Yeah, that's first application >> grandchildren. >> Yeah. Okay. >> I think there's like eight and then eight. Pretty tight, I think. Good evening and welcome to the December 1st, 2025 meeting of the city summit zoning board of adjustment. My name is
Scott Loy. I'm the board chair. Please rise and join us in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice
for all. >> Thank you. >> In accordance with New Jersey statute 104-10, adequate notice of this 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 the what the board may legally consider in reaching a decision. Decorum appropriate to a judicial hearing must be maintained at all times. For the benefit of the interested public, this meeting is being livereamed on the city's YouTube page, also broadcast on Summit's government
channel, 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 that the fire exits are to my right, your left, and at the back of the room where you entered. The city has a
listening system to assist the hearing impaired. If anyone needs hearing assistance, please obtain the system at the deis and return it there afterwards. Miss Ans, can you please call the role? >> Vice Chair Zon >> here. >> Mr. Yuko >> here. >> Mr. Malay is expected but not yet
present. Mr. Nelson >> here. >> Mr. Curran is expected but not yet present. Miss Chief >> here. >> Mr. Feskins >> here. >> Mr. Chantuli >> here. >> Mr. Nearing >> here. >> Chairman Ly >> here. >> You have a quorum. You may proceed.
>> Thank you. Jessica 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 applicants attorney. Mr. Ball does not vote on these applications. Jessica Sans is a city employee is the zoning board secretary. Our board secretary works with applicants on preparing their
applications, planning our agendas, and keeping our meeting minutes. The board secretary also does not vote on these applications. Also present tonight 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
Associate 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. 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 these applications, you will be advised of how many votes are required for approval. Each case will begin with the applicants and 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 and why these variances are needed. Board experts, followed then by the board members themselves, 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 the board professionals have completed their questioning, the public
will then have an opportunity to ask questions. This is not the time to tell us what you think about the case. That opportunity comes at the end of the hearing. Please be careful as 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, please clearly state your name, spell your last name, and provide your address. It is important that a court reporter be able to keep a clear and accurate public record. After all witnesses have been heard, members of the public have their second opportunity to speak. 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 board members discuss the case and then vote. You'll be able to listen in on our executive session, but you will not normally be able to participate. I ask that each applicant and or their
attorney, if present, come up and give a brief synopsis, their anticipated testimony tonight, including the number of witnesses and whether or not they think they can finish their presentation within 30 minutes. Uh tonight we will begin with 95 96 Fernwood Road.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Uh, just to re remind the board, I'm Brian Fehee. I'm an attorney. Uh, my offices are in Far Hills in Tukesbury, New Jersey, and I represent the homeowner of 96 Fernwood Road in Summit,
Christopher and Abby Capanetti. Um, we are here, uh, this is a a second meeting. We appeared before this board on September 15th uh where we heard Chris Capanetti the homeowner testified as to uh gave us some context and some background
>> and then we heard from Jared Cos. >> Mr. Fehee, I think we're just asking at this point um just the witnesses we're going to hear tonight. And >> so I'm going to get a brief summary from all the cases and then we'll we'll start with you. I >> apologize. No, no worries at all. >> Call me up. >> Uh we have two witnesses tonight. >> All right. Perfect.
>> And yeah, we'll we'll do our best to get through it in 30 minutes. Thank you so much. We'll be with you shortly. >> All right. Can I have a representative from 14 Hughes, please? >> Hi, my name is Brandon Reese. I'm the homeowner at 14 Hughes Place. Uh, today I'll be joined by one witness,
Jose Dinaro, our architect. >> Excellent. Do you think you'll finish in 30 minutes or less? >> I certainly hope so. >> All right. Great. Thank you for that. >> Thanks. >> Um, do we have any representatives from 175 Oakidge tonight? No. Well, they have asked to carry their
case. So, we as a board after we go through the summaries, we'll we'll vote on that little bit of procedural information. And then finally, do we have someone for 90 Tulip? >> Yes, Douglas Miller for the architect for the applicant.
>> Great. All right. So, can I get a motion to carry 175 Oakidge without notice? >> When are we hearing to >> February 2nd?
>> February 2nd. >> So moved. >> Sorry. Was there a support of why they asked for this carry? I must have missed the emails. >> Yes. >> Yes. Yes. Uh there was a letter said unforeseen family circumstances and I
think we don't want to >> del. Thanks. >> Okay. Great. Jessica, can you call the role please? >> Okay. Vice Chair Zon. >> Yes. >> Mr. Yuko. >> Yes. >> Mr. Nelson. >> Yes. >> Miss Chief. >> Yes. >> Mr. Fes.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Chanculi. >> Yes. >> Chairman Ly. >> Yes. Great. So, with that out of the way, can Mr. Fehee come up and continue his case? >> Okay, great. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Uh, so, as I mentioned, we have two
witnesses tonight. Uh, one is I was going to recall Jared Cos. Um, we've all gone back and listened to the the September 15th meeting. There were some questions that needed to be answered. And I think Jared Jared has uh some some uh well, he has answers and he has some
exhibits that he wanted to present tonight, but he's not here yet. So, I'm going to skip him and I'm going to just go straight to to to John Manilio. Do I have that right? >> Uh who is going to testify for us uh as to the engineering of of the plan. So, I'm gonna Great. John up.
>> Come on up and we'll swear you in. Good evening. >> If you could raise your right hand. >> Sure. >> 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. >> Sure. Uh legal name is Giovanni. Gio V A
N I. Last name is Manilio. M A N I L I O. >> Thank you. Can you briefly describe your background and experience for? >> Sure. I have a bachelor of science and civil engineering from Syracuse University. I've been practicing uh and licensed in the state for the past 17
years. Licensed in good standing. Um testified in front of numerous boards throughout the state. Um can't say I've testified in front of this board before, but I've testified in front of um other boards in the vicinity including Madison, Cadam, Milbour, Springfield, New Providence, Brookley Heights. >> Any questions? Would you like to accept
his credentials? >> We would. >> Thank you. Go ahead. Right. >> So, I I wasn't here and I don't think anybody from Kariago was here at the last meeting. So, I'm just going to kind of back up just a little bit, give a quick overview of the existing conditions on the site.
Do have a couple exhibits. Um, so this one I am going to I think we have to mark it in. I did color highlight the patio. So, it's a little different than what was submitted, but it's just a little, you know, uh, color so you could follow along. Um, so this is the plan that's entitled variance plan last revised November 4th, 2025.
I'm not sure what exhibit we're up to on >> No, this right. This needs to be marked, but I don't believe we've marked the exhibit yet. You're right. This this will be A1, >> right? Great. >> Thank you. >> So, like I said, this was what was
submitted as part of the application. Yes, it was actually like we have this in front of us. >> No, we have comments on it. >> Okay, then we don't need to mark it. >> Even though even with the highlight, >> same exact version or you said there was >> I just highlighted just the patios. I
don't know if you guys can see. >> Let's keep it marked as a >> Okay. >> Um so property is known as 96 Fernwood. Um located in the R25 zone. Uh so the property uh is is kind of rhombus in shape. It's about 95 ft wide and 165 ft
deep. Um the lot generally slopes from the front from Fernwood east to west to the rear. Um and there's about a 12 to 13t drop in topograph uh topographic uh change in the um elevations. Uh so looking back at uh historic
aerials and and some homework, it looks like this property was developed back in 2016 where there was a a house that was demolished and a new house was constructed uh somewhere in that time frame. Uh we do have copies of old plans that were uh uh prepared um by Andrew Clark that that did show the proposed
improvements and the proposed house. Um and for the most part that the property was developed in accordance with those plans, but we did see the plans and what we have um surveyed out in the field. And the one thing that was different than what was approved is the uh rear patio, the existing rear patio shown
here. Uh I don't know if you guys can see, but it's highlighted in purple. Um, so the the plan that was approved by the town back in uh 2015 or 2016, uh, actually did have a smaller patio. Um, and then I did go back through historic aerials and looks like that patio was
built somewhere between 2016 and then it appeared in 2018. So some sometime in that 2-year period, that patio was built. Um, not sure if it was built with approvals or somebody went out there and just built a patio. Uh, but it was prior to um the applicant that owning the the
house or the property. I'm going to remind the board, not that I think you need to be reminded, but for the record. Marie, you asked that very question. And there you go. So, there's the answer. So, it was somewhere between 16 and 18 that patio was built. There does not appear Jessica did some homework for us.
There does not appear to be anything on the record that granted a variance for that. So, we are even though we are, I guess technically pre-existing non-conforming, that nonconformity was not granted by variance. >> Correct. Um so the property itself does
have three um current non-compliant um features. One being the lot area. Uh so in the R25 zone uh 25,000 ft of lot area is required where the current lot is 15,631 square ft. Uh so roughly about 60% of
what's uh required. Uh lot width is approximately 95 ft uh where 100 ft is required. And then as explained just a little earlier, uh the lot coverage even though um it wasn't approved by the board or by by the town as far as we know, um is at 31.4% where 30% is
permitted. Uh looking at the approved plot plans, that was maxed out at 29.8%. So they they pretty much maxed out the um lot coverage on that. I do want to note too as part of the um existing u approvals and what's out there, there is an existing drywall system. I think that
was asked the last meeting as well. uh shown on Mr. Clark's plans and verified in the field that the the drywall that was installed is uh the same size as what's shown on the plans and it's a it's a decent size structure. Um so what that did was pick up all the um the
runoff that that was generated by the driveway area. Um as far as uh the proposal in front of you tonight, um really what we're trying to do is reconstruct the patio that's in the rear. Um, as you can see highlighted in green, uh, essentially it's widening it by approximately four feet and
squaring off the, um, I guess western most portion right now. You can see it's circular as shown on on the plans. Uh, it's going to be squared off and then there'll be a set of stairs that lead up down to the rear yard. Um, and then the other uh, item that's on
the table tonight is to flatten out the rear yard. So right now there very are slopes um like I said from the rear patio to the the corner uh uh the southwest corner of the property. Uh so to make that more usable uh we are proposing a wall along the western and a
portion of the southern property line. Uh the wall at the max height is 3.85 ft. So slightly under four feet. But I would say majority of the walls are actually smaller. They're probably between one and a half to two and 1/2 ft in in height. And it will be a boulder wall. So, it's going to be more natural
in um in com uh composite. Um [Music] additional changes that were made to the plan since the last meeting. Uh there was a fence that was added to the uh top of the um the wall uh to provide for
protection. And then along the patio, there's a 4ft uh fence that was proposed as well. Um and the landscape designer could talk about that a little more detail as well. Um and we will comply with the requirement in the ordinance that um the wall plus the fence will be less than 10 feet in height. So there is
no variance that is being requested on that. Um additionally at the last meeting there was discussion about extending the wall uh over the easement and along the whole uh rear property line. Uh so we did do additional um surveying out there um and picked up the inverse of the sanitary line. Uh so that
sanitary line is is pretty deep. It's between 8 and 10 ft deep. Um, and the wall that's being proposed on top of that is, like I said, it's a boulder wall, but it's only about a foot to two feet tall. So, it's essentially one boulder. Um, given the depth of that that utility line and that there's really no point load on it, uh, we don't
feel like it will have any effect on that utility. Um, so it could be constructed as needed. And again, if if the town has to come in or the utility has to come in to do work, uh, that wall could easily be removed and replaced in kind. Uh, additionally, we did add storm
water. Um, so we did add a trench drain to the end of the patio which will pick up the the sheet flow off the patio and that is directed to a dry well system. Uh, that dry well system was sized not only for the increase that we are proposing tonight of the approximately 300 square feet of patio but also the um
increase that was done by either the previous developer or the previous homeowner. Uh, so anything that's over the impervious uh or lot coverage that's permitted in in the um the zone. Additionally, we did tie that uh we're proposing to tie that dry well into the existing dry well kind of almost like
belts and suspenders. Uh so if one dry well um gets filled up, it fills up the other one and they can utilize each other's volumes as needed. Um as far as we know, there's no issues with the existing drywall that's out there and it's functioning properly. So I do want to recap. We are asking for three variances tonight. Uh one has to be do
with the lot coverage. Uh so a lot coverage of 5,211 ft is per is proposed which is 33.3%. Uh where 4,689 ft is uh permitted or 30%. Again that's
um 299 ft um generated from the patio. Um I think there was also a question about if the walls were counted as impervious. Um and they weren't. Um, just to be transparent, typically we don't include walls for uh, lock coverage when we do calculations. And essent, especially in this case, it is a
boulder wall, so it's a regular. It's it's hard to say exactly what the impervious will be. Um, because it's not a, you know, man-made structure. It's going to be different size, different shape. Um, >> there was some testimony back in September and you can you can add to that that wall is not built on a on a a
foundation or or a footing of any type, right? >> No footing. No foundation. And typically and behind the wall there's also even a drain with clean stone and and a drain pipe too. So it does provide some type of of drainage as well. >> And it's not grouted. >> I'm sorry. >> Not grouted. >> No, not grouted at all. No, it's a it's
open boulder wall. >> Um, additionally, like I said, we'll we'll provide um storm water to compensate for any overage on the lot coverage based off the 30%. Um and then just want to note that you know it is a undersized lot. So if the lot was um
fully conforming a lot coverage of 7500 ft would be permitted um on this lot. Uh second we are prop uh proposing a sideyard setback for the patio that's attached to the dwelling. Uh so 12.7 ft is proposed for the patio uh where 17 ft
is is required. Um again the reason why we went wider than than deeper is has to do with the um topography of the lot. So from the first floor elevation to the rear yard, you have approximately 8 to nine foot drop in elevation. Uh so by going wider um you could utilize the
topography better instead of going deeper um into the rear yard. Uh additionally we do have as you can see here the steps that adds to the impervious coverage and that leads to the rear yard to allow um usability of that rear yard for for sports for the um the applicants um children.
