Good evening and welcome to the February 2nd, 2026 meeting of the city of Summit Zoning Board of Adjustment. My name is Scott Loitz. I'm the zoning board chair. Please rise and join us in the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it
stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you. >> In accordance with New Jersey statute 104-10, adequate notice of the special meeting has been provided to a newspaper
record 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 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. It's also broadcast on some of its government channels which is Comcast 34, Verizon channel 30. 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, and 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 at the day and return it thereafter. Um, before we call
the role, we're going to swear in one of our board members tonight. >> All right, Mr. Malay, if you could raise your right hand and repeat after me. >> I >> I >> state your name. >> A valid >> do solemnly swear. solemnly swear
>> that I will support the Constitution of the United States >> United States >> and the Constitution of the State of New Jersey >> for which it stands >> and that I will bear true faith >> that I will bear true faith >> and allegiance >> and allegiance
>> to the same >> to the same >> and to the governments established >> and to the government established >> in the United States >> in the United States >> and in this state >> and in this state >> under the authority of the people >> under the authority of the people. >> I do solemnly swear
>> I do solemnly swear >> that I will faithfully >> that I will faithfully >> impartially >> and part impartially >> and justly >> and justly >> perform all the duties >> perform all the duties >> as a member of the zoning board. >> As a member of the zoning board
>> according to the best of my ability >> according to the best of my ability. >> So help me God. >> So help me God. >> Welcome back. >> Welcome back Mr. And with that, Miss Sans, can you please call the role of members? >> Vice Chair Zon >> here. Mr. Yuko >> here.
>> Mr. Malay, >> yes. >> Mr. Mullen is excused. Mr. Nelson >> here. >> Mr. Curran >> here. >> Miss Chief >> here. >> Mr. Fes >> here. >> Mr. Chenuli >> here. >> Mr. Bell >> here. Chairman Lykitz
>> here. >> You have a quorum. You may proceed. >> Thank you much so much, Miss Sans. Uh Andy Ball is the zoning board's attorney. Mr. Ball advises the board members on matters of law and is the key interface with the applicant's attorney. Mr. Ball does not vote on these applications. Jessica Sans is a city
employee and is the zoning board secretary. Board secretary works with the applicants on preparing their applications, planning our agendas, keeping our meeting minutes. Board secretary also does not vote. Also present are experts who are hired annually by the board to provide input.
Tonight we have Marie Rafé from Collier's Engineering. Also present is Ed Snikis from Burge Associates and he's our board planner. These experts are seated at the table to the right of the board, the public's left. They also do not vote 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 applications require a simple majority to be approved. Before we enter into executive session to vote on the applications, you'll be advised as how many votes are required for approval.
Each case will begin with the applicants or their attorney giving an overview of the application process to date, the variances that are required. We then hear from any additional expert witnesses the applicant may have to help explain the application, why these variances are needed. The board experts,
followed then by the board members, may ask questions of the applicant, their attorney, and their expert witnesses. Due to recent cases running excessively long, we strongly encourage applicants and their experts to give brief and concise testimony so we may get to as many cases as possible in a given
evening. Once the board members and then the board professionals have completed their questioning, the public will have an opportunity to ask their own questions. This is not the time to tell us what you think about this case. That opportunity comes at the end of the hearing. Please be careful as how you phrase your questions. They should not be proceeded
with a statement about the case, but should be a direct question to the witness. Also, before you ask your questions, we ask that you please clearly state your name, spell your last name, and provide your address. It's important that our court reporter be able to keep a clear and accurate public record. After all the witnesses have
been heard, members of the audience have their second opportunity to speak at that time, you may express your opinion, positive or negative, about the application. Then the public hearing is closed and we enter into executive session. This is where the board members discuss the case and then vote. You will
be able to listen in to our executive session, but not will not normally be able to participate in our discussion. I'm going to ask now that each applicant and their attorney, if present, come up and give a brief synopsis of the anticipated testimony tonight, including the number of witnesses and whether or
not they can finish their presentation within 30 minutes. So with that, if I could hear from the team for 19 Ridge Road. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. James Weber of Alfonso and Weber on behalf of Ravi and God and
their through their trusts on 19 Ridge Road. This is uh a carried application. had been adjourned in order to allow the attorney for the neighbors, the Zobbitzes, to have an opportunity to review the application.
That uh delay has been fruitful. The uh applicants and the Zobbitzes have been able to come to a conclusion with regard to the design of the pool and the greenhouse. So where the pool was facing the zobbitzes and the greenhouse was
internal, now the greenhouse is external and the pool has been brought inside. The zobbitzes through their attorney Ailen Brennan uh find that acceptable. They have looked at the uh landscape plan. They find that acceptable as well.
They did have a condition that there's a hedge row along the common lot line that they wish to leave undisturbed and the retaining wall that's along the common lot line which has fallen into disrepair to be either repaired or replaced. And
all of this is fine with uh Robbie and God as well. But what it does for the board is uh presents a change in the footprint. We do have Dave Rosen here tonight and Mr. Rosen can address
several of the variances that are uh spec specific to the building such as the average building height, the highest to lowest building height and the accessory building height as well. >> Yes. >> And the accessory building height. So we
can get those variances addressed for the board without having to go into the plan revision which will be necessary to adjust for the switching of those two accessory uses. We also have a request for interpretation which I've discussed with Mr. Ball and perhaps we can do a
little housekeeping with regard to that. >> Excellent, Mr. Weber. So we'll try and get through as much testimony tonight as possible under with the understanding that you're going to come back to us with that revised plan and then we'll have a final vote. Correct, Mr. Chair. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Weber.
Next, can I hear from representatives for 45 Prospect Hill Avenue, >> James Weber of Alfonso and Weber. I have Miss Alfonso here as well. And this is be on on behalf of the uh Galbands, Ricky and Stephanie Galban. 45
the board had granted us an adjournment in order to allow the architect engineers to address the building coverage. They've eliminated the building coverage variance. This is a steep slope variance at this point. Uh we expect two witnesses 45 minutes.
>> Great. Thank you, Mr. Weber. Um our third application tonight, 19 Oxbow Lane. Do we have a representative for that application? Thank you. um Alexander Kilby. Uh I live there and
we are just looking we are um renovating our house and we are moving we're trying to extend an existing wall that is um that the house was built in 1950 and we're just trying to extend forward on a ball on a wall that is an existing wall
which right now is a little bit too close to the property edge. >> Understood. >> So just kind of trying to build forward and >> do you have any expert witnesses? architect unfortunately couldn't make it at the last minute. So, it's just us. >> All right. So, you're going to cosplay as architect tonight. Perfect. >> Yes. >> Thank you.
>> And then finally, do we have a representative for 175 Oakidge? >> And Mr. Chairman, I know it's listed on the agenda. They did formally withdraw that application. So, I would not anticipate anyone here tonight for that this evening. >> Excellent. Thank you. All right. So,
with that, Mr. Weber, you're back up. Start with 19 Ridge Road. My wife background, 19 Ridge Road is a 15year-old home that's being improved with an addition to allow for the uh
construction of an attached garage. Uh the building uh and the proposed improvements require several variances. building coverage, lot coverage, building height, uh, highest to lowest building height,
and height for the accessory greenhouse. Also, because it's a corner property, the requirements in a corner property for accessory structures require double the front yard setback. So, 35 is required. They're at 70 ft is the
requirement. and we're not quite certain because we're waiting for those plans that we've worked out with the Zobitzes to uh come in. A steep slope variance is also required and the driveway width in front of the
home uh has been expanded to allow for uh ease of access. If you give me a second, I'm just making sure that I've named all the variances associated with the application. Mhm.
Uh so as uh the board has heard in the uh introduction, the uh Zobbitzes uh have as Elizabeth and Ted Zobitz represented by Ailen Brennan. There have been discussions and negotiations that have gone on and their
concerns have been addressed by a planned revision. We just concluded this today. So, I appreciate the board's uh uh patience in hearing us tonight. I have Mr. Rosen here and I have Robbie uh and God also. So, perhaps we can have
Robbie come up just to introduce himself uh and his uh wife and the application uh and then we can move into Dave Rosen. >> Sounds good. >> I would ask Robbie be called to the stand to be sworn in to give testimony
in this matter. All right. If you could raise your right hand, do you swear affirm the testimony you're about to give in this matter is the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> And please state your name, spell your last name. >> Uh, Ravida. D A T A T R E Y A.
>> Thank you. >> Welcome. Can you please tell us a little bit about your project? >> Thank you so much. Uh, we've been living in Summit uh for about 40 almost 46 years, I think. So, it was quite a long time. We have made it our home and we love the city and we want to continue to
live here for as long as we can. Uh our house is actually a little bit older than 115. It was built in 1903 I think. So that makes it 123 years old.
And uh we've done everything possible to retain uh the character of the house. Uh one of the interesting things is that we talked to a number of architects and uh contractors. Everybody says it's more easy to build a
new house than to fix an old house. But uh our memories and also our children's memories and now our grandkids memories are all in the in the house. We don't want to uh to demolish it. We want to retain it, save it, preserve it, and
enhance it. So that is the pro that is today's project. I think uh our architect uh can tell a little bit more about this this idea of preservation extension. Uh I would like him to say a few words.
>> Couple more. >> If you have any questions I would like to answer. >> Yes. We'll just check to see if anyone has questions first. Board experts. Do you have any questions for this witness? >> Not for this witness. >> No questions. >> All right. Great. >> Board. Do you have any questions for the applicant?
>> Thank you so much. >> Seeing. Okay. Thank you. >> One point, Mr. Chairman. >> Yes. >> Uh Robbie, you're authorized to speak on behalf of the two trusts that are the actual owners and applicants here. >> Uh yes, I'm uh the trustee of there are two trusts who own it 50% each. I'm the
trustee of one of the trusts and my wife is the trustee of the other trust and I'm speaking on behalf of both of the trusts. >> Thank you. >> Excellent. Thank you. >> Thank you. I would ask that Dave Rosen be called to the stand, be sworn in to give testimony this matter.
>> And before we do that, are there any members of the public who have questions for the prior witness? >> Seeing. Thank you. Of course. >> Do you swore from the testimony you're about to give in this matters, the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> Please state your name. Spell your last
name. Dave Rosen, R Oen. I'm a partner in Rosie Rosen Kelly Conway Architects. >> And I'll note for the record, you've appeared before us a number of times, including very recently. Any changes to your credentials since the last time you were? >> Nope. Still good. >> I imagine we'll accept you back once again.
>> We will. Welcome back, Mr. Rose. >> Thank you. Uh, give me just a second while I get this uh supposed to come up. There we go. Uh, this is just an image of the current Well, I'll say before um before we
started any renovations on the existing house. That's on the top and the finished proposed is on the bottom. Um, so we have kind of an interesting uh situation this evening because as of about 3:00 uh our plans changed with
regard to an agreement uh through the attorneys for the neighbor that Jim has mentioned uh Mr. Mrs. Zobitz who lived downhill qu the adjacent house on Fernwood. Um it doesn't change anything that's in this view. It doesn't change
anything on the house, but as Jim mentioned, we're we're going to make some adjustments to the uh to the plan uh the site plan. And in particular, as Jim mentioned, the plan that we had
submitted um had the pool uh the farthest to the north, that's the farthest to the downhill side, closest to Mr. Mrs. Zobitz's property and not only their house but uh their deck. Uh
it was the location was conforming with regard to the side but um there were they had some concerns and after the discussion um which took place the well the resolution was today but the um in
the six weeks that we had since we were originally scheduled to come here there have been some uh opportunities for us to modify the plan recognize their concerns and um so we're in a good spot
right now. But it means that some of the statistics with regard to the site plan, uh some of the drainage things, steep slope calculations, the the uh variances for the distance from Fernwood Road to the greenhouse and to the pool may not
be accurate. Uh all we have is we have a drawing um that was already entered as A2 um that we can submit and then we can sort of get that out of the way and then I'll focus on the architectural aspect.
>> Have these been handed out yet? >> And if I may, that's been marked already. I believe so. >> That's a good question. >> The letter. Yeah, A1 is just uh some comments
because while we had the opportunity to talk with the adjacent neighbor, we also um had some further discussions with some of the uh staff, the summit staff, some of the experts particularly with
regard to the environmental commission in summit and uh with John Linen, the city forester. And mostly what we did is we refined the information. We described a little bit more about what the project is going to
include so that their comments were uh more fully informed and they both um well I I can't say that they approved because they didn't write that but they said that they have uh no objections whereas previously they had some uh some
good concerns. Okay. So, I'm going to focus on the on the architectural parts. And for the statistics, please feel free to stop me if um because I can rattle off a lot of
numbers in a row and they may not sound like much of a story when you're just listing uh listing numbers. >> Perhaps if I can, Mr. Chairman, perhaps Dave, you could ask you if there's any questions with regard to the uh sheet that was just
>> of course. So, the drawing that was um that was handed out was was it looks like a formal drawing, but it's mostly a sketch um that was done on the computer by Jared Kest, the um the landscape architect for the project. and it shows
the the house in the same configuration, the driveway, but it shows a couple of differences in particular the pool and the greenhouse. On the drawing that was originally submitted, the greenhouse was towards Fernwood Road, which is to the
left on the drawing, and the pool was farthest to the top of the page, so it was closest to the Zobitz's uh property. what we have done. Uh they they had some concerns about um >> the pool.
>> Yeah. About the pool and they felt that they would like to look at the greenhouse rather than the pool. So we moved the greenhouse to be closer to their uh to their property and the pool is more centrally located on the
property and farther away from the zog property. Um both of them will require variances for front yard setback to an accessory structure on a corner lot and those statistics which we had presented
at 57 ft and 60 ft are are probably not correct with this new plan. We haven't refined the plan. We haven't refined the landscaping between the retaining wall and the property as you go up the page.
So our expectation is that we will after covering some of the thing some of the variances having to do specifically with the the house that we'll continue to another meeting and then be able to um have all the statistics and have
drawings that not only that you can look at but any member of the public could look at and in particular um for the uh planner and engineer um consultants for summit to be able to look at and and update their comments.
Okay. Any any questions and then I'll move off. Yes. >> Yeah. I don't know if this is the right time to ask. You mentioned that Mr. Linson was now in he said verbally but not a report yet but it now is more supportive of the plan than the initial comments. >> Yes. So I have a question about that because the one comment is that
concerned me the most was uh about two trees uh a ginko and other was >> th those are were located though it looks like to me in the front of the house >> they are. >> So how will so the plants have been changed to >> I want to wait for later.
