to the spirit of the law as possible. And I know this board greatly appreciates that kind of effort. Um, and I agree with the HPC's comments that there's no noticeable visible effect of your
addition onto the streetscape. Um, and I just think it's it's maximizing uh the renovations and additions into as little footprint as possible and I really appreciate that kind of effort.
So with that, Jessica, can I Oh, can I get a motion to approve, please? So moved. I get a second. Second. Jesse, call the role, please. Mr. Yuko? Yes. Mr. Malay? Yes. Mr. Nelson? Yes, Mr. Fes.
Yes, Mr. Chenuli. Yes, Mr. Nering. Yes, Chairman Lyens. Yes. Congratulations. Good luck. Thank you very much. Appreciate your time. Thank you. Do you guys want to power through or do you want five minutes?
Power through. Good. All right. Great. Can we get nine valid view, please? Welcome. Thank you. Hi. And I'll swear both of you and if you could each raise your right hand. Do you swear from the testimony? You could both
go at the same time. Do you swear from the testimony you're about to give in this matter, the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes. Thank you. And one at a time, please state your name, spell your last name. John Branchflower. B R A N C H F L O W E R.
Kathy Branchflower. B R A N C H F L O W E R. Thank you. Please proceed. Well, first of all, thanks very much for for uh considering our application. We appreciate your time. We appreciate uh any consideration you would give us.
We'll defer to Nick, our uh architect, to give you the details of what we're proposing. Um but let me give you a little background information uh on our family. We've been in Summit here since 1981, so 45 years. Uh the first part of
that we lived on Blackburn Road and we've moved to our current house uh nine Valley View in about 2004. So we've been here uh 20 years. This is a continuation of a uh a major remodeling project that
we underwent in 2020. And um it sort of uh finishes uh you know the vision that we had for the the house at that time. Um and
Kathy was a teacher at Lincoln Hubard for 20 years. So Oh, and our son was uh about two blocks away too. So now you know the whole family story. Thank you so much. You have a architect with you tonight to testify?
We do, Nick Giuliani. And he'll take it from here. Great. All right. Good evening, board. Raise your right hand. Do you swore affirm the testimony you're about to give in this matter? The truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. Yes. Please state your name, spell your last name. Nicholas Giuliano. G I U L I A N O. And
I'm a partner with Rosen Kelly Conway Architecture and Design. Thank you. And I believe you two have appeared before us relatively recently. Any changes to your credential system? No. All in good standing. I imagine we'll accept you back once again. Well, welcome back. Please proceed. Glad to be back. Yeah. So, our um our
pro presentation here is uh seeking one variance for building coverage for the proposed improvements. Um pick up where John left off. The house was renovated pretty extensively in 2019 and 2020. Um, it was a 1950s typical kind of ranch
style home. Um, John and Kathy elected to kind of keep it that way as mostly one-story living. Almost all of the rooms in the house aside from one are on the first floor. Bedrooms, living room, kitchen, garage, and just one office space on the second floor. So, it
primarily remains as a ranch home just kind of reinvisioned as a little bit more modern um than what the previous house was. So, as a result of that, um, you know, most of the building coverage on this property is taken up by the
house itself as opposed to a typical property where, you know, you're breaking up the rooms on two floors. So, and as such, we're not left with a lot of building coverage for actual site improvements. Um, so while the work that we're requesting approval for is pretty
minimal in terms of size, it just puts us right over the threshold on building coverage because we're kind of working with so little to begin with in terms of availability. And the project itself, if I go to the existing plan here, shows the existing house and kind of forms a
nice C-shape around it's kind of an inner yard area. It's a corner lot this property, so two front yards. Um they don't really have much of a backyard on the property. Um the lot line is along this side here and then further out on
the side over there. Across the street there's a neighbor on this side and then the school directly in front on the other side here. And we did a new deck here and a smaller patio as part of the 2019 project. Um they've been in the house a few years now kind of living
with how the spaces have been designed. Um the existing decks proposed a few challenges. One, it gets very bright in the back. Um and it makes kind of the living spaces that are all situated around the deck um hot. A lot of light gets in unwanted. Um and the deck
itself, you know, as a result of that is kind of decaying a little bit faster than they'd hoped. Um you know, the wood surface of it is starting to fade. So, we're looking at kind of just reinvisioning this whole area to begin with to make it a little bit more durable and maybe provide a little bit
more shade for them. The space itself kind of functions as like an outdoor extension of the living room because it's right off of the kitchen, the dining space, and the family room. So, what we're proposing for the area is not dissimilar to what's there now. Um, rather than a deck and a separate patio,
we're proposing kind of one level of patio space. And we'd like to add an outdoor kind of fireplace and spa as well and a pergola um that could have a retracting awning on top of it. Um, just to provide shading to these areas when
needed. Um, and then off to the side, go back to the site plan for a second. The other component of the project is a storage shed in the far corner of the property. Um, mostly just to double as
uh storage for a lot of the garden equipment. Um, John and Kathy have a heavy gardening program at this property. I don't know if any of you live nearby or have received any of their vegetables or herbs, but they do a lot of gardening on that side of the property. The garage is all the way over
here. Um, so we just want to add a storage shed in this corner that's a little bit more directly accessible for them so that they don't have to go all the way to the other side of the property and use the garage as kind of storage shed area. So we want to add a larger shed and what's there existing.