And lastly, uh the the variance that we're asking for is for steep slope disturbance. Uh so in in Summit, you're allowed third, thousand square feet of disturbance of steep slopes and the applicant is proposing 1,485 square ft of uh steep slope disturbance.
Um I do want to note looking back at Mr. Clark's plan, most of the slopes are being disturbed are slopes that were generated as part of the original development back in 2016. Um and then secondly with the disturbance of steep slope, the whole purpose is to protect um downstream neighbors from erosion and
from storm water. Um by flattening the slopes actually we're we're we're alleviating some of those issues. Um as the slope is flatter, you're actually going to have less runoff onto the neighbors properties uh because the water takes longer to get to them. And additionally, like I said, we're adding the storm water management as well. And
then lastly, by flattening the slopes, you have less erodability of those slopes as well. Um so essentially the proposed improvements uh falls under I would say the C1 criteria for a hardship uh just given that the size is under unders
sized the lot is unders sized um and the topographic change from the existing um road to the back corner and additionally you have the existing improvements that are out there. So you have the existing dwelling you have the driveway that comes around the back with the garages in the back. Uh, so you're
you're tied to this line right here as far as um developability to the I guess north. So you're you're really essentially could go to the um south or to the west uh to do any type of improvements on the site. >> Okay. So you mentioned uh that we're
presenting these as as C1 variances hardships. So my question to you is uh my first question is would it cause a hardship to the applicant to make the application consistent with the terms of the zoning ordinance uh specifically the three points of deviation?
>> Uh yeah, it would be a hardship on them to to u not comply or to deviate uh from the zoning change because like I said uh there's really nowhere to go with this patio um without keeping it just as is. Um and again the applicant has stated
that they want to make this more usable uh for their family. U if you look at the layout of the existing patio right now it's not efficient. Um there are some areas like adjacent to the steps that are not being utilized. Um like I said it's circular. So it's it's you know as far as efficiency it's it's not
a a good patio that that could be utilized in its full um extent. So, if the board were to grant the variances, would it create an adverse impact or effect on the surrounding properties? >> Uh, no, it will not. So, it's it's located behind the structure, it's not visible from the general public. Um,
we're increasing the or we're actually detaining storm water coming off the site. So, we're increasing the uh the detention of storm water on the site and we're compensating for the extra impervious that has been already placed on the site. I assume your answer would be the same if I asked you if it would have an adverse impact on the
neighborhood in general. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Would it create any increased traffic or noise? >> Uh, no it will not. >> Would it negatively impact the safety or welfare of the community? >> Uh, no it will not. >> Should the board grant the requested
variances in your opinion? Would it be at the cost of the uh intent or purpose of the master plan or the zoning ordinances goals? >> I do not believe so. >> Okay. Um would it be inconsistent if the if the the variances were granted
uh with the u with the development plan the municipal development plan? >> I I don't think so. I think it's it's a it's a benefit for the uh the community and for the neighborhood. Um again, they're trying to u increase the usability of the lot and make it more
usable. Um and again, I don't think it's going to have any negative impacts on the neighbors or the general public. >> Great. Thank you very much. >> You're welcome. >> I offer the witness to the board until it be >> great. Thank you. >> Consultants, >> board experts, what questions do you have for this witness?
>> Um I I do have a question about the uh the dry well. I I see your calculations show um that it's designed for collecting 522 square feet.
>> Um but I think you said in testimony that the is collecting 300 square feet of the patio. >> Uh so the increase in the patio is 300 square feet. So not only we're capturing the increase the 300 feet, we're capturing the whole patio. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. Which is the increase over what's permitted in the zone 30%. >> So then um it looks to me like without seeing the numbers, it sounds to me that maybe the patio is larger than what the capacity is of that dry well.
Is that true? Who is the How big is the entire patio? >> Uh I don't have that broken down. I have patios and walks which is um but yeah, if that's something that the board or or um you would like to see, we could definitely size the um the drywall to be for the capacity of that patio itself.
Um it's just adding a little more step. >> So I recognize that you designed it for a size that you know of the increase, but I want to make sure that you're not taking more than that and putting it in. >> No, makes sense. We could definitely size it for the the impervious contributed from the patio. >> No problem.
>> Um >> and and right now that existing drywall is collecting the driveway. >> Uh yeah, looking looking at Mr. Clark's plan, the calculation states uh runoff generated from driveway and then it had an area associated with that. So yes,
>> and um and that's in the drive well looks like it's being maintained. It's in functioning. >> Yep. It looks like it's it works properly. Uh there is no standing water. Um and we did go out there and take a look and it looks like it's the actual size that was on the plans as well.
>> And I don't know that I would be opposed to actually looking at the combined system and saying, "I'm collecting the driveway. I'm collecting the patio. Is the whole new, you know, the the additional system and the existing system combined together? If they can hold all of the water that you're putting in, I'm I'm really okay with
that." Um, and um, could you talk a little bit about um, I think you did you did mention some of the um, the backyard where the walls are. I think the last meeting my notes show that um, there was supposed to be a burm across the back. Could you talk about that a little bit?
>> Yeah, I didn't speak to it and it's kind of hard to show on the plans, but we are proposing like a six-inch burm on the back. Um, again, we could show it, I guess, figuratively with a line to show the burm. Uh, but we tried to to show the uh kind of the contours to to show the burm on there. So, that would help to prevent some of the water from
overflowing onto the neighbor's properties as well. >> How high did you say the burm was? I couldn't hear you. >> Uh, six inches. >> That's what I thought. Okay. >> And there's plantings on top of that. >> There's plantings on top of that as well. Correct. >> To help um take some of the water off. Um, I think those are all the questions I had. >> Great. Thank you,
>> Ed. Chairman, just a few questions. Uh with regard to the maximum height of the wall, you had touched on I think it was 3.8 ft. >> Yeah. Yes. Correct. >> The maximum height. Okay. So, it doesn't exceed 4 ft. >> Um any tree removal required as a result of the grading. Have you looked at that?
>> Um I believe there are some trees. Maybe I'll I'll defer that to the landscape designer. >> Jared is going to address that directly. Okay. >> When he comes back up again. >> I figured you had something with regard to that. There was some testimony as to that on September.
>> Yeah, he was using some fancy Latin. >> We also respond to the fence. [Applause] Um, regarding the drywall itself, I believe you said it's going to collect the additional water above 30% >> correct coverage. So therefore, you're
providing that as a rationale for the increase in coverage. >> Uh, correct. >> Correct. And >> that >> sounds like it might get a little bit bigger as well. >> When you talked about the hardship of the variance itself, you talked about the practicality of the patio. I'm not
sure if your landscape designer touch on this, but why so big and so wide? Uh, you're going into the sideyard setback. The setbacks are there for a reason. obviously 17 feet compared to 12.7 feet. It's a matter of seeing why you're
asking for that relief from a hardship standpoint. What is it about the design of the patio that requires or makes the hardship necessary? >> Yeah, I'll let the landscape designer talk about that, but I think it has to do more about maneuverability and and utilizing the actual patio. Um I I
didn't note, but the existing patio does have a built-in barbecue as well. um that is over the setback and we didn't note that as a as a pre-existing non-conformity but it's shown right here as well. So that does go into uh as it exists
>> um the intent of that sideyard setback. I know you weren't presenting it as a planner but yet I think we're kind of discovering that under the negative criteria we're looking at the intent of that sideyard setback. What is it about the proposal that's mitigating the impacts to the reduction in that
sideyard setback to an adjacent property line? >> Yes, so I think the landscape architect or designer could talk about that as well, but there is additional plantings that are going to be planted in that area. Um and and there there's existing plantings as well that that's out there um that provides buffer. >> Thank you.
>> Thanks Ed. >> Board, what questions do you have for this witness? >> Hi. Um I have two questions. the current um patio was that the is that as old as the house? Is it older than the house? >> So, I was looking at like I said historic aerials. So, I saw in 2016 the
house was built but it seems like it was still under construction. All the lawn was still uh dirt, not really lawn. Um and then the next aerial that was available was 2018 and everything was landscaped and the patio was there. So, I'm not sure. I've worked with many developers and I know some developers
when they're trying to sell a house, they'll they'll do whatever they they can after they have the co. So, that's a possibility. Or maybe the homeowner that bought it uh purchased it and and put it in after >> was a patio patio was there from the first house, but >> no, no, no. The whole house is brand new.
>> Other question is I I can't find any. What is the size dimensions of the current patio? >> Uh I do have that one second. It's approximately 19 by 27. >> 19 by 27. And that's obviously the longest since it is an um
>> correct >> a semester. Okay. And the proposal, what's the >> um off top of my head, I believe it's >> it's almost >> 21 by 34 and a half >> 21 by 30 >> 34 and a2 >> 34
>> 34 >> and a half. >> So, some of it's going out further to the backyard, but some of it's also coming closer to the house. Like I said, there's a a portion that's not utilized um >> between the house and the patio existing. >> Thank you.
>> So, it's your testimony that the the edge closest to the neighbor's property is not moving closer to the neighbor's property. >> Uh no, I don't it is moving closer, but it's >> Yeah, but there is a pre-existing I guess what I was saying there's a pre-existing barbecue there already that
doesn't comply. So, it's moving it's moving towards the house and moving closer to the house. >> Approximately four feet for the patio itself. >> It's moving four feet close to the neighbor. >> Correct. >> The patio. Um I didn't take a measurement from the barbecue. Um but if
I had to v venture to guess, I would say about two feet. >> Um just on the zoning table here on what is this sheet? This the sheet you have right there. Um it says that there is no change for sideyard setback. So I
believe that should show a change. >> Yeah, I believe this was for the principal structure, but yeah, that there is a for the accessory structure. >> So it Okay. So there is a because that these this is usually a chart where we see what variances are needed. So >> we can update that. >> Um I don't know if that should be
reflected there. >> Um can you explain that the fence boulder? I'm not sure I understood if the fence is going on top of the boulder wall or if it's in front of the boulder. Uh >> if there was some because it was talking about the 10 foot height when you were talking about the 10 foot height then I
>> No problem. So if you're looking at the sheet that you were looking at in the middle plan. >> Yeah. >> Uh so the kind of like the ovals represent the boulder wall. So that's on the the top line if you look at your plans. >> Are you are you discussing this section? >> That's I was looking at the plan.