>> This is really for Jared Kest who met with uh with John Linden um last week and they I have not seen the comments. John Lenson just said that he's working elsewhere on Friday and I believe today
and so he'll he'll follow up with his comments. So I'm just saying what I've heard with regard to those two trees. >> I can also follow up with that. The one beach tree has beach leaf disease and it isn't expected to survive. the GKO uh
Jared Kess has drawn cutings from it in order to replicate it elsewhere on the site >> and that that's part of what Mr. Lson agreed to. Okay. >> Yes. >> Well, actually that work was done a year ago. Um the variance process some sometimes takes a little longer. So we
were prepared for the uh the GKO tree where there are 10 saplings growing from that GKO tree. not planting seeds and so on, but the but they took cutings and they've those are Jared Kest will cover this. He's got photos of it. I've seen
the photos. But anyway, all of those issues with John Linson will supposedly be resolved in writing in uh by the next meeting that we continue to. >> Mr. Chairman, if I if I can, >> why don't we have our experts ask see if
they have any questions first and then I'll get back to you, Don. One sec. Um, board experts, what questions do you have for this? >> I think I'm going to wait for some ingenuity. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> I presume also you're going to be talking more about what variances you might anticipate, I guess, are still in
play here or all the variances that were identified originally. >> It appears that all of them are still in play. We're still requesting all of those variances. However, there we haven't refined it, but with the greenhouse moving to a single flat
location rather than having access to a one level of the patio and a lower level, we have to see whether we'll still need a variance for the height of the accessory building. >> Okay. >> So, it's possible that that gets with uh withdrawn, but
>> okay. >> We'll we'll have to see. And then also it seems like it's being pulled out of the front yard sometime possibly. >> Possibly greenhouse. >> Yeah, I >> possibly >> we we want to give uh real information with real statistics on all of that. >> Right. Understood.
>> But right now we have it so that the greenhouse is centered on a room on on the on the left side of the house as you see it from Ridge Road. >> Just so Yeah. >> All right. And then the pool still needs a variance for being in the front yard
setback from the adjacent street. >> Uh yes. Okay. >> On a corner lot in the R43 zone, the normal setback for the building, the primary the principal building is 50 ft. On a corner lot, an accessory
building has to be double that setback. So it has to be 100 feet. And that's where we can meet the regular requirement for a full building for the principal building, but not for the um not for the accessory building. >> Okay. So, you possibly could eliminate
the height issue for the accessory structure. >> Well, but then you're going to talk more about the architecture next. >> Yes. Just just to follow up on that one, and I hate to get too wonky on this and too deep into the ordinance, but that's what we're here for. So um
an accessory building usually has a height limitation of 15 ft. In the in the design that we had submitted the um the greenhouse had a height of 17t 6 in. And part of that as
I said is because it had it was sort of straddling two levels of the patio. Um the summit zoning ordinance says that a garage can be 18 feet high and so can a pool cabana if uh if the pitch of the
roof is is steeper in order to match the the main building on the property. Uh that's what we were doing. So the greenhouse is actually about 2/3 greenhouse and one/3 cabana. And the ordinance doesn't address
specifically whether a greenhouse can be 18 ft high. We have assumed that the limitation is 15 ft. Um but the cabana part could be 18. Anyway, we're at 17t 6
in what we submitted and we will update all of that >> um as we uh as we develop that that sort of sketch plan. It's probably best to wait then further conversation on that. >> Yes. But I just wanted to explain a little bit about
what what we have kind of nailed down and and what's uh floating as of 3:00 this afternoon. Okay. So, uh the project overall is divided into three main parts and that's why there
are three um people going to who are going to be testifying about this. I'll handle the architectural part. Um, there's also the landscape design which is Jared Kest and then civil engineering and some of the infrastructure which is Andrew Clark. Andrew is here tonight but
I think he's here for another application and so he's not I don't think that you don't have your information for this >> since. Okay. Yeah. because most of his work it would just get confusing because all of the some of the grading and and
some of the statistics and the uh storm water management those things are going to shift around a little bit and it would be best to just do it once with the correct information. >> I I think we can make that assumption Mr. Weber about landscape and civil engineering. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman.
>> Okay. >> Yes. >> But the architecture is not really changing save the greenhouse. Correct. Correct. >> Okay. >> Right. And so that's what I'm going to address. >> Perfect. >> Um just a couple sentences first about the landscape just so you know what's coming. The landscape uh contains native
plants, gardens, the greenhouse. Um the pool is part of that landscape design and patio and significant improvements in the driveway. And we've moved many of the structures on the property more toward the center of the site. Uh I I'll
I'll get into it in just a moment very briefly about there's an existing driveway and a freestanding garage in the uh at the downhill side. That driveway has five non I mean the
driveway and the existing garage are both being removed so that we can have landscaping from the shared property line with the zobitzes up to the first uh retaining wall. Um the existing
driveway and that carriage house have five nonconformances, including too tall. Um it's got habitable space on the second floor. The driveway is too close to the property line, and the the um the existing garage
is too close to one of the property lines. So, we're eliminating five non-conformances and instead we're doing what feels like a better solution, which is to put the new garage attached to the house, uh the driveway going around to
the right side of the house, uh as you look at, uh the picture up here, and being in the basement. And then we're doing a one-story addition directly above the garage which will have kitchen, family room, breakfast area,
and a couple of other uh similar kinds of spaces. Uh but in moving those landscape elements into the center of the site, that was another one of the things that I think Mr. and Mrs. liked better because the landscaping could be vastly improved between the
developed part of this property, our property and theirs. Uh with regard to the civil civil engineering and infrastructure, that's vastly improved particularly with storm water management. Uh the property currently has no storm water management system and
so the a lot of the water just flows down the hill and into the uh adjacent properties. That will all be resolved with six dry wells that'll be paired. So there'll be three pairs of dry wells on the site capturing water from different
areas in order to store it on site and not have it just running off. In addition to that, there'll be a sistern which um will be essentially a tank that will hold water for watering the garden uh during the summer months. Um, in
addition to that, we're going to be using permeable paving. In the original submission, we had assumed that it might be asphalt uh paving, which is typical, but we have we're committing now, and it'll come up a little bit more when we
continue that we're using uh permeable paving, which is they look like similar kinds of bricks, except they have little bumps sticking out, so they're not packed too tight together and then the water can't get through. Um, and so with
uh with the permeable paving and the retaining walls to capture and redirect the water, it's going to be a benefit to some of the uh adjacent properties, particularly uh two or three properties that are downhill from this. Um,
okay. So, now to the house finally. Um there are three parts of this part of the project and Ravi mentioned some of the uh some of the ideas particularly the first one which is preservation and
restoration. So both on the interior and the exterior there's an there's a goal to preserve this house. In some cases, with the age of the house, we're replacing some elements such as we're replacing the siding with real cedar
siding, not um not some kind of plastic or concrete. Um we are they have just recently replaced the roof. It's a slate roof. So, we want to have the house in good shape for the next hundred years. on the inside. It includes um restoring
woodwork and stair railings and those kinds of things that are not really the subject of the uh of this board, but they're important for the way the house retains the feeling of what it's always been. Um, and in addition to that, some
of the preservation also included restructuring parts of the house, particularly in the basement, to make sure that everything stays level and is properly supported. So, preservation is number one. Number two is renovation. And in this house, renovation is uh is a
lot. It's um again, we want to have it set for the next hundred years. So it includes replacing all of the electrical wiring, all new lighting, all the plumbing, plumbing, piping, both supply and uh and the waistlines, all the HVAC.
Uh so the house is fully up to date, but still retain the capacity to upgrade as the technology advances. Um, some of the infrastructure improvements in in this renovation also include geothermal heating and cooling which has already been installed and
it's been a nice test over the last week and a half or two weeks and it's functioning very nicely. Uh, in addition to that, there are solar panels that'll go above the front the the uh the new front porch. They'll be hidden by a
parapit, so sort of a low wall to hide the appearance from the street, but having the solar panels will allow uh provide for electricity use in the house and then the battery system in the basement to be able to power um not only
the geothermal but also lighting and so on uh even in the evening. And all of the bathrooms are being redone. All of the walls uh except for a couple where there's wood paneling like in the living room and so on. The rest of the house is
all insulated to meet current standards. The the code does not require us to do anything for the existing house. You can renovate it. If there's no insulation, you can keep it that way. And any new parts have to be really very well insulated. But right now the house is is
superbly insulated. Um R60 in the in the roof and the attic and R30 in many of the walls. Um and again even though it's not required that's what we've done. We've replaced a lot of the windows which are some of
which were um nice looking but we've replaced them with very similar looking uh wood windows. Okay. preservation, renovation, and then the addition. The addition is similar to uh a submitt that
we made in 2014. We had gone to this board. We had gotten unanimous approval on that one. Uh one of the differences is we didn't have a greenhouse. We didn't have the pool, but we had all of these other elements um and very similar
variances. Um but that one had the addition not just as garage and then above that on the first floor kitchen, breakfast area, family room and so on. It had another story with uh two bedroom
suites. We don't have that as as part of this. Um okay. Now the variances we have we have a number of variances and the ones I want to address specifically are maximum average building height and
maximum overall height which is from the lowest part which is the bottom of the garage door all the way up to the ridge. So, taking the average every 10 ft around the perimeter of the new house to
either the new grade or the old grade, whichever is lower, so you get the biggest statistic that's possible. Um, the allowable is usually 35 ft for a house, but because of the steepness of the roof, we're allowed to go to 38 ft.
And that's the steep the steepness of the roof. It doesn't have to be um like a 45 degree angle slope. It's less than that. It's it's viewed a 45 degree angle would be a 12 on 12, meaning 12 in over and 12 in up.
If it's more than 8 on 12, then you get the bonus. It's it's allowed to be uh 38 ft high. This house is 10 on 12. So, we're in that we're in that category. So, uh, the maximum height is allowed to
be 38 feet. It's currently 39 and it's going to 41. And the house is not getting taller, but the addition extends out where the ground gets a little bit lower. And so, there's no change like in the in the picture up here. That ridge
line is unchanged. And the addition behind is looks like a one-story addition with a basement. and the basement is uh exposed where the garage doors are, but on the patio side it it
seems like it's a just a one-story structure. Um so that there was some question as to whether it's a C variance or a D variance um from Mr. Snikers, was that your question? >> I believe so. >> Yeah. So it's a C variance and the
distinction is it's less than 10 feet beyond the limit and less than 10% beyond the limit. So we're allowed 38, we're at uh 41. And just for reference, in 2014, we got a variance for something
very similar uh for 40.7 which was 5 in lower. And that just had to do with the exact shape of that addition at that time and where the ground where the existing ground uh was then. Uh second one is for the overall height and that's
from the lowest point where the ground is uh up to the top of the ridge. It's usually allowed to be 40 ft but again the same kind of bonus because of the steepness of the roof we're allowed to be 43 feet. Um, currently it's 41.3
and we're going to 45 feet. Again, a C variance because we're going 2 feet beyond what's allowed, which is less than the 10%. In 2014, somehow we were one inch different. We were It was 44.9.
I just mentioned that just because it's it's something that we've um we've addressed and we've been working together for a long time. And uh anyway, so those are the those are the two um
variances having to do with height. And um in the Burgess report, it said that I have to the applicant shall confirm compliance with these requirements to make sure it's a C and not a D. Um and so we've done that. Um
then uh I wanted to talk about the um some of the comments from the staff and the staff review. Um uh there were a number of comments that were made. the the chair of the historic
preservation commission in um Caroline King had had comments initially um that the with a little bit of uh just sort of concern um but the concluding
remarks now are uh the proposed addition and renovations are contextual to a house of that period. The sighting, fenistration and roof materials match the existing structure. So that that counts to me at least as a no
objection. Uh there was it was helpful to see that the house there's a historic um a document that's actually from uh 1989 where there was a documentation about old older houses in Summit and
it says that this house was built in 1910. There are a couple of different references. Ravi may mentioned 1903 or I've seen others around those years. Um the house really looks very much the
same um sort of now as it did then uh except that while we were um going through the landscape plan and various other things, we've done a lot of renovation of the existing house and the restoration that I was talking about. We just haven't
done the addition yet. Um, so if you drive by the house, it was in need of scraping and a new paint job. And we actually decided that it would be better to replace the cedar shingles with the same material, same everything as what
it originally had. Um, and uh, there are a few it mentions also that Benjamin White was the architect. Uh Benjamin White is somebody who has done a lot of homes um in Summit uh and surrounding
areas. He lived in Summit and we've worked on a number of houses that at least are credited to him. One that's a block away is is Temple Sinai uh which was originally done for the um the Todd family, the grandparents of Christy Todd
Whitman. Um anyway, uh it's always nice to think that architects could be remembered. But anyway, uh the other thing that we had is um I had sent a letter uh to Jessica
in um a week or two ago about some of the information that was where the environmental commission had some comments and there were there were a lot of recommendations like use native plants and uh asphalt is not so good and
various other things. And in our initial submitt, we hadn't really fleshed those out. So, uh, so we did um, and we got back a response that we were hoping for, which is much more positive. Um
it the natural materials I mentioned, cedar siding and slate. Uh the energy efficient insulated glass windows, LED lighting, um insulation, I already covered. Uh the HVAC for the environmental commission doing
um geothermal heating and cooling is impressive. They love that. Um we have four wells that go down 600 ft and you know the fluid goes down and it comes up everything comes up at the end that's about that's ground temperature like 55
and then it's either like with a um an air conditioner running one way or sort of in reverse squeeze that fluid and it gives off heat and you either send that out or send it into the house. It's working well on the sending it into the
house. Um uh solar panels I mentioned paving and storm water management. The the existing is asphalt although it's becoming more gravel than asphalt as the construction goes on. But we're we're going to use
these permeable paving blocks and with the storm water management the sistern and the native plants is essentially all native plants including a pollinator garden and various other things. And that it was my opinion that this is
really a model project for um for how to how to take an old house, keep all the character, keep the appearance almost identical from the street so that people who are walking their dogs are just driving by don't have a sense that the
whole thing has changed. um but bringing the house up to current standards so that it's not uh sort of uh available to become a a tearown. Um, I just have a couple more comments about the the
resolution from 2014 presents a lot of good information both for many of the things that we're doing um that are very positive for the house and also a lot of the reasons uh according to municipal land use law to say why this is a good
project including that the um the storm order management protects the house and and the neighborhood from uh a variety of plagues like fire and flooding and various other things. And the sort of
the main thing that we come down to is oh to secure safety from fire, flood, panic and other natural and man-made disasters. Um but mostly it comes down to promoting a desirable visual environment and that is that it looks
really nice. The house looks so much better now than it did a year ago because of the uh some of the renovations that have gone on and the restoration. Um, and our next step is to do the the addition. Uh, and I'll I'll stop for a moment here and see if
anybody has any any questions. >> Ed, do you have any additional questions? >> Uh, yes. Just a few more quick ones. Uh >> with regard to the uh um the calculations for the building height, will you be providing that for the lowest to the highest and include that
in the next set? >> Absolutely. >> Okay. Thank you. Can you confirm that information from there? >> Okay. >> Um you had indicated the two purposes of zoning. You're looking to further >> uh being the storm water management for flooding and then the desirable visual environment. Um and then I was going to
ask though how that would relate to the additions. The additions themselves are are what they're sort of in line with the existing building and their alignment as far as how they may impact the the public view of the building.