If we go to the last sheet here, this shows kind of the reinvisioned area of the patio where it's all at one level and it's just a stone patio now and not a wood deck anymore. This back piece here The dark color just shows where the fireplace
wall is and the ground spa here. And the dash line above is where the pergola is. Just above the seating area directly in front of the fireplace. This patio area here that connects to the primary bedroom is uncovered at all times. Um,
and just to reiterate, the pergola only has a retractable roof on it. So, it won't be covered at all times. It's only covered um by fabric when they're out there using it on a sunny day. Um, but that does count towards building coverage, you know, because the ordinance counts trelluses whether
they're, you know, completely roofed or open still as building coverage because they're taller than 12 in. And if we go to look at rear elevation next sheet, the existing rear view of the house that you'd see from the
neighboring property just shows the primary bedroom wing here, the living area set further back, and then the entry to the house off of Sunset Drive and mud room here. go to the elevation.
The mass of the house primarily stays the same. Really, what we're adding is just this partial height stone wall that has a fireplace on the other side facing inward toward the property. And then this lower portion of the wall shields the back of the spa. And we have a
cross-section view on this sheet as well, just that shows that you view it from the other side as if you were in the house looking outward. shows the fireplace, the spa, which is only a foot above the patio. Um, that's depressed into the ground and the fireplace as
well. And if we go to the final sheet here, shows just a view of the storage shed. Um, we're mostly using a lot of cues from the main house um to pick up on the design motif for the storage shed. Same roof pitch and roof
shape. um similar types of windows and similar vertical siding with um just a big sliding door in the middle just to be able to get equipment easily in and out, wheelbarrows, um larger pieces of garden equipment, things like that.
And here just shows the lot itself is relatively flat. Um there's really no new grading as part of this application. Um the patio is really at the same level as the existing deck. Um and mostly the same footprint. You know, we kind of made it a little more rectal linear to
go with the house as opposed to the current patio that's a little more rounded at the edges, but for the most part it's the same footprint. Um and then the storage shed back here um property lines there is all conforming
in terms of setbacks and height and footprint but it does add to the building coverage total quantity. So we're including that in the variance. Um, you know, in terms of the positive criteria, everything that we're adding is pretty
well screened in in terms of the uh fireplace wall and the patio and the spa. Um, it's all kind of contained within this C-shape of the house. And all along the property line on this side is um evergreen plantings and pretty
mature arborites and tall plants. So, the neighbor on this side really doesn't have much of a view into the active patio area here. Um, because of the existing vegetation there and even less so now with the stone wall that we're building to put the fireplace and the
spa on the other side. There's almost kind of another layer now that shields the view of all the activity in that area from the neighbor on that side. From Sunset Drive and Valley View, none of the work in this area is visible. Um and the storage shed although it is
visible um from valley view um it is conforming in terms of its footprint and its height. Um so we don't really think that the shed itself although it's counted in building coverage has any negative impact on the streetscape you know given that it is a conforming size
in and of itself. Um just you know for the other parts of the project all setbacks on the house that are existing and new with the proposed additions are all compliant. Um impervious coverage on the property even with the proposed addition is still you
know almost 5% lower than what's maximum allowable. um and storm water management. Um our the planner I believe made a note that the amount was you know less than what was required to add supplemental storm water management to the uh property and
the storage shed itself as well. We're planning to install um rain barrels at the leaders for it so that some of that water can be used you know actually to do plantings and not you know get redirected and not be just run off from from the storage shed itself. And in the
patio area, the footprint mostly remains the same as what's there now. So we wouldn't really be adding any kind of gutters or leaders in that area because it's all freestanding. Um anyway, so that's pretty much the the gist of the whole project and I'm happy to answer
any questions anybody has. Perfect. Thank you so much. Board experts, do you have questions for this witness? Um All right. So, I I I noticed that you're adding in the rain barrels on the shed. Um the impervious coverage that the
additional impervious coverage on the site is um less than the trigger of 300 square ft. So, there's no no necessary uh storm water mitigation. Um I just want to add to that we did install a new dry well in the 2019
renovation project. Um, and what go what goes into that? Um, a few liters off the house that are on that side of the property. The dry wells in this area and all of the leaders that are on the right side of the house are piped into that dry well and the leaders on this side just drain,
you know, sheet drain out to the street. So, but nothing onto the neighboring properties. Okay. Um could you talk about um there's there's some planters that are um along the the frontage on
Valley View. Could you talk about their structure about maybe how tall they are? Do they have holes in the bottom? So they're all completely pvious on the bottom. There's no bottom to them per se. They're just the metal sidewalls and then it's just soil all the way down. So they don't constitute impervious
coverage. Um the height of them probably ranges from maybe 18 in to 30. I would say probably 16 to 18. Yeah. Um the ones that are on the in front of the fence on Valley View Avenue, um those we just were kind of
interpreting them as almost just plants, you know, and vegetation that's in the area. Um the 10 ft within the right of way. Um, the ordinance does permit, you know, as long as they're below a certain height that hedges and shrubs can be
within 10 ft of the pavement line. So, we're assuming that they're okay to just stay given that they aren't tall hedges that would block any kind of view for traffic or anything like that. So, we'd like to be able to keep them there. I'd like to add one comment there. It's
we grow pumpkins there and the neighborhood kids pick out their pumpkin and watch it grow the whole season and then take it home for Halloween. That's pretty much what we use that for. So it it was our planters report that highlighted maybe they should be moved because they're in the rightway. I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on
now hearing that they are pvious on the bottom or I'm fine with the impervious in the bottom. That's more of a stormwater management issue. Uh it's no different and with respect to the hedge. I mean, it's no different if you planted a hedge versus the shell of a metal that's holding a plant. I don't I don't really see an objection,
but if it were impervious, if it were impervious in the bottom, you might have a different opinion. I will think I might have a different opinion. You might have was certainly something that would have to be considered, you know, in the application. If this were permanent planters, if they were planted and and
embedded in the ground, that that I think would be that would be more problematic. But these could be shifted around. I don't I don't see an issue. Okay. Yeah. We plan to keep them as completely pvious and under whatever height limit, you know, the ordinance requires, you know, within the first 10 ft of the
pavement. So, no future plans to get taller or make them any more pvious. Any other questions? No, I have no further questions. Mr. Tuesday. Uh, will will the shed uh have utilities and lighting catch that?