>> Oh, okay. >> So yeah. And then the fence itself is is the line with the X's. So it's >> so it's it is in front of the boulder wall. >> Well, it's on the property owner side. So it's on top of the wall. >> Okay. So it is Okay. That's cuz in the section it doesn't quite look like that.
There's like a fence detail and a boulder wall detail. And I didn't I didn't see that they were like I mean your testimony made it sound like they were on top of each other. >> I think that's our that's the old man from 2015. Is it? >> Uh I think this is the one I picked up today. Uh I'm just trying to look from
over here. >> We we got this today or I picked it up today. I don't know what was right. >> Is this something that the landscape art designer would be better to testify to >> see? I don't see a detail. This is what
>> this detail is supposed to be on top. >> Yeah. fence. >> Is the fence on top of the wall? >> Yeah, it's set back a couple feet. >> So then the detail is not correct. >> No, cuz we don't typically show a detail
with both together. You have a detail for the fence and then you have a detail for the wall. >> It literally makes no sense. >> Why would you do that? >> That's how it >> doesn't show us the height of the structure if you're showing them separately. And also your fence detail the way the posts are shown here where
the you know where you basically set the the fence in the ground then it's set among the boulders right those whatever the stakes are the way this is so I'm a little confused about how you're putting the fence on top of the boulder wall basically that's my question >> so it's not right on top of the wall so
you have the wall right and then behind the wall you have dirt or soil so it's going behind the wall by a foot or The fence is going behind the wall. >> Correct. >> So it's it's on top of the wall, but it's be on the high side of the wall. Not on top of the wall. On the high side
of the wall, but behind the wall. Okay. >> Is that is different than what you stated earlier. >> Also, I wouldn't call it behind if it's on the property owner's side, right? I think of behind as on the neighbor's side. So, I just I just want to be clear about what we are seeing in the drawing
versus what's going to be built because I'm a little confused by the testimony. >> No, that's fine. I could clarify. So, let me try to step back. I I thought I was using kind of industry standard language, but um so we'll step >> front of the church back.
>> Yeah, it's semantics. It Yeah, it depends on what we're looking at. All right. So, we have the prop the the rear that grades to the rear, right? So, before you get to the rear property line, you're going to have a fence that's going going to be there. And then about a foot or two past the fence, you're going to have a boulder wall that
drops down. And that that drop is going to be range from a foot to four feet. And then you're gonna have >> That's not semantics. The the fence is behind the wall. It's not on the wall. >> That's not semantics. >> In front of the wall.
>> In front of the wall. It's in front of the wall. >> Fence is in front of the wall. >> In front of the wall as shown on the drawing, not behind. >> The wall is in front of the fence. >> Fine. >> Between. >> It's not on top of the fence. >> It's not on the wall. >> Wait. The fence is between the wall and the patio. >> There we go. >> Yeah. What I was trying to say was when
I say on top of the wall, I meant on the high side of the wall, not like on the >> If we walk out the back of the house, we first get to the stone wall, >> then get to the fence, and then somewhere else fence and then the stone wall. >> Isn't that what I said? >> No. >> Okay. You first get to the fence from
the house. First get to the fence, then the stone wall, and then the back property line. >> Okay. >> Correct. >> Yes. >> And so then Okay. So now that >> stone wall is the neighbors. >> Yes. >> Yes. They're they're leveling the property. So that's a retaining it's essentially a retaining wall
a little profile on the A1 exhibit. >> And then this right? >> Well, yes. And then the So the other question you just on the fence detail it says six feet and you had made a reference that it wouldn't exceed 10
feet at some point in your testimony. >> Yes. So the what's allowable for a fence is seven. So you I'm just wondering you know are you looking for a fence that's taller than six feet because the reference to 10 ft was also a little
confusing because the detail says six. >> So I apologize. So your board planner had test uh had wrote in his comment letter that the combination of a wall and fence cannot exceed 10 feet. >> They're like on one on top of the other. Right. Right. >> Right. Essentially again they're not right on top of each other. So they're
going to be staggered a little bit, but counting them as together, you have a 3.85 ft wall and a 6ft fence, which is 9.85 ft. So that's why I was trying to say that it's not going to be more than 10 ft. >> Okay. >> But the reality is, John, nothing is going to be higher than six feet, right?
From grade level. Is that correct? >> Uh well, >> because the the sixoot wall is not on top of it, but behind it. >> Can we just simplify this? The wall is going to be six feet. >> Four feet. >> And I'm sorry, the fence is going to be no more than six feet. >> Yes. And when you combine that with the maximum height of the retaining wall,
you're not going to trip the 10 foot threshold. >> Correct. >> So no other variances needed. >> Correct. Okay. Thank you. >> What other questions do we have for this week? >> Don, what do you got? >> Um, why can't we just build the patio
the same size but square it off? I know it's it's a it's a convenience factor, but you I don't think you would be here for variances if you did that other than maybe the fact that it's not a permitted uh patio or deck. >> Yeah, I think you're right. We would
still be here for two variances for the steep slopes and the impervious lot coverage. >> Well, yeah. Okay, I'll give you >> um but I again >> other than size, I mean, you're going you're you're if I'm looking at the front of the house, I'm going to forget the trees that you're going to plant.
We're going to see the patio sticking out how or the deck sticking out. How far into the to the left of the house and it's not right up against the house, right? So, there's going to be a space between the house. >> There'll be some landscaping. Yeah, it's a it's a patio, not a
>> I mean, my my real question is why can't you just rebuild what's there at all? >> Um, it's something we could look at, but I I think the landscape designer will we'll talk about the the reason for it and and again the layout. And just one other thing, you mentioned that the when you're speaking earlier,
you said one of the sets of stairs is kind of useless. >> No, yet you're replacement. >> No, no, no. I think I said that there's a a portion of the the the patio or portion right here that's not being utilized. That's that's kind of useless right now that the patios can be
extended into. So, in between the existing patio and the house, there's open space. >> I must have misunderstood. No, >> sorry about that. Anything else? >> I have one. Have you discussed this with the neighbors at all? They have any
objection to uh losing four feet of uh sidewalks? >> I'm not familiar with that. I could ask the applicant or have the applicant uh speak to that. >> Would you like to address Mr. Capetti directly? He's here. >> Yes. >> Yes. Hi, Christopher Capernetti,
homeowner 96 Firmwood Road. And I'll just note that you were sworn in on the prior hearing and you remain under oath. >> Thank you. >> Uh I'm I'm sorry sir, your question. >> Have you discussed the loss of s side clearance with the neighbor and do they
have any objection? >> No objections. They've been notified um and by my attorney and I've also spoken about that. No issues. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I'll expand on that just a little bit. One of the neighbors adjacent to our property has a quite oversized lot and
we did reach out to that neighbor to see whether they would actually sell us some of their their they have 1.758 or something like that a huge lot for the for the zone and we asked why don't you just sell us piece of your so we can eliminate some of these variances and the answer was no objection to what we
wanted to do but didn't want didn't sell Okay. Any questions? Questions only for this witness from the public. >> Seeing none. >> Okay. Thank you, John. Next witness,
please. Thank you. >> Further questions later on, but I'm going to bring Jared up and Jared is going to testimony September 15th. based on some of the questions that were asked.
Jared has also been sworn [Applause] [Music] [Applause] [Applause] Okay, >> good evening. >> Good evening. How are you? Good.
>> Um, so you guys uh obviously asked so Jerry Cosai outdoor digs. Um, we've been working with the Capernetti family for quite some time. Um, this project has been about three years of two, three years of uh, mulling over some designs
and ideas. It's obviously a little bit of a tough lot. That's why we're all here tonight to uh, work through it. And hopefully I can off the top of my head kind of guide you through it because I have pretty in-depth knowledge of the design itself and revisit some of the
questions that you asked John earlier that he might not have been able to uh identify clear reasons. Um I'd like to first start with the fence because I think that's the easiest one to just walk through. I know we kind of stumbled on some of the layout and whatnot you
have, but from the previous meeting there was a discussion about fall protection. There was worry from the board uh especially I think in regards to the patio and its uh adjacency to the driveway and the retaining wall that is
existing. So currently there's no fence. Uh, one of the things that we did do is install a uh, fall protection fence. It's going to be we're proposing just a very simple uh, fence in that landscape bed at the
top side of that wall. Again, as I just, you know, stated, there is currently no fence. It's just some landscaping, right? So, there's no true current fall protection on the top of that wall. So, we're addressing that concern. Um, additionally, in regards to the fence,
uh, we're proposing a six-foot, uh, deer fence, not a panled privacy fence by any means. Right? So, a deer fence is just 2 in x 2 in meshing. Um, as we know, the uh, ticks are pretty pretty bad um, limes disease, and I think there's a new
variant now out recently I saw on the news. So, the purpose of that is just to help maintain some level of security in the backyard and keep uh Chris's kids pretty safe when they're out there playing on a more level backyard. Um, in
regards to the playability of the backyard and the purpose for the grading, as brought up earlier, currently we have some steep slopes that were created, it appears, from uh construction right back in 2016. By leveling the backyard, we're actually
mitigating that water runoff. We're reducing the volume of water that directly runs off that southwest corner of the property. And then just to point back to the reason for the burm, that 6 in uh kind of crest naturally, I'm sure
all of you or most of you, I'm sure many at least have landscape beds. Typically, landscape beds are a couple inches raised over the turf, right? And the reason for that is so that we want that water to saturate that landscape bed. So that way the landscape, the plant
material can naturally soak up and suck up as much water as possible. So in doing so, we're really containing a lot of that uh the majority of the storm water and natural rainfall runoff even from just the lawn itself that currently water sheds off the property. So that's
a huge improvement. Um, in regards to the width of the patio, one thing to note and just revisit is, as previously mentioned, the topography of the land drops 13 ft
from the street down towards the backyard. So, if you were to drive by or even walk by, even without any landscaping, the visibility of that rear patio because of that elevation drop is very almost minimal. borderline non-existent. Um, with the landscape
plan that we've put together and thanks to uh Chris buying into the vision, we've selected a very mature landscape planting that completely eliminates view of the patio from neighbors or the street. And that is not a two to three
it's going to grow into believe the vision that is a instantaneous very mature landscape planting. Um, in regards to the width of the patio, one of the questions that the board had in the previous hearing was the configuration of the patio. So, if you
see in the exhibit, um, we did do and I'm happy to share. I brought extra copies here. I'm happy to share them and circulate them with the board if you'd like to see rather than just what I have here on the easel. We did a layout and also a side profile here um, of the
furniture layout. The reason for that five uh 4 foot extension of the patio and the reason for the variance of the sideyard setback goes back to the fact that the lot is 95 ft and not 100 ft. If it was the 100 foot width, we actually
wouldn't be here for this variance. But because we're at 95 and because of the layout of the furniture for Chris and his family, again, this is not a over uh overly enlarged patio by any means. We
have a grilling structure with just three modest bar stools for the kids to sit there and enjoy some hamburgers or grilled chicken as Chris grills. We can come over and dine for a dining table for six. And then we have a small sofa
and a 36 or 48 inch uh fire table and a sofa for five. So overall when you look at the space we're utilizing it very efficiently and we're also we have to keep into account again we're adding fall protection but we still don't want
to set up that table directly in front of the driveway steps right because if someone leans back next thing you know you're falling down a flight of stairs down the driveway. Vice versa, we have a staircase coming right out of the rear of the back living room, um, which is taking up some space. Um, so the
configuration, we tried playing with this a few different ways and to truly get the ability for Chris to continue to utilize the grill, but actually have the kids sit there with him and enjoy what he's grilling. And then uh simultaneously if they want to have a
formal dining just for six and then an area to hang out and lounge, this rectangular patio uh given the fact that we have two staircases, an upper elevation leading up into the home and then a downward elevation down to the driveway, this configuration was the
safest. um from a neighbor impact to the south meaning if you're facing the home the neighbor to the left where this patio would encroach to that setback uh we're proposing to install thuja picata which are green giant arborvite very
common for the area what is important to note is that we're specking a 14 to 16ft tall tree which is very mature not just in height but width so that becomes an immediate screen for that neighbor also helps dampen sound. And even with that
still um to the patio, uh from patio to property, as noted earlier, we're still hovering around 12 1/2 ft, which allows us for an additional about 4 1/2 ft of landscaping. So, if you think about it, it's property line, mature privacy plantings, 14 to 16t green giant
arborite, 4 feet of uh perennial grasses to help soften and further help lessen uh some noise. and then the patio itself. So, we do have a really nice buffer. Um, and then lastly, the crosssection here, if you're standing
out on Fernwood and looking towards his home, towards the Capernetti residence on the left hand side to ensure that even with the elevation, we're very confident with the elevation, you will not see this patio. Um, because you do also have a bump out of the chimney on the home that helps obscure it. But to
further ensure that that area is not only private for Chris and his family, but for passer buyers not to, you know, see this glaring patio uh peeking past the home a little bit. We are proposing to install uh sweet gum, which is a columner tree. It's really beautiful in
the fall. It's a deciduous tree, columner in nature, and those as well are spec mature at 4in caliber. Um, I will note that the average caliper size tree that typically is installed on a new landscape is usually around two to maybe three inches. So, this is
definitely a more mature, more robust, instant gratification of uh, privacy um, and aesthetically pleasing landscape. There's also a couple uh, there's a GKO Balboa that we're installing, which is a proper shade tree. Beautiful. Um, if you guys like your plants at all, it's a
beautiful autumn uh, foliage. But I'll turn it over to you. Hopefully I hit a lot of the questions, but encourage you all to uh ask away. >> Thank you. Board experts, what do you have for this witness? >> Um
I think there's a discrepancy between um the plans that you prepared in the engineering plans about um the deer fence in the backyard. Um the your plans show that it's a 4ft deer fence and the engineering plans shows
it's a sixoot deer fence. Do you do you have any comments on that? >> Yeah, that is definitely a typo uh by by us in the office. It's a six foot deer fence. >> It's a six foot deer fence. >> Correct. >> So um on the engineering plan where it
shows um on sheet two, and I know that's not your plan, there's a fence detail that looks like it's, you know, a solid white privacy fence. That is that's probably going to be eliminated from the engineering plan. Correct.
