Who's ready for some zoning? >> Anyone? >> Rock and roll. >> I love it, Don. Thank you. Uh good evening and welcome to the June 1st, 2026 meeting of the city of summit zoning board of adjustment. My name is Scott Loygets. I'm the zoning board
chair. Please rise and join me in join us in the pledge of allegiance. Thank you. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisibley and justice for all.
>> Thank you. In accordance with New Jersey statute 10 col4-10, adequate notice of the special meeting has been provided to a newspaper record. It's been posted here in city hall. This meeting is a judicial proceeding. Any questions or comments must be limited to the issues that are
relevant to the board may legally consider in reaching a decision and decorum appropriate to a judicial hearing must be maintained at all times. For the benefit of the interested public, this meeting is being livereamed on the city's YouTube page. It's also being broadcast on Summit's government channel. That's Comcast 34 and 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 this room. Please note 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 deis and then return it thereafter. Miss Sans, can you please call the role? >> Vice Chair on >> here. Mr. Yuko >> here. >> Mr. Malay is excused. Mr. Mullen >> here. >> Mr. Nelson >> here. >> Mr. Curran >> here. >> Miss Chief
>> here. >> Mr. Fes >> here. >> Mr. Chantuli is expected but not yet present. Mr. Bell >> here. >> Chairman Ly >> here. >> You have a quorum. You may proceed. >> Thank you. Miss Sans Andy Ball is the zoning board's attorney. Mr. Ball advises the board 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, who you just heard from, is a city employee and is the zoning board secretary. Our board secretary works with the applicants on preparing their applications, planning our agendas, and keeping our meeting minutes. Board
secretary also does not vote. Also present tonight are our experts who are hired annually by the board to provide input. Tonight we have Marie Rafé from Collier's Engineering. Also present is Ed Snikis from Burgess Associates and he's our board planner. These experts are seated to the table to the right of the board, the public's left. They also
do not vote. Our board consists of seven regular members and four alternates. All members can participate in the hearings tonight, but only a maximum of seven can vote. Most applications require a simple majority to be approved. Before we enter into executive session to vote, you'll be advised on 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 and 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,
then followed 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 one given
evening. Once the board members and then the board professionals have completed their questioning, the public will have an opportunity to ask questions. It's not the time to tell us what you think about the case. That opportunity comes at the end of the hearing. Please keep be careful how you phrase your questions. They should not proceed with a statement about the case, but should
be a direct direct question to the witness. Also, before you ask your questions, please clearly state your name, spell your last name, and provide your address. It's important that a court reporter be able to keep a clear and accurate public record. After all witnesses have been heard, members of the audience have their
second opportunity to speak, and in that that time, you may express your opinion, positive or negative, about the application. Then the public hearing is closed. We enter into executive session. This is where the board members discuss the case and then vote. You'll be able to listen into our executive session, but you will not normally be able to
participate in our discussion. I will now ask that each applicant and/or their attorney, if present, come up and give a brief synopsis of their anticipated testimony tonight, including the number of witnesses and whether or not they can finish their presentation within 30 minutes. Um, so tonight we had um 11-15
Beachwood, but I believe that is being carried correct to July 20th. >> Yes. So, Council had made a request uh in order to examine whether it's possible to preserve the facade of the building as part of that application and request that it be carried without further notice until the July 20th
meeting. >> Can I get a motion to carry? >> So moved. >> Can I get a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Don. >> Jessica, call the role. >> Vice Chair Zon. >> Yes. >> Mr. Yuko, >> yes. >> Mr. Mullen, >> yes. >> Mr. Nelson, >> yes. >> Mr. Curran,
>> yes. >> Miss Chief, >> yes. Chairman Litz. >> Yes. Okay. So, we'll see them on the 20th. Next up, we have 116 Rotary Drive. >> Hi, how are you? >> I'm Timothy Clie. I'm the architect for
the applicant. It's just me and the applicant who's right with me. I I think we're probably half an hour. >> All right. Great. Thank you, Mr. Classy. We'll see you soon. Next up, do we have a representative for two Crest Acre?
>> Good evening, Attorney Lee Schlamitz for applicants Tony Ferraro and Vanessa Ferraro. Uh we anticipate this evening calling the architect Karen Kaf and engineer Andrew Clark. We believe uh we'll keep it concise and under 30
minutes. >> Excellent. Thank you so much. We'll see you in a little bit. Thank you. >> Great. Um, next up, 211 Kent Place, which I also believe there's been a request to carry to June 15th. Is that right? >> Okay.
>> Um, can I get a motion to carry 211 Kent? >> And I imagine that's without further notice. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So, move. >> Second. >> Second. >> Second. >> All right. >> Vice Chair Zon. >> Yes. >> Mr. Yuko.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Mullen. >> Yes. >> Mr. Nelson, >> yes. >> Mr. Curran, >> yes. >> Miss Chief, >> yes. >> Chairman Lakes, >> yes. And then finally, uh, we have another carry request for 21 West End Avenue and this is also to June 15th.
>> Um, and then is that without >> also without notice? >> Without notice. So, can I get a motion? So moved, >> Mr. Kurin. Thank you. Second. >> Second. >> Thank you, Mr. Nelson. Vice Chair Zon. >> Yes. >> Mr. Yuko, >> yes. >> Mr. Mullen,
>> yes. >> Mr. Nelson, >> yes. >> Mr. Curran, >> yes. >> Miss Chico, >> yes. >> Chairman Ly, >> yes. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you so much, Miss Sance. And with that, we'll circle back to 116 Rotary. >> No worries.
All right. Are we starting with the applicant this evening or straight to? Okay, I'll swear you in first. If you could raise your right hand. Do you swear from the testimony you're about to give in this matter? Is the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> And please state your name. Spell your last name.
>> Peter McPartland. MC P A R T L A N D. >> Thank you. Go ahead. >> When we moved into our home in July 2021, my wife and I, we have two children at the time and now we have four. And uh you know, we love our
house. Uh it's a lovely fourbedroom home. We love our street. We love our neighborhood. We love living in Summit. And we just believe that with two two additional bedrooms, we can comfortably say that this will be our home for the foreseeable indefinite future. Whereas
without an additional couple bedrooms, we feel like it's a yearby-year decision process of whether or not we've outgrown our home. So, our hope is just to add two additional bedrooms which will allow us to feel comfortable and confident that this is a home we can have for the
indefinite future to raise our family. >> Great. Excellent. Uh board experts, any questions for the students or you saving for the architect? >> Just a quick question if the architect can clarify that they agree with the maximum number of stories that we calculated.
>> Okay, great. Um board, any questions for this witness or you want to get to the expert testimony? >> All right, seeing none, Mr. Clie, you're up. It's everyone's >> waiting on baited breath to hear you. >> Um I'll swear you in if you could um do
you swear from the testimony you're about to give in this matter, the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> And please state your name, spell your last name. >> Timothy Ky K S. Uh >> I think you might just need to grab the mic and make sure it's turned on. It's Timothy Quest.