>> I think I know the answer to this. I'm just sort of wondering if you could provide that. >> I appreciate the prompt. >> Sure. Um, so the addition is in the back more or less in the center of the back of the house and the addition the main
addition for the kitchen uh family room and the garage below is um is not visible from the front of the property from the street and as you go around the corner and go down on Fernwood the
intent is to have the landscaping and Jericho will address that uh in more detail that would um would obscure the view of the of the that family room addition in 2014. Uh the board in the resolution
from then where it was one story higher than that. uh they they f one of their findings was that it was not visible from from the street and so the uh
promotion of a desirable visual environment. Um I would I would like people to be able to see the addition but if they're on the property they can. We use the same materials, the same uh sort of proportions, the same roof line, the
same um roof siding, trim, all of that so that it is uh so it's compatible. >> Is that close enough to what you're >> That's where I was going. Good. I was hoping you would touch on that with regard to the architecture. uh the green
proposed greenhouse that's being added. >> Um >> I guess we can't quite address that yet, not knowing if it does in fact need still need variance for the front yard condition. >> Right. >> But I believe one of the things that's being proposed in the alternative design
is that you're now looking to keep it sort of in line with the planes of the building. >> Yes. >> Okay. Proposed edges of the building. >> Right. And we'll just have to see what those dimensions work out to. the main part of the building. There's an addition of a of a a room on the left
side of the house which was also it was smaller in the 2014 uh proposal which never got built. Um but the uh Fernwood Road angles in closer to the house there. So the intent
is to have the greenhouse certainly farther away from Fernwood than the main body of the house and certainly way beyond the 50 ft that would normally be required for the principal building. But we don't know exactly what that dimension is until Andrew tells us.
>> And and also it may not be known yet exactly what the lot coverage is. I'm sorry, building coverage as it relates to the total site. >> Well, I think that building coverage is going to be unchanged. Okay. >> And I have all the statistics on that. Um, where 12% is permitted and we're at
14.4, >> which is 1,00. >> I'm sorry to interrupt. >> Later. >> Yeah, later. Let's not use numbers that are going to be subject to change. >> Okay. Thank you. No further question. >> Thank you, Ed.
>> Ward, what questions do you have for this witness? >> I've heard you say a couple times that the addition is going to be in the center in the back. >> Yes. plus a piece on the left. >> Okay. Yes. You've kind of not said about that. You just been saying everything's visual in the back. What's being presented on the left?
>> So on the left is is is a room for it's sort of for entertaining. Um this the way that Ravi and go to live is essentially a shoes off house. And so
this is a shoes on room. so that other friends who are who are not necessarily or a bigger group can be in there. Uh that that addition is uh is conforming in terms of its location and height and
the design and everything. Um but it does contribute to building uh coverage and lot coverage. >> Okay. >> Is that is that covered? >> Yeah. No, I mean until we find the building coverage and lot coverage, it's kind of pointless to keep >> Okay. Don, you had a question from
earlier. >> They were kind of answered. I was kind of leaning toward the lot coverage, but that's I guess that >> I think we have to have an accurate number on that. >> I have a question regarding the uh building height.
>> Yes. U if we're looking at block five, there's a big difference in significant uh difference in elevation between the other uh structure and this uh uh area where I see here a ridge height
elevation of 225. >> Okay. While we're talking there about 170 elevations >> on the so >> this is the adjacent property down the hill on Fernwood. >> Correct. Yeah. So what I'm worried about
uh I'd like to ask how this will affect the uh southern exposure of that building >> because uh there will be a shade and u uh the
house on the uh on the block number five uh might be affected. Uh did uh I mean as uh the architect did you look at it from that point of view from the uh the viewers standing in on block five
looking at the new building because the height that's what will affect them. >> Um let me just show you this on this one. This is the back of the house. The existing house is the tall part and the
piece that's that's in here. I don't know if you can see the this this triangle in here, that's the addition. So, it's much lower and we can figure I can get the statistics for you. So, with the continuation of this case,
I can have those statistics. It's not going to block the the adjacent neighbors. um sunlight because of the way that this this is a this is a one-story structure in here. Um
and and then the that roof and because of the orientation, I don't think that it's going to do any of that. >> But the this extension is way closer to the uh >> it is um let me just see if I have the uh the
site plan. So this is showing uh part the site plan. This I just put the pool as um as blue. This was if we were going to get into more discussion about the proposed
plan. So I think we're we're looking at the back wall of the addition here and then their house. I actually have a drawing which shows where their house is. I don't have it on the computer. I have it um I anyway
their house is not as far away from Fernwood. So this that addition going out to the back in the area. Sorry. Right here. Excuse me. Let me get I need a rougher surface for this. Okay.
So this part when it looks out their house is really more over here, >> right? >> And so it it does >> is there a driveway along the property line there? >> The driveway is is is right along here
and it says uh adjacent paved driveway there. So the line for that is across here. Then their house is quite close to the the side that comes off of like going up to the top and then they have a deck in
the back. Um, but I'll I'll be glad to get that information for you because it's a it's there's a lot of slope back there and as Andrew will uh testify, there's a lot of this is all a steep slope in this area and then it flattens
out and then there's their property. But we'll get that. We'll have a drawing to show that. >> Mary, >> I have a couple of questions. Um, you made reference to the 2014 um approval by the board. You know, were
was any of that constructed? What was approved? >> Okay. So, essentially um >> you know, we don't we don't have >> it's hard to compare this plan to anything in that plan. I didn't know if that was a benchmark or in any way. And
as of now, just I just want to in terms of the number of variances, assuming the greenhouse needs variance, it sounds like it might not. Is it eight or is it nine? Because how does the building you have the building height and then you have the max height? It's
written in the notes like it's one, but is that two? >> That's two. >> It's two. So right now it's nine variances. It could be eight if the maybe maybe less if some of the other offsets change the is that's right. And
then the third question and I I didn't really notice that until you um mentioned about the garage with the kitchen on top. >> Yes. >> How does that work? And this is probably a question for Mr. Snipes, but like
>> that's a wing of the house like a separate construction. Does that now count as a story because of two sides of that are exposed above ground level? So does that make is there a variance for now it being four stories or is it
>> Yeah, it comes down to the measurement of that ultimate um amount of exposure of that lower level. I think that's something that they had on the plan previously. I think you did calculations on that and it did not count as a story. >> Okay. >> So but I would ask them just to concern
that. Yeah, the basement does not count as a story because it's all almost all below grade except for the garage door part and as it turns the corner all the way to the back. Um and a and part of the existing house is is also exposed by
the driveway coming around and cutting down but um it is not considered a story. The first floor is but that's part of the existing first floor. Then there's second floor which is that there's no addition on the second floor
and then the third floor or the attic. Uh there's no change there. >> Yeah, that one is a story already so that okay thank you. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> Thank you. Um this is uh my very first
time up here and it's a real pleasure to be able to ask a question of you David on such a commendable project. Uh, and I want to focus on a couple of things that you're describing maybe too briefly on the environmental characteristics of the building >> coming from having written some of those comments for the environmental
commission over the years. Um, could you tell us the extent of the permeable paving? Is it the entire driveway, a portion near the garage or >> I believe or is that a question for >> It's really a question for Andrew, >> but the essentially all of it is unless
it there there may be uh a different kind of paving right at the at the street. Some of that depending on where it is may be between the front property line and the curb, so it wouldn't count anyway. Um >> well as we all know the ordinance
doesn't give any advantage in terms of coverage for permeable paving. I personally think it should be interested in your opinion but we could do that. >> Well I think that there is there are a lot of kinds of uh paving that are promoted as permeable and one of the
differences is whether the water whether that's under some ideal situation or some kind of spacing. the ones that we're going to use, they're sort of like bricks, but they have these little nubs on the side, so there has to be a space there. >> Yeah, I have those in my driveway, and
they work very well. But okay, second question from environmental point of view, you spoke about solar panels. >> Yes. >> Uh, and being on the edition, I presume it's the garage edition, not the front edition. >> No, it's actually Can can I So, there's a there's a porch in the front by the
front door, which is this this porch right here. >> Right. And that will have a parapit wall. We'll show the renderings of the whole house next time. So there's a parapit wall, a little wall that's about this high that wraps around that. And so the solar panels are set down so they're
not visible from the street. >> Okay. >> And the second place where they uh exist. Let me just get back to uh is on uh on the dormer at the very top. Um,
there's a dormer up here >> and it's the same. It's It's just harder to see because the roof has a texture there, but that piece uh is is a shallow pitch and that will have solar panels as
well flat on the roof. >> So, it's not it's not visible um unless somebody's really quite tall. I would point that out on the side elevation >> where you could see the dormer. >> Yeah, let me just see.
>> File maybe. >> Um, let me just let me just get to the uh I think no, give me a second. I'm going to try and find that one.
Okay. So, on the side uh let me just see if I can use uh Anyway, in this part where you see on the very far left, that's the front porch. And so, those panels are meant to mimic other panels that are elsewhere on the
house. And so, the solar panels will be down inside there. and on this they're on the front of the house because that's what faces south, but they're up they're up in here sort of to the left to the left of the chimney in this view.
>> Do do you happen to know are they the roof tile style solar panels or are they >> No, I Well, we haven't we can have that information for you. We were I was assuming it was a normal photo voltaic panel. Um
>> so they they might be slightly visible >> from a distance. >> Uh yes. >> Okay. >> From from a significant difference maybe from uh on the house from the house across the street or something. >> Mhm. >> And the last third of three questions
pertaining to environmental features that you mentioned. Um >> um the geothermal is uh installed already. Uh yes, >> that's not subject of this application. >> Correct. Uh I'm I'm just curious uh either in your own work or in others that you've seen in town uh how many
residential projects have benefited from geothermal uh on property? >> Um is this rarity or >> It is a rarity. There is one uh one block away on Hobart Avenue. >> Um the Kagnosolas they may be around
120. They're not 120 but it's next door to that. Uh they have it and there's another house that's over um >> pardon me. >> Okay. And there's another one over by Beacon Hill in the neighborhood. I don't
I don't remember which street it's on, but I know that there's another house that has it there. >> And that was really quite a retrofit because it's still one of one of those brick ranches. I was surprised to see it there. >> I think the Fort Knightly Club might have it, too. >> All right. I think
>> any others >> there aren't many. >> And I think that it's um part of it is the installation cost >> is big uh then the operating cost is almost nothing. >> Well, I I'm trying to put this in the
form of a question but uh just want to say that between the geothermal the the solar uh use of natural materials, native plants and even the greenhouse itself as a as a functional element not just a visual element, >> right? It's uh it's quite a remarkable achievement and both clients and yourself. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Any other questions? >> Yeah. Yeah. Maybe back to the real quick back to back to the lot coverage. Um I know that says it's subject to change, but do you know that the the square footage of the lot of the patio
>> or is that >> I don't know the size of the patio. I know the size of the lot, but I think that that that's on uh V1. I mean the the patio. Um and then just a couple words of caution. Um the photo cells on the overhang
>> Mhm. >> don't hinder egress out of that room or if that's that top of the that top of the stairs. >> Yeah. This is my fireman's hat coming out. That's all. >> No, I I recognize what you're saying. I know where it's coming from. you know, um >> cuz guys step off ladders onto that roof and you know, may not especially when
there's so many inches of snow on the ground and only shovel a little bit just something. >> That's a good point. I Yeah. I don't I I don't think of the I think of the house in terms of flow and so on moving through it what it looks like. I don't think >> about it falling down. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Uh that's a good that's a that's an interesting comment. I mean, one of the other comments is that at the front of the house, we have these 4ft overhangs and that with solar panels below, but we we think that uh that may
shield the edge of the uh array, but not too much. >> More solar panels other than the two you've mentioned. Well, the the panels are in those two locations. >> Oh, but then there's a 4 foot overhang. That's >> Well, there's a Yeah, you can see uh
over here on the left side of >> this thing is not >> on the left side of the drawing. There's an overhang there. But >> we're looking at the the sun angles in order to make sure that we can >> that they can function. >> You suggest. >> So, Mr. Rosen, maybe when your team
comes back, it might be >> worthwhile to just indicate the outline rough uh footprint of the two solar PV arrays. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Thank you. All right. Uh any questions
from the audience for this witness? >> Seeing none. Thank you, Mr. Rosen. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you for your patience on this and sorry we're >> presenting half of an application if we could carry this application to
the next available hearing without the need for further notice. >> Can I get February 18 to the next day? Yep. February 18th. >> February 18th, >> the next meeting. Yes. >> Motion carry to February 18th.
>> Are we going to be able to get the plans done by February 18th? as much as we appreciate the board's quick uh return on that one uh in order for the engineer to be able to revise
his plans for the landscape architect to revise his plans and to get it to the board and the professionals. Just a tight timeline. >> Mr. Weber, this might be a first. >> It is a first. That's absolutely a first. >> March 16th is then the next next
available date. >> Yes, that would be appreciated, Mr. Chairman, members. >> Great. So, with that, can I get a motion to carry to March 16th without further notice? >> So, moved. >> I get a second. >> Second. >> Vice Chair.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Yuko? >> Yes. >> Mr. Malay? >> Yes. >> Mr. Nelson? >> Yes. >> Mr. Kurr? >> Yes. >> Miss Chief? Yes. >> Chairman Lens. >> Yes. All right. See you in March. >> Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. Go ahead.
ready to go. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, James Weber and Alfonso and Samantha Alfonso of Alfonso and Weber. on behalf of Ricky and Stephanie Galband, the owners of the property located at 45 Prospect Hill Avenue. This
is an application that was previously before the board. board allowed us an opportunity to revise the plans uh to eliminate the building coverage, which uh was not as simple a process as you would imagine given the steep slope
because as the board is aware, patios count as buildings if they're 12 in or higher above the grade at any one point. But with the uh work of the architect and the engineer and the landscape architect, they were able to remove the patios further away from the building
and eliminate that standard where you're having them uh 12 in or so above. And as a result, the building coverage has been brought into compliance and that variance has been eliminated. As a result, the one remaining variance
is the steep slope disturbance. Uh the backyard of this property is almost entirely steep slopes and of a certain significant nature. The prior predecessor in title had trails going down, had tried building ponds, had
landscaped the area and tried to reconfigure it themselves and that has fallen into uh significant disarray. The uh uh property is going to be demolished. a demo permit has been uh
proceeding. Uh it was waited until now because one of the things that the applicants would like to do uh rather than just demolish the structure, they wanted to ah thank you. They wanted to deconstruct
uh the building. So what is being proposed is even though it costs a lot more, takes a lot more time, a lot more effort, the uh applicants proposed to remove the slate and save the slate to
take the stones and these are 4in bricks that are built into this building and take all of that siding and use it in the construction of the new home. Likewise, there is an architectural
interest in the metal and single pane windows and those uh windows are going to be preserved as well. So the site will first be deconstructed with the roof, the stonework, uh some other
architectural amenities, the uh steel single pane windows which of course as soon as I say that environmentally uh they just conduct heat they they don't hold any I mean insulation quality
is almost nil. Uh but those will be uh put aside. The stone will be preserved. I believe the slate is intended to be sold. >> So it would be Mr. Bentley who does a lot of slate work in town would be using
that. And then there's another uh opportunity to use the windows. Uh with regard to the uh uh steep slopes, we have Andrew Clark available to testify with regard to that and uh to respond to
any questions that the board may have. Our landscape architect uh who prepared the landscape plans could not be here tonight. Uh he had to attend uh another uh meeting and so we don't have him. We do have the
architect. We have Andrew Clark and we also have the structural engineer who's looked at the property and I know that there's a board member who had asked whether or not we could bring that structural engineer here in order to apprise the board as to the uh condition
of the existing home. The board doesn't have any questions of me. I would ask that Ricky and Stephanie come up, introduce themselves, and so we can move on. >> Sounds good. If you could each raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm the testimony you're
about to give in this matter? Is the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> And one at a time, please state your name, spell your last name. >> Stephanie Galband. Ge Lel Ba D. >> Uh Rick Galban. G- LB D. >> Thank you. >> Welcome. Tell us a little bit about your
project. So, I mean, we love this street and this house. Um, we're really, really excited. We live in Summit right now. Um, and we've been here for two years, and we're, you know, really excited about building our forever home and we're
really inspired by the existing house that's there right now. We want to preserve the character and the charm um, and fit in with the neighborhood. So, um, yeah. I've indicated that you've retained experts uh in the form of Steve Hawk uh
Steve oh gosh darn it thank you as your architect uh and uh Andrew Clark as your engineer and you've also retain Jeff Hagen Botham as your landscape architect
uh and you've uh had a chance to understand that there are staff report comments that have been issued by the board's experts. Are you willing to be bound by those conditions subject to the comments of your uh experts? >> Yeah, >> absolutely. >> And did you have a chance to reach out
to your neighbors? >> Yes. >> Yeah, we um we tried to reach out to everyone. We got in touch with a few people. Um everyone seemed fine with it and actually um one of the neighbors across the street was super excited about the project. She said she walked
through it and um she totally agreed with the decisions that we made. So >> now we've met Mr. Kim, is it? >> Yes, that's right. >> before and he was here at the prior application and we've advised him of the carrying of this application as it's come through and uh uh so we do
acknowledge Mr. Cam. He owns 26 Argyle and that's the property directly behind the property in question. >> I have nothing further. Great. Any questions for this witness? >> Witnesses. Sorry.