>> Okay. >> Correct. >> Um, and then what kind of It looks like you have a different kind of fence that's around your patio. >> Correct. >> Could you talk about that? >> So, it's called a cable railing system. It's a modern fence design. Um, it
prevents, you know, if you were to trip, fall, if you were to lean back, lose balance, you are not going to fall over. It maintains and meets the, uh, height requirement for fall protection, uh, while still being aesthetically pleasing. And you know one of the things that while we do have which is shown on
our plan existing quite large these thuja platas that are here existing are well over 24 foot. One of the concerns that we had is you know putting any sort of solid fence here makes the space feel very confined right and then maybe possibly from the neighbors like second
story or uh windows if you had a obtrusive kind of ugly fence back there no one would really want to see it. Chris wouldn't want to see it. Maybe the neighbor wouldn't want to see it. We're confident that these trees uh provide a lot of privacy, but it's a nice really elegant um cable rail fencing system
that provides and addresses the concern of fall protection against the top of that wall that was brought up by the board last meeting. >> Thank you, >> Ed. >> Uh just one question with regard to the connection between the proposed landscaping and the existing. Are there
existing trees along that left property line? which way that is, north or south property line. Um, are your plantings accommodating the existing trees that are on that side? Um, trying to make the best buffer possible between two properties.
>> That's a great point. I completely uh brushed over that in talking about what we're proposing to install. So in order to propose these mature plantings, there is an existing planting that was done previously by the uh builder I believe
or maybe the past owner resident of the property. There are emerald arborvite there. It's important to note that emeralds mature somewhere around 10 foot tall, right? So it's really not uh that much of privacy for the neighbor. And
then past those emeralds, there are some white pine trees that are existing which are not native to the site. One thing to note about white pines, if any of you have them on your property, you might already know, but as they mature and grow, their branch structure rises and
thins out along the base. So currently we have zero privacy arguably within the first four to five feet of the backyard as it is. So both neighbors are looking into each other's backyards. By doing the thugja piccatas, we have a low branched true evergreen tree that as it
matures, it actually maintains density low to the ground. Whereas the existing white pines that are there, as mentioned, they thin out. They will eventually turn into 60 70 foot tall trees. It's not a proper use of the tree for what it was intended to do, provide
privacy. long term, it's a tree that uh regardless if Chris is there or not, probably gets cut down at some point because it's going to turn into a 70 foot tall tree. And that would be the I'm looking at the engineering plan for for an idea of where the existing trees
are. That's the row of trees that are adjacent to that subly property line more on the steep slope side. >> Correct. Exactly. Those trees wrap the southern uh property line and then wrap around the west rear property line. So if you're looking at the home from the
street street view, the left property line and the rear property line, those trees were installed. Um and then they slightly wrap around on the north side. That entire perimeter we're going to remove and replace in kind or not in kind but replace with a proper privacy
tree at mature size 14- 16 foot and then marry them and meet them where the existing uh thuja picatas are. I will note again I did bring it up but these existing thuja piccatas were installed correctly on the right side of the
driveway. They've matured really nicely. They're well over 24 foot. And if the board, if any of you guys drive by, you'll see that that tree was specifically used there. And the reason why the builder probably used that tree there, not to get off into the weeds a little bit, but the reason why he used
that there is he wanted the densest, best privacy tree right out the gate. And those trees cost substantially more money than a white pine, which is why I would say that they were used there from the get-go. And they're doing fabulous. The white pines he used for the rest of the perimeter to conserve cost. So just
going back, you were indicating, did you indicate the white pines are going to be removed that subtly line? >> The white pines are going to be removed and replaced with a 14 foot thug picata green. >> That's what I wanted to clarify because I don't believe that has been brought up yet. Uh so it's approximately six trees on that side, but they look like they're
planted very very close to each other. >> That is correct. >> In that area, I would also concur with you that probably those trees are just going to lose their loyal limbs, especially because of how closely they've been planted. Um, so the new uh green giants in that area will replace
that buffer is what you're saying. >> Yes, sir. >> And then they'll be at the top side of the retaining wall along that corner. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. All right. Because I was worried about the grading for the patio was going to be filling over top of the roofs of those trees. >> So therefore, that's not going to be the
case because you replace those trees. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Um, I think that's all the questions I had. Um, yes. Thank you. Right. >> Thanks, >> Tom. >> Yeah. A couple questions. Actually, the first is not so much a question. It's more of a process uh I guess a process
question. For the first meeting, the forester did not submit a report. For this meeting, when we have this new landscaping plan, which looks very nice. Was he was the forester asked for a report? Because I know I know we did not get one. Jessica, was the forester asked to report? >> I was not asked to get one from him.
>> Okay. I that bothers me. I would like to know what the forester thought of this. for this new landscaping plan. So, you know, we might want to consider that as a condition uh should we get there. The the next question I I get that the the sideyard setback
for the patio is driven by the functionality, but it's it's it's a desired functionality. It's not that you could have a you could have a functional patio with less or maybe even no sideyard setback. Isn't that correct? It would be different functionality, but it would
>> you would you would not be able to see a family of five to six to dine or to dine and recline. You would have to choose between one or the other, >> but it would it would be less functional, but it still could be functional.
>> You would have to to answer your question, you would have to choose between one or the other. >> Fair enough. Um, I think that's all I had. >> Sorry. Or to piggyback on that question, you could make it deeper and then have, you know, you know, have it be a little
bit uh change change the layout a little bit. I mean, this is a a nice looking layout, but it's a sort of nice to have, want to have, not you know, not it's possible to lay it out other ways, right? Um the
other question you were mentioning 12 to 14 foot thua those are the green giants >> correct? >> Okay. I just can you tell me on the I just want to make sure that I'm reading this right because I see 12 to 14 one maple and one goko but everything else
on here says 8 to 10 ft. So which ones are the 14 ft? >> So that was not updated. Uh those discussions were had with our client from a budgetary standpoint after the submitt. So comfortably we're going to
be installing the larger tree rather than what's in front of you today. >> That will be shown in our update. >> The thugja picatas which are listed it says uh I'm sorry >> it says thua green giant and you have 3723. So you have 42 of them alto
together. >> Correct. And on here they're 12 to 14. We're increasing those from 12 to 14 to 1460. >> Um I don't mine I I must have the wrong set of plans. Mine say 10 8 to 10 feet. >> The draw to 8 to 10 ft. >> 8 to 10.
>> Yeah, this hasn't been updated. >> Okay. I thought we I thought that's what we had here today was the updated plans. >> If you can indicate the date of your drawing. >> 11:25 2025. >> Uh we have 113. >> Oh, okay.
>> Okay. So then let's mark this set of plans as A2. >> 112 113. Yeah. >> Yeah. So is this what you offered to give us copies of? >> Yes. >> Yeah. Then maybe we should get the copies. Yeah. >> So what I will what I will note is that
that is a sizing change. The layout itself, placement, orientation, none of that has changed from what you guys are currently looking at. >> When when Jessica, do you have these plans? Did have you received them? I don't have the ones that are up here right now.
>> I only have the ones that you guys got. >> Okay. >> So, it should be A2. >> Yes. >> What other questions for this witness? Jay. >> Oh, Alison, go ahead. >> Um, you were talking about the deer fence. >> Mhm.