>> There should be a button on the front. You're going to have to look it to the side. >> Got it. Got it. >> Perfect. >> Hi, Jessica. >> It's uh Timothy Klesie, KL E SSE, and u we're architectural farming shortels. >> And you've appeared before us a number
of times, including relatively recently. Any changes to your credentials since the last time you were here? >> No, everything's in good standing. All right. Any questions from the board or would you like to accept him back once again? >> We would. Welcome back. Please proceed. Thank you. >> Thanks. So, um, I came to you, I don't
know, two years ago >> with the McPartlands. Um, some of you were here actually, and, uh, we were seeking a variance for exactly the same thing on the opposite side of the house at that time. And that memorialization is in the back of your packet that you
have this evening. the tonight what we're trying to do is I'm on my BOA1 sheet and what we're trying to do is on my proposed survey over here is
add to the add a third floor in other words the intent is to rip the roof which is presently a hip roof increase the pitch of the roof more kind of in line with a colonial you know this is really a 1960s
um hipped roof colonial with that kind of shallower pitch roof if you know what I mean. I'll show you a picture of it just a second, but it's a hip right now and it's a shallow pitch. The idea would be we'd increase the pitch more that would be normal to a colonial
and actually a little more towards your zoning ordinance which is asking for more of a pitch to the roof and then dormer the rear of the building in the back right there to um put two bedrooms
and a bathroom on the third floor. where we fail is on side combined and it's the same thing that we failed on last time we were here. And the reason is it's because we have this pie-shaped lot. So my I'm actually going to go to my
exhibit. I think it'd be better. I guess I'd like to put this in as A1. This >> Okay, great. Okay, this is you see this is the same survey that's on your BOA1 sheet, but I just wanted
you to get the idea that the total lot width is 146 ft and side combined is 35% which equals 51.1 ft and the property line is you know
it's a pie shaped lot. So if I follow the side combined off of my 18 ft on the right on the left side, it forces me to be at about 34.34
on the opposite side. And that's really because my side combined is exaggerated because of the width. You know, side combined is measured at the width of the lot at the face of the building. And that is really my face of the building exaggerated. But back here, you know,
it's been truncated. In other words, combine works great for a rectangular lot, but it it's really um creates a problem for a pie-shaped lot. So, the variance, where you can see
where I hit it with the green here, the variance is really for that area to add over the existing building. the existing building is non-conforming for site combined um and so the proposed is then non-conforming. Last time
we had a small addition that was going on right there when we redid the kitchen and we triggered side combine this way and it's the same story. It's because of the extended
width of the lot related to the um tapered of the taperedness of the lot as the lot goes into the rear yard. So, it makes us it's a it's a great case for variance actually. It's probably exactly what the
board of adjustments intended for. The there's no new footprint to this building. This is all over the second floor. If you look at my photo A on this scheme, you can see how this is really taken from the street from me standing.
I'm about six feet tall taking the picture and you can see how you don't see the roof. And part of not seeing the roof in the building is because the pitch is really too na too shallow. And it's too shallow because this style of
these houses in the 60s was to be shallow almost to make them look more contemporary, right? We'd like to lift that pitch a little bit. Anyway, sort of like the like the stuff you would see on Hobart Avenue with a better pitch to a roof
than the newer elements when they come in. So I just had these pictures in my file and just looking at them today I thought oh this sort of helps to explain this situation. I come back to my drawing. So back on my BOA1, the
existing survey, the proposed survey, right? The footprint of the building is exactly the same. I come to my existing second floor. All we've done is cut a stairway in over
the stairway that's presently going from the first to the second. to get up to our third floor. We had to do a little modification on the in the hallway to make it occur. But then when we get up to the third floor, we have the stairway up to a common space. We can get two
more bedrooms cuz they just kind of keep having kids, these guys. So, we get two more bedrooms and we get, you know, a full bath out of this. In the front, I added a dormer to help the facade. And in the rear, that's
the shed dorma that goes across the back. We've designed this so um that we conform to all the building code requirements related to the attic or the third story work so
that we're within conformance to those requirements. And if I go on to my elevation sheet, you can kind of see the the top of the existing building is running through there and
hips down. Right. Right. Because it's actually a hip roof. We've pulled that roof off and we put in our new roof with gable ends. So, we stood the ends up really like a colonial, like the way we would think a colonial would look with a
more gabled roof. We went from the hip height of there up to the new ridge height. We raised the ridge about three feet, but we still conformed to building height. All of that still works. And then you can see the shed
dormer that we added in the rear and the new dormer that we added in the front. That's the new dormer in the front. Okay, our new roof. We have this roof. We just reframed to architecturally make it look better. But our building, our
habitable building is occurring in just the primary element of the facade. >> I don't like these little clips on the bottom. Then um if I come to the rear of the existing
building, you can see the old roof, our new roof coming through with the gabled ends and our new shed dormer in the rear, which is really a bedroom, a bathroom, and a bedroom going across the back. If you look at the section again, you can see the
existing ridge and how we came up about three feet to make our new ridge. I'm uh I'm done with that. Any questions related to the drawing or do you want me to just >> finish up with the zoning?
>> I just have one question. >> I know it's a little confusing. I know >> the other the last time you were here, was any of that work done? Was that kitchen little? >> Yeah, we did it. >> You did. Everything Everything was finished. >> Yeah, it worked out fine. >> This still married. Everything seems to be going okay. >> Application. Okay.
>> Yeah. No, completely different. >> Okay. we um all that work is done all you know concealed in the rear. Now really what we're seeking the only variance we're actually seeking tonight is for this
side combined or total sideyard we're allowed to be 35% which would be or was supposed to be at 51.1 ft. This site is existing at 33.78
feet or 23.1% right it's existing non-conforming and the request is to be the same with the new so although right we're intensifying the condition by going up right but the request is not
greater but the same so when we come to propose we say same and that's really the variance we're seeking tonight. >> So, just to clarify, you do agree with Miss Seas's calculations regarding not needing the story variance. >> Yeah, that that actually is um yeah,
that's how we designed it. That's what um that calculation that I just calculations are really calculating. We calculated it out. So, and you guys have
a um a really good fire inspector. I don't know if you know it, but he's very good. He doesn't let anything go. He's not um >> he's very good. >> Thank you. >> Like he'll calculate it again for us. >> Excellent. Uh so with that, board
experts, what questions do you have for this witness? >> Um can you just confirm that you're not adding any additional impervious coverage to the lot with this? >> Yes. No. No more impervious coverage. >> No site work. So because the um additional impervious coverage is less
than 300 ft, they're not required to do any storm water mitigation on it. >> Great. >> Uh just a follow-up question. You had indicated that you concur with our findings, but I believe we were looking at your findings of 51.1
uh% of the lower floor elevation. Correct. So you're less than 60%. >> Yes. >> Okay. So therefore, you would not need that variance. Um, as far as the pitch of the roof, um, the would you comply with a six on 12 for 80% of the roof
area? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, you've done that calculation and confirm. Okay. >> Um, with that, Mr. Chairman, that's the only question we have. >> Thank you, Ed. >> Thank you. Could >> Mr. Clinty, could you just speak a little bit to the positive and negative criteria and kind of frame your argument
in the the context of our zoning? One big thing that this does for this house is it architecturally updates it. It >> gets away from that hipped roof, which is really like a 60s house with a very
limited overhang. Gives me an overhang of, you know, a little over a foot. Gives me a roof pitch that is more like an eight on 12, more compatible with really what the town's what your ordinance is looking for. And
also the gable ends are very helpful because that stops that hip look where you can see I think very clearly in the picture where it almost looks like there is no roof even though you know that the roof is there. This is very different
from a um a 20s or a 30s or a early even early 40s cape which really shows a lot of roof. Right? these 60s houses all tend to be a little flat and don't really exhibit a good roof. So, I think
it's from a positive standpoint, it's architecturally helpful to the neighborhood, helpful to the >> the district itself. And you noticed a lot of the stuff that's occurred in that area has gotten rid of these hipped
roofs and replaced them with a cabled end. the um from the negative side, I guess the only thing I could think of is maybe light casting to a neighbor, you know, blocking of sunlight, but we're far enough away from the property lines that none of that would occur here.
>> Okay, >> great. >> So, I think there is no negative effect. >> Board members, what questions? Mr. Bell, what do you have? U the roof is obviously as you repeatedly said more prominent, more visible and and uh I'd like to know a little bit
more about material decisions. You know, are you replacing in kind with the same type of >> Yeah, I'm sure we're going to put an asphalt roof on. >> And the second >> I'm not going to talk him into a slate roof or something. >> Oh, you didn't talk about materials at all and now you see the roof and before you didn't. So,
>> yeah. >> Second question, >> you know, it would be a dimensional. Yeah, >> asphalt we would normally use slate line because we think it has the best look, right, >> of the asphalt roof. >> Second question, did you or would you consider putting solar panels assuming the orientation works?