>> Any questions? >> For the consultants. Thank you. >> Okay. For any questions for the applicants? >> Seeing none. Uh, any questions? Questions only from the public for these witnesses? No. All right. Great. Mr.
Weber, who do you have first? >> Andrew Clark. >> Great. Do you swear from the testimony you're about to give in this matters, the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Please state your name. Spell your last name. >> Andrew Clark. C L A R K E. >> Thank you. And you've appeared before us
quite a few times, including very recently. Any changes to your credentials since the last night you were here? >> There has been no change. >> I imagine we will accept you back. >> Absolutely. Welcome back, Mr. Clark. >> Thank you. I'm hanging on the paper. testing. Okay, we're live. Um,
so I'm going to discuss the project, the existing and proposed conditions. Uh unlike many of the applications I'm involved in, I did not actually conduct the survey myself. That was already um completed. But I do have a copy of the survey just to review the existing
conditions that are uh depicted on that survey. That survey was performed by uh James De and Associates. Um is dated October 30th, 2024. So, I'll just walk through the existing
conditions first just to get a picture of what what um what's there. Now, um on the survey drawing that's here on the board that I referred to, um the street is at the top, which is actually inverted from the way I have my drawing,
but so it's flipped around, but it's on Prospect Hill. This is uh lot 28 in block 3501. It's located in the R25 district. The site existing has a two and a half
story dwelling uh on the property near the center of the property. As you're facing the house, the driveways on the left side with a side loaded garage. Behind that driveway, there's a pool and patio area, and there's another patio uh raised patio at the back of the house.
There's also a bit of a large walkway slash small patio in the front that's accessed by a driveway, a walkway from the driveway and from the street. Uh there are a series of a few walkways and a little pond that are also on the
property as you come down the hill. Um the hill is a prominent feature in the backyard. In the front it looks rather um conventional. I'd say it's a fairly modestly graded um front yard that pitches um from the driveway side
towards the street and towards the neighboring property on Prospect Hill. Once you get past the house and sort of towards this uh secondary line of the of the body of the house, it starts to grade down to the back to the to the
rear of the property. Once you pass the house, very close behind the house, it drops off precipitously. It's a very steep slope. Um I have walked the property a couple of times and these walkways that are shown here, um at this
point, >> what's that? Oh, >> sorry. Um at at this point in history of this property, um the backyard has become rather unckempt. Um would be a polite way to say it. Um the these walkways are a little treacherous
walking down because it is steep and the walkways are not wellmaintained and cleared. Um it it is very steep in here directly back and then it starts to get less steep down towards the bottom. There's also a small shed in the back
right corner of the property there. Um there is no formal storm water management that I could observe. There is a drain. There's like a small drain by the driveway, but I'm actually not sure where it goes. If I had to guess, it comes out to the back somewhere. Just
daylights in the slope probably, but that's also probably covered over at this point as well based on the condition of the property. Um, advancing then to what this project entails. Um, we're go planning to demolish the
house and all the ancillary features. the pool will be removed, the pond, the walkways, all the existing features. We're actually going to bring um and and construct a new dwelling uh in in a similar location and the driveway will similarly be on the left
side. In fact, we plan to use the existing apron to bring the driveway in for a sideloaded garage on the left side. The front yard will be similarly graded. it it will continue to be modestly graded with um the the drainage patterns moving from left to right as
you look at this drawing. And by the way, the drawing that I'm referring to now is the lot grading plan that I prepared which was dated uh May 27th, 2025 and last revised January 8th, 2026.
So, the front yard is going to appear very similar obviously with just the different house that that would be constructed. Driveway on the left side. There's a walkway accessing um the the two entry points to the dwelling. Um
then in the rear yard, what we're planning to do is uh take better management of this entire backyard. right now it's it's arguably marginally usable. Um you know it's usable in one sense but if you're a
modern family in Summit um it's not uh a terribly useful backyard for most families um in terms of you know your kids playing in the yard or entertaining or even just having some passive uh time out. The only opportunities on the terrace that's back there. So, what
we're planning to do and is the center of this whole application is is the disturbance of this slope area in the back. Um, but we're we're sort of reforming this backyard into a usable um space with uh modern amenities.
And the way we're doing that is directly off the back of the house, there's going to be a a patio and we're going to have some steps down. There's going to be uh two layers of walls here to another level of yard in the back. So, that's going to be a pretty leveled yard in
this area. And then the back right corner is is going to be a location for the pool, an ingground pool and spa. And it'll just be accessed from the basement over here because the grade drops off. So, we're going to use that change in
grade and come out the basement to that patio. And then there's going to be stairs that bring you down to the pool area from the patio that we're putting off the back of the house. Um, because of the terrain change and the grades in here, we also have some walls that frame
out the back corner and and raise the grade up to make this level. And then we have to step back up with these walls to get to the level of the house. It's obviously a considerable disturbance of that steep slope area from my standpoint.
um at the end of the project. The the main concern to me is during the the course of the construction because at the end of the project, I think this is going to be a beautiful property that's going to be well landscaped and brought into a modern standard. And at the end
of it, um we're not going to have those steep slopes. We're going to have level areas that are managed and maintained. And we're going to add uh strong storm water system to bolster the entire project and to make sure that at the end of this what's
going to result is a vast improvement in terms of storm water management. As as we know through many applications that have been before this board that is the main concern with steep slopes is twofold. One is just by default there's increased runoff and concentrated
runoffs and higher velocities from storm water and the second is what happens during construction for disturbance. So to me eliminating the steep slopes is a benefit combined with the storm water management. So what we're doing for storm water management as I said there
doesn't appear to be any formal storm water management existing. What we're going to do is basically create two systems. One in the front that's going to capture uh a majority of the house and about 3/4 of the driveway. And the
driveway grades up a little bit to a high point that's located right here and indicated on the drawing with a dash line. And then so it comes to that slight high point and then everything else pitches to the back to this drain. So, we're going to pick up that portion of the driveway with the drain and then
the bulk of the roof. There's a uh kind of near where that chimney is on the right, there's a ridge line that goes here and then it goes to the middle of this section in the back. Everything forward of that is going to go into this front dry well. The roof
area in the back corner there can't get there by gravity the way this is arranged. So, that'll get routed to the lower drywall. The lower drywall will pick up that portion of the roof as well as everything else that flows from the hard surfaces, the patio, the pool, the
pool surround. Actually, it's not surround, but the there's a modest bit of patio on the front side of the pool. All that will be picked up by a perimeter drain on the top of this wall at the edge of the yard. So any runoff that doesn't just get absorbed by the
lawn area in terms of the patios will get captured by this perimeter drain here and routed into the dry well. Um the breakdown I think one of the questions in uh Miss Rafay's uh review was just making sure that those
distributions are correct. Um it has been accounted for in terms of the design and the roof lines. There's about 3,400 square ft of the house and about 1,600 square ft of the driveway that are contributing to the drywall in the
front. So, we're managing 5,000 square ft in the front. And then the drywall in the back is the same size as it's capturing a little less than 5,000 square ft. But I felt like it would be valuable to have a little overd design in the back to make sure that the
neighbors in the back and the uh gelbands themselves have a have a dependable condition back there with the storm water. We did go out and conduct uh perk tests in the field just to make sure that what I'm testifying to and
what I'm designing will stand up to the field conditions. And the findings of the of the perk test are that they will. We had at least 2 in per hour in perk rate which is uh a bit above what our target would be for these drywall
designs. So the soils were suitable for the for the drywall design. We didn't encounter rock or groundwater or anything like that. We dug a hole very close to where each of the tank installations are proposed. Um it was actually a little tricky in the
back because of the slope getting the machine down there. I wasn't sure we were going to get down there at first. Um, so I think what we're doing with the storm water is a huge improvement actually because um, you know, we're not we're increasing the lock coverage by
about 800 square ft but we're storing 10,000 square ft. You know, essentially almost the whole project almost all of the impervious areas getting managed. So to me that's a massive improvement. And I think that uh with regards to the neighbor on Argyle at the end of this
project, there should be a a strong benefit that that'll be uh realized by by these storm water improvements. There was also a comment with regards to I think from actually the city engineer uh weighed in this time this guess that's
happening now with the comments which is good. Uh so he took a look at it and just said to make sure that you know things are getting taken care of during construction and we had some internal discussion what I'm going to do as part of that and and it's a good point is I
have a conventional silt fence shown here for the soil erosion. I I think we're going to upgrade that to a super silt fence which is it's like a silt fence but it's got like a wire mesh reinforcement so it's it gives an extra measure. And when we get into the construction phase, we may actually put
a second line uh in temporarily just to make sure that we're not going to cause any problems during the construction because again, that's been my my experience is that the construction process is one of the main problematic areas in terms of steep slopes. So if
that can get managed properly at the end of the project, I've seen these projects end up as rather beautiful projects that are um are basically a huge improvement in terms of uh not only aesthetics but the storm water management.
So that's the discussion of the steep slopes. Uh we we comply with the height. I have a a detailed analysis in the lower left corner uh with regards to the height and with regards to this story above grade. So both of those have been analyzed and we're we're in compliance.
We're in compliance with the setbacks. We're in compliance with the lock coverage and the building coverage. So steep slopes in this case are the is the only uh variance that we're seeking in order to construct this project. Um and
with that I'd be happy to take any kind of questions that we may have. >> Before you uh before that happens, uh Mr. Chairman, if I can follow up with a couple of questions. >> Absolutely. Have you tried to minimize the amount of steep slope disturbance that uh is involved with the development
of this site? >> Well, to the extent possible, um I will I did actually break down the plan and I have a separate steep slopes plan. I I've started doing that and on cases like
this where it starts to get very difficult to understand the plan when it's all together. So, the grading plan we were referring to, I'm now looking at the steep slopes plan with uh May 27th, 2025 date, last revised January 8th,
2026. So, this this describes the existing conditions. You can see that this steep area in the back comes all the way across the lot and it's very close behind the existing house. There's a second patch of steep slopes, I'll
call it, in the front >> left hand. Yeah. Front to the left of the driveway and there's a a massive 50-in tree at the top of that rise that's there. And and so you have that steep slope section that's there. >> When you say 50, you mean 5?
>> Yeah. More than 4 foot in diameter. Yes. >> And that tree is going to be preserved. >> That's being preserved. In addition, and in answer to your question, we're preserving almost all of this. There'll be a little bit of contact on the edge with disturbance just to build the
driveway, but by and large, this steep slope area is going to remain intact, but this area in the back, if you try to do almost anything back there, you're going to surpass the thresholds. And I don't we wrestled with it quite a bit
as to whether there was some good way to do this and minimize or not disturb that area, but it it because it's so close to the house and it's sweeping across the entire rear yard. There really isn't um
if you it it it renders, as you can see, this whole area, you can't walk or play ball or anything on that. So, it's not really usable. If you try to create a usable space, you would end up disturbing the steep slopes. It's impossible to avoid.
>> And the existing house was, how far back was the setback for the existing house? >> So, the existing house is at 55 ft. >> No, that's the front yard. I was talking about the rear yard. Sorry. >> Oh, what's the rear? Rear yard. Yeah,
they don't have a dimension on that. Um, >> if I have your >> Yeah, I think I calculated I think I calculated it off their survey. The rear yard was 72 ft. >> And what's proposed? >> 82 feet. >> So, with the house to the house itself,
>> the front set back on the new house is how much? >> 82 feet at the rear yard >> at the front. >> No, the the front the front setback is 53.9. the proposed >> it's very close to what the existing house was and it's based upon the
neighborhood average from survey that DD provided. In fact, there was a little question in the neighborhood average on one of the lots whether it should be included or not and including it made that number a little bit bigger. We went with that number just to be
conservative. >> And then when you're showing these retaining walls, you use the term returning to grade. I don't understand what that means. >> Well, when you have when you build the wall, let's say this wall in the back corner here, this L-shaped wall in the
back corner, it starts at grade. So, you don't really need a wall. The elevation you're proposing is what what's there. Then, as you go back, the wall gets higher. So, the grade's going down, but the top of the wall is remaining the
same. So, it gets higher. And then again once you turn the corner and go back that way, the ground's sloping up again. So we return to grade. So we get back to a zero height wall essentially. >> The top of the wall remains level but then it catches up to the hillside.
>> That's right. >> And so for the neighbors at 26, where's their house and pool located? So I believe their pool is right about in this location and their house is forward of that because Argyle's up here and and
so it's sort of not quite centered a little bit left of center on that. >> Right. So the wall is going to be only uh >> right. So >> 0 feet 1 foot >> this wall and this wall their highest points are farthest from that house and
pool. And as you come up the yard, those walls get smaller in height. >> And then there was a mention that uh the there was a beach tree that was being preserved and it didn't mention that the white pine's being preserved. The white
pine is being preserved, isn't it? >> That's right. Yeah. I think there was some discussion and dialogue about it and ultimately the the where we landed was that it it can be preserved and we're going to attempt to preserve it which it should be possible given the
position of the walls and it's basically just really close to the line just on our property. The beach is right there and the other tree is right there. So on uh the representations being made that
there will be an attempt to preserve the beach and the white pine, there should also be a representation that if the board approves the application condition that there'll be a super silk fence installed post and that there will be steps taken during construction.