We'll probably have an outlet or two and just basic utility lighting. Um, no gas, no heat or air conditioning. Plumbing. Uh, I don't think we will have any plumbing. No. Thank you.
Questions from the board for this witness? And just one simple one for the shed. That's is that going to be built on site? Are there footings or is that a shipped in shed? We're going to build it on site because we have a somewhat custom design for it. We're trying to make it a little bit
more visually interesting. Um, so we have kind of a custom vertical board and batten siding that we're going to do on it. Um, the windows we're just getting from a window company. So it'll be stick built on site. It'll probably Yeah, there will be. It'll be We're planning to make it as a slab. Yeah.
Mhm. Sure. Can you just go over the the dimensions why you chose 14 by 22 versus I mean it looks like substantially smaller shed today. Just generally understand why why you chose those dimensions. Well, we increased it just because we
don't really have enough storage space in the current shed. um you know after having it for a few years and seeing the day-to-day you know activity and how much space is really needed for for the gardening and and other activities we would like to get a larger shed. Um we
didn't want to ask for anything larger than the 24x 24 u maximum accessory building footprint. Um and 22 ft put us you know at a point where um we had the length we wanted and we wanted to keep it a little narrower. Um just you know
we kind of envision it that you walk in and it's kind of a double loaded storage space where we can have storage on both sides um and you know enough walk area in between. So that kind of just landed on the size that worked out nicely for us to be able to keep it 4 ft from the
property line for it to um meet the two times front yard setback requirement for an accessory structure and still leave enough room between the shed and the house itself to not encroach too much upon the yard space. So, we don't have and doesn't need to be that exact size,
but that's the size that we landed on. It worked for our program. Anyone this side, Tom? I'm good. Great. Any uh questions from the public for this
witness? Seeing none, Mr. branch. Is there anything you'd like to say in conclusion? No, we again appreciate your time and um whatever consideration you give us. Thank you. Thank you so much. Any public comments?
Seeing none. Okay, Mr. Ball conditions and number of votes to approve. I have just one condition compliance with those conditions noted in the board engineers memorandum and we only have a single C variance involved. So, four votes are required to approve the application.
All right. Thank you so much. And with that, we will open executive session, Jay. Nope. No. Sure. I can do it. So, thank you for the clarification on the the shed. I think understanding just kind of how you got
boxed into it, it helps me understand the rationale here. To me, the way I look at this is your existing house that you chose to renovate really kind of creates, without actually saying it, a hardship for you to meet the compliance with these other requirements. I get
being in outdoor space that is not going to be functional in the super hot days and wanting to create pro shade and that's a technicality of the way that the code works. So, from a functionality point of view, I get it. It's in the back. You don't see it. you're already
removing some of the existing um deck and making it all work and functionally I think it all makes sense. Benefits, I think you're making it a lot more functional and usable. Your outreach to the community with the pumpkin patch was
a great little detail. Thank you. Um from a detriment point of view, again, it's in the back. You don't really see it. I think the shed ends up, you know, being designed aesthetically to a compliment. Um, I wish you'd shrunk it down a little bit, but I can't see anything wrong with it. So, I support
Thank you, Jay. I agree. Yeah, the shed, you know, I get the shed. Uh, wish it was a little smaller, but I get it. Uh, but I can support this application. Great. I can support the application as well. I think the shed is you've gone to extreme
detail or extreme effort to make it match the rest of the house. And I just want to say I think it's a beautiful house you have there. It really is nice. I support it. Now, I also agree with my colleagues. I think Jay said it well that um the
idea of the pergola counting against you, it really feels like maybe it's not perfectly appropriate in this case. And um if you pull that out of the equation, this seems like an entirely reasonable ask in terms of uh improving your
property. and approving your home. So, with that, I can support this application as well. All right. Can I get a motion to approve? So, move a second. Second.
Jessica, can you call the role, please? Yes. Mr. Yuka? Yes. Mr. Malay? No. Mr. Nelson? Yes. Mr. Fes? Yes. Mr. Chantuli? Yes. Mr. Nering? Yes, Chairman Lett.
Yes. Thank you, board. Good luck. Thanks, everybody. And finally, we have 136 Pine Grove. All right, I will swear the applicants in. If you could each raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm the testimony
you're about to give in this matter? The truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. Yes, I do. And one at a time, please state your name and spell your last name. Bob Walden. W A L L DN. Danielle Walden. W A L L DN. Thank you.
Great. Welcome. you have uh any introductory words you'd like to share with the board? Yes, we do. Thank you for uh hearing our application board. Um my wife and I moved into our home on at 136 Pine Grove Avenue in July June of 2020. Uh since
that time, we've had two additional ch children. So, we now have four children in the home. And our family has grown uh as you can tell to kind of uh outpace what we have presently. We're looking to make a couple additions to the home with uh Tom Doris as our architect. Um we
love the community. We love the area we live in on, you know, by the Ashlin and Soldier Field. Our kids go to play there every single chance they get and just looking to stay in the area that we have and and really just improve upon our home. That's it. Great. Thank you. Welcome. We're going to swear you in. Sure.