>> Um, that's really I think >> the owner I would think this the back >> you're working on the roof. You could structurally take into account any extra weight, you know, making significant change >> really would work well for a >> suggestion. It was a question and a
suggestion. Yeah. >> No, we haven't really talked about it. >> It would be a good Which way is north? >> Yeah. South is here. It would the the dormer roof would be well suited for it here and you wouldn't see them.
>> Yeah. >> You know, >> that's why I ask. Yeah. Thank you. >> Good. >> What other questions? >> I I just got I was reading the city notes about um the if I can if I can read the print here. Hold on. >> Yeah. Uh there's a dormer that
contributes to the sideyard setback deficiency. >> Yes. >> Which one is that? I couldn't figure that out. >> The dormer we >> The one in the back or the one on the side? >> No. Um the front misses, but I can see my green line comes through and
takes you know. Uh >> so it's the I can't read your writing on your print. >> Six feet of the dormer in the back. >> The rear dormer. >> The rear dormer. >> Okay. All right. Do you see that one line that's coming through? >> Yeah, that goes from the front of the house to the back.
>> Yeah. Is it green for you guys or >> So that's technically the sideyard setback. Is that >> is that the building envelope >> combined >> right here? >> Yes. Yeah. Look, it comes real light. >> That's the required side combined line.
So everything from that line to the end of the building is existing >> okay >> non-conforming in this case and >> so what's the set >> the variance request >> what's the setback on the other side house >> the worst case see for us it's bad
because we have to figure the worst case which is 18.76 >> but if you figure it that way >> Mhm. >> I mean that's like 50 feet >> if you if you could >> Yeah. It's a bad situation because you got to figure the length this way, but then you got to figure this side this
way. If you could figure it this way, >> then I wouldn't have I could be home like watching me, >> you know? It's it's bad kind of, right? What I was was doing is, >> you know, my I have to figure my worst
condition on this side and my new condition on the other side. If I could figure my condition from here to here, you know, the picture plane of the building, I would say this would conform to
sideyard setback. It's a little bit like a pies-shaped lot is a really it's a bad lot for um it's a good lot for a variance. It's a bad lot for um
you know for zoning because the zoning is really set up for a rectangular lot. That's all. >> What other questions? >> I just I have one. Um and it's just that your second the dormer that you're adding is actually not the full width of the building. And I think it's probably
worth just sort of putting on record that you're not you're not going a full story up with the width where you're your sideyard setbacks are based on the are they based on the first floor that you're discussing here. >> Yes. >> Right. >> Yes.
>> But on the where you're adding the half story above the second floor, it it's actually there's actually more space in the sideyard, right? 7 feet in from the face of the building to where the dormer starts.
>> And that's that's on if I'm looking at it the plan, it's on the left, but and on the right you're is it also 7 ft. It looks like you >> we actually did it on both. Oh, I see. Yeah, it's about 7 foot 10. >> But on this side, >> we came in 7 foot 10 on each side with the dormator. >> Yeah, >> just we didn't want the dormator to look
too big on the back. And it also >> that's part of the calculation there. they talk about that we can only be I don't know twothirds of the floor below for our area anyway. >> And would you say that one of the um
you know that there's not really as much of a negative because you know there's not really an impact to the neighbors. I noticed uh there didn't seem to be anyone in the backyard >> and then that sideyard looks pretty well screened. >> Yeah. I would say it really
>> when you talk about intensification. Um the only people that would see that are the ones who are living in the house. >> Correct. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Board members. What other questions do we have for this witness? >> Seeing none, um any questions from the
public for this witness? Seeing none. All right. With that, Mr. McPartland, would you like to say anything in conclusion? >> Yeah, thank you for your time and uh hope hope to do the renovation soon. >> Great. Uh any commentary from the
public? Seeing none. All right. With that, Mr. Ball, votes for approval and any conditions. >> Yep. We're only talking about a single C variance here. So, four votes are required to approve and our condition is just the usual one. Compliance with those conditions noted in the board
engineers memorandum. >> Thank you, Andy. So, with that, who'd like to begin our executive session? >> I can start for you. >> I was about to pick on you. >> I can support this application. It's, you know, it's you have a little of a
problem with the with the property being pieshaped. It's really not going to be a big uh obtrusive construction. It's it's it's very if it's very uh fits in with the neighborhood and uh there's not much detriment. The pros outweigh the negative. So I can for sure support uh
this application. >> Thank you Donald Tom. Please. >> Yeah, I I agree. I mean it's all starts with a pie-shaped plot that's causing the sideyard issues there. No bulky area, no coverage, building coverage or F issues, no height issues. So the size
of the structure is not a problem. Um the architectural style according to our own experts and and applicants architect is going to be an improvement on the style of the house and more in keeping with the neighborhood. Um the forester notes to to Miriam's point the forester notes that no landscaping or trees will
be disturbed and that the property is well screened currently. Um and I don't see any substantial detriments to the public good. Um so I can support this as well. Great. No, I I agree with Don and Tom also. I I
appreciate the fact that you're staying on your footprint, right? You're you're coming up. You're not going out in in one direction or another. I always appreciate that. And uh it's obvious that this is um you know contributing to
the neighborhood in terms of the improvement of the architectural style. So uh I could certainly support this application. >> Great. Um, with that, can I get a motion to approve? >> Second.
>> Jessica, >> vice chair? >> Yes. >> Mr. Yuko? >> Yes. >> Mr. Mullen? >> Yes. >> Mr. Nelson? >> Yes. >> Mr. Curran? >> Yes. >> Miss Chief? >> Yes. >> Chairman Lens? >> Yes. All right. Good luck. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. >> Okay.
Okay. To Crest Acre, come on up. Great. Please begin. >> Good evening to the board. Uh again, my name is Lee Schlamowitz. Uh I'd like to commence by giving a very brief opening to lay the groundwork. Then I'll call my two witnesses.
Um, as I've noted already for the board, I represent the homeowners Anthony and Vanessa Ferraro. Um, the applicants are before the board seeking merely a bulk variance relief in connection with a
proposed rear improvement to their existing single family home. Uh the proposal will allow for a ra a rear raised deck and related improvements to provide direct outdoor access from the first floor kitchen area there. This is
a permitted residential use in the R25 zone. Applicants are not seeking a use variance. They're seeking bulk relief for rear yard setback coverage and building coverage. The proposed work is concentrated at the
rear of the home, does not change the front streetscape, and is designed to maintain the home's existing beautiful tutor character. The applicants tonight will present testimony from the architect Karen Koff
and engineer Andrew Clark. They will address the existing conditions, the proposed plans, requested variance, uh the staff comments, grading and drainage issues, um and we'll address the uh detriment uh weighing factors as well. Okay.
>> Um at the end of the testimony, we'll respectfully request the board grant variance. Um and so unless there are further questions, I would call our first witness. >> Great. Please proceed. Uh >> Karen Koff, the architect, please.