>> And trying to keep the deer out. Are there gates? >> No gates. >> Okay. So that didn't didn't make sense that you're talking about keeping the the deer out of the property to you know protect the kids from um deer takes is there was I missing something that
you're talking there's a little section that has a deer fence that's not really keeping any deer >> the the deer fence is the perimeter of the property line >> but if there's no if there's no gate that's proposed >> yeah of course I mean a gate would ensure 100% but if you uh know the
property well you'll know that there is kind of no man's land of a wooded area back here because the parcel behind him and the utility easement this is heavily wooded. So the deer typically utilize that area and come up through the backyard. The chance that they come down the driveway given the vehicle traffic
is very unlikely. I mean it can happen of course but you're going to cut out >> point. It's open to the drive. >> Okay. There's no >> correct. Yes. To your point deer can jump over the fences on the side. So, okay. >> I I see I see them walking down Woodland Avenue every day and
>> they're they're pretty comfortable around here. There's no doubt. >> Jay, what do you got? >> Couple of questions for you. The steps that are coming away from the house, they're coming off of an existing uh doors or is that being modified? >> Uh that is existing. That'll remain. >> Is that the those stairs are the
existing stairs as it is? >> Correct. >> The what is the clearance between that and the new proposed uh bar uh the countertop? Um I believe that it's three feet. >> Okay. Then can you walk us through the rationale of why such a large landscape
between the driveway and the top of the patio? >> Driveway and top of patio fence. >> Sorry. That's existing. That that landscape bed that is there that is that is currently existing. >> Was there ever a contemplation of trying
to you know recapture that to move even if it's one or two feet away from the property line? We did. But back to your original question about the distance between the staircase and the grill. If we slide it over, then that becomes a
containment issue because we limit our width from like 3 ft. Right? If we gain if we gain a foot here and slide this all over, then that structure is going to slide with it. That creates a choke point here and an eress ingress into this area for Chris to utilize his
grill. at two feet. I mean, you'd have to really sneak by. Does that make sense? >> It does. Thank you. >> My pleasure. >> I have one question about the steep slopes. Did you happen to look at the surveys of this property from before the
property was built? because I mean it it doesn't seem to me just the justification that these steep slopes were created during the construction doesn't really um sit well in given the that the you know if you already know that the street is higher than the
backyard is higher than the backyard neighbors. It just seems like that's sort of the natural topography of the lot. And then there the neighbor, if I'm looking at the plan or if I'm facing the house, a neighbor to the left is a little uphill. That's sort of the topography of the neighborhood. It
doesn't seem like there was anything that was particularly created like the that the steep slope hardship was created due to the previous construction. And do you have any uh surveys about that that show the ones prior to >> I'm going to defer back to the engineer
because he has all the calcs on that one. >> Uh yes. So I just actually just did the calculation. So I have Mr. Clark's plan from 2015 and it did have the existing topography in the back. So at the steepest it was 12.5% which is less than the steep slope criteria of 15%. So when
they regraded it they showed new grading to be steeper in the back. Where were the where were I'm um >> I could just clarify that. >> Yeah, I could if you want I could clip the board uh the plan. I don't know if you guys have the plan from uh 2015 part of the Oprah request or not. I don't
know what we have. I don't think so. >> So, the plan I'm referencing is per the opera request is entitled lock rating plan prepared for glass band residents uh dated March 13, 2015. Last revised
April 18, 2016. Uh so where's my on the left side is the existing conditions. >> We'll mark this as A3 then. >> Sure. So on the left side is existing conditions. You can see this the uh the contour lines. I said I measured those
and and they're one foot contours. Um the closest they are is 8 feet. So one divided by 8 gives you 12.5% less than what's uh steep slopes. And then here you can see the darker lines that represents proposed grading. Um and that those are steeper than um well it's
typically 3 to one which is 33% which is a steep slope. And then additionally back here there's steep slopes as well which matches what the existing survey shows right now as of today. So again, I don't think the justification is the only reason is
because it is man-made. Um I think the whole reason for having steep slope ordinances, like I said, is is to prevent erosion offsite and um to help with um alleviating any storm water issues. And again, I think both of those would be took care of by uh placing
walls and a drywall system. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. make a patio. >> Uh so yeah, so this this is where I was going to show this was the patio that was uh approved as part of the plot plan highlighted in green. You can see is a lot smaller than what was out there
today and and built at some point between 2016 and 2018. >> Okay, thank you. Uh any questions for either of these witnesses from the audience? [Applause] >> Seeing none. Okay,
>> that's it. >> Any anything you'd like to say in conclusion or >> we've already exceeded our time, so interest. >> Okay, >> chair, before we continue, I think there was two points that were raised. I just want to make sure we don't miss them is
one's for Linton to get a copy of a review of this. Yes. And then would we need to retain water jurisdiction as well as a review of the updated and revised storm water plan for the updated? >> We can we can add we can add that as well. >> I was just going to talk about all those.
>> Great. >> Um >> Mr. Ball your >> conditions. So I have three conditions noted and we may have four but uh first is our general compliance with the conditions noted in the board engineers memorandum. Second is that revised storm water management plan shall be submitted
to the board engineer for review and approval. Um now Jay, you just mentioned potentially retaining storm water jurisdiction for that. I see some nodding heads. So um typically what the board will do is retain storm water jurisdiction for a period of two years
after construction that if there are any issues with the neighbors um they can bring notify the city potentially bring you back to the board to address that situation again. Uh and our fourth then and final condition would be that a landscaping
plan the landscaping plan shall be submitted to the city forester for review and approval. >> Is that the third or the fourth? >> Fourth. Third is storm water jurisdiction. Second would be revised storm water plans. >> Got it. >> Right. I just want to note for the record too that the no one from the
public is here regarding this case. So we don't need to open up for public statements. So with that, we'll go right to executive session. Who would like to begin? >> I'll start. >> Thank you, Mr. Fesus.
>> So at first, blush, this, you know, the encroachment on the sideyard was a concern for me. Um, frankly, the steep slope doesn't bother me as much as based on what they're talking about. I have a family I want to use my backyard, too. The storm water with the impervious surface, I think, was a very reasonable, and they're capturing what was an
existing non-conforming condition. the testimony at the end here, understanding that they're trying to reutilize existing infrastructure that's already built, not exacerbated really constrains what they have to do here. Um, as a result of it not being
impactful on the neighbor, you cannot see this. I know the topography of this area. I can't see any downside to anybody else. I would support this as presented. >> Great. >> Thank you. >> I I do just want to clarify. I know we've thrown around existing non-conforming conditions a couple
times. This this is certainly pre-exists this current applicant. It's, you know, not his construction, but I just want to confirm this is not a pre-existing nonconformity that needs to, you know, continue. The board could ultimately turn it down through no fault of the
applicant, but it's not one that predates the existing zoning code. Um, it is just, you know, a zoning excess. So it's not entitled to continue but if we grant the variance then obviously it would continue at that point. >> Thank you India for that clarification.
>> Tom Allison Miriam >> um I I I yeah I appreciate that point Andy. Um because one of the things that I was looking at was the you know how much is it over and it's
522 square feet larger than what's allowed. Um which is you know significant. Well it's like a 25 by 20 ft or something. Um I'm you know I'm thinking about it. I I
feel like the patio is sort of a nice to have. like wouldn't we all like in um I'm I'm I'm still thinking about this. I think that you know I think there was a good um presentation. I wish that I knew
what everything on there that we I wish we had the drawing too. Um, I know we have a condition that the forester is going to look at it, but I feel like we were all looking at um plans that were two weeks or 10 days older than the the most recent plans and probably didn't
know that until until you guys started presenting. Um, so maybe somebody else can go and I'm I'm going to I'm still thinking. >> Well, I I'm I'm not voting on this case because I didn't listen to the first hearing, but um I I am somewhat concerned about the sideyard setback. I
I I think I'd be more concerned if it weren't such a big property next door. Um but I I am concerned because it seems like it would be fairly easy to redesign this to minimize if not eliminate the sideyard setback. Um but it's also an undersized lot which creates issues. Um
and you know I don't see really any negative impact on the neighborhood uh from what's happening. Um, you know, again, I'm not voting and I'm not sure how I would vote yet, but I I just wanted to get those issues out there. >> Yeah. Yes. Sorry. And in thinking out
loud, I did look at the zoning table for if this had been an R15 lot, we would still be here for variance for side yard setback. So, that actually is almost like, you know, suggests that it is encroaching even more. It's not because
it's an undersized lot. It's because it's encroaching you know, like 30% of lot coverage is 30% of lot coverage whether it's 15,000 square feet or 12,000 square feet. So sometimes that's um an argument that's
less compelling, but that's the thing I'm >> wering the to the lot width, >> right? But a a 15 R15 is a 90 foot lot width and the sideyard setback is uh 15 feet. So, we're still over that if even if it had been R15, like zoned R15,
because some of the houses across the street are R15. So, I was trying to it's it's sort of unusual that this one ended up being an R25. I don't know why, you know, how that happened. Um, >> you don't have to commit to anything right now.
Please feel free to ponder. >> Yeah, I'm pondering. >> No, I I think uh my colleagues have all expressed it uh very well and I too believe that there's probably some way
to redesign this to fit within the setbacks, but um I don't know that that would have worked. I will take some uh measure of understanding that that 95
feet width does play into how you can lay this out and I think Mr. Fescin said it very well in terms of, you know, trying to work within the existing conditions is a is a very real um issue to deal with and so I I don't love it,
but I can see supporting this application. With that, can I get a motion to approve? >> So moved. >> Get a second. Second, >> Jessica, can you all call the role, please?
>> The vice chair's on. >> Yes. >> Mr. Nelson, >> yes. >> Miss Chief, >> no. >> Mr. Feskins, >> yes. >> Mr. Nearing, >> yes. >> Chairman Ly, >> yes.
>> Good luck. >> Thank you very, very much. >> Thank you. Moving on to 14 Hughes Place tomorrow. >> Oh, is it? >> Can I take the physicals as well? >> Can I take the physicals as well? >> If you could take it off at night.
>> I know. What what is your sign up? >> I'm like, you need to answer the >> phone. Shoot. I guess that's when you can't ignore. >> That's when you can't ignore. >> Yeah, exactly.
>> Pass them out now and we'll mark that as a saw. >> Thank you. >> They've gotten very aggressive. That's fine. >> We can always share.
>> Hi. Thank you. Thank you. >> I'll share I'll share with >> you. I want this guy's printer using these pictures. >> Nice paper. Good. >> Welcome me. >> I'll swear you in if you could raise
your right hand. Do you swear? Swear affirm the testimony you're about to give in this matter. Is the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? >> I do. Please state your name. Spell your last name. >> My name is Brandon Reese. Re I SS. >> Thank you. I guess first things first.
Um you just passed out a set of pictures that we are going to mark as A1. Um go ahead. >> Welcome. >> Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, board. My name is Brandon Reese and I'm
the property owner and resident at 14 Hughes Place. Also with me today is my wife Michelle Reese. I'm going to spend a couple minutes just uh explaining our motivation for proposing this project and then I'd like to invite our
architect Joseé Jarro to present some of the details of the project. So we've resided at 14 Place since 2021. Our property met for us an affordability niche in Summit and we felt from the start that it was underutilized.
After spending a year there learning about our space, we decided to to make significant improvements and invested more than 50% of the purchase price to complete much needed interior
renovations and major system upgrades. Over time, the market has also noticed the opportunity in East Summit, and we're proud to be part of investing there in the long term. As we've spent more years in the home,
we've found the outdoor space to be inaccessible because it's detached from the main living space, the kitchen, the living area. Um, as you can see from the set of photos that I passed out, the main
entrance in the front is up a set of stairs. In the next photo, you can see the narrow sideyard and existing concrete path to the rear yard. And then in the remaining photos, you
can see the the windows of the main floor and uh the sliding door that we added during our renovations. Even with the sliding door, access to the yard is down a set of stairs and through the narrow playroom that we
added for our children. This layout makes the backyard feel distant from the main floor, and we don't use it nearly as often as we'd like to. So, we reached out to Jose to develop a vision for how we can fix this
frustrating problem, and we're pleased to present our plan to add a deck to integrate the main living and outdoor space. We think it goes well with our other proposed improvements to the front entrance and the retaining walls, and that it solves the problem of limited
access to our yard. So with that, I'd like to please invite Jose Jiaro to join me and present the details of our proposal. >> Before we do that, we'll just make sure that our board experts or the board itself does not have any questions for you. >> Sure. >> Marie question
for the architect. Okay. >> Any questions for >> any? Yep. Go ahead. >> No, just public questions. >> Yeah. Questions from the public for this witness. >> Seeing none. Okay. Thanks. >> Meet your architect. Good evening.
>> If you could raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm the testimony you're about to give in this matters? The truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> And state your name. Spell your last name. >> Yes. Jose J. Janiro. Ge n a r o. And I'm a licensed architect and planner in the
state of New Jersey. I've been in uh with my own firm for over 25 years. Um, and I testified in front of uh I'm not sure about this board, maybe years ago. It's been a while, but I testified in front of other boards like Westfield,
Union, Hillside, Newark, Irvington, you know, all those. >> All right. Any questions or would you like to accept his credentials? >> And my license is current by the way. >> Excellent. >> Thank you. >> Welcome. >> Thank you, Mr. Char. Please proceed. Thank you. >> I do want to pass. You want me to do
first a rendering? I have rendering. So, >> yeah, that would be great. Thank you. 10 of the front and 10 of the back of the house. >> Yeah. >> And we'll be right.