>> Yeah, that's always the case. Every time that we get a grading plan approval, that's one of the stipulations in the approval is that you know the contractor is responsible. The owner is responsible to maintain the integrity of the site during construction with regards to
storm water, soil erosion, things of that nature. Certainly, soil erosion also requires that we we have to get certification from the district and they come out and and check the site. I've found that they do random checks or if anyone calls with with an issue, they
come out and those things get addressed promptly. And I wasn't sure that in terms of the conditions we talked about the fact that there's the existing stonework is going to be uh deconstructed and utilized in a new home. That slate roof is going to be
deconstructed and the steel uh frame windows are going to be uh preserved. So those representations if the board approves the application would be appropriate as additional conditions. The one caveat that when we had that
discussion with the the contractor, he said, "Well, you have to make sure that this house as they're doing that, that has to be safe." So, it can't be something where they go up, start taking the slate off, and it turns out that the structure won't accept that type of
deconstruction because you'll be really taking things apart as you move down the house. and you have to make sure that it's not something that you're going to end up in a situation that uh puts anyone at risk. >> So, I'll just note we have that representation in the record. Um, you
know, as far as conditions are concerned, it's obviously one that's very difficult to enforce from a practical perspective. I don't know if anyone feels the need to see that explicitly noted as a condition here. >> I don't think so.
>> Okay, great. I mean I I just had a question about that because the windows are single pane. I mean are what's the likelihood that they would actually be used? Do you have to retrofit them or >> No, I understand. Right. And they're very excited about it
>> for green houses, not for a new not for something. >> Yeah. They're repurposed, >> right? So it's not for this house anyway. It's more, you know, you can recoup this and >> you know there's there's a cost if there's some value of it. That's more of a homeowner decision on what you're
doing with the materials as opposed to things that are pertinent to the house itself. I think at this point >> the gans are understanding that they're understanding that it's additional cost associated with that and time because they you can't just demolish it. You
have to go in and take each out. So that's been explained to them. So >> Murray, what questions do you have for this witness? >> Are you are you guys I want to jump in. >> I'm good. Okay. Fire away. >> All right. So, thank you for clarifying
the um the dry wells and the calculations on that. Um you know, the the the dry wells look like they're adequately sized. I just wanted to, you know, I always check the the tributary area. So, thank you for clarifying that. >> Um could you talk a little bit about the
building coverage calculation? Now, I know that that is not a variance, >> right? >> But what is What is the amount of building coverage? >> So the so obviously that comes up as a question because our original application we were over on building
coverage, right? And and we haven't actually changed the the number that's on here that 4 4688 4,688 ft. So it's very close to what's the permitted building coverage. The reason we were over on the initial submission
is due to this patio in the back. If you went back and looked at that, what we had is this wall arrangement was closer. In fact, the one the patio was up against one of the walls. And because Summit's ordinance requires that any
patio or deck with more than 12 in above grade be treated as building coverage, that's why that patio was being treated as a terrace or building coverage um in the previous application. And so what we've done in this revision is move that
the these two walls back so there's at least 10 feet behind the patio. And so it's an atgrade patio versus the terrace arrangement that we had before. So it's that patio change in in in its nature is what changed with the building coverage.
>> Okay. So are any of the patios now contributing to the calculation for building? >> No. >> Okay. So it's just >> the house and the porches. >> Okay. All right. And my only comment on that is that you know it's it I think it's very close to it is
>> the limit. So that would be something that >> So I'll be doing a lot of stakeout. >> You're you're on you're on alert, right? >> Yes. Okay. >> Duly noted. >> Um and what uh Miss Rafé, if I can speak for you, M. Raf. >> Yes. >> We're dealing with another application
with regard to that where the uh ASB built U survey was presented to the Department of Community Services. the department looked at it, uh, double checked everything and found out that yes, you're over by 200 square feet. And as a result, everything had to be
stopped. And as uh, we are all well aware that the city is very tight to make sure that whatever this board approves is what is built. So >> yeah, and I can tell you as a surveyor
on the practical side, um you know, I'll I do the initial stake out for the construction, well actually for the footings, the excavation and the footings. And then on a site like this where it's very close normally then the course of action is for me to return to the job once the footings are poured.
And I actually place nails at every building corner in the footing so that the masons don't have to think. They just snap chalk lines and then it's on me. And then as soon as the foundation is done, I come out and survey the foundation to verify that it's in the
right place and it's the right size. So th those controls happen with every project that's new construction in town. And I'll just make sure to pay a little more vigilance to this one since we are so close. >> Okay. And I feel a little better now knowing that it's not the patios. You
know, sometimes, right, it's the patios, you know, those amenities that that can creep up. >> Yes. So I understand. Okay. Thank you. Um could you talk a little bit about the pool fence and where the location is on that property changed from the last iteration?
>> That's right. In fact, on my revised grading plan, I failed to update the pool fence. I have the fall protection fence on there, but the pool fence uh I double checked with the landscape designer who who couldn't be here tonight, but it starts at the front
right corner, comes across to the boundary, comes along the boundary, back and then circles back um just behind the driveway end. So, so that's the pool fence that will enclose the yard. And then the fence that I have shown is
along the back of the pool just for fall protection to make sure that the the the wall is safe because you have pedestrian movement around that area. >> I see. Okay. So, is the um the pool fence that's going to surround the property? >> Yes.
>> Over in that I guess the south corner where there's a wall. Is it on top of the wall or is it going to be >> Yeah. So, so, so the the fall protection one is going to be on this upper wall, >> right? >> Um, around where the pool is, >> but then you have another
>> and then, yeah, then we're going to have extensive landscaping in there. >> Um, so that won't really be an area where kids are playing or there's uh, you know, pedestrian movement, shall we say. >> Um, and that's that's clear on the on the landscape plan that it's going to be um, infill in there.
>> Okay. But it'll still be able to keep somebody out of the from getting into the yard and access. >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yes, definitely. Because the because because there's enough space in there. I mean, they still have to climb a fence if they were trying to get in there.
>> Okay. Um um and maybe the landscape Well, you don't have a landscape architect with you tonight, but do you think you can talk about some of the mitigation of um the heights of the walls? It looks to me like when you put those two walls together, it's about 10 feet.
>> I know they're stepped back, but something to soften that. Yeah, I I do have a copy of the plan which I believe was submitted, but um the intent is and I'm referring now to um the plan
prepared by landbox uh sheet L1 dated 5, 2025 and revised on January 6, 2026. And so in this area framing actually the this side and then framing on the left
side are are green giants. So they're going to fill in and obscure I would say by and large once they they're being planted I think it depends on which ones there's different ones that are speced. Some of them are either between 12 and 16 feet depending.
So, they're going to be planted at a a reasonable height in terms of providing some immediate screening and buffering to that wall, but once they mature out and fill in that space, um you won't really see much of that wall in the
corner there. And as I said before, as you come down, the wall gets uh lower regardless, but we still do have landscaping in there. There's a little gap because I think we're trying to protect um some of those trees and give them some root space in there. Um, but then for screening again, we're going to
return back to the the green giants across there so that it should be well buffered to to the rear in terms of its visual impact. >> Um, I think that's all I questions I have for you. Thank you. >> Thank you, Marie. Mr. Chairman, um, few
questions. Um, Mr. Weber, will you be offering any other testimony with regard to the variances or No. We're really going from the this testimony here. >> We have the architect available. Okay. >> Uh we also have the structural engineer if there were questions as to the
condition of the building. Uh so we can uh respond with regard to both the architect and the structural engineer at the landscape plan was submitted. We do have the report of John Linson dated 122 20 uh 2026.
And he goes on to say that the replacement landscape plan is quite detailed and one and fulfills the city's tree replacement requirement. He does indicate there's only three existing trees will be preserved on the site. The 50-in oak, the magnolia, the beach tree,
and that's why I asked Andrew Clark, there's another tree, and that's the large white pine which is also being preserved. >> Okay. My reason for that question was just that to see what type seat bearings you're asking for whether it's the hardship of the property itself or the
benefits outweigh the or >> it would be both. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I I'd claim it's more of a hybrid. Okay. >> I mean to to me the steep slopes itself is an inherent hardship uh in terms of trying to do any kind of work or development. But certainly the benefits
outweighing the detriments would also apply in this case with the storm water improvements and the overall landscaping improvements particularly given the condition of the property as it's been allowed to um uh fall into I guess they call it deferred maintenance.
>> Deferred maintenance. Yes, good term. Um, with regard to the uh the benefits of what you were saying before with regard to the stormwater improvements that are being made uh to the property and that also the mitigation during construction, but wouldn't you also look
at the extent of tree removal too as as sort of another factor that we look at from the standpoint of impact of steep slopes? >> Sure. Yep. And and to that end, I wasn't directly involved with the landscape plan, but I did have
some conversation with um the landscape designer knowing he wouldn't be here. And uh one thing he did point out is that uh along with that deferred maintenance, it also applies considerably to the trees that are on property. There are a number of I think
there were Norway maples which are considered invasive. they overshade and drown out any other um growth that's beneath it. So, a number of those are of that type. There's crab apples and um I forget what the other one was, but um
these were inventoried early on and and there was a tree survey done by an arborist who rated the majority of the removals are over on this westerly line >> and nearly all of those were in in poor or bad condition according to the
arburous review for those reasons because they were crowded out. there was nothing managed or maintained about it. It they they it just sort of grew up and and that's what you got. And you know, like for example, the crab apples, it was cited that they they tend to get
malformed when they don't have the right sun. So there's a little bit of that. And um so so there was some thought that went into all of this in terms of the replacements and the removals of the trees. Okay. >> There aren't a lot of trees in the slope itself. There are a few, but not not
many. Okay, looking on the easterly side, the extent of the walls that sort of go towards that easterly property line, there's another tree being removed on that side. Do you know what type of tree that is? >> I do not know what type of tree that is. >> No, the one that's very approximate to
that wall return. Yeah, I I don't know. >> 90°. Yeah. My the purpose for my question is are we looking at why do you need to extend the walls that far over and that that extent of social movement? Is there a purpose for that? That's obviously to get more use out of the
yard, but yet on balance, are we impacting the trees along that common problem? >> Yeah, I was I was just looking to see if it was indicated on the landscape plan what that what kind of tree that is. >> Um >> Yeah. No, I mean it it it's >> Sure.
>> What's the What is that? The 12in tree >> talking about No, it's Easterly property line. There's one tree there that's 10 in I believe that's being removed. >> I just don't know the condition of that tree. Yeah, I I honestly don't know either. >> Okay. I'd have to look at it. >> That question was are we moving the
walls over so far that we're impacting trees and therefore the benefit of the trees uh along the adjacent property lines. But obviously the landscape plan proposes new lands landscaping on that side property as well. So that does offset that impact but yet we always try
to preserve the trees if we can on that side. Um, and then lastly with regard to the pool location, why is it here? That's one of the usual investigations we go through when we're doing steep slope analysis is why is the pool proposed at this location impacting the
steep slopes? Is there any other locations ever explored? >> Well, I mean not. No, I would say there isn't. Um because if you look if you look at the existing conditions in general and said well this is you know the the starting point. I mean you could
put it down here but then it's in a non-conforming location. It's closer to the neighbor and then how do you access it? Um so there's a variety of problems with trying to place it in that location. Um the existing pool is kind of like where the driveway is now. So that wouldn't really and I assume that's
why that existing pool is there in the first place. they didn't want to get involved in in restructuring the backyard whenever that was built. >> I don't I don't know when that was built. >> Looking at the landscape plan, the pool could be where the lawn area is uh beyond the driveway at that location. Um
but then how would that relate to the function of >> Yeah. Well, that was that was part of it and and we did discuss that a little bit early on. And you know what I found a lot of times homeowners, and I haven't had a pool myself, but I understand from
enough conversations, one of the concerns about this type of location is a lot of parents like to have line of sight to the pool when their kids are out playing or the friends are over or what have you. And and when you get it cut off by sort of being in a in a in a
different location like that, it it it becomes something that that most folks aren't really that comfortable with is what I found. So that's that's sort of the downside of trying to put it there, but we did discuss it briefly and uh ruled against it. >> And then with regard, sorry, with regard
to 26 Argyle Court, uh their house and their pool is on the left side uh relative to this property. Correct. >> Yeah, it's over. One of the other considerations was having the pool on that side would also be closer to where
the house is for the uh uh pins and where the pool is located is at the end of their driveway. Correct. >> Yes. >> But there's a yard between but that's the uh location. >> Yes. It's it's sort of to the left a
bit. Yes. >> Okay. Um just two other questions with regard to the where the pool is located and its proximity to the retaining wall. >> Is there any sir charge that has to be worried about with that pool located so close to the walls?
>> Well only if there's a breach in the pool I would say. >> Okay. >> Um you know the the the the whole point of the pool is to maintain that integrity. So >> um it would only be if there was a leak that developed. >> Okay. Thank you. So the wall doesn't have to be that or reinforced in such a
way that changes the wall's configuration. >> No. >> In your opinion? >> No. >> Um, lastly, regarding exterior lighting, do you know if there's any exterior lighting being >> I think there's some >> I'm sorry to ask you these questions. >> There's some there's some lighting that's planned. Uh and and that was a
little bit of the discussion with the landscape designer, but it's and and and a plan could be submitted, but it will be fully in conformance with conventional um residential lighting and and won't have any spillage or or be in violation of Summit's rules in that
regard. It's mostly safety mostly safety and navigation, >> low-level lighting without any flood lights. >> Yes, >> essentially. Okay. Um I'm sorry, one last question that we did have in our report regarding the AC units. You have them located on your plan on the westerly side of the building. Um the
landscaping at least the plan latest plan I had which I don't think is the latest plan you had um does not show it on the landscape plan. >> He acknowledged that uh to me and that it needed his his plan needs to be updated. >> Okay, thank you. Last question. Thank you. Great.
>> So wait, I now that made me think of another thing. Where is the pool equipment going to be located? >> I thought that would be coming because I forgot to show it on the plan and and we talked about it and I think right in this corner to the right of that porch.
So just sort of uphill of the of the spa up on the upside of that wall. We'll we'll put it in that location. It's a conforming location and we can easily screen it and still allows you know maintenance access through there. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> But that would be on an updated plan.
>> Okay. Great. Board members, what questions do you have for Mr. Clark? >> Question. Um what I was going to ask about the pool location also
um where it is currently um one of the comments you just made was that um the new pools you know the where the pool is in the with the with the ex existing house is not close to the for sight line from the house right >> but where the pool's being proposed is
even further. It's like down in the back corner of the property downstairs. So >> yeah, but in terms of the living spaces and line of sight, it's much better located in that regard. And it's down lower, so so you have sort of a vantage point on it. >> You can't run there. I mean, you're not going to be able to run out of the
house. It's it's a lot further away if you had to, you know, hopefully you're at the pool while while kids are in the pool and you're not at the house. Um, if the house was reconfigured and the layout was was set up
differently, that is it possible to have it where leave the pool where it is currently located um and have the living areas of the house face that way? >> Why don't we have uh we're going to call the architect. I mean I I wasn't involved with the
>> let uh see Kowalsski answer that uh question. >> Before we do that, let's see if we have any other questions from the board. >> I have some questions as to whether or not this house is a knockdown.