All right. Whenever you're ready, if you could raise your right hand. Do you swear from the testimony you're about to give in this matter is the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> And please state your name, spell your last name. >> Karen Caleb. Kh L A F as in Frank. >> Thank you. And can you briefly describe your background and experience for the
board? >> Yes. I'm a licensed architect for 36 years now. and I have a practice in summit for nearly that long and I'm also certified in historic preservation and
I've been before this board many times and boards in other municipalities surrounding summit many times. >> Okay. >> Any questions from the board? Uh I may have missed it but it licensed in New Jersey. >> License in New Jersey and New York. Yes. >> Thank you. Any questions from the board
or would you like to accept her back once again? >> We would. Welcome back. Please proceed. Thank you. >> Okay. So this project is actually fairly simple in terms of the design and
basically the concept is that we are looking to add >> We'll just need to make sure you're talking into that standing microphone there. >> Oh yeah, it's >> okay. Basically, the borrowers would
like to add a deck at the main level of the house off of the kitchen. So, this site is very undersized for the zone and it's also a steep slope lot. So,
essentially what we're looking to do is I'm going to just put this over here so you can hear me. Is this is the existing kitchen right here. It's very narrow. It's not a big kitchen. This is the breakfast area. And we're looking to add a deck so that
it's accessible from the main level. To get to the yard right now, it's necessary to go down a full flight of stairs. And then to get to the main area of the yard, you have to go down another full story. So, to make it a little more
functional of a house, we're proposing a rooftop deck with a fireplace. This way, they could have a grill there. And then underneath that on the lower level, it would be a patio.
There's a patio there now. So, it would be a deck above a patio. And there will be no staircase directly from this first floor deck to go down. Um, so they'll still have to go through the house down the stairs to get outside
or there's also a staircase way over here to get up to the kitchen. And that's pretty much the extent of the design. And then just to show you the back of the house,
it's just a very simple open railing. The railing will be black metal, so it's very transparent. And then there'll be a living space patio area below.
And this house is a beautiful circa 1930 tutor style. And the facade of the house essentially will not be affected at all. And I do have some pictures here.
This would be an exhibit. Should I give it to you just um photographs? They I think that you all got copies of this, I believe, >> but this is an extension. >> Okay. So, we'll mark this as A1. >> Okay.
And then So it's really important. It was very important in the design to maintain the integrity of the original tutor style and the front elevation you can see on those on the photographs.
So there's one thing I want to mention about floor area ratio. We are not proposing to add any floor area but there was a discrepancy in calculating it which is that the existing floor area
calculation that I came up with is 42.3%. Which is very high for the zone. Um as it turns out I reviewed this with Chris Nola. As it turns out, there was a
variance granted for F, which again we're not increasing at all. But just to clarify so that the numbers are on record, there was a F variance for 28% granted in I believe it was 1989, which
we didn't know anything about. As it turns out, if we were to subtract the basement level and the attic level, the number comes out to about 28.3%.
So, Chris, Nicole, and I figured that they must have not included the attic in the basement when the variance was granted about 20 years ago. and I have documentation an exhibit
which is the F calculations that I've done. So the F is correct. Now it's high, but again, we're not increasing. >> I I have a question since you're bringing that up because I >> we'll mark this additional exhibit as A2. Then >> um there's also dis I think a
discrepancy between the survey and your plan. On the survey, it says the existing max floor area ratio, it says it's 34.87 square ft. >> So yeah. So that was a discrepancy because I had only included a portion of
the basement level and that is why I'm I'm submitting the corrected floor area ratio. So So I see what you're saying. So on >> yeah that Andrew Caleb, can you speak into the microphone please? >> Yeah, you can uh pick it up.
>> Yeah. Oh yeah, >> thank you. >> Okay, that's better now. >> So can you go over that again? >> Yes. So what happened was the F on Andrew's plan was actually provided by me and initially I did not calculate any
basement area in the F. So then after I gave Andrew the F calculation, I added in a portion of the basement and that's why there's a discrepancy between the architectural F
and Andrew Clark's site plan F. Does that answer your question? >> Um, yes. But has like has anybody been able to verify the numbers then on what's counted in the basement and so that >> Yes. So, so what I just provided to as
an exhibit is the correct calculations that Chris Nola reviewed and agreed was correct. So, I can show you this if you'd like. >> 4751. >> Pardon me. to 4751.
>> Correct. >> So basically all of the garage all of the basement level counts except for the existing garage. So that is correct. Now >> um
this looks like more than 596 square ft. So >> yeah, this would you like to see this exhibit? This is the corrected. >> I see. and that all of the hatched in area shows the F that counts per floor. And it was complicated by the fact that
there it's actually good that it came up that there was a variance in 1989 because we have a correct F calculation now. So, >> which is the 4751, >> correct? >> So, what's it going to be with the >> we're not adding any floor area down at
all. Not any, not even one square foot. >> Okay. >> So, um, but we wanted it, of course, to be correct on the record. Yeah. >> And then I just want to also point out that the facade of the house again is
not changing at all. This is in the back, this deck, so it's not visible from the public right of way. And there's really no negative effect on the public right from the public right
ofway point of view. And Andrew Clark will talk more about the nuances of the problem with the site itself. It's a very narrow lot. It's greatly undersized for the zone. And I did a calculation that if this were the correct square
footage, the lot area, it's supposed to be 25,000 square ft. The existing is 11,225 square ft. >> So, it's less than half of what it's supposed to be. And of course, when the house was built, it was built on a very
small lot. Um, but if it were 25,000 square ft, we would not need a lot coverage, building coverage, or F variance. I know that's not law. You know, it's not a reason for you to grant a variance, but I just thought it was an
interesting point to point out. >> Did you you did say when the house was built, right? The 1930s. >> Correct. Around 1930, late 20s, 1930. >> Thank you. Um, board experts, what questions do you have for this witness?
>> Um, I think I'm saving mine for the engineer. >> Okay. Uh just regarding you're putting a deck over top of the first floor or the lower level patio area, >> correct? >> Are there any intentions to enclose that patio on the lowest level? And an applicant would stipulate to that.
>> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Great. >> A couple questions. >> Mr. Fins, please. >> Can you go into the the dimensions why you laid out the deck the way it is? I thought you saw one note about a fireplace, but can you talk about that? >> Yes. Yes. >> And as you talk about that, the second
part of that is, is there a reason why you did not connect the deck to the existing stairs or replace the existing stairs with to provide access down? >> The existing stairs, which are way over here,
lead to stairs that go down to the lower grass area, which is way back here, which is about 8 ft lower than this level. So, I did explore possibly putting a staircase off of the deck over here, but it became very problematic
because of the site in terms of the steepness and the flow to go down to the lower yard. They essentially have very little musical yard here. So, you have to go full flight down. And that staircase, like I said, is right here.
>> Okay. So that was basically >> and then the just the dimensions for the why you chose those that dimension versus going something a little bit narrower. >> Okay. So basically we did want to get a a wood burning fireplace on this level
and there's a distance from the house that's required according to the building code. So I had to shift the fireplace back which is why it's not centered this way so that the chimney flu is above and away from the house
certain distance is required by code. So basically this footprint is pretty much above the existing patio space. So the intent was to maintain the size of the existing patio. >> So the existing patio is not being
increased in any real way. >> No. Yeah. a few feet, but really that's more the nature of the footprint of the chimney. So, it's a very minimal increase. So, that was the intent so that the living space below would
basically reflect what's there. Now, >> thank you. >> Okay. >> Is the uh is the deck going to be visible from the neighboring property? >> Not really because it's very high up. So, there's a pro and Andrew can speak more about it. Um, there's a property
really far back, but it's below. And then there's a property to the side that it would be somewhat visible from, but Andrew Clark can speak more to that. >> Dave, I believe uh Mr. Lintson weighed
in on that too in his review. So maybe Mr. Clark could speak to that. >> Well, yeah. I mean to that point I guess because the applicant is not here. Do you know if the applicant spoke to that neighbor the back Oh yeah, you are here. Okay. Sorry I didn't see you there.
Those um the um you did you speak to the backyard neighbor to see whether >> we consulted all of our neighbors. >> Yep. Yep. >> So I will have to just swear you in quickly if you could raise your right hand. Do you swear from testimony you're about to give in this matter is the
truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. >> Yes. And please state your name. Spell your last name. >> Anthony Ferraro. F is in Frank. E R R A R O. >> Thank you. >> Um, yes. We consulted all of our neighbors well in advance of of the hearings.