>> We'll be marking the renderings as A2. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> We also have larger too. 11 by 17,
[Applause] right? >> Yes. Two. Yeah. Front and the rear of the house. Yes. Okay. So, um I think Brandon did a very good introduction. Um as he said, I've been working with them since they moved in the house. We went through a lot of
different ideas for the interior. They're they try to as they try to customize the house, make it their home. Um so, they invested a lot in this pro in the the home in the interior. We opened I have here the plans that were
submitted to you. I'm going to start with P202 and it's dated revised 82325 and that shows the uh so you can see the floor plans of the house. How we opened up the first level and we made some
changes in the the second level. It's a modest size house, a little over 2,000 square ft. Um so at that point they concentrated on the interior. It was a lot to do all at once. So now we're here for the exterior of the house and um two
things that we're proposing is a new particle and entrance on the front, new steps, uh replace uh retaining walls cuz they're failing. There's cracks on them. They're, you know, leaning over a little bit. So we're going to replace it. Uh
and for the rear, we're proposing a deck uh 14 approximately 14 by 21 and a set of steps that leads from the uh second level to the yard because this is the uh the biggest problem here is uh as uh
Brendan mentioned to get to the backyard you have to go down a set of steps in the middle of the house, go through the family room, the playroom, and then come out through those sliding doors to get to the part. So, by adding that this deck on the kitchen level, then they'll
be able to enjoy the outdoor space right at the kitchen level and they'll have a 4ft wide stair that leads them to the backyard. So, um and to get to the deck also, we're turning there's an existing window in
the back that's becoming the French doors to to access it. in the front right now is just uh as you can see from the existing photos, it's a wood platform, wood steps. We're um proposing
to replace them by masonry brick. Everything will be brick. Also, the steps and the the platform. And the question here comes with the 50 square feet that we're requesting because it becomes part of the F. The reason we had
that space is because the the landing is on the second level. So, we have that void space underneath. So, we thought it would be a good idea to utilize it for uh storage garden tools, you know, whatever it may be, a bike or whatever they need because we also what they
didn't mention is that they're eliminating the shed in the backyard. They have a shed sitting in the middle of the backyard. So, that's coming out. So, we thought that that would be a good idea to make use of that space. So, um the and the other variance we're
here for is the coverage because the deck counts towards the building coverage. Uh right now we're at 18% the max allowed is 20%. So, and with the deck we're going to be at 22
be exact here 22.67%. So um how we got to that size is a 14 by 20 from an experience by doing so designing other decks we thought that 14 ft it's the minimum you need in order to
be uh to make the space usable to put a table and chairs and be able to walk around it. So that's how we came up to that size deck. Mhm. >> So other um so like I said the front improvements that will increase the uh
will make the entrance more welcoming will u aesthetically more pleasing to the house and to the neighborhood I believe and the the back gives some a great outdoor uh good use of the outdoor space.
>> Thank you board experts. Um could you uh talk about the um the lot coverage increase? >> Okay. >> Project. >> Uh yes. The the lot coverage is because of the uh of the deck of the new deck.
Uh what's going to happen is I think we don't show it that way here, but we what we want to do is use what's called a um rainscape drainage system by tracks. So it will catch the water. So they'll be able to use the space underneath the deck so the water won't go coming
through. So we'll pick up that water. The the weight right now uh the storm drainage is draining to the backyard. So we are proposing to that continuence of that and we're under 300 square feet. Uh but we're open to if the board decides
that we need some mitigation, you know, my client is open to that too. So, um I I I think looking at your coverage calculation, is it um accurate to say that your increase in it lot coverage is 295
square feet? >> I'm sorry. You're talking about lot coverage. I'm going coverage. Okay. Uh light lot coverage. >> It's there there's no variance required. >> No. And um it looks to me like it is 295
square ft of additional impervious coverage. >> Yes, that that's correct. Yes. >> Okay. So, >> and you know, part part is the deck and part is uh we just expanded the uh Broadway a little bit with the new steps and everything the way it worked out. So, that became a little bit bigger.
Yeah. Okay. >> And that that's how we we got that increase. And um and so you are proposing some kind of water storage. >> Uh no, not at this point. We're not. Okay. >> We're not. Yeah. Yeah. We're thinking >> I think there's a system under the deck. >> Yeah.
>> So just catch catches that water, right? >> And I don't think Okay. >> So um since there's no um the increase is less than 300 square feet, there's there's nothing required, right? So the board can't make you do anything. But um if the board were to look favorably
behind this, I would think that a requirement would be that they would have to provide an asbuilt um just to make sure that there was no increase beyond 300 square feet. So understanding that if you do go above 300 square feet, make the patio just a little bigger or the deck a little bigger, it's going to
trigger storm water management. So now you're you have to do something about that. >> I understand that. And >> that would be yes. Um so right now um where is the storm water in the backyard going? Is it is it
continuing in the same manner in which >> Yes, it's running. It's all grass in the back. It's all l grass. So it's just running and as far as I know it's draining very well. You know, he hasn't had any issues any ponding or anything like that. So
>> I noticed that your um your retaining walls around the front yard and the driveway um above the um property line. Um, is there any discussions with your neighbors about accessing the property?
>> Uh, yes. Yes, we've discussed that with our neighbor and he's he's fine with it. He's actually here. >> It's an improvement for because that that wall has to be replaced, you know, and and it's all under four feet, by the way. Everything is like below four feet.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um, are you taking any trees out with the project? >> No. >> Uh, I think that's all I have. >> Great. Thank you, >> Mr. Chairman. Just a few questions. Um,
one of the things that I did not know, you had mentioned, you're you're removing your shed, but you're also removing your side uh sidewalk. >> Yes, that's correct, too. I didn't mention that. Yeah, that's there's no need for that anymore. There used to be an entrance on the side, but it's not there anymore, so there's no need for it.
>> Okay. So some of that is actually being reduced hoping to reduce the amount of coverage you're >> adding. That's correct. Yes. We're trying to balance it. >> Correct. >> Credit for it. Would you say one of the unique conditions of this property? I think the applicant tried to explain it as well, but from a planning standpoint,
you indicated your planner, but that this property is somewhat the building itself is somewhat having to deal with the fact that living is on the second floor. >> That is correct. Yes, that's exactly it. Yes. So, you're trying to establish an outdoor living space for that main living room, >> right? And at the level of the kitchen,
which is normally what you would want it, you know, if you're entertaining and also adding that staircase that brings you down to to the deck >> to the uh yard, I'm sorry. >> Right. And so that's sort of a unique condition of this house. >> Yes, that Yes, that's my point there.
>> So, an effort that was more in line with sort of a hardship. >> That is correct. Yes. Yes. um talk about that. Uh and your 50 square feet as you mentioned really is just for that storage area, but that storage area
really is visible from the driveway area as far as a mass or scale that's projecting out from the building. >> No, no, it's enclosed. It's under the uh the the platform and you have a door on the side. We're putting in a door for to access it. Yeah.
>> Why don't you show them your your rendering it? I think that does >> that's the door. Yeah. It really doesn't create much of a >> no increase in the building because it really is the lower level of the front. >> That's correct. Yes. Thank you.
Thank you. >> Thank you, Ed. Ward, what questions do you have for this witness? >> I got several. >> Uh let's start in the backyard. The material underneath the deck, is it going to be semi-pervious or completely uh per impervious? it pervious right
impervious right now because if we covering the deck then there's no point of us to make it you know pvious pavers because the water is not getting >> just wanted to make sure that's on the record um and frankly the backyard I I think is great it's a great idea the um one thing I didn't notice in here but I
saw in your renderings proposed landscaping >> uh no we're not showing any landscaping but you know again my client is open to that and I think he's planning to do that right and the replacing the fence possibly in the back and and in some landscaping there. I think that was in
the report as well and I remember seeing that. >> The front stairs um can you go through the rationale of changing you're making them what appears to be substantially larger in terms of length. >> Can you walk through the rationale of that design change? >> Yes. Length is because they wanted like
to have a couple landings. It's a lot of steps just go one shot. So we broke it down into like two landings, you know. So this becomes much easier to walk versus easier to go up in that. Right. That's correct. Yeah. And a little bit wider because right now they're they're kind of narrow too that the the stair is
only one now. Right now it's a straight shot. >> Okay. >> So >> I noticed that you also picked up the comment on the metal roof of the porch versus the bay window. >> Yes. >> Perfect. >> Yeah, they'll match. You know, we'll be matching that. >> The storage itself. Is it only underneath the porch or is it going to
extend under the stairs as well? >> No, only underneath the porch. That's it. Yeah. >> And then the only other comment I would suggest is and I this may be a rendering issue. The column massing on that porch seems a little out of proportion relative to the columns and the mullions of your bay window.
>> Okay. >> So I would just put that as a word of review. >> I appreciate that. We'll look into that. Yeah. >> I think he's he's short changed the the the widths of his bay window and his rendering. If you look at the photograph, they actually look a little
bit wider. Don't think they're quite 12inch columns, but yeah. >> Other questions? >> Can you just uh redescribe where the So, you're collecting storm water from the porch and discharging it where I think I
missed I think I missed >> We need We talked about the deck. I think >> the deck. That's what I mean. I mean the back >> like a gutter in the back. The system is like that. It collect and then it brings it down to two lers probably at at each end at each column >> and it'll just discharge to the yard the
backyard. Yes. Into the >> Have you discussed the um the forers's comment with your client in terms of the the suggestion for screening in the backyard? >> Uh I'm sorry. I didn't I
>> staff comment. >> Yeah. >> Did you get a chance to see that? >> Yes, I I I saw that. Uh which one specifically? The screening trees along the back. >> Yes. Correct. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Is is that something you're immunable to? >> Yes. >> Okay. Great. >> Yes, we are.
>> That's good to know. >> What other questions do we have for this witness? >> I just got one. The retaining wall you're going to replace. That's along the would be the left side of the house if you're looking at it from the street. >> Uh yes, the lefty all the left side of the house. >> And how high approximately how high will
that be? Uh it it varies between 210 to 36, you know, or less, you know, doesn't never goes over four feet, you know, below four and it'll stay the same at the same height because we're not planning to regrade or anything like that. It's just going to be replaced.
>> Thank you. Uh any questions from the public for this witness? >> Seeing none, any public comments at this time? Please step forward. >> We just ask that you state your name, spell your last name. >> Sure. >> Are we We're going to swear you.
>> Swear you. >> So, if you could raise your right hand. Do you swear from the testimony you're about to give in this matter? The truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> Please state your name. Spell your last name. >> My name is Matt Wanger. Wen ger. Uh my wife Kate and I live at 9 Hughes Place.
Uh we're here in support of the proposed deck and front improvements at 14 Hughes Place. Um we think it's important for the street values to allow for homeowners to make needed improvements on their buildings. Over the last few years, we've had a lot of new neighbors
make a lot of improvements on the street. It's really helped the look and feel of the street and we're just here in support of it. >> Excellent. Thank you for that. We appreciate it. Thank you. >> Any other question comments, please? and we'll swear you in as well. Thank
you. >> Vicki, 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? >> I do. >> And state your name, spell your last name. >> Name is Sam Cyverson. Si A R Ten. Uh, I live next door at number 12 Hughes
Place. And just echo my other neighbors comments that in full support of their plans for the house. >> Great. Thank you for that. Appreciate it. Okay, one more. >> Hi, Beth Provenzana.
P R O Van N Z A N A. >> Do you swear from the testimony you're about to give in this matter is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> I am also a neighbor. I'm at 21 Hughes Place. Um I I'll just add uh my support for this project. I really appreciate um
my neighbors making improvements to their property that make their space more accessible and more usable. Um and I think about, you know, Michelle and her family and their ability to access their property um will really uh lend their ability to to stay longer in the neighborhood. Thank you.
>> We appreciate your comments. Thank you. >> Can you just spell your last name one more time? >> Sure. P is in Peter. R O V as in Victor. A N Z as in zebra. A N A. >> Thank you. >> Thanks. All right, Mr. Ball, what conditions do we have?