Do you swear from the testimony you're about to give in this matter? Truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. I do. And please state your name. Spell your last name. name is uh Thomas Doris, last name D O R E S. Thank you. And can you briefly describe your background and experience for the board? Sure. I have um a bachelor of
architecture degree from New Jersey Institute of Technology in 2010. Um and I've been working as an architect in the field for the past 15 years or so. Uh licensed in New Jersey in good standing. Yes, in good standing. Correct. Any questions from the board? Would you
like to accept his credentials? We will. Welcome. Please proceed. Um, okay. So, I'll be working off of my iPad. Unfortunately, the chord I don't have to project on the screen. So, you'll just have to kind of follow the drawings and I'll guide you along the way. Um, I'll just start I'll draw your
attention to sheet ex1 uh the existing elevations just to get kind of familiar with the house. Um, so it is um a modest sized house uh Dutch colonial style. So, the second floor is a bit pinched in from the first floor, a
little more compact. um modest spaces on the interior, but I'd like to draw your attention to the side elevations, drawings number two and three on EX 2011. Um from the front to the back of the house, there is um quite a a dramatic slope um which is impacting um
some of our design and is sort of the reasoning behind some of the variances we're asking for. Um also in those side elevations you can see on the rear of the house there is an existing um you know covered um enclosed deck is what it is called in the plans. Um so the scope
of work involves reconstructing that enclosed deck to be finished space um and then adding a second floor addition on top of that for a primary bedroom suite. Um now kind of shuffling back to the first sheet A 100. Uh that is our zoning
analysis sheet and our site plans. Um so on the left you have existing site plan. On the right you have the proposed site plan. Um so as you can see that one story porch is being reconstructed um with a second story above it. Um so one
of the variances we're asking for is lot coverage. Uh we're increasing that by about 2%. Uh the reason for that increase is because if you kind of look closely at the right side, the right rear side of the house, the existing enclosed deck is pinched in a bit offset
about 5 in. Um the reconstruction of that porch is going to be flush with the existing wall. Um so we're picking up an extra 5 in which is why there's sort of that really slight in increase in lot coverage. And just just to clarify the lot
coverage, it's 0.02% increase, right? point. Yeah, there was a Yes, correct. Correct. Even less than I said. Correct. Um the another variance, the second is the sideyard setback on the left side of
the house where eight is required. Um we are proposing 3.6. Um but the addition and the reconstructed porch, we are aligning that with the existing wall of the house. So that 3.6 ft is an existing non-conformance already. So we are not
exacerbating that. We are staying in line with um the existing conditions. Um the third variance um which is a story variance um after we had a spot grade analysis by our engineer it was determined that um the basement floor
counts as a story. Um so I believe in the ordinance it states that um if the story above the basement is more than uh six feet above average grade then the basement counts as a story. Uh the spot grade analysis determined that um the
average grade um the the average uh height of the first floor the height of the first floor above average grade is 6.79 ft. Um, so that puts us about 9 in over the threshold. Um, so we are very
close to that threshold, but unfortunately the basement is considered a story. So we are dealing with an existing non-conformance of a three-story house. Um, last variance, the fourth is an F
variance um where 35% is um allowed. We are proposing 36.3. Um the existing is conforming. Um but proposed obviously is not. Um but we did want to bring your attention to kind of
the analysis below our zoning chart where we show if the basement had not been considered a story um then our proposal would be within the limitations of F. Um, so had the basement not been
determined to be a story then our F would have been 28.5. So, you know, just wanted to bring your attention to the slight inc um height difference or height, you know, above the height limitation of the
house which led to the F um variance. Um, I will jump into the proposed plans on sheet A101. Um so starting from left to right we have basement first floor and second floor. Um on the floor first on the
basement level we are proposing um three structural columns to hold up the reconstructed porch and the second floor addition. Um so those will just be three kind of CMU peers holding up the structure above. Uh there is no increase to the footprint of the building. Um the
first floor plan, what we're proposing is um that reconstructed porch will be new living space tied into the existing house. So you'll have more of an open uh kitchen and dining layout um where there's currently sort of a really compact kitchen and eating areas that
are very uh closed off from one another. Um the second floor edition will accommodate a primary bedroom suite. Um, so again, we're aligning with the outside walls of the house going straight back to accommodate a walk-in closet, sleeping room, um, and primary
bathroom. Uh, fast forwarding to sheet A201 is where we show the proposed elevations. Um so, uh you can see sort of the two-story addition being proposed over sort of the walkout basement at the rear. Um we're
proposing a roof line so that the gable roof um kind of is oriented side to side. Um, so what we can say is a positive about the design is that although the sideyard or the side of the structure encroaches on the sideyard setback, um, the set lines are fairly
low cuz we're pulling them down to the sides. Um, you can see here also on drawing number one, uh, the walkout basement and, uh, garage area. I think one of the review comments, uh, questioned the clearances around the
proposed columns. Um, currently in drawing number one, the spacing between the columns is 9 ft. Um, a typical garage door is 8 or 9 ft. So, we stuck with that dimension. Um, we felt it was, you know, manageable. Um, but it's not
fixed. Um, if it's up for discussion, I think we can take that center column and move it toward the center of the structure. Um, if uh the board feels more comfortable with that, um, even get the owner's input on whether they would prefer that. Um,
and really lastly, I I just wanted to kind of circle back on the um the story variance. Um, so again, our spot grade analysis determined that the first floor was more than 6 ft above average grade. Uh, so that was one of the definitions
of story above grade in the ordinance. Um, but there are two other definitions of story above grade within the ordinance. So, three total. So if one is kind of affecting your structure then you have a story above grade. Um but the other definitions um within the
ordinance are where finished surface of the floor above the basement is more than 6 ft above the grade plane for more than 50% of the total building per perimeter um then the basement is not a story. So um based on our architectural survey of the house which sticks tight
to the house uh we found that that grade line around um the house um slightly over 50% of the footprint of the house um was below the 6 ft. So with that rule we do comply. Um and then the third
definition of story above grade is where the finished surface of the floor above the basement is more than 12 ft above the surrounding grade at any point along the foundation then the building then the basement is considered a story. Um so at no point um throughout the house
does the first is the first floor um more than 12 ft above grade. Um so within those three definitions uh we comply with two. So we just felt we wanted to kind of raise your attention to that to help our argument. Um and
with that um it's my conclusion of you know the design explanation. So any questions I'm happy to answer. Great. Board experts what questions do you have for this witness? So because they're not um increasing the impervious coverage greater than 300 square ft um there is no storm water
mitigation. I don't see any grading changes being made. So I don't have any um further comments or questions. Mr. Zo, Mr. Chairman, u the questions we've raised have been addressed by the applicant whether it's satisfactory. That's going to be your decision.