>> Thank you. >> Uh, any questions from the public for this witness? Seeing none. Okay, great. Applicants will call uh engineer Andrew Clark. >> 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. >> Andrew Clark. C L A R K E. >> Thank you. And you've appeared before us a number of times, including recently. Any changes to your credentials since the last time you were here? >> No, sir. Welcome back. >> I imagine we will accept you back once again.
>> Thank you, Mr. Clark. What I am first going to do is I think we're at A4 >> uh A3 >> A3. >> Yes. >> Um so it was requested because I I think somehow in the shuffle of the application process I did a standalone
survey. Um it's also the survey is also on my main plan but this is the plan that has the height calculations and the story above grade calculations that I think required some verification. So I'll just hand those out real quick.
Take me. >> Thank you. Thank you. So that is the existing condition survey um that was uh done as a standalone. It's the same um basic survey. It's the
same survey as what appears on the lock grading plan which I'm referring to as uh the lock rating plan I prepared dated February 17th, 2026. And um the only thing that's different about it is it's got the height calculation and the story above grade
calculation. And so the story above grade calculation is of particular interest obviously for the F that that was discussed uh a few moments ago. Um clearly when there's a story above grade with the basement then the basement counts in the F excluding the garage um
as per the normal. So that's that's part of the basic trigger that caused the difference between the earlier variance application and this application in terms of those numbers. Um, so I'll then describe my plan. The existing conditions uh is on the left side of my
lot grading plan. And the dwelling sits in approximately the center of the lot and the patio is just behind it with a walk that connects over to a set of stairs that go down to the rear yard area. Driveways on the right. Um, this is an undersized lot as was
mentioned, a little less than half uh what the zone requires of 25,000 square feet. Uh, there are a number of nonconformities that are existing and have long existed, it would appear, um, including the building coverage, the lot
coverage, and, uh, the rear yard setback of the main dwelling. Um, we are seeking a variance for the rear yard setback for the deck because it's slightly closer than the dwelling is. Um, but yeah, this property is a little sloped. If you've
ever driven down Crestacre Court, you immediately get nervous when you drive in cuz it's a little bit narrow and then it winds around. Crestacre actually comes past this lot and then wraps around the neighboring lot 11. And then this little finger of on the top there,
it's not labeled there, but that's the very end of the rightofway of Crest Acre is right there. That little piece on the top part. Um, so this street wraps around. It also slopes down significantly from Crest Acre to the rear uh as was noted in uh the the
engineering review memo. So, we're at, you know, about 208 at the highest point in the front down to about 187 uh in the back. Right. Now, it the interesting thing about that in this case is that most of the lot, almost all of it is not
actually steep slopes by definition because this property is basically like three tiers or three layers to the property. the front yard, sort of its own layer, and then this the driveway comes down significantly to the garage,
which is a garage under on the basement level. And then that is the second level where the patio is. It's basically on grade with the basement. And then you have these stairs that go down in the left side that bring you down to the yard area in the back. So there's a substantial retaining wall in between
there that separates them. So, even though there's a lot of grade change, it's not actually steep slopes except for the driveway itself. Um, that's that's the only area right there that is steep slopes, which we won't be disturbing in the course of any
construction for this project. So, what we're proposing to do, as was indicated and is shown on the right side on the proposed conditions, is construct the deck over top of where the existing patio is. Um the
there is an 85 square foot increase in lot coverage just uh attributable to the makeup of the fireplace and there's a slightly different we're going to bring the the patio. There's a little gap between the house and the and the patio there and we'll probably just square
that off and and plus the decks over top of it anyway so it's filling in as coverage regardless. Um so we increase 85 square ft. I did not see any specific or notable drainage concerns on this property or adjacent to it. Um the
neighbors hadn't indicated anything. Often they come out when I'm doing the survey and and voice their concerns when that comes up. I also did a project in the back. So I'm familiar with the neighborhood um in terms of the drainage. And again, even though it's a
lot of grade change, because of those flattened areas and those levels, those tears, if you will, um you don't have the the kind of runoff issues that you would normally expect. The only area where there is some runoff issue that does happen is the driveway itself. And
part of it is because in a heavy inundation, I think some water clears the depressed curb and comes down from the street. Um and there's a drain in the back right corner. It was very difficult to understand exactly where it's going, but from conversation with um a couple of the
owners in this neighborhood, I believe that it goes into the drains that are on the neighboring property and makes its way back to the inlet that's in the corner of the um rightway in the back down at the bottom. But all that said, it all seems to function and and do its
job. So, I didn't notice any kind of erosion or or problematic issues with the drainage. Now, in terms of the deck and its impact on any neighbors in the rear, which you would think would be the main area where there might be some impact. Again, this this deck is going
to be up a bit. And since it slopes down so far, the neighbor on lot 10 behind us, their nearest point of their property is the garage. And then in front of the garage is a stone driveway that comes out to the to the end of the
street there. So, where the deck sits is directly opposite their driveway. Um, and along the back line, there's the fence, but along that back line, and I don't have them very well labeled, but there the little circles that are there of variable sizes. There are a number of
significant trees in there, and several of them are evergreen trees. They're pine trees or white pine and I I I don't know what the other ones are, but there's a number of um evergreens in here that that are quite mature. So, they provide a lot of screening and
block certainly on that higher level where the deck is. Um you know, I think Mr. Linson just wanted to make sure there was proper screening to put screening in down here. It would have to be so big which would take an enormous amount of
time and also be challenged by the existing u growth that's on the neighboring property. I don't think it would be a very effective measure beyond what already exists there. It's it's very difficult to see the the deck. I went there before our last meeting when
we had the technical difficulties and um standing in there it's it's almost difficult to even see the neighbor's driveway. So, I don't think there's going to be any substantial or significant impact to that neighbor. The only other neighbor would be the neighbor to the right, but actually at the end of the driveway and sort of
right before the patio, there's again some significant mature screening. It's arborites, I believe, but uh it's pretty thick in there and and I think that is definitely um going to do the job in terms of the neighbor directly adjacent. So I don't I don't foresee any negative
impacts from the deck in terms of its location and um and the height. The um setback as I indicated is closer to the rear line. So we do have a rear yard setback because the deck of course is considered building coverage. So where
the existing building is 29.6 this the deck at the nearest point is 25.3 ft. And so it's a little bit closer but uh not not significantly. And so that that gives the overview of
the whole project. I at this point I guess I'd probably just go for questions unless there's >> great. What questions do you have for Mr. Clark? >> So um I recognize that you only have an increase of 85 square feet. Um but it
already is over the lot coverage. >> That's right. Um and technically the ordinance is really written to say if there's been a an accumulated um coverage of more than 300 square feet, right? >> Do you know if there has been any um
coverage in the in the past few years? So >> at some point that would have increased it greater than 300 ft. I dug in a little bit and and I would say there has not been based upon what I found was um
a previous survey from 2008 that has as I can tell the identical makeup on the property. So it seems like the coverage profile was exactly the same going back to at least 2008. >> Okay. >> Um may have been sometime before that,
but that's what I have confirmation of. So, it's been substantial amount of time. >> Okay. >> And normally, as you know, I would, you know, >> push for some storm water management regardless, especially when we have this type of coverage situation. But given
the peculiar and and you sort of unique layout of this property, it would make actually putting even a drywall in very challenging. You'd almost have to come from the lower level across the neighbor's lot, and I think it would end up doing more harm than good. >> Understood. Understood. Great. Thank
you. >> Thanks, Ed. Uh, just to confirm, and I think the forester had already opined on this, you don't see any tree removal being necessary for the construction. >> Definitely. >> Okay. Uh, from the a variance standpoint, you talked about the particularities of the site.