>> I have three conditions noted. Um, first is our usual compliance with the conditions noted in the board engineers memorandum. Uh, second, as our engineer recommended that an asbuilt survey shall be provided to the city after completion of the improvements to confirm that the impervious coverage is limited to the
295 square feet that's proposed. And third, as we had just discussed, a landscaping plan will be submitted to the city forester for review and approval. >> Excellent. Thank you. >> Uh Mr. Ball, I'd recommend that we change that from 295 to just less than 300. Five square feet. It's not going to make a difference.
>> Fair enough. >> If that's okay with the board, of course. >> I just have one comment before we get into deliberations. I if we address this during the hearing, I apologize. Uh Mr. Snake has noted that the AC unit in the sideyard should be screened with landscaping or fencing. Did we mention Did you >> I didn't mention that. Okay.
>> Okay. So, I think we should add that somehow. >> Um, sure. We're we're open to that comment. The existing condition is that the the AC unit is screened on one side by our neighbor's fence at 16 Hughes and then from the front of the property, you
see in the photos the the pine trees. So, the it is screened in that way. I'm not sure if there's a an additional kind of screening that that's called for there. >> That's what I did not hear yet. So, I think that helps to provide that screen
for the public. >> Yeah, there's there's two pine trees right in the front yard. >> Yeah, you definitely cannot see it from the street. >> Sounds like it's in compliance. Yep. With that, let's open our deliberations. Who wants to begin? >> I will.
>> Thank you, Alison. >> Um, I think this is great. Um, everybody should at get outside as much as possible and if you make it easier for yourself to get out and, you know, um, incorporate your backyard into your your inside, I think it's benefits everybody.
Um, I think everything here is an improvement. I agree with Jay with the pillars on the um, by the porticol do look very wide and if you could change them or that that's that would be great also. Um, and appreciate all the
neighbors coming in. I wish every applicant had the neighbors come in and just show the support. We're here, you know, this we all live in Summit and this is a community and it's important everyone gets along and that everybody is, you know, um, is supportive everybody else. So, I think this is this
is wonderful. So, I fully support it. >> Great, Tom. >> Yeah, I I agree. I mean, the increase in F is really very very modest. Um, there's a larger increase in maximum building cover, maximum building coverage, but I think we understand why that is and why it's useful and helpful. Um, and I appreciate the effort to
reduce coverage by removing the side steps and walkways. I guess they're not needed, but it's good that you're removing them. Um, and also too, great neighbors. It's nice to see you have such support. Um, so that that's always good to see. So, I I can support this as well.
>> I can support this application as well. uh you're kind of in a rock between a rock and a hard spot, you know, smaller lot. Uh and it is important to have that out outdoor access. Um I can support it. >> I uh just want to add something that
hasn't been mentioned, but um I actually love the storage under the steps, the front steps. Um, I do think that that it's not just a a creative way to get some storage space when you get rid of the shed, but it actually is aesthetically pleasing because right now
you have this open large open staircase that you kind of see underneath and this is sort of really incorporating it into the structure and I think that it's going to improve the aesthetics from from the street. Um, so I think that, you know, there's a benefit of the
storage, but it also I think it does help improve the neighborhood, which I think is a benefit um that I feel like we should state here. Probably one of the reasons the neighbors are in support of it as well. So, I can support this. >> Just got to get that street paved.
>> I I think my colleagues have done an excellent job uating the the positives outweighing the negatives in this case. And I agree with Mr. Here you go. This is a very modest request and uh provides great benefit to not only your family but the neighborhood in general. And um
I I will also echo the sentiment and thank your neighbors for coming out tonight. As a board, we very much appreciate seeing this kind of positive support um not only for your neighbors but for your street and your community. Uh it is very welcomed and very
appreciated. I just want you all to know that. So, thank you for taking time out to do that. Uh so with that, can I ask for a motion to >> just add one comment? Sorry, please. Um I know the storm water management is not required, but I think I would just say that it's something maybe to look at
because now that you're going to be discharging more water into the space where your kids are going to play, you might find that your yard is you're having more you have less impervious less pvious cover, right? And it's all coming to one place. So just something to think about. It's not required, but
maybe maybe you want it just to make your backyard that much more usable all the time. You could put it under the deck. So anyway, just a thought. >> Good suggestion. Thank you, Miriam. So with that, can I get a motion to approve? >> So moved. Can I get a second? >> Second.
>> Jessica, roll, please. >> Vice Chair, >> yes. >> Mr. Yuko, >> yes. >> Mr. Nelson, >> yes. >> Miss Chief, >> yes. >> Mr. Fes, >> yes. >> Mr. Chanculi, >> yes. Chairman Lit. >> Yes. >> Congratulations. Good luck with your project.
>> Thank you. And finally for the evening, can I get the 90 tulip group, please? >> I'm sure I can get three neighbors to stay. >> Seriously. >> And I've lived here a lot longer than
they >> Oh, okay. Not sure whose it is, but I say thank you for the beautiful pictures. >> Yes. I want to ask what his printer is. >> Yeah. >> I wish we had profile pictures all the time because you walk the properties but you don't
>> Yeah. doesn't I'm like on my phone like trying on Google Maps just trying to remind myself but probably What was that? >> Emergency. We better get out of here
>> because right now >> Hello. Welcome. Thank you. Uh my name's Amir Ful. I'm the homeowner at 90 Tulip Street. >> I'll swear you in if you could raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm the testimony you're about to give in this matter? The truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> And please just spell your last name for the record.
>> R U F O L O. >> Thank you. >> Welcome. Please proceed. >> Thank you. Uh my name is Amal Fo. This is my wife Laura. >> As I said, we're residents at 90 Tulip Street. We've moved uh into that house in 2018 and uh for me it was a a bit of
a homecoming. I actually grew up in Summit as a child, went to Summit High School. Um Laura and I have three boys. Two are at the Brighton School District, one's in preschool. Our experience of Summit has been fantastic. We love the town. We love living here. It's been a great experience for us and a great
place to raise a family. Um but as our family has grown, uh we've begun to feel the limitations of a three-bedroom house. Uh this is why we engaged with Doug Miller who uh also engaged with Rich Keller, our planner. The goal of our project was to improve the
functionality of the home and um also stay true to the character of the style of the house and the neighborhood. And our goal was ultimately to add a bathroom and a bedroom to our our upstairs floor. We've spoken with neighbors, although I do not have them
here tonight. Um both neighbors uh on each side of our house who would be most impacted by the project are in support of the project and we shared plans with them went over details and and luckily they're very supportive of the project and uh I just thank you for the opportunity to present the plans and
I'll pass it to uh Doug and Rich to go over the details. >> Great. Let me just make sure no questions at this time for this witness board. Any questions for Nope. Okay. And no one for the public, right? Great. Sorry, just had to take care of that bit of business.
>> Mr. Miller, please. >> Hello. Good evening. >> Hi. >> All right, >> Douglas Miller. Oh, >> 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. >> Yes. Douglas Miller, M I L L E R from
AHM Architects, located at 281 Main Street, North, New Jersey. >> Thank you. And I believe you've appeared before us relatively recently. any changes to your credentials since the last time you were here? >> No, my license is still long standing. >> All right. Any questions from the board or would you like to accept them back once again? >> Welcome back and please proceed. Thank
you. >> Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much. Um, as Emil said, uh, he and Laura came to me with a goal of really improving the functionality of the home. The project is in essence just adding an additional bedroom and bathroom on the second
floor. Um, let me walk you through the project. Our lot is approximately 50 by 120 and it's located in the R six zone narrower than the 60 foot required in this zone. The width, the right side
setback, the combined sideyard setback, building coverage and lot coverage are all currently existing non-performing. Um the house is a typical Dutch colonial in style. was built in approximately 1925
and we are requesting C variances for building coverage. Um there's actually no change to the building coverage. There's only a small change to the uh building envelope that is not over the existing footprint and it's a tiny eight square foot canoliever over the deck.
But since the deck is over 18 in above grade, it counts in the building coverage calculation. So there is really no net change in building coverage. Um the next variance is for sideyard setback on the right side. Um that's an
a vertical intensification of the existing non-conforming. It's existing at 5.61 where 8t is required. The next is combined side guard setback. Uh we have 35.46 which is existing non-performing where
33% is required. Um and there's no change to this setback. Um the two setback variances are kind of tied hand in hand. One triggers the other. So without one, you know, we need both. Uh and then we're also asking for a
Dvariance uh for floor area ratio. We're requesting 38.8% where 35% is required. And this is really to expand uh the second floor over this area in the rear over the existing kitchen and on the right side
here over the existing sun room. Instead of taking a lot of time now to go over each variants in depth and argue them, I'm going to save that for a planner if that's okay with you. So I'll just kind of go through the project and bring you up to speed of what we're doing. Um the
site, there are no changes to the site. Um the only areas are the two I just mentioned. uh the vertical intensification of those areas. Uh these are the floor plans. Uh the existing first floor plan is a typical side hall colonial. Consists of a foyer,
a living room, a dining room, a kitchen, and a powder room. And there's a deck off to the rear. The existing second floor consists of three uh small bedrooms and a hall bathroom. Uh one thing that's not really indicated on these plans and you probably wouldn't
even know without going to this house, but the front bedroom here that we have listed as bedroom uh number two uh on the existing and bedroom number three on the proposed is in this section from this window out uh to provide access for
the staircase to the second floor. Um there's a raised section of that floor basically the size of a twin bed that removes the functionality of that room. That room now is according to our dimensions 10t 8 in wide by 9'4 but the
real usable area is only about 7 by 104. So it's a 94 I'm sorry which is a really tiny uh bedroom. You know you could really consider it a nursery or a study space. Difficult to use as a bedroom at all. Um, so what we're proposing to do is
reconfigure uh and expand the second floor. So what we're doing is expanding this area here over the sun room and that's converting this rear bedroom uh to to create a uh primary suite. So there's a nicer bedroom here at 14 by 12
uh with a small walk-in closet and a bathroom. A 14 by 12 bedroom is very small. It's, you know, typically considered a child-siz bedroom and this is our primary suite. So, it just gives you an idea of the scale of the other bedrooms on this floor.