They've addressed what we've already report. Okay. Thank you so much. Board, what questions do you have for this witness? I have a couple just technical things from the from the planners report. Um so the architect says it's currently three
stories. The planner report seems to apply that maybe it's currently two stories, but I think it's three stories for the same technical reasons relating to the addition and the grade. So to me, it's a three story from what I can see from the drawings and the measurements and everything around it. And I think out of an abundance of
caution, the board should consider that as part of the package uh of variances that that are to be considered whether it's favorable or so going from two to three. Yeah. Okay. And are you in agreement with that? uh to my I felt that the the existing
structure was already three stories based on the analysis. So I felt we were going from three to slightly larger three. It it does appear as a threetory as it exists today to me to my eye reviewing the application. So I wouldn't disagree
with the assessment. You would not I would not. Okay. And then just a technical thing just for paperwork reasons. I think there's a typo in your report, plan report about the lock coverage. I think should be 42. Yeah. Okay. So, that is a typo. Okay.
I'm glad I didn't write that. I won't say won't tell L you said that. So, let me now clarify to make sure I have the right figure. Are you saying it's 32.42 as opposed to 32.24? No, it's it's 43.22, not 40, not 32.22.
They they B bridges board has 32. Got it. 42. That that makes a whole lot more sense. Yeah. The the architect's report is correct. The architect. So we are we are currently at 42.22. We are moving to 42.24. Right.
Uh I have 43.22 to 43.2. I think I just Yeah, it's 40. Yeah. 43 43 to Yeah, got it. Such a small change. Thank you. However you look at it, it's a very small change. 22 of 43.24. Yeah. Yeah.
Just out of curiosity, could you describe the current um conditions in terms of water flow and you you mentioned a pretty steep slope and it's pretty visible from visiting the site,
right? And in your drawings, can can you or the homeowners describe a little bit what happens? Uh we didn't the architect we as the architects didn't do any analysis on storm water or drainage. I don't know if the owner has any. Have you noticed any issues in your
backyard or we we've um the water flows from obviously from the street down to the down to the back. Um it mostly drains into the into the grass in the back. Um you know we've had considerations where we may at some point do a gravel driveway instead of a a black top, but we haven't really thought about that at
this stage. But mostly just drains into the into the back of the the grass. with no flooding issues or anything. Yeah, just a question for you. So, the 3 point I think you said 3.6 ft sideyard setback. Is that right? Correct.
Um, and is that from that's from the building line, not from the sopeted roof. From the building. What does the sopeted roof add to that? Um, our overhangs are currently at 2 feet. So, so, um, so it's like 1 and 1/2 ft from the
the property line. Can you go into why you're putting that softener roof at least on from the your elevations? You're showing it on three floors, uh, essentially at grade. Right. Right. So, the the canopy roofs at sort of the the first and second floor levels are really, you know, a
design decision to kind of camouflage the the new massing. Um, at the top level, the 24 in. Um, it could be pulled back. Um it's it's a bit generous. Um and uh the existing overhang the overhangs of the existing house um are
less than that. I don't know the exact number but um the 24 in that we are showing can can be pulled back to you know 12 in just enough to get ventilation for the roof if if that's more desirable. From a code compliant or code point of view does that overhang count as your
set sideyard setback encroachment? Um we we counted it towards the the building. We did not include the roof. And as far as my research, um, you know, the the ordinance is to the to the building, not the the roof overhang. I think if it's I don't know if that's
greater than 24 in the roof overhang, then it counts. So, right, I'm pulling it up. 35 knows about this. That's why I asked the question. 35-13.4 for permitted encroachments into
the setbacks and yards are chimneys not more than 24 in overhangs, bay windows, trellis, front yard only, but the overhangs reference does not have a particular limitation of 24 in. Okay.
And then the other question I would have is, you know, I I may have missed this, but I believe the minimum the width of this lot is actually under um in terms of it's 50 ft versus 60 ft. Correct. So, if you had that extra 10 feet, it's possible that you would be in conformance. Correct. Yeah.
Hang on. I might have been reading from the wrong zone. So, let me let me do a little more scrolling and if anything changes, I'll let you know. And one last question. Um, you'd stated that you're your family's grown. Congratulations. I have more than two kids, so I know how that is.