>> Do you see any other way for an applicant to add a deck at that upper level in order to serve the kitchen area? Is is this is like the only area available? It's the only I'd say feasible or a practical practicable area. >> Okay.
>> Um, anything else would cause more intrusion into the rear yard and and and probably be uh substantially uh more impactful than than where it's currently located. >> And it seems to be related to the particularities of the site itself. >> Absolutely. >> Been configured on there.
>> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. No, nothing further. >> Thanks, Ed. Board, what questions do you have for Mr. Clark? When making your design, did you consider building a smaller landing and a staircase down to the patio?
>> Well, I don't think that was considered. Um, it it it would probably diminish substantially the patio itself. Um, to do that, it's a it's a little tricky back there. the way it's set up. I mean, even the way they did the stairs, it's over on the other
side of the of the area where the patio is and seems to serve a different purpose. I'm not sure how often it's used, but um I mean I I didn't go too far into that cuz there's doors on the bottom and then there's, you know, the the arrangement where you'd have to have
the doors on top um would would you'd almost end up being like, well, let's enlarge the patio a little bit. I'm not sure that's better or worse. is a patio car. >> Uh, dimensionally, I'm not actually sure. I don't have specific linear dimensions on it,
but it's I mean, it looks like about >> ballpark. >> Yeah, it looks like about maybe 16 or 18 feet deep total and maybe 20 ft wide. >> Sure. You're sworn in. So yeah, the patio is
>> just into a microphone, please. >> 17 ft >> 5 in deep from the house to the back and the width of it is 24t 6 in. >> A bad eyeball. What other questions do we have for this
webinar? >> I don't I there's a couple that popped up for the architect, but maybe I could do it now. >> Sure. >> So, um I don't know if this is for the architect or for for Mr. Clark, but the the fireplace, is it a two-le fireplace
or just one? Is there a fireplace on the first floor? a great patio. >> It is a two-le fireplace and there is one on the patio level and then one on the deck level. >> Okay. Were the was were the height of the chimney ever resolved about this? Yes. You're higher than the peak or
>> Yes. Okay. >> What the code states is that the chimney has to be more than 10 ft away. >> How about the height though? >> And the height has to be more than >> three feet I believe. more than it has
to be 3 ft above the distance of the chimney from the house. So, let's just say it's 10 ft away from the house. >> The chimney has to be 3 ft above any plane within that distance >> because there was a discussion about a
window >> being that close. So, one of the concerns that I have uh with the with the fireplace is um and this is my my previous career coming out here. If there's ever a problem with that fireplace on the P on the upper
level, >> they have to go through the house >> to do any kind of suppression operations on that patio. They have no I mean, they could throw a ladder up, >> but then they got to go all the way around the back of the house. So just be
aware of that that you know outside stairs might be beneficial but if you don't want them you don't want them but just be cog aware of >> Yeah I see what you're saying. So in other words if there were a fire in the upper level chimney they would have to go through the doors to the kitchen and
then down that side staircase. >> Okay. >> Well well the second floor they got to go right through the house >> through the house the front door. Whatever. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. >> Well there's a road that runs I mean, I know it's not mapped, but >> course goes behind there.
>> Yeah. I mean, there's there's kind of roadway on two sides. >> It's an outdoor, you know, so and all that stuff. I'm just thinking, you know, >> it keeps going >> down the road. They don't Who cleans an outside fireplace? You know what I'm saying? So, you got a chimney fire, you got to extinguish it, blah blah blah.
>> So, >> so maybe they should >> make it a gas fireplace. Um I >> I've done those before and I haven't had one that had a fire, but um >> I've I've experienced them. >> Oh yeah. Scary.
>> Um go ahead. >> I just I have a question that it's something I didn't notice before, but just another it seems like it's a discrepancy between the survey and so the the on the survey the patio says it's 196.8.
Oh, no. That's that's that's the elevation, not I'm looking at I'm like I was thinking that was the square footage. I'm like wait. >> Yeah, that's the elevation. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. >> All right. So, no question. >> Mystery solved. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bell,
>> I have a question um that reiterates maybe expands upon the question that was first asked from the table uh which relates probably more to the architecture than the planning. Um, if if it's precluded to ever enclose the
patio area as a habitable room, um, does that extend also to the possibility of adding temporary screens for mosquito season? I can imagine a screen porch being very desirable there in certain months of the year. Um, and I would argue if I were an architect that
that's not an enclosed habitable space. >> That is not the intent and it won't be enclosed. I I don't think that Ferraris have any intention doing that. >> And just just for clarification, what does enclosure mean in this regard? Because, you know, maybe five years from now, 3 years from now, August, you know,
you might have second thoughts about that when the mosquitoes are out. >> That's a good point. >> Don't give it away. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions? No. Seeing none, any questions from the public? Seeing none. All right. Anything you'd like to
say in conclusion? Just very briefly, I'll speak to the statutory balancing. Um I think uh Ms. Caof and Mr. Clark made very plain uh that this is a non-conforming lot. Uh the hardship requiring the um variances
that we're here for this evening uh arise as a result of the specific nature, shape, and topography of this lot. Um it's a small lot. It's a slope terrace yard. Um, and as it relates to the benefits, um, and the detriment, uh,
first of all, these improvements will be made to the rear exclusively. The front facade, uh, will not in any way bear any improvements or changes. It will improve the architecture of the building and therefore enhance the, uh, appearance of
the community as well. Um, and I think there was extensive testimony this evening about the landscaping and sort of the enclosure of the property um, and uh, thereby reducing any detriment to the neighbor. So, uh, neighbors. So, that that all being said, uh, we
appreciate your time and attention this evening. >> Great. Thank you so much. Any comments from the public? Seeing none. All right, Mr. Paul, what do we have for conditions and number of votes? >> So, once again, we are dealing only with C variances. So four votes are required
to approve the application. I do have two conditions noted. U first is our usual one compliance with the conditions noted in the board engineers memorandum. Uh and then second as we were discussing that the applicant shall not permanently enclose the patio area under the proposed deck and thank you Mr. Bell. We
added permanently into that condition there to address that potential situation. >> All right with that who'd like to begin? Um I this application is basically looking to make it the access to the um
outdoor space just more a little more um feasible um livable for the house for so that you can go from the kitchen to the outside which I um I think we all appreciate being able to get right outside and to have a place to eat and sit right out you know um instead of
going down all the stairs. So I'm I can support this. I think it's um it's a it's it's something that I think everybody should be able to have access to the outside um within reach and I think it's it's a reasonable ask and the the lots the lot is an odd shape the
topography of the lot um and I understand why you're here for a varian so I fully support this. >> Thank you Alison Tom. >> Yeah I agree with all that. I think just important to also note that the forester said the existing landscaping provides thorough screening. So he's not at all concerned about the deck being in
position on the neighbors. Um and as was noted it's a hardship lot. So I I can support this as well. >> I'm going to take a little bit of a different view on that. Just I I think the certainly there's a hardship on the lot. You know I think we all agree it's an undersized lot. I would say when I went
out to the property, I was looking at the neighbor's window looking at the where the location of the deck was and I did see the potential for some sort of visual impact. You have chimney in front of you. You also will be looking down on the applicant potentially eating dinner.
So, I think there is the potential for a negative impact. I also think about the boards and this is going back several years but we've had an historical orientation against raised decks and I can personally remember several cases
where this board although constituted differently took took a very stern view against them and required that landings be built with staircases down. You know, the reason I was asking about the size of the deck was to make sure you or the patios to
make sure that there was an adequate outdoor area that could be utilized. It seems that there is. It also seems that although we have this hardship, we're going a little bit further on building coverage. Doing a landing as opposed to a full deck does reduce that building
coverage. So, you know, I I get it and I understand the desire to have something immediately off the kitchen, but I also think about similar cases where this board has looked at it differently and, you know, I'm struggling with it.