>> Can you speak into the microphone? Mr. Chan Shulie microphone. Um I I had some questions from the very beginning whether this house was able to be rehabilitated or knocked down and um
that's why I had requested for the um >> Mr. >> structural engineer. Yeah. >> Okay. >> We do have a a demo permit is now in the offing. So there will be a demo permit issued with regard to this property. But out of respect for Mr. Jean Tulie, we brought Mr. Douglas here to respond to
that question. Don, go ahead. Um, Mr. Clark, if you could help me out here. Um, the pool is at what elevation? >> 403. >> Okay. And then the the, for lack of a better description, where
the new pool equipment is going to be located. What's the elevation there? >> Uh, about 407 407 and a half. >> So, you said the pools at 403 or 400? >> 403. So what's the difference in elevation there? Just like
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. That >> because on here it says 406 or excuse me 408. >> Yeah. That's >> down to 400. >> Yeah. So this will be closer to the wall than where that 408 is. So it's you know it's sloping down in there. >> So So is there >> so maybe 407 and a half.
>> So is there an 8ft elevation difference between those stairs that are going down from the the I guess the west sideyard. Is that is are they going down eight feet? >> Uh I'm not sure what stairs you mean. >> Well, I I don't have the new plan,
number one. But number two, um >> I don't >> So on the right side, we have a it's a graded area and and there's there's a wall arrangement so you could get down there with equipment >> the new plan. So you removed these stairs on the old plan. >> Yes. There's no stairs on the right side now.
>> Never mind. >> No. So it's it's four or four and 1/2 ft higher than than the pool. Okay. >> May I approach? >> Yes. I was looking for the newer plan, but all I have >> I don't have that either. >> I don't I don't have it either.
>> It's funny. I didn't get the structure. What do you >> Yeah, it's by the title block usually just to the left of it. >> N >> This is 527, >> right? The date is 527. And then and then to the left of my signature is u
the revision blocks, the revision dates. >> The right one. >> Which one's that? >> This is >> Oh, over here to the left. I'm sorry. >> Yeah, never mind. >> Yeah, I probably have it here. >> So, and just to continue with some
questions, is there any drainage on the west side of the house? Any drainage lines that have to be >> Well, not not along that side of the house itself. What what I have the contours running parallel with the house. So so the drainage pattern is such that any water
that falls in there is mostly going to move towards our pool area in the back. So I'm not pushing uh water to the neighbor and then but I mean water runs I mean rain falls in there now. It's going to be landscaped to the extent if it gets
down to the pool area once it gets down into here I have this curtain drain that picks up any you know, excess runoff if you have a, you know, extreme storm. But there'll be a little bit of runoff on that right side that's, you know, un unmanaged, so to speak.
>> All right. Thank you. >> You're welcome. Thanks, Tom. >> Has any demolition occurred yet on the property? >> Not to my knowledge. Not the last time I was out there, you know, except the fence
broke up to go do the test pit. Thanks. >> Thanks, Mr. Cart. >> I have a couple of questions. One is what is the maximum height of that wall on the corner there, the little upside down L column,
>> the framing in the back, right? It gets to 6 feet, but you know, by the time it's here, it's it's three feet. >> So, you know, it's the returning to grade thing that we were talking about. So, if there's a 6ft drop on the neighbor's side on the other side,
right? Um, basically on the other side there, the neighbors are going to see a wall that's like 6 ft high there essentially. And so, the the screening that's proposed for the neighbors is really >> Yeah. On the upper side of the wall, two walls, right? But on the outside of the
wall, there's no screening because there's really >> Yeah, I mean, unless they plant some vines or something, you know, could be done. >> That's what's been proposed. And again don't have our landscape architect but that's the same question that the goal bands actually in their review uh had
raised and they wanted to make sure that that was uh screened. So the landscape architect has been charged with uh making sure that that wall which it's sixoot at one point and then again it goes to grade. >> So it's not a six foot all the way across it's six foot at its highest
point and then goes to zero ft. >> Yeah understood. And then I had a question about the pool fence. Um, I guess technically that's considered pool safety if you fence in your whole backyard, but the the question
practically speaking is if you do have children and you're worried about the line of sight, to Miss Chief's point, you are not getting to that pool very fast. And I mean, with all these tears here, I'd almost rather see a fence around the pool or put the pool
somewhere else like near the driveway where you could fence that in and not worry about what is happening when you're not out looking because it's not only swim season. It's all year long when they can run over the the top of the pool or whatever it is. I I understand your point completely and and
and the fall protection fence that is proposed on this plan serves part of that purpose. Um >> bringing it around this way would finish that off. I guess what I would say is that um that's an available option for
any owner including this owner to to install at their preference. Um >> well, it's a lot of tears being put in here to eliminate steep slopes. So it is not the same as any pool and any owner. It's not the same as a pool where you don't need a variance because there are
significant slopes here. You have a lot of walls putting up. The access to this pool is this is not an easy access to get to >> after this is done. There won't be a steep slope there. But you because you have created all these walls and tears
and you have to go through, you know, down a set of stairs and across to get to the pool. I just I personally see that as concerning with the approach here to the steep slopes that this this
is not really um it seems a little hard to access in a pinch. Put it that way. >> Okay. pool that's there now is right next to the house. It's up. >> Well, I mean, there's a possibility of
putting a fence around the whole pool that too put the pool somewhere else, right? >> Would the owners contemplate a safety cover, the ones that can hold the elephants? >> Well, I think that's that's an ordinary thing that most people do install these
days. It's uh I've often seen in these a lot of people are going back to rectangular pools in part for that reason because they can flip a switch and the cover comes right out and uh you know I have friends who have a pool like that and they cover it you know frequently you know when they're not
using it. Um >> I don't know if it's for safety reasons or if it's more to just keep >> my keep it that way unless we're in the pool for young kids for that exact reason and my 90 pound dog has run across it. So >> yeah, I have
>> Mr. Gilban wants to respond to that and you're still sworn in. >> Yeah, >> we will absolutely uh have the uh covered pool. >> Yeah, that uh >> the elephant cover >> 100% >> the 90 lb dog proof cover.
>> All my siblings have it. We will we will have it as well. >> Great. Thank you. All right, any other questions? I guess a question. Are we preserving um storm water jurisdiction for two years? >> Hasn't come up yet, but I'm guessing
that's a request to do so. >> I'm surprised it hasn't. I would suggest that. >> Mr. Weber, any >> No objection. >> Okay, great. I just I just for curiosity sake. >> Thank you, Mr. Fesa. >> I'm sorry. for curiosity sake where the proposed spa is.
Maybe you're just missing stairs or is that when I come down from the proposed porch, I come down those stairs. Then what's this? Is this the black solid wall at >> Right. So So the the sort of the back side of that spa, the pool side of the spa, that wall, it's it's two feet high.
I'd call it like a seat wall. So on on this side, the spa's raised up two feet. And on the other side, it's at grade. >> Okay. Then what's what's the black line, the solid black line to the left of the 404.7? What is that?
>> This? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. That's that's the wall that that manages the grade change between this area and the patio that's up above because the patio's up on the first floor. So >> So I want Is there a set of stairs missing or am I reading this?
>> Well, the stairs the stairs come down here. >> So you have to go down those four 11 Th this area here is is accessed from the basement. >> So there's like a little bit of a walk out right in there. >> Mhm. >> So you're saying the proposed porch has
a basement access underneath it. >> What's labeled as a proposed porch right here? >> Yeah. >> Has basement underneath it. >> So I come out of those stairs. I turn to the left, go down those stairs, >> turn to the right, and then if I want to go to the spa, I have to go to the
right, to the left, and then up the stairs to the spa. >> Is that what it looks like? >> Well, I think if you wanted to go to the spa, you could walk out and just get in the spa. >> I mean, is it is it on that? >> Or you could or you could walk down the two feet of the wall and then go over to
the spa and then climb up the twoft wall if you wanted to, or sit on it and flip your legs over. That's what's confusing. >> So the spa is at the same level as the walk out from the basement. >> Yes. That's what I couldn't figure out. >> I'm sorry. I didn't >> That black wall. What? That to me the
black line represents a wall. >> So it's level with the top of that wall that's there. Yes. >> Okay. >> Gotcha. >> Any questions from the public for this witness? Yes, sir. Please. >> Just a quick question. >> Sir, you're going to have to come up and
>> I'm still going to be able to make a statement. Absolutely. >> Uh, excellent. I had a quick question. So, earlier in the discussion, >> could you just um give us your name, spell your last name and your address? >> Sure. Uh, my name is Denny Kim. Uh, last name is Kim Kim. I live at 26 Argal
Court, which is the property right behind. >> Ask away. >> Only quick question. I thought earlier in the discussion you mentioned that was a 10-ft wall, but then you said it was a sixoot. I just want to make sure which one it was. this wall we were talking about here and
it starts at six feet and it goes down to zero there. >> Okay. >> And and then this wall has its own height which starts at 8 feet and goes down to zero. >> Got it? >> So again, it as it chases up the grade
there, it it gets smaller and smaller as you go. >> But then for my property, which is even lower than that, it's going to be much higher than 6 8 ft. >> Yes. which is, you know, why we're introducing buffering in there and and and trying to keep that so that it's not an aesthetic issue on your from your
property. >> Okay. I just want to make sure. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Kim. >> Just so I'm confident in what I'm thinking about from the corner of the lowest retaining wall to the top of the other retaining walls, 14 ft overall height. So the
bottom is 386 here up to 394. So it's 12 feet. >> So for perspective, how tall are you? >> I'm 6 feet. >> So it's twice your height. >> Yes. >> So that's all the grading you're going
to do in that backyard is at least 12 feet, maybe more. >> Well, it's more when you start coming up to where the house is because that's >> that's that's what you're faced with. So, what's the overall grading difference? >> So, the existing slope down here, we're
at about 387 and at the back of the house, you're at 410. That's what's existing. >> 20 something. I'm not Yeah, now you see. Now you see why there's walls.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Clark. >> I have a question that is perhaps better directed to the architect who's coming up on material um deconstruction. Is that >> Yeah, it's definitely better for him >> since it was introduced. You know, I thought but but coming to one of the
environmental issues that pertain to hydrarology and and water management for Mr. Clark. Um, seems to me there's a lot of effort to make sure that water doesn't run onto another property and you're very skillful at doing that and there's a lot in materials that show that. Uh, in the last presentation,
which I think you're also working on, there was some discussion of permeable paving. I wonder if you or your clients have given that some consideration given the extent of the paved areas. >> We we did talk about it. Um, and I think there's uh some openness to that for sure. Uh we hadn't reached a conclusion
on it, but um we definitely did discuss it. I I think they'd probably be agreeable to doing something like that with the driveway. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Great. >> That was they would be amendable to that as to the extent of the driveway and the
permeability. Uh that would be something that they would have to discuss. >> Yeah, I mean there's different products out there too. Um, I I' I've actually run across a product that I was pretty impressed with the other day. Um, it's called Hydro Pavers. The guy uh I talked to the guy who runs the company. He's
down in Florida. I I've been very impressed. He's got a lot of videos that that document, you know, how this stuff operates and it looks like water falls on these and doesn't run off. It doesn't run off, which a lot of times that's what's sold,
but that's not always how it ends up. you know, a lot of the brick pavers, but this product was pretty good. And I think to your earlier point that you made, I think you had referenced before. Having some credit in the ordinance for that would certainly encourage that in a
way that it doesn't. Now, um, obviously it's a great thing to do. So is geothermal, but there's cost involved with all those things. And so if there's if there's an offset to it that nudges people towards that, I think it would help. In Madison, as a reference, they
have used brick pavers and sand and they give a 20% credit. So they count it at 80% impervious. >> Well, before we rewrite the zoning code from do that, I'm I'm just responding to a comment that was made before about Mr. >> There's a couple of questions, Mr.
Chairman, that if I could have a moment moment to speak with the architect. Do you think we can take a break? >> So why don't we take a fivem minute break then? All right, back in session. Mr. Weber, um, based on the variances requested, if
you, unless you feel there's a truly compelling need to bring up the architect, I think we're okay as a board. Uh continuing on. >> Oh, that's I understand, Mr. Chairman, and we can avoid bringing the architect up. Uh there was the opportunity to
speak about putting the fence around the pool, and as a result, I'd like to mark this exhibit, and it also shows the area that's available for permeable pers. So, if I can have this marked. >> Okay. >> So, this will be A1.
Chairman, I just have a question for you. >> Does that eliminate questions then about the location of the pool? >> Isn't that the perview of the landscape architect and the client? >> Well, it might be that the architect on that. >> Okay.
>> Mr. Weber take my >> and just one point of clarity here. We are talking about one variance for steep slopes. That's right. At this point, >> that's right. >> That's it. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> What's being distributed now is the
adjustment to the uh pool fence. So that there's a pool fence that's now going to be tailored to the pool rather than around the whole yard. So, in response to the vice chair's observation, uh there's the ability to do that. Likewise, with respon uh regard to board
member Bell's uh request for additional uh permeable pavers that has been designated as the area outside the garage, which is shown in hatched red on A1. >> And please note too that I talked to Mr.
Chenuli. Um, we do not need to hear from your structural engineer at this time, but please understand during our deliberations, I would encourage Mr. Chinuli to please fully avail this board of his thoughts on the
possible demolition of this home. Thank you, >> M. Mr. Chair. >> Yes, Mr. Bell. >> May I ask a question to Mr. Weber? >> Yes, please. Please go ahead. Um, in the absence of the architect coming up, it's not necessary as you're saying, uh, I,
uh, love the word deconstruction and the salvage value of some of the materials, the masonry, certainly the slate roof, uh, should, I hope, offset, you know, any additional demolition care that is given. Uh that said, um did the client
or the team, let's say, give any thought to reusing the slate given the relatively similar roof area, at least exposed to the street rather than just allowing it admirably to be used for another project somewhere else. Uh but
uh wouldn't have to move it anywhere else. >> I we did I don't know if anything >> Oh, I don't want to have to swear somebody else in just a it's a question in the form of a suggestion. Let me make it put it this way. The uh board has a right to make
recommendations to the Department of Community Services in connection with the demolition of the site. As a result, uh I think that would be appropriate for the board to have as a condition of approval a recommendation to the Department of Community Services that uh
uh steps will be taken to utilize the slate, the windows, and the stonework. >> Great. All right. Perfect. And I understand that it's only about the steep slope, but >> what type of roof is proposed on the house right now? Is it slate?
>> Yes, >> I can represent on behalf of the galb bands. It is sleep. >> Thank you, Mr. >> It's a simulated. >> Mr. Weber, if you could reiterate so we don't have to swear in Mr. Qualy, that would be great.
>> It's a simulated Da Vinci sleep. >> You're the best. Thank you. >> Sounds like an >> All right. So, with that, I'm going to open it up to public comments. >> Yes, sir. Please, >> neighbors. Welcome. >> Thank you very much.