How are you addressing the issue here? You're only you're not really adding more bedrooms. We have a 13-year-old, an 11year-old, and then a seven-month-old and a two a 2-year-old. So, we have um two kids from
a previous marriage. So, they're not with us all the time. They're with us 40% of the time. So, to utilize like I didn't really want to make four small bedrooms and have one of the bedrooms not be used 60% of the time, you know? So, we
decided to just double up. they're going to be in college when our little ones are seven. So, it just makes more sense to make use of the space that way. Okay, that was one item in the design that I didn't go over. That front bedroom, which is currently one bedroom, is being
subdivided into two. Um, so at the end of the day, yes, we have three bedrooms on the second floor as our existing, but they are larger bedrooms because the two existing rear bedrooms are rather small. Okay, Mr. M. Yeah, I see a problem here
because we do have a 3.6 uh uh setback from the neighbor to the north uh from lot 20 and we're not making it any better. I mean we uh we know that it is an existing condition we have to live by
but we're making it worse. Uh we're reaching here 3.4 at the end of the proposed addition. Did you uh was there any other option to avoid that uh that uh you know access or
debating the uh conditions as they are especially when we are at a higher uh elevation this distance from the uh building uh building to building
to the uh uh to the the uh neighbors will be uh really a problem. I mean uh especially with this uh so did you consider any other option? We typically we run through you know
multiple design iterations early in the process. Um and originally we had several that kind of stepped in a little bit or were slightly narrow but um this in the end was the preferred option. Um and we felt by you know keeping things
within the footprint of that existing um enclosed deck was um a reasonable ask. Um so at one point we had options that you know extended beyond the existing deck. Um and in the end we
determined that it was probably our best bet to keep it within that existing footprint. So that really was the the driving force um to stay within that footprint is further to that. Mr. Doris, is there any advantage architecturally or structurally from aligning the addition
to the existing perimeter wall? Is it does it help you in terms of construction or um as opposed to that 5- in deviation of the as opposed to stepping back the addition as Mr. Malay is talking about? It was it really just became uh you know
more of an interior design challenge at that point. Okay. Um, so yes, the shell kind of aligns with everything, but the interior design to get sort of the the width for a little bit more of a spacious. So the layout gets compromised if you Yeah. And that's another kind of um
intensive process we went through of, you know, not just an architectural solution, but even, you know, furniture arrangements. We went over, you know, half a dozen at least in in space planning. Okay. I do want to jump back in on the overhangs. Um, the R six zone doesn't
have a specific reference to it as far as setbacks go. However, your definition of building area is what actually excludes roof eaves, roof overhangs, projections above entrance sways, and garage doors, and chimneys projecting a
maximum distance of 24 in from the structure. Not entirely clear whether that 24 in is only meant to apply to chimneys or meant to apply to that whole laundry list of things, but it is that building area um
which the setback goes to. Okay. So, clear as mud. Yeah, more or less. What is the um the overhang distance we're talking about here? Um we're currently showing a twoft
overhang. So the 3.6 is really 1.6. Okay. So the overhang itself is only the max 24 in. So yes the max that under that reading would be excluded no matter what from the building area. Therefore the overhang itself doesn't
count towards the setback. And you chose that dimension for the overhang it because it's in keeping with the current existing conditions. it it's actually a little above the existing conditions. Typically larger overhangs
are a little bit more attractive, so we kind of bumped it up for the proposed addition. Understood. Um, but if we did match the existing house, then they would be reduced. So, I think that's something we're we're willing to to bend on. I don't it's not going to have a detrimental impact on the design.
But, uh, from the street, would you really notice a 18 versus 24 in? No. the the addition is, you know, at the the final third of the house at the rear. Um, so you're really not going to notice it a whole lot.
I'm going to get pretty kind of simple here, but that the overhang so is roughly a foot from the property line. Uh, a foot and a half. Foot and a half. So snow, ice could conceivably fall on the neighbor's property if that happens.
Mhm. I know it's an asphalt roof, but Sure. And then something as simple as getting a new roof. Even now, they have to go on the neighbor's property to put ladders up, things like that. So, it doesn't make it any better, right? It's actually making it a little bit
worse. It would be difficult in those situations. You want to talk simply. Um, yeah. So, I mean, I I don't I'd like to see them smaller, but it's not a it's not a game changer,
if that makes any sense. You can't really go under 12 in. Yeah, that's going to help. I That's my point. It's like I'm I'm just thinking neighbor-wise, you know, here's I mean, how far is the neighbor's house from the property line? Is it Are they conforming? It doesn't look I mean,
I don't know. So, are we are we moving are we moving something of structure closer to the property line even though it's the overhang for the you know for the roof? I it's I mean I don't know I can't even explain it. Right. Sure. Sure.
Yeah. I was there. Yeah, I saw it. Yeah. Yeah. I'm just trying to figure out, you know, there is there is some space. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, there some. Yeah. Any other questions for this witness? Yeah. I just have one clarification from Mr. Mlay's uh comment.
The in here you're saying it's 3.5 ft. He had mentioned 3.4 and I'm seeing our survey 3.4. Yeah. What's the actual correct answer? And it's the tightest pinch point.
Yeah, I I'm showing 3 foot6 actually. So it's not an engineering. So 3.5 according to my drawings, not 3.6. So do we trust the survey or do we trust I'm looking at the survey it shows 3.2?
Yeah. And is that from is the survey showing it as proposed or is it showing it from the existing uh deck that is pitched in 5 in roughly? 3.4. Yeah, I'm looking at the the engineers drawing. It's 3.4. So that is
the number proposed 3.4. Correct. Proposed 3. Yeah. Do we know the dimension the distance to the neighboring house at? Yeah. It looks like at the 8.7 ft um on the engineer survey the
front. Oh yeah, there it is. 8.7. Yeah. And then 10 foot and then 10 foot one. So it tapers kind of away. It's slightly angled. I do have some aerial images. is what? 3' 4 and 1/2 in
versus he is 3 foot six talking an inch and a half. Yeah. Yeah, that's pretty in I was close. 4.8. Sorry about the discrepancy.
So now that alters our sideyard setback request, right? Is that what we're talking about here? I want to make sure it's accurate. Yeah. So our total variance that you're then asking for for the sideyard setback would be 3.4.