>> Anyone else? I'm I cons I'm a little concerned that there's no stairs to get off the deck. I I look at it from the safety aspect. You might not see it that way, but that that's kind of what my my background is. Uh and then there's a gas not only is
there fireplace, but there's also a gas grill and just access to that is is but I I didn't know about the the raised deck issues from years ago. I I I wasn't privy to that, but I don't know if that's
I can see how that fits into this scenario. Um, I am quite familiar with the house behind them. Um, and I'm worried about the water that may run off, but I noticed the slope goes toward the street and we have that condition that that the engineer throws in to
monitor it for two years. Am I correct? >> Uh, we didn't specifically talk. >> Oh, I thought that was Can we add that the condition for water? >> Yeah, I think I think we should because they're already over coverage. >> Yeah. So, um, I'm kind of I'm again, I get the idea of what you want to do. I'm
a little torn. Um, but I I think I can support this, but I'm I'm a little I don't know. I'm kind of on the fence. Does that make sense? No, that's good. >> I'm a little I I feel similarly about the stairs. I feel that if you are
trying to bring the outside, get have connectition to the outside, that's your whole yard. And the idea that you're sort of on a patio, but you can't even reach the yard from the patio. That lack of connectivity, it feels there's a part
of a safety issue, but there's also I guess there's just a a functionality and you still then have to go. So we're we're offering a var we would be approving a variance where then when you want to go to the yard you have to go in
the house and walk all the way through the house downstairs and then I see like actually the in practice this deck then I see potentially coming back for another variance to put in a staircase because you're going to be here for the same setback issues.
I don't know. I I I do I I think for several reasons a a staircase would make sense here. >> So there's a reason why I asked the questions that I did was specifically about that. Just so that everybody's like for the board to understand this.
If we were to go with that approval and say connect the new deck to the existing staircase landing that goes down, it's over a pathway. It looks like it's over a brick walk. So other than a
conceptualized proposed window seat, I'm not sure how much of an impact this would be, >> meaning from a a variance request. >> So I agree with you. I've had decks where I've had access to and had access where we didn't have access and I will say I'm always with from a safety point
of view, functionality point of view, and if we were to propose them to go back and look at connecting it, that could solve some of them. Um, you know, uh, not really sure about the prior
rulings of what we did and did not do, but I get your concern and particularly looking down on other people. So, I get that, but I know the vegetation here is pretty pretty intense and I would always support having a deck that is much more usable than having kids stumble
downstairs carrying things, potentially getting hurt. >> So, I do want to jump in briefly on two points. I know we've talked about the prior rulings. Um certainly those are not presidential in any manner. Each application stands on its own and I I just don't want to give the impression that we are, you know, suggesting that
the board should examine those as being a a basis for the decision tonight. Um then I also wanted to note that as Mr. Nelson had raised a potential condition addressing storm water. So what we'll ordinarily do council is a condition that the board maintains storm water
jurisdiction for a period of two years after completion of the improvements. That way if for some reason this construction does adversely impact storm water um if any neighbors complain, they can bring it back to ideally the city and it's corrected, but if there continues to be a dispute, they can come
back before the board uh for us to re-examine the issue. So any issues with that as an additional condition on the approval tonight? Um, I'd like to just convene with the engineer real quick. >> No objection. >> Thank you.
>> So, um, you have two choices right now. Talk to your client about adding a stair. You guys can take time if you want to, you know, step in the hallway and have that conversation or we
could proceed with a vote right now. But pretty sure I know how that's going to go, so it's really up to you. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I'd like to convene with my client. Thanks very much. I can't reset up password. Oh, see I had
the same I emailed him and said maybe can we get a phone call tomorrow because maybe he has to >> Yeah, I emailed him to some black hole. >> Yeah, I've had I've had problems for months where I just
stop working and then >> I could say refresh and one day it would work again, but this time it just stopped. This is definitely a common issue we're having across both boards like >> Okay. So, um I'll read
>> that's already >> because he's not getting the emails from the city of Summit. >> You can text. My last email was on May's >> 18th was the last email I ever >> You got to get that fixed.
>> Once once in a blue moon >> business is here. So >> yeah, >> just building that's what >> yes
>> I said like this knock down the house >> additional ground Right. >> All right, guys. We're going to take care of a little house cleaning since we have a a pause. if you're if you're cool with that.
>> So, Jessica, can you read through the resolutions for memorialization? >> I'm sorry. >> Sorry. We're going to do a little house as we have. >> Yeah. I If I may, um I know we sent draft resolutions out to the applicants.
Um council for 19 Ridge Road did request that we hold off on adopting that resolution tonight. They did want additional time to review it. Um, so I would recommend that we make a motion to table the resolution for 19 Ridge Road until the following meeting on June 15th.
>> Can I get a motion to table? So move. >> Second. >> Second. >> Um, is this only the eligible voting members for the resolution? >> This is just procedural. So, >> okay. So, just >> All in favor? >> All in favor? >> I.
>> Any opposed? >> Okay, great. Uh, 35 Bedau. All right. The first resolution we have for memorialization is 35 Bedau, zoning board application number ZB-25-2288. The eligible voting members are Mr.
Yuko, Mr. Nelson, Miss Chief, Mr. Feskins, Chairman Lyz, and Mr. Chantuli. Could we get a motion to approve? >> Some moved. >> Second. >> Mr. Yuko? >> Yes. >> Mr. Nelson? >> Yes. >> Miss Chief? >> Yes. >> Mr. Fes? >> Yes. >> Chairman Lett?
>> Yes. >> Mr. Chinuli? >> Yes. Next up, we have 36 Dale Drive, zoning board application number ZV-26-2326. The eligible voting members are Mr. Yuko, Mr. Nelson, Miss Chief, Mr. Feskins, Chairman Lyets, and Mr. Chulie.
Could we get a motion? So moved. >> Second. >> Mr. Yuko, >> yes. >> Mr. Nelson, >> yes. >> Miss Chief, >> yes. >> Mr. Fes, >> yes. >> Chairman Ly, >> yes. >> Mr. Chantuli, >> yes. And then lastly, we have two Beakman
Road zoning board application number ZB-26-2325. The eligible voting members are Mr. Yuko, Mr. Nelson, Miss Chief, Mr. Feskins, Chairman Loy, and Mr. Chantuli. Could we get a motion? >> So move second.
>> Mr. Yuko, >> yes. >> Mr. Nelson, >> yes. >> Miss Chief, >> yes. >> Mr. Fes, >> yes. >> Wets, >> yes. >> Mr. Chantuli, >> yes. And then up next we have the minutes for memorialization from April 6, 2026. The eligible voting members are vice chairs
on Mr. Yuko, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Curran, Miss Chief, Mr. Feskins, Mr. Chantuli, and Chairman Ly. Could we get a motion to approve? >> So moved. >> And a second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed?
>> Thank you. >> Thank you guys. Appreciate that. back and the steps. >> Our last bit of business, we'll still wait till the end so we can go into close session. >> Yeah. What was that? When you said that one of the guys
who was like balcony was never >> I thought it was actually been in my mind ever since. You're looking down the bar on the right or
>> but it wasn't the fireplace. >> Yeah, >> this is this is >> I'm okay. Scared to drive home, but I'm okay otherwise. >> I don't Maybe it was the I don't remember. >> It wasn't that I didn't realize that was like an
option. >> 200 foot big family about that. I was like I would be doing 15 ft away from the house >> and it had to be
at least I know I know we always She likes >> Yeah. >> Thanks everyone for your patience. Uh after convening with my client um with the board's indulgence, I'd ask Mr. Clark very briefly to explain what we
believe may be a concession um to satisfy the board's concern. >> Absolutely. >> Thanks very much. >> Yeah, I apologize for the delay, but we just want to make sure we thought it through properly. It looks like the best way to incorporate a set of stairs from
that lower level up to the deck would be right along the house itself towards the driveway. So, start the stairs right there, sort of between the proposed walkway and the and the garage area of the house, and just bring them straight down towards the driveway. Okay.