>> All right. I will swear you in before you get started. If you could raise your right hand, do you swear from the testimony you're about to give in this matter? The truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. >> Uh, yes, I do. >> And just one more time, your name and spell your last name. >> Uh, name is Danny Kim. Last name is Kim, K I M. >> Thank you. And sorry, I'm going to read
this because I'm terrible at making statements. Mr. >> Kim, take your time. >> Okay. Um, well, hello. My name is Denny Kim. Uh, I live at 26 Argo Court. My wife Jung Su and our three kids. Uh, first, let me thank you, Mr. Chairman, Madame Vice Chair, and the rest of the board, uh, for your dedication to our
wonderful town. Uh, it's my first time participating in the zoning board process. I'm grateful for your professionalism and your commitment for safekeeping our town, uh, that we all love, obviously. Uh, also just want to welcome the Galbins to summit or actually it sounds like you already moved here. I thought you moved here from Short Hills. Um, it's actually my
first time meeting them. Although I believe my wife briefly chatted with Mrs. Galban, which is part of the reason why I'm here uh this evening. Um, to be clear, we're not looking to interfere with or influence what the Galbans decide to do on their property. After all, it's their property. I'm not going
to comment and I'm not going to comment the fact that a large 20 foot wall apparently is being approved to be built in my backyard. Um, but I felt the need to make this statement at this hearing because I've been advised to make the statement for the record. Uh, so for the record, I just wanted to say that up to
this date, uh, we at 26 Argo Court have had no issues with flooding on our property or issues related to water runoff from the Galbins's property of 45 Prospect Hill to ours at 26 Argo Court. However, uh given the steep grade of the
Bel Galaban's backyard and the proposal to make significant changes to their backyard that borders ours, I fear that the plans on their property will lead to water damages to mine. We've witnessed other construction happening on Prospect Hill uh that has directly affected our
neighbors property on Argyle Court in the form of flooding. It's been a he very heavy flooding which I would describe as Niagara Falls flooding uh on rainy days and we hope and expect that the same won't happen to our property but if there is we believe that there should be accountability involved. Thank
you for your time. >> Thank you Mr. Kim. >> So Mr. Kim to address this point I just want to note u previously a board member asked about a condition for storm water jurisdiction. So typically in these types of cases where storm water can become an issue, we retain storm water
jurisdiction for a period of two years after the completion of construction of the improvements. So if you do experience any sort of adverse storm water effects on your property during construction or for a period of two years after, please bring it to the city's attention. Please, it will be
referred to the board. If it's an issue that's being caused by this construction, it will be referred back to the board. We'll bring them back for another hearing to address that situation. So >> great. Thank you for that. I appreciate that. >> Certainly. >> And the Gins have no objection to that as condition of approval.
>> Okay, great. >> Mr. B, I have a question about Well, um two years from when the variance >> completion of improvements. >> The completion Okay. So during the >> during construction and then two years
thereafter. >> Thank you. So I I guess that just does prompt one question for me. Um that given Mr. Kim's comments about how there is no flooding currently, he hasn't experienced I think that's very
important to note because during construction sometimes that does change. Um that can be sort of the worst time before the improvements are put in. And I guess I'm wondering what will be done to mitigate any runoff
to Mr. Kim's property during the construction. >> I think that's a Mr. Parker testified that there would be uh steps that would be taken during construction, right? But that >> there would be a super sil fence, >> but that doesn't keep the water really
out. It keeps the dirt and Yeah. What happens is um a phone call comes in and then you have to look and see what's what's the source of that. Most of the time it's inadequate
maintenance of those measures. Um but sometimes supplemental measures are required. So, for example, I've been on sites where then we had to install a second layer of silt fence that's before, you know, a disturbed or sloped
area and then maybe some hay bales in there to to help bolster the impacts and distribute it. Um, but you're right that construction is the hard part. That's always the hard part and the maintenance of that is important. So, a lot of it
depends on who's running the job and how it's being maintained. um you know and and you can never really predict how these things will play out um depending on conditions, depending on rainfall events that happen, but there are a number of things that we can do and it's
it's been my experience that these things are always examined closely and that one one silt fence that's down gets a phone call and you know a letter from soil erosion and then you got to correct that. They
they try to do it as an inspection basis so that it doesn't get to the point where there's actually a problem. >> Yeah. But the sil fence and the silk fence uh really is not designed to hold water back though. >> Well, it's >> it's more for
>> it's designed to keep >> erosion. >> Yeah. Soil from moving off site >> like sheet sheetated water. It's >> Yeah. I mean, there's a limit to what we can do about that, you know, because you don't have your storm water settled and final. And >> the things you mentioned like the hail
bays, the bales of hay, that >> Yeah, that can help. That can help. >> I mean, it's it's it's promising that he doesn't have problems now. So, that actually bodess well for the construction process, which means that there isn't a a systemic and normal
issue that's happening on a regular basis. So to me that means it should be relatively straightforward and simple to control, not that it will be harder to control. But it's been my experience. There's a lot of eyes on all these projects. There's inspectors out all the
time. Soil erosion stops at random, it seems to me, and and does site inspections to make sure things are the way they're supposed to be. >> In terms of the construction scheduling, Mr. Clark, would you say that the drywalls are installed earlier or later
in the process? normally later. Um it it can depend on the project and on the site. Um sometimes it's it's functionally not possible to put them in right away or early on in the
project. And even if you do, often the dry wells are are picking up a lot of the roof area or the driveway area with a drain. >> You don't even have gutters on the house. >> Right. Right. You know, that's a lot of the problem is that you don't when you don't have gutters on the house, then
that there's a limit to practical control. You can do some things, but you know, I mean, if you get a giant rainfall or two days in a row, it it affects the site like everywhere else, except you have less control over it. If I can, there was an application that
this board had on Linux where the uh issue had arisen and they were able again subject to that particular site get this drywalls in drywalls in earlier. So it is something that can be done depending as Mr. Clark puts it the
site and the circumstances. >> That's right. And and and I worked on that site on on Lennox and that's exactly what happened. And so we shifted up the sequence of of work a bit. So not unlike this, we had sort of a levely an
area we were leveling out, although it wasn't as steep and and there was a wall in the back with an infiltration drain. We just built that much earlier in the process. >> Okay. >> So if that's warranted and that's, you know, I mean, I'll be out there a number of times, I'm sure. And as I said, there
are many eyes on the project. So, I'm usually the first call that comes in after something is noticed. >> All right. Well, >> and and then we'll look at >> perhaps it'll be discussed during deliberation. So, thank you, Mr. Clark. >> Great. >> Who would like to begin? >> Oh, Ed, before we go into deliberations,
I would be remiss if I didn't mention this. Um, I was talking with Mr. Clark at at the break and there is a issue of this one retaining wall that's at the back corner of the swimming pool. That retaining wall, as was mentioned during testimony, is 8 foot high. If you're
having a protection fence on top of the 8 foot high wall, it's going to exceed the 10 foot height maximum that we have. So, I think that is incumbent that we include that in this application relief from that requirement. It's a small area, that small, but it just became
apparent to us as we heard the testimony. >> What would be the total height that would be >> 12 feet? 12 feet. All right. So before we begin, I guess Andy, if you could run us through the conditions and the number of votes. >> Yes, absolutely.
>> Thank you. >> Uh so quite a few conditions on this one. Uh first is compliance with those conditions noted in the board engineers memorandum. Uh second is that the applicant shall attempt to maintain the existing large beach tree and white pine tree on the property. Third, a super silk fence shall be utilized during
construction. Fourth, that revised plan shall be submitted to confirm the locations of the HVAC and pool equipment. Fifth, the board shall maintain storm water jurisdiction for a period of two years after completion of the improvements. And sixth, and my final noted condition, is that the plan
shall be revised to reflect a pool fence in the area immediately around the pool and for an area of permeable pavers as roughly submitted as exhibit A1. Um here we're only dealing with C variances being both the steep slope as well as
that recently noted excess of the combination of the retaining wall and fence. Um so only four votes are required to approve the application. >> Thank you Andy. >> So I'm sorry the the fence is that but that's another variance though that we're >> any excess the combination of retaining
wall plus the fence on top anything in excess of 10 feet would require a variance. So that's what's being so the area that any excess of 10 ft in that corner >> but but essentially that's a second so that's a second avenue with steep slope.
>> All right with that let's begin our deliberations. Who would like to go first? >> Alison. >> Okay. Um I'm just a little confused about this whole project. Um, so the the homeowners bought a piece
of property that they weren't going to they didn't buy the house because they bought the property because they were going to knock down the house anyway. And there's no variances needed for the property, but just for all this steep slope for building the pool. Just wondering why don't you just go buy a piece of
property that's flat? He says you're knocking down the house anyway. I'm just I'm just very confused on why then why this property um if you're not buying the house and you're buying the land and the land's not the at the right slope to put your pool in your spa and that's
really my only comment. I just I'm very confused. >> Thank you. >> Mr. Chenuli, would you like to weigh in? Yeah. I mean I mean first of all I I you know I have
a sort of a sensitive spot about tearing down these types of homes in Summit that to me seem completely restorable. Um, we had we had a case right before this
one with Dave Rosen and I've worked with Dave on projects and I know he would come into a house like this and turn it into a gem. um combining all that with,
you know, going bigger, disturbing more steep slopes. Um um it's it's it's a bit of a problem for me. >> Thank you. I do just want to note before we go
further in deliberations as to both of those points, keep in mind that we are weighing the application as it stands in front of us. What any other hypothetical properties or other applications are not before us and are not something we should be considering here. Um, and I
know we've had this discussion before, but the the applicants do have the ability to apply for a demolition permit. It's not something within this board's purview to prevent them from demolishing a structure on the property. So, it's not necessarily a, you know, a
detriment that we can consider that they're not maintaining that structure. We may have seen it as a a benefit that they were maintaining a historic property or a historic structure on the property. Um, but just keep those standards in mind as we're deliberating
this. >> Thank you, Andy. >> Don. >> Yeah. Uh, I'm just struggling a little bit with the amount of steep slope that's being disturbed. Um, I'm I'm really not satisfied with the the um
uh there hasn't been any any other proposals for where the pool is going to could be located. Um, I think there are other areas, but that's just my opinion. I'm not the expert when it comes to architecture or landscape architecture, things like that. Um I'm just very
disturbed about the amount of steep slope that's being disturbed. Basically, it is a vacant lot, right? Or it will be a vacant lot. So, you can start from zero. Um and uh you while the house the house construction doesn't bother me. Um
the amount of steep slope that's being disturbed is is really a um a little bit of a problem for me. Uh I know there were other cases where we've kind of all felt well, we felt the same way. Um, but in this particular case, I just think it's a lot of steep slope that's being
disturbed and I'm I'm not sure that I can support this application. >> Thank you, Don. Don, >> yeah, I I'm still still struggling with this, but I'll tell you where I stand right now. It is a very large sleep soap variance. That that is certainly true.
And just looking at that in a vacuum, it is effectively being managed according to expert testimony that the the storm water management uh will effectively address any concerns caused by the steep slope variance. So I'm trying trying to put that aside. Um in terms of the the
other aspects of the application, the forester is okay with the landscape plan despite the removal of almost all existing trees. The the applicant is putting a lot of effort to to put an effective um replacement landscape plan. Um, I like the deconstruction aspects of
it. I like the reuse. I like the commitment to perennial pavers. Um, I like that they're moving the fence to be more closer to the pool. That I think that's a positive change. Um, you know, the steep slope does present a hardship.
I mean, if if no steep slope variance is granted there, that that part of the property is essentially unusable. So I think that's a that's a a hardship that has to be considered in whether we approve or or disapprove uh that that variance. Um and whatever negative
aspect it has they are addressing it said it's a positive benefit which in the long run may you know may may improve. I mean I know the neighbor said there's no water drainage problem now. Um but the storm water management once the se slope is done may actually create
a better situation than there's now. Not that there's a problem now, but it may even be less likely to be a problem going forward. But I I am concerned about the extent of the steep slope. So I'm probably going to flip a coin when we're done. I'm not quite sure how to commit to this yet. >> Understood. Thank you,
>> Mr. Bell. >> I was struck in the opening remarks by the client about um what was said about this is your forever house. Um and um you know in this town and in this world, people on their property
have a lot to say about how they live and what they need to do. Uh we're talking about steep slope and every application I reviewed on behalf of the environmental commission, I would raise the issue of why so much steep slope. Um and usually the answer particularly
during the pandemic is because we're not going to go anywhere else. We want to be able to play or entertain or be in the backyard and and and and not at an angle. I don't buy it. Um I think I would just give up the swimming pool if I were the
homeowners. You know, it's not the forever swimming pool. It's the forever house and not do the steep slope because again, I won't claim to be a hydraologic expert. Uh but I would bet that a lot of
the storm water retainage is through the trees that have to be removed because of the steep slope, not because of anything other than the root systems go when you move the earth around it. So, um, that would be a a question or a suggestion,
uh, that if it's not fundamental to the enjoyment of the property or the house or or therapeutic recreation, uh, uh, it would certainly make this board's task a lot easier. Marian.
>> Yeah, I think um echoing some of the concerns that other board members have noted. Um I think that I'm also struggling to find the public benefit here given that the property owner downhill doesn't have any current
flooding issues. the flooding issues that are mitigate being mitigated are really being mitigated because of the construction on the property which is not a necessity. It's a it's a want not a you know requirement. Obviously you're going to build a new house and you're
going to have roof leaders that are discharging and all of that. will be required to manage the storm water. But but the rest of it is just extra and it does there's there are a couple other concerns which when you add that 4ft
fence on top of a wall 8ft wall that already the 6ft lower wall with the 8ft wall was presenting as 12 feet. Now you have a fence on top that's 16 feet to the other to the view of the other property owner that has to somehow be
buffered. I don't I don't think that has been addressed at all either. And I think that that's actually a kind of a public negative to the the downhill neighbor. So I am I am definitely struggling with this one. And I think I would have liked to see the pool closer
in the area where it currently is so that less steep slopes needed to be impacted. I mean, I think the home design looks lovely and it's, you know, if you're going to tear the house down, you bet it's nice to see that you're putting a bit a nice house up. Um, but
it's but that house conforms. So, I do appreciate the effort that was made to make the house conform compared to the first application, but it's a lot of steep slopes and I'm, like I said, I'm not sure that there's actually a a
public benefit. It is definitely a benefit to the homeowner. I can I acknowledge that. So, that's kind of >> if I can, Mr. Chairman. >> No. >> So, let's let's get through >> Let me speak if you don't mind. >> Yes.