3.4. Okay. Any other questions? Seeing none. Okay. Is there anything you'd like to say in conclusion? No. No. Nothing else. I want to add that our neighbors really
like us and we really like them. So, I know you're saying that like our kids play in their yard. They look for them all the time. It's like a retired couple and it's like I don't know if it would be an issue if our snow fell on them. Well, they're they're not here condemning your
We didn't ask them to come, but I'm sure they would be if we have. I think the house back 20 years ago, so have you spoken to your neighbors about this application? Oh, yeah. Yes. Did they support the application? Yes, of course. Great. They help build it.
That's good to hear. Yeah. Go ahead. And I don't want to carry it because it's I know it's a minor thing, but think of it if you were the neighbor. Now you have this I know that overhang is a silly thing, but it it could intrude light, snow, rain,
whatever the case may be onto your property. Yeah. Unattended consequence. You don't mean to do it, but it happens. Um just I know structurally and visually and all that stuff it's a very minor issue, but do you want a reduction? Um, it's not a
game changer for me if they do it or don't. I just if the neighbors are okay with it and you're pretty sure they're okay with it and they're willing to test, then I'm good. But so they won't even I don't want to be wishywashy on it either, which I am, but it's okay, you know. Okay.
Thank you, Don. Um, thank you for wrapping up your application. Do we have any public comments? Seeing none, um, Mr. ball, can you please talk us through the conditions and number of votes required?
So, I I don't have any conditions noted. There is no engineering memorandum that we are referring to. Um I know we've been talking about overhangs, talking about setbacks. So, if the board feels that any particular conditions are warranted as far as that goes or as far
as anything else, let me know. Otherwise, I don't have any noted at this point. I I have a question. I got lost in some of the numbers on the sideyard setback. So, what is the actual sideyard they're asking right now? 3.4 uh 3.4 ft. They said it's 3.5.
Okay. Cuz I thought I heard inches before that kind of threw me. Okay. Not 3.4 in that Mr. Yuko. They did say 3T 4 in one point. So, the clarification is very much 3.4t. Yes.
Um All right. Number of votes that does have a devariance. Five votes are required to approve. Um, I'll just look around once more. Any conditions anyone want to see? I think we're going to go with it as is. Okay. All right. With that, let's finish up
the evening strong and have a barn burner of a executive session. What do we say? Oh, you want me to kick it off? Going one. All right, fine. Um, listen. This is a unique one. Um, you know, as I look at it, the fact that your lot is slightly
smaller than it should be, 10 ft. We may not be here for half of this. The lot coverage, the maximum F, even the three stories, it makes all perfect sense to me. And I don't have any concern. Where I have concern is this 3.4
feet. You're not improving it. You're actually slightly exacerbating it. And I think I'd be more inclined, and I don't have a direct answer on this, if you were to set that back to mitigate that dam that that impact and push out the the coverage further back.
So maybe looking, you know, I just don't have an idea of exactly where I'd feel on this, but I that 3.4 ft gives me concern. So as of right now, I'm undecided. Okay. Fair.
Is there a distance that is preferred? We'd be willing to give up a few inches on that side of the house. So here here's So even if how you going to give up a couple inches? Uh it's open plan kitchen dining. We can shift even if you even if you follow the
current current layout of the house. It's 3.5. If you go up, if you go up past, if I'm looking at, if I'm looking at this correctly, bear with me for a second. At the corner of I guess it's the
where's the thing? The the southeast corner of the structure for the proposed addition is just 3.4. You go up 8 ft is 3.5. But as like my forward was saying, you're talking
an inch. I mean, where do I I think if we're going to go down this route, we have to give them some direction. All right. So whether it's I'll just give in or could you how would you lay this out? If
we said you the the addition needed to be in conformance with the 8.5, you have to give up 5T. Where would it be impacted? Can you walk us through that? On the first floor, you're obviously impacting the kitchen, right? Right. So, you would end up having to shrink
your island down and you're going to have a little bit of a jog, but you probably move your I guess that's the 8ft side. Just I you mentioned No, no problem. Um it would, you know, it would trigger some not heavy duty
redesign, but we would have to kind of go back to the drawing board. the the small powder room that is currently existing would have to probably be rethought um on the second floor. Um you know that that's more of a heavy-handed design change. The the primary bathroom
would have to you know go through some you know heavy duty reconfiguring. Um whereas if you said you know take it to 4T from the property line I think that's much more manageable. So going from the
3.4 to 4 ft um I think that's more doable. What level dictates from your opinion where it goes from inconvenience to completely redesign or massive impact, however you want to
put it. I think even if you get into the like the one foot territory, it's, you know, we we've spent a good amount of time even, you know, laying out and it's not final, but laying out, you know, kitchen mill work and things like that. That's
kind of the level of detail we've gone into design. Um, so I would say like beyond the the 4 foot mark would, you know, not take us back to the drawing board completely, but you know, it would take a little bit of muscle to um to
edit your your kitchen layout. You have to have minimum dimension between the counter and the island, correct? For accessibility. Sure. Yeah. Right. And then if you
reduce the island by say a foot, you would only be able to what? Seat two people at that point. Yeah. Like these are So this is the cascading effect J that I've built them. I know. Like the island itself could shift a bit
even retaining its the same size. But uh yes, it was all very, you know, meticulously planned up until now. Jay, let me ask you just does 6 in the fact that they're moving. Don't make me the deciding factor.