>> Um, it appears there's ample room in there. We we aren't interfering with any uh important windows or other doorways. Um, in terms of coverage, I would say as as a reasonable estimate, it's 4 foot
wide set of stairs. That's probably 12 steps. So 48 ft and a little bit of a landing on the bottom where you hit the driveway. So maybe 50 or 55 square ft. So it still adds to the coverage a little bit, but we're still underneath
the 300 ft increase. So I think we're still in the same position in that regard, but we would have to amend the lot coverage number slightly to reflect that >> and building >> and the building coverage because of the nature of the deck. You have a proposed walkway. So,
>> yeah. So, the walkway is going to the patio underneath. >> Okay. Oh, so you're doubling. >> So, it would be between that walkway and and and right along the house. >> So, you would have the patio the walkway come around the stairs or you actually >> Well, no. So, so the walkway would come in and then the stairs would come down,
you know, in between where the walkway is and the house and the and the stairs are coming down from the deck towards the driveway. See what I'm saying? >> Okay. And then the walkway would remain as it is to access at the ground level the the patio underneath. >> So for those board members who express
some concerns about egress from the deck, does this satisfy your concerns? >> Yeah. Mr. >> Yeah, I have no objection. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> How how do we cover this? Do we do we put it in our resolution not to exceed x
square feet? >> Yeah, I was just about to ask that. Do you have a rough estimate that you're >> Yeah, I mean the the rough estimate the stairs themselves would be about 48 square ft. So I mean if you wanted to be a little conservative, call it 60
another 60 ft beyond uh what's what's on the drawings. It's subject to our experts review and confirmation. Yeah, I mean I can verify that and send out some emails tomorrow. >> Yeah, I think that sounds fair. Do we have anyone that can run those numbers
very quickly and give percentages of a not to exceed on both lot and building coverage >> based on the 60, right? >> Based on 60. Yes. >> Uh and then so what we would additionally do is a condition that says the applicants will revise their plans
in accordance with this latest revision. think those will be submitted to the board engineers for review and approval. >> Thank you. >> Great. >> Okay. >> Any other >> Sorry. >> We'll just I guess we could address any other questions, but they are going to
get the those figures for us. >> Great. Uh while they're working that out, are there any other questions from the board? >> Mr. B. >> I guess it's it's a it's a question. You know, my first reaction was that they're proposed being proposed as going the
wrong way because it doesn't bring people into the garden. Um, on reflection though, I guess my question in the form of question is part of the functionality of the stair apart from the safety concerns expressed is u access for other functional purposes
including I could see here delivery parties uh removal trash to recycling area. So, it actually may be serving a uh a better purpose going what looks like the wrong way. Was that part of your discussion in the hallway? That's the question.
Functionality going into the driveway rather than >> Precisely. And and specifically, we talked about pulling up the car, then you can go up into the into the patio, bring it right into the kitchen. There is a functionality aspect to it. >> Yeah. I know. I was just thinking kids going down the stairs to play in the garden. They're going the wrong way.
Absolutely. Maybe it's not really just for the >> They could get to the base of that landing and turn right around and go uh through the brick pathway to the patio and and out back. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> So those numbers would be for the building coverage 2375
square ft which is 21.2% 2% rapid and the lock coverage would be 4, 320, which is 38.5%.
>> Um, can I how do for 4,320? Well, I had 4256 >> plus 60 >> plus 60 and just for the sake of clarity and
conserviveness, I raised 4316 to 4320. >> But we've already been conservative going from 48 ft to 60 square ft for the stairs, right? >> Well, yeah. I mean, I haven't this I'm
hallway designing this one, so it's I mean this is all >> yeah I mean in terms of percentage they both they both end up at 38.5% >> wait that's the building cover Okay.
2372.6. So 21.2. Mr. Clark. >> Yeah. >> You had mentioned that you had started with I think it was 4,200 square ft thereabouts for total coverage. >> The propo total proposed coverage was 4,256
on the plan. But on the exhibit you just handed out tonight, you had it 4171. >> That's existing. That's existing. Okay. >> Yeah. I'm starting from our proposed coverage. >> Thank you. >> Makes sense. >> Okay. >> Yes.
>> Just do a follow up in the question I just asked. Uh I I I'm looking for a photo I took of the house doing a quick driveway before the last scheduled hearing. And I remember the driveway I think being asphalt. >> Correct.
>> Um from the back wall where the stair proposed stair discussed stair is being inserted would it be possible to change the paving material only of that back portion after the vehicular portion ends to try to whether that's real permeable
paving or just some paving block. And I'm suggesting even though it has no DRRO advantage from a coverage point of view to differentiate the paving material back of the back wall of the house where the stair is so that it looks more like a pedestrian area than a
vehicular area. Even though if it's the correct kind of pavers and you know them, you know, a car could park there and if if it were necessary, it would still from a safety point of view clarify that the primary user is the kids, is the pedestrians going down the stair and onto the walkway as was
suggested. Not the whole driveway, just that little >> would have to weigh in on course. It is a cost, but it would also cosmetically, architecturally, urbanistically, suburbanistically look better in my opinion. >> I think it's something you could certainly take under consideration, but
I don't know that we need to make it a condition of approval. >> No, not a condition. You can't because it has no zoning advantage, but it has a pragmatic uh advantage in two ways. So, I'm making it as a suggestion, not a condition. >> Sure. Okay.
I think it does help with the even though it counts as it would count as imperous cover if it's somewhat pvious it helps the storm water issue because now if you add another 64 square ft now you're at 150 square ft extra with which
is still less than 300 square feet but this is already a house that is over the max allowed and doesn't have storm water management so that's a way If >> Yeah. And and someday the ordinance will catch up, but it does have a hydraologic
advantage. Absolutely. And and even though that's not recognized at this table. >> Not yet. Not yet. Next year. Great. Anything else? No.
All right. Uh with that, can I get a motion to approve? >> So moved. >> Second. Thank you, Don. Jessica, can you please call the role >> vice chair on? >> Yes. >> Mr. Yuko? >> Yes. >> Mr. Mullen?
>> No. >> Mr. Nelson? >> Yes. >> Mr. Curran? >> Yes. >> Miss Chapo? >> Yes. Chairman Litz? >> Yes. >> Thank you. Good luck. Thank you. Thanks very much. >> All right. Standing up here.
>> That's why we have seven of us. for 11 of us. >> So, with that, um, if the board can stick around, we'll release our experts. We're going to go into close session. Um, and I'll
>> which Mr. Ball will yes briefly address the board >> and I'll read the resolution uh in full. So as whereas the open public meetings act permits the exclusions of the public from meetings of public bodies in certain circumstances set forth by statute and whereas the zoning board of
adjustment of the city of summit is of the opinion that such circumstances currently exist. Now therefore be it resolved by the zoning board of adjustment of the city of summit as follows. One, the public shall be excluded from the discussion of any action upon the hear and after specified matters. Two, the nature of the subject matter to be discussed as follows.
Confidential personnel matters. Three, it's anticipated at this time the above stated subject matter will be made public in approximately 30 days or at such time as any litigation discussed as resolved. >> Okay. Is the is our guy in the back stop? >> We just need a a motion and a second on
that. >> Can we get a motion going to close session? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Second. >> I'll second it. >> Jessica. >> Vice Chair Zon. >> Yes. >> Mr. Yuko. >> Yes. >> Mr. Mullen. >> Yes. >> Mr. Nelson. Yes, >> Mr. Curran.
>> Yes, >> Miss Chief. >> Yes, >> Chairman Lincoln. >> Yes. >> Excuse, right? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you both so much. Appreciate it. Have a good night. There's one here.