So people need to understand that this is a very very challenged lot. It is essentially a cliff. I don't know if we've seen an application and granted that's not necessarily Germaine, but of a 20ft drop. I know I've heard some of our board members mention the pool. I
can't see a way where they don't have an application for a steep slope variance. Whether or not they have the pool included, they're still having to tear out and work essentially the entire width of their lot because of the
hardship of this massive hill. One of the benefits that I moved here for is for the community is to foster family. I walk this neighborhood. I see kids jumping on trampolines and they cannot use that in their backyard. So
for me, I can see just the pure hardship of this application, whether or not they're putting in a pool or terraces or player is they're going to have to be disturbing these slopes. There's no question about that. So I know we keep going back and forth on this, but in my
mind, I can't see a simpler way for them to approach this and them to be part of this community unless they go go forward with something like this. >> Yeah. And I think Mr. essence has has convinced me. I mean, I I think as I alluded to earlier that without a steep
sliver ant backyard is unusable. Um, >> yeah. >> So, you know, I I think if we get to a vote on this, I I would I think I'd reluctantly vote in favor, but it would be reluctantly, but I think Mr. Fesin's convinced me. >> There's no asterisk and
>> Yeah, I know. It's either yes or no. I know. >> Mr. Curran, please. >> Thank you. Um, yeah, I've been I've been trying to get to the justification for relief here and and I agree I I don't necessarily see a public benefit. Um, if anything, we've heard a concern from a
neighbor, which we take very seriously. Um, not that he was opposed, just a general concern like any neighbor would be um when that type of construction's going on. you know, thinking about the unique features of the property, like I
understand it, but I do think the location of the pool exacerbates it. And I do think there are some options um that it'd be great to hear um or or have heard that they were explored maybe where the existing pool was, etc. So,
you know, I'm still considering >> if I can jump in again. I know we've had concerns about the lack of a public benefit. Mr. Feskins also pointed out that they're asserting not just benefit versus detriments. They're also asserting that this condition in the
rear yard is a hardship. So either way, if they show that the existing slopes on the property are in fact a hardship um or if they were to show a benefit, that's the positive criteria that you have to weigh. And then you have to compare that as to the negatives. uh you know any detriments that would present
itself from this application. So either one is sufficient to meet the positive criteria. I don't want us to get pigeonholed into thinking they have to show a benefit if you found that they show a detriment uh sorry a hardship on the property. >> And I I think they've demonstrated that
I I agree completely with Mr. Feskins. Um, I really don't love it when we start to uh debate about how people should use their backyard, right? It's it's not facing the street. The neighbor said he
didn't have an issue with the wall so much as his concern was potential flooding, which we as a board, I think, do a good job of taking very seriously. And we've put in safeguards again. um with our jurisdiction for two years
after the completion of the project, but also it's incumbent upon us to rely on the testimony of experts like Mr. Clark who spent 30 years perfecting the art of storm water mitigation and he's telling
us that he's solved this issue on this site and I take him at his word for that. Um and I think that uh based on the hardship, based on the fact that they have told us that they
can manage this storm water and that we can provide usability to their site, to their backyard, which I believe is a benefit in terms of safety, um for the family to be able to use it in in a
manner that's not dangerous, like on the side of a 20ft Hill, then I think that's worth consideration and I am in favor of this application. >> And just to add to that, I think in the years I've been here, I don't think we've ever had a Mr. Clark application
come back with a water problem later on after he said there wouldn't be one. Um, so and we also have our own engineer who uh approved of the water management plan and seems to think it it's it's >> adequate or more than adequate or I forget exactly what the testimony was or
the question the comments were but yeah so I I take comfort in that too. >> Great. With that, can I get a motion to approve? >> So move to approve. >> Can I get a second? >> Second. >> Jessica, can you call the role please?
>> Vice chairs on I'm reluctant, but yes. >> Can I ask a question? Who second it? >> Mr. >> Is Mr. President voting? >> Oh, no. >> Okay. >> All right. Mr.
>> Mr. Current >> just didn't want that on the record the wrong way. >> Good catch. >> Okay. >> Mr. Yuka. >> Yes. >> Mr. Malay. No >> Mr. Nelson. >> No, >> Mr. Currant. >> Yes, >> Miss Chief. >> No,
>> Chairman Litz. >> Yes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Yep. Good luck. >> All right, last hearing. I told you guys we'd get you in 19 oxbow vote. and let the record show
that Miss Zan is recusing from this application. >> Hi, welcome. Thank you for seeing us. >> Oh, yeah. Oh, that's true. I was like, okay. >> If you if you want to wait 30 seconds till I thought there was something else and unfortunately
>> we have less traffic coming through. Yeah, I'll give you somebody. >> So, Mr. Ball is going to swear you in. >> All right. If you could raise your right hand. Do you swear from the testimony you're about to give in this matters, the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. >> Yes. >> And one at a time, please state your name, spell your last name.
>> Alexandra Kilby, K I L B as in boy Y. >> And John O K. K I L B. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> Welcome. Why don't you tell us about your application? >> Good evening, chairman and the board. Um
I moved into summit 48 years ago um on my second child. At that time on Oxbow there were approximately seven um >> style >> ranch >> seven ranch style homes on the north
side of Oxbow. Since then, uh we are essentially the last branch on the street. Um that's the history. Uh currently, uh I have my youngest daughter, Alexandria, living with us with her husband and four
grandchildren. And um it's uh they're growing pretty fast, so we need more. Uh basically if you look at the plans um it's quite conservative
uh in many respects compared with the street that it currently is. And uh as as a measurement I'm told that approximately 19.47% of the allowable space that we could
build on is being built on. So it's relatively conservative. will lift in the one end um to give a suite uh for my daughter's family and hopefully uh when I get more scenile than what I
am they will look after me um and that's >> to be more specific right now we are asking for the variance for the sideyard and the combined sideyard which is are smaller than the required 17 ft due to a
non-conforming wall attached to the existing house >> which was there when we came 48 years ago. >> This wall also it's on the side a driveway side. There's a slight yard and driveway on our neighbors. So we're not on top of their house. There's a what?
>> 38 foot. >> Yeah, 38 foot. So there is a driveway separating the house, their driveway. Um this side of the house is we'd like to move forward with the house. will be moving about
um 7' 8 in forward. 5' 8 in will be the building and another two feet will be for a patio and we feel that this will add to the appeal of the house and is in keeping with the other houses on the street. Um right now that's kind of it's the wall there that we are having issue
with because it is an existing wall. We noticed um some concerns were about having to do with water runoff as well. And we're happy to work with the town engineer. We know a lot of our neighbors have had to put in like storm drains and such just because
unfortunately the way Oxbow is, we do get runoff from above us. So we're happy to work and add in anything in our front yard or with drainage that we need to. >> But the front yard essentially goes down towards the road already. So, from a
layman's viewpoint, it shouldn't have too much of a problem. >> And we noted that we did not include a basement because we're not changing our basement area in any way. We really are just going we're changing the main we're going forward and up. So, we're not
doing any grading. Um, right now with the house, we're kind of literally forward and up >> and we're moving forward. The house is is is two levels with the stairway up in the middle of the house. We're bringing the house forward so that it's or one line facing the road essentially.
>> Yes. If you look at the drawing >> and our setback what with the addition will still be 46.9 in which is well within that 30 foot 35 foot from the road as well as just our total um lot area
>> which is 19%. >> And we'll still be well within everything that the city likes. Unfortunately, with the way the lot is shaped, it's kind of pod shaped. So, it kind of and that makes it difficult to
kind of change how we do this addition without building on the existing wall. >> Great. >> Uh board experts, what questions do you have for these witnesses? So the um the only thing that I noticed on here was that um their their lot coverage is
increasing by 426 square feet. So they're required to put in some kind of storm water mitigation which they already said that they'd be willing to do. Um so it would have to be subject to my review. >> Okay. >> And we're happy to do that. >> So just have your your engineer propose
a storm water management system. >> Okay. and Ms. Rafé will review it and then if it meets her very high standards then we should be fine. >> Ed any any questions? >> Yeah, just real quick um regarding the
uh proposed addition. It's really coming to the building wall, the existing building wall that's on that sideyard. Correct. That same 12.8 ft. Correct. >> So therefore, you're not going any further than that line. >> No. >> Um So it's really just for the second
floor aspect of that building wall in that area with the exception in the front you're coming out that additional five feet or so >> correct >> along the front just to square off that an architectural standpoint that's just to related to the existing building and
its floor plan and its relationship. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. Um otherwise the F complies um and the overall coverage complies as well. So okay thank you. No further questions.
>> So Ed just for our edification that's they're increasing the degree of existing nonconformance. >> Correct. Because they're building out over top of the first floor. Yes. >> Plus extending into the front yard to square it off. That new that's doesn't
exist today. that that piece. Okay. >> So, it's that five foot square essentially. >> Understood. >> Great. Thank you. >> Board members, what questions do you have for these witnesses? >> I have one. >> Tom, >> um I assume you've read the the city of Foresters report and are are you are you
going to commit to um >> replacing the foundational plan material? >> Oh, yes. >> That's a negotiations between us. What? >> Yes. Well, I know I know Mr. Kilby. I know Mr. Kilby, so I know that'll be a good plan. Excellent. >> I have a question too.
>> Yes, Alison. >> Um the historic Historic Preservation Commission um have you read theirs where they recommended um using um traditional windows and cornice returns and asked if they said the materials are not noted on the drawings >> of the materials are.
>> Yeah. Though indicated in the narrative, the agency recommends >> a confirmation of the building materials. Um essentially clapboard siding is envisaged complimentary to the neighborhood. >> Yeah, that's what it's B.
>> Sorry. Sorry. >> Thank you. >> Anything else? No. Any questions? >> I brought one question. >> Go ahead. >> Because I didn't When you guys looked at this, did you look at modifying the design so that you weren't bumping out
or going any further? Meaning stepping it like >> So we kind of had like the situation with the house right now. We have a um they transformed an attic when we were younger. >> It's a dorma. >> Yeah. And so really for it to for the house to be able to have almost like a a
wing for them so they're we're not all together. so much on us to have it. We're making it an actual second floor that would really fit our family. So, there really was no other way. >> So, aesthetically, it would look weird if you did that. >> Super weird. >> And so, we kind of wanted to keep it, but we didn't want to tear the house
down. We, you know, we we love the house. We've obviously we're been there forever and we're going to stay there for so we just kind of wanted to keep it aesthetically as much as we could with the original house as well. >> Right. >> Great. Thank you. Any questions from uh
our numerous audience? Seeing none, >> street's really excited about it. >> That is a good question. Have you talked to your neighbors at all? >> We uh since we've been there for >> ever. We talked to the neighbors. We actually went and got their signatures.
They're really excited because we are we uh we're bringing the street down right now. So, no, they're really excited for us because they know it'll just benefit everyone. Excellent. Thank you so much. Is there anything you'd like to say in conclusion?
>> Well, um, we want to stay in town, obviously. Uh, I like being here for the rest of my natural and, um, this seems the best solution all around in today's society with young people trying to get their
own houses. >> Perfect. Thank you so much. >> I want to see the kids grow up >> close. Perfect. Thank you. >> All right, with that, Mr. Ball, what conditions and number of votes do we need? >> All right, I've got a couple. Uh, first is compliance with the conditions noted
in the board engineers memorandum. Uh, second is that a storm water management plan shall be submitted to the board engineer for review and approval. And third, as you already commented to, that the applicants will replace the foundation plant material in accordance with the city forers's recommendation.
Um there are only C variances associated with the >> since we're doing storm water should we keep our customary two years >> if we think there's going to be a concern >> I like consistency just makes it simple >> so similar to the last application >> got it
>> no issues all right >> even though nothing similar >> so uh only see variances so there are four votes required to approve the application >> thank you Mr. ball with that. Who'd like to begin our deliberations? >> You can move this one.
>> You can move this one. You're voting. >> Oh. Uh, great. >> You know, I probably let I gave you a leading question on purpose. I like when people are looking at existing conditions and trying to reutilize buildings that fit into the neighborhoods. What I see here is a
perfect logical reason of why you need to keep what is a non-conforming. Yes, you are enhancing that non-conformance, but otherwise if you didn't do it, it wouldn't look right and it would not be keeping with the neighborhood, not would be it would not be keeping with the
DRRO. So, in my mind, it's the benefit is is outweighing any detriment to the your exacerbation. At the end of the day, we want to keep you here in this this community, and I think building a nicer home is beneficial for the entire street. Plus, we're going to get some
storm water management, so it's a win-win. Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. President. >> Mr. Curry, >> uh, also just commend you for being conservative in in what you're doing. Um, this is probably one of my favorite
presentations I think I've seen. And if I'm only so blessed to design a home with my daughter and her family at some point amazing. Um, but no, I think what you're doing makes perfect sense and I can support you. >> Anyone this side? >> Nothing, Dad. All in favor?
>> Yeah. >> All right. Great. Yes, I I agree with my colleagues. Uh this this is obviously going to improve the usability uh the safety um and the fact that you're going to
have three generations under one roof for a long time to come uh tugs at my heartstrings for sure. Um, and uh, it's clear that the design is in keeping with the spirit of the DRRO, which is
definitely a positive thing in my mind. Uh, so with that, I can absolutely be in favor of this application. Great. Can I get a motion to approve? >> I'll motion since I got to vote this one. >> Second. I'll second. >> Miss Sans. >> Mr. Yuko.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Malay. >> Yes. >> Mr. Nelson. >> Yes. >> Mr. Curran. Yes, >> Miss Chief. >> Yes, >> Mr. Fesin. >> Yes, >> Chairman Lakets. >> Yes. Good luck, guys. >> Good luck. God bless. >> Yes.
>> All right. We have uh two resolutions for approval and one minute for approval. >> Up first, we have 30 Ridgedale Avenue, zoning board application number ZB-25-2306. The eligible voting members are chairman
Lyz, Vice Chair Zan, Mr. Malay, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Yuko, and Mr. Feskins. Could we get a motion to approve? >> So move. >> And a second. >> Second. >> Thank you. Chairman Litz, >> yes. >> Vice Chair Zon, >> yes. >> Mr. Malay, >> yes. >> Mr. Nelson,
>> yes. >> Mr. Yuko, >> yes. >> Mr. Fes, >> yes. Next up, we have 37 Webster Avenue, zoning board application number ZB-25-2313. We have the same eligible voting members. Could we get a motion?
>> So move second. >> Chairman Lyz, >> yes. >> Vice Chair Zon, >> yes. Mr. Malay, >> yes. >> Mr. Nelson, >> yes. >> Mr. Yuko, >> yes. >> Mr. Fesin, >> yes. And next up we have 221 Blackburn Road, zoning board application number
ZB-25-2308. We have the same members that are eligible to vote. Could we get a motion? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Second. >> Chairman Litz. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair, >> yes.
>> Mr. Mallay, >> yes. >> Mr. Nelson, >> yes. >> Mr. Yuko, >> yes. >> Mr. Fes, >> yes. >> Okay, thank you. And then we have minutes for memorialization from October 6th, 2025. The eligible voting members are Vice Chair Zan, Mr. Veskins, Mr.
Yuko, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Curran, Miss Chief, and Mr. Chantuli. Could we get a motion to approve? >> Some moved. >> Second. >> Thank you. All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Thank you. >> Thank you so much, Jessica. Can I get a
motion to adjurnn? Just a quick just please. >> Are we the first case with David Rosen, I forget the property uh right now, but >> yeah. If if we can try to keep things more expedited, I think he probably could have cut that down by 20 minutes
and just focused on >> talk about the variances. >> Was that >> he didn't even talk about the variances, right? >> So, we need to cover that in the next meeting, I think. Well, my opening preamble clearly states that they should keep their testimony brief and concise,
but >> I don't know how we how we kind of target, but >> maybe >> Well, we can put them up with cow prod. >> Cool. >> That's a good point, though. Thank you,
Mr. C. We will try our best to >> rein these people in. Um, can I get a motion to adjurnn? >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I. >> Thank you all.