No, I'm starting with you, but we can throw it out to larger borders. Is that something? Well, I mean, I think like it's moving towards I mean, anything more than 3.5, let's call it 3'6 in. That's going to confuse me less. Anything more than 3 feet six
inches is an improvement over the existing. So I think four feet would be I would agree a nice number. Donna, here's here's what I'm thinking. It's I mean they they put a lot of effort into this it that even if they if
they did away with this addition alto together, they would still be 3.5 ft from the property line. So we're gaining a foot. How is that how is that how is that helping? Well, I mean, personally, I personally I was okay with the 3.5. I'm 3 foot six inches, but I'm hearing
there's some concern about, you know, doing something better. I personally be okay with keeping it at 3 foot 6 in, 3.5 ft, whatever you want to call it. Well, I think Don, this is this is 3.4. Sorry. This is their This is what they're adding on, right? Yeah.
And unfortunately, they're adding on in the area where the property line Yep. moves ever so slightly closer Yep. to this natural extension. Yep. So the the condition is not getting improved, it's getting exacerbated. What do I get? Right.
By taking that extension and running it parallel based on the perimeter of the house. Mhm. So it sounds like some of us on the board are looking for not an exager exaggeration
so much, but a Sorry, but it's okay. But a a um a way to um reduce the impact of the I get what they're on to the site and it sounds like maybe even
6 in would head in that direction. I'm just ask comment on that. How is that going to look though? six inch jog in the wall. A house of this nature and age like it
was there all along. I mean look straight across is better. It's better for them internally. It's better for them externally. But if there if we feel like there has to be some sort of attention
paid to not making the situation worse, then the board needs to keep them that direction. Okay. Mr. Malay, what do you
I mean um that was an opinion. It's up to the board. Can you go for the vote? I can support it the way it is. You can? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, I mean I I can too. As I said earlier,
I like that we're trying to help them make it better. I just don't think it's going to have a meaningful at the end of the day. Yeah. I mean what like it's not to me it's not 6 in a foot.
I mean I can support it's also at the back of back right I think that's another mitigating factor that we should consider is the impact on the neighborhood right it's non-existent because it's so deep and so
far back there is a great line so that's why we're here no this is why we're here to have conversations exactly like this Okay. Can I get a motion to approve
as is? I'll make the motion. I get a second. I'll second it. Jessica, can you please call the role? Mr. Yuko? Yes. Mr. Malay? Yes. Mr. Nelson? Yes.
Mr. Feskins? Yes. Mr. Chantuli? Yes. Mr. Nering? Yes. Chairman Lincoln. Yes. Congratulations. Good luck. Thank you. Thank you. All right. We have a little business to attend to.
Resolutions and minutes. Jessica, we got We have six resolutions tonight. All right. I thought we were going to get out early. Just do one more show. Sorry for ruining that one. I've got I've got one more hour. All right. First up is 49 Tulip Street,
zoning board application number ZB-24-2266. The eligible members to vote are Mr. Yuko, Mr. Malay, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Chantuli, and Chairman Loy. Can we have a motion? Moved and a second. Second.
Mr. Yuko, yes. Mr. Malay, yes. Mr. Nelson, yes. Mr. Chantuli, yes. Chairman Ly. Yes. Next up is 67 Dale Drive, zoning board application number ZB-24-2270.
The eligible members to vote are Mr. Yuko, Mr. Malay, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Chantuli, and Chairman Lyz. Can we have a motion? So move. And a second. Yes. Mr. Yuko? Yes. Mr. Malay? Yes.
Mr. Nelson? Yes. Mr. Chanchuli? Yes. Chairman Litz? Yes. Okay. Next up is 65 Fernwood Road, zoning board application number ZB-25-2281. Eligible members to vote are Mr. Yuko, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Feskins, and Chairman
Loyets. Can we have a motion? So moved. And a second. Second. Mr. Yuko. Yes. Mr. Nelson. Yes. Mr. Fes. Yes. Chairman Ly. Yes.
Next up is 235 Morris Avenue, zoning board application number ZB-19-1992-2. Eligible members to vote are Mr. Yuko, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Feskins, and Chairman Loyets. Can we have a motion? So moved. Second. Thank you.
Mr. Yuko, yes. Mr. Nelson, yes. Mr. Fes, yes. Chairman Lett. Yes. Okay. Next up is a resolution of extension for 503 Springfield Avenue zoning board application number
ZB-21-2079. Can we have a motion? So moved. A second. Second. Mr. Yuko. Yes. Mr. Malay. Yes. Mr. Mr. Nelson. Yes. Mr. Feskins. Yes.
Mr. Chantuli. Yes. Mr. Nearing. Yes. And Chairman Lyz. Yes. Okay. And this is our last resolution. It's a resolution of extension for 28 Druid Hill Road, zoning board
application number ZB-22-2175. Can we have a motion? Some moved and a second. Second. Okay. Mr. Yuko, yes. Mr. Malay, yes. Mr. Nelson, yes. Mr. Fes,
yes. Mr. Chantuli, yes. Mr. Nearing, yes. Chairman Ly, yes. Next up, we have minutes from June 2nd, 2025. The eligible members to vote are Mr. Yuko, Mr. Malay, Mr. Nelson, Mr.
Chantuli, Mr. Nearing, and Chairman Lyz. Could we get a motion? Make a motion. Second, whatever. I'll second if you need another second. Okay, perfect. Thank you. Uh, all those in favor? I.
Any opposed? Next up is the minutes from June 5th. The eligible members to vote are Mr. Yuko, Mr. Chantuli, and Mr. Feskins. Can we get a motion? It's been moved. I'll second. It's fine.
Okay. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay. And lastly, we have the minutes from June 9th. The eligible members to vote are Mr. Yuko, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Feskins, Mr. Nearing, and Chairman Lyz. Could we get a motion?
Some moved. And a second. Second. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Can I get a motion to adjurnn? So motion. Thank you, Mr. Ner.