And then this is the uh fourth bedroom we're adding which is over the the kitchen space. Um the goal here was really just to improve the functionality of the second floor. um trying to add as least amount of space as possible to give them the uh
the four bedrooms they need on the second floor. And this area uh right here, this little tiny corner uh is where that can lever that 8 square foot is. Without that kind of square space being filled in, the bedroom would very awkward. And if you
put a actual bed in that room, it would be hard to get past the the foot of the bed to the bathroom, which required the expansion in that area. The next floor is the existing attic plan. It's an unusual setup. There's a
finished area here and the staircase here. And between the staircase and that finished room, it's unfinished. So, what we're simply proposing to do is create a finished hallway to connect the staircase to that finished area, as well
as having a cedar closet um for more uh clean storage in the attic. The roof lines aren't changing on the main volume of the attic. We're not adding any square footage within the attic space. It does have area that does contribute to the floor area ratio and that's
included on our calculations, but the change to the attic does not increase the the floor area ratio whatsoever. Uh, reviewing the comments, there was some note that we did not provide a basement plan. U, the basement does not contribute to the floor area. Um, it's a
very low basement, less than seven feet. Uh, it's finished. It's mostly a play space for the children and there's a laundry room there as well. Uh next, let me flip to the elevations. Uh these are the existing elevations. You can see it's a typical Dutch
colonial in style. The proposed is here. And you know what I I I think we've done is is created a attractive scale appropriate enhancement to the charm of
the existing house. I feel the changes really improve the curb appeal by adding balance to the existing facade. And uh this was a comment that was also reinforced by the historic commission in their review. They felt that by
expanding uh this area here on the second floor over the existing sunroom really enhanced the curb appeal and and created more balance to the facade. They also requested that all the existing materials and fenestration match the
existing and that's what we're proposing to do. We're hoping that this addition uh looks like it was built as part of the original home. Uh we tried to minimize the windows on the sides of the house and these two sides you can see there's just these
tiny transom windows and the nice thing about transom windows it'll bring some natural light into the house but they're up high. So, not only do they provide privacy to the neighbors, but they also provide privacy to my clients. Uh, we also used a variety of techniques to
break down the scale. The house by being a Dutch colonial has gambrell style roofs. And the nice thing about a granell style roof is it brings the fascia down. So, the fascia on the side, it brings it down to the first floor. We're typical in a typical colonial, the fascia is up above the second floor
windows, which gives a sense of height. And by looking at this uh right side which is where the right side variance we're requesting you can see we've kept the roof line low uh which visually decreases the overall height and we've
also used a series of nested uh gambrell structures. So, it steps the house facade away from the sideyard as the uh addition expands out, further minimizing the impact on the neighbor. uh to the
right side. We also used the trim band uh between the first floor and the second floor to further differentiate between the two levels and visually break down the scale, make the house look longer and not taller, which I think goes to uh minimizing any impact
on the sideyard. Um, before I turn it over to the planner and ask answer any questions, I would just like to say that I really feel our property can handle this deviation due to the makeup of our lot in the surrounding neighborhood. As the town continues to grow and families
move in, you know, they need more space and it used to be easy to find another property to relocate to, but so many of the larger lots have been improved or the costs of those properties have just uh ex increased exponentially. So, people are really looking to these
smaller houses that really haven't been uh renovated or expanded to meet the needs of a modern family over the years. And by adding that fourth bedroom and that extra extra bathroom really brings the house up to what people are expecting, it's going to allow my clients to stay in this town. You know,
being members of the community, growing up here and coming back and raising their family, uh will allow that to to continue. Um therefore I I believe the additions go forward go towards maintaining the immediate character of their neighborhood. And if you look at
our zoning calculations and the way the site house is cited with all the existing nonconformities, there's really no way to expand this house without barrier for relief. We are not creating these uh non-conformities. We're just asking for uh vertical intensification
along the right side. Um overall I think that you know the addition is appropriate. improves the housing stock by taking a you know three bedroomedroom one bath house and making it four bedrooms and two beds and it will be a benefit overall. I'll open up to any questions.
>> Great word experts. What questions do you have for this witness? >> Um it appears that um your increase in imperous coverage is not exceeding 300 square feet. Is that correct? >> Correct. There's no change to impervious coverage at all. >> Okay. So there's um there's no need for
any storm water mitigation. Can you talk about what your um any changes to the roof leaders or any of the discharge points at the ground or the the new addition just because it's a different roof line? >> There's going to continue to drain the way they were, but I think that would be
better for our engineer planner to to discuss. >> That's all I have. Thank you. >> Uh I think you've uh succinctly talked about the proposed architecture and how it's compatible with the existing forms of the building. true Dutch colonial style. Correct. That's correct. You're
trying to meet even the rear addition to the back of the building. The new bump out there for the additional bedroom is also going to be in the same Dutch colonial style. >> It is correct. >> That side. Um what is the use of that rear structure? It's labeled as one
story frame cottage. >> Yeah, it's a multi-purpose space. It's just a finished room. Uh they currently use it as a play space for the kids or a work from home space depending on what their needs are. Okay. And that is calculated into I guess the F. >> Correct. That's included in the F
calculations. >> Thank you. No further questions. >> Sure. >> Great board. What questions do you have for this witness? >> I have a question about the cottage. Um just because having been there today um in case this is something that has to be, you know, put into our resolution.
Um that you can, you know, I was there. I could see through the windows. There's a area, desk, couch, everything, but you can see about twothirds of it. And then there's a wall, there's a door, there's an outside door that accesses the back. What is in the back there? Is there a
kitchen? Is there a bathroom? Is there um that was, you know, you can >> Yeah, I can answer. Um there's a shed in the back. So, it's um a wall and then there's a door on the outside. It leads to a shed. So, we keep our lawn mower and other lawn equipment in that back.
>> Okay. Thank you. I have a um question about that bedroom that you said that had a step up where you really is has is anything going to be changed to that bedroom to make it more usable or it's still going to stay that this the same? >> Yeah, unfortunately uh the bump up in
the floors to provide headroom for the existing staircase. So maybe when the original architect designed it, they forgot about headroom and they wound up just creating this awkward bumpout. So, we've been talking about, you know, do we make a some sort of built-in bed, you
know, try to utilize it, turn a negative into a positive. But, yeah, we're going to try to maximize the utility of that bedroom considering they is a family of, you know, three children and, you know, the parents. So, you know, we need every bedroom available.
>> Any other questions? >> Seeing none. Great. Next witness. >> Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Miller. >> Do you swore affirm the testimony you're about to give in this matter? It's the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. >> Yes, I do. >> Please state your name. Spell your last
name. >> Rich Keller. K E L L E R. >> Thank you. And you two have appeared before us a number of times, including recently. Any changes to your credentials since the last time you were here? >> No changes. And I am appearing uh today both as an engineer and planner. >> All right. Any questions or would you
like to accept them back once again? >> We would. Welcome back, Mr. Keller. Please proceed. Uh, as was indicated, um, I did bring, um, well, not indicated, but I did bring two exhibits, and I'm going to try using, um, these screens. So, I have A1,
which is an annotated aerial photo. Um, and this is a, um, a photograph where we took an aerial photograph from nearmap.com. It is to scale, and superimposed over that is the lot uh, lot configurations of both the property
in question as well as the neighborhood. And um this was prepared by my office is dated 121 2025. And the photograph uh was captured on March 18th uh 2025. And what this basically shows and I'll
talk a little bit about the neighborhood. >> I'll just briefly note we're going to mark this as A1. I guess the entire is it just one? >> I have two exhibits. So if you want to name them A1 and A2. >> Uh if it's just one file, we'll just mark the entire electronic presentation as A1. >> Okay. and I'll introduce what the second
one is when I get to it a little later. >> Okay. >> So, the property, as was indicated, is in the uh R six single family residential zone. The property has 50 ft of of frontage along Tulip is 120 ft deep, which is consistent with pretty much all the houses in the neighborhood,
certainly on the northerly, which is to the left, the northerly end of the block. um directly across from the uh the Brighton School, elementary school, which was built in the primary um structure was built in 1911. Uh there
was a a one-story wing that was added subsequent to that. Most of this neighborhood um in the in the subject block was constructed in about 1925. Actually, the house next to us immediately, which I'll show a photograph later, was was built the same time as the school about 1911. It
doesn't have the Dutch uh colonial influence, but I will kind of discuss um how it's kind of a good primer on uh on on massing and F and how it reads. But the um the property is uh in a zone where 60 ft is required. So, it is a
conforming lot as to area. It's exactly 6,000, but it is undersized as to lot width. Um, the property, as was indicated, is improved with a two-story uh frame house, one-story frame cottage, slate patio, the elevated wood deck, and an asphalt driveway. Um, being built in
1925, the property does certainly predate zoning. Um, and that especially goes to both the sideyard setbacks and the driveway setbacks. Most of the driveways in the in the neighborhood are if you look at any of the properties on Laurel, including the ones to the to the
uh left, which is to the north, most of the driveways, basically the back of the curb sits right on the property line. A lot of the right side, one of the the non-driveway side setback tends to be between four and six feet on most of these houses on on the block. Not all, but certainly uh many of them have a
similar sideyard setback. Um, if you look at 92, it has a uh, you can see it has a smaller sideyard setback um, than we do. Um, the next house a little larger. The next house has a a small offset on the left side. So, it's a neighborhood that's defined by undersized lots that tend to be biased
towards one side, have an existing nonconformity on at least one side. U, most also in combined sideyard. And most of these houses have had two-story additions placed on that non-driveway side. So, what we're asking for in terms of uh as the architect indicated uh
elevating that existing nonconformity um it's really not atypical to the neighborhood. The site is uh is uh by the way um the zoning or this also predates the zoning as far as um um not just sideyard setbacks and driveway but
also predicts the times uh predates the times when decks were counted as building coverage. So obviously when a deck goes over 12 feet 12 in high off the ground counts as building coverage. When this when these lots were when this neighborhood was developed again pre-zoning uh decks were not considered part of building coverage even when when
when zoning started to rest restrict building coverages. Um the site is relatively flat. It has about 2 ft of pitch from the back uh towards the front towards Tulip Street. Um there is some existing drainage. There's a drain in the rear yard that does collect drainage and takes it out to this town storm
source system, the city storm source system in Tulip uh that was recently um uh rent rest restored. There was some broken pipes that is in good shape. Uh from what we can tell, some of the roof leaders tie into that. We can't tell all them, but they all do go underground. And since we're not improving, we're not
expanding any of the roof area, we're expecting roof leaders will come down in roughly the same spots and tie into the same system, whether they go into an uh a subsurface uh stone holding area or or the ones we know go out towards the street. We're not planning on changing that. But again, there's no increase in
impervious area. So, there should be no increase in runoff, no change to the neighborhood. And everything as indicated does grade from the back towards the front. So we certainly wouldn't be negative impacting the neighbors on either side or to the rear. The um and in my walk there was certainly uh two visits to the site
there was no certainly no signs of any drainage issues on the property. Uh the development application as indicated needs basically four variances. Um first is the D4 variance and that is for um floor area ratio where 35% is permitted. That's 2100
square f feet. The existing is 33% which is 1983 square feet. So we're just conforming under by 117 square ft. And with the addition of the 347 square ft of floor area um in that extension over
the right side and towards the rear of the house, that's where we're adding to the to the F. Uh that brings us up to 38.8. That's 2330. So over by 130 ft. The interesting keep thing to keep in mind is when we're dealing with small lot sizes, 6,000 square feet, it doesn't
take very much square footage to get a big bump in the percentage. So, even though we're only over 130 square ft, it sounds like we went over from 35 permitted 38.8. Um, sounds like a big increase, but it's really not. It's 130 square feet over, and it's not inconsistent with the neighborhood,
which I'll get to a little later. So for um the proofs for a floor area ratio um variance, I I like floor area ratio variances as a as a someone who has a background in architecture. I think it becomes a referend referendum on the
architecture and how well the architect has integrated the mass into the home so it doesn't overwhelm the neighborhood. Um F was originally developed as a commercial metric. Uh obviously for a commercial building the more floor area you have the bigger the dentist office
the bigger the the store the more customers you have the more workers you have so there's a direct relationship between intensity of use um and the F um for residential it's really was modified in the last 30 years and it becomes a metric to control the mass so not
intensity of use we're not expecting um to have extra children because we have some extra F or there's another family is going to move in so it's not really intensity of use so much it is we're trying to make sure the mass doesn't overwhelm the neighborhood. the um the standard um for the positive proof um
for a an F variance is uh addressed pursuant to the Randolph um town center case which basically follows what's known as the Coventry Square criteria and using that criteria uh the applicant needs to show that the site can accommodate the problems that are usually associated with an F uh greater
than that permitted um without uh substantial detriment to the public good or the zone plan. Um the usual problems are associated with an F greater than that permitted is overcrowding on the site uh and overwhelming the character and scale of the neighborhood. Um and
that's a reason that I kind of like F variances as indicated because similar to I could have you know I I wasn't going to use this but Doug said are you going to use the the 180 pound person um parable again. And I said, basically, um, I could have three 180lb men
standing up here, and we could all look very different depending upon the height, um, the breadth of our shoulders, the length of our torso, even the clothes that we wear would greatly affect how three people could look very different at 180 pounds. And this is the same with an F. F is not, we sometimes get hung up on the on the numbers on an
F. And it really is when you go over the FIR, it sends off it sets off an alarm that we need to look and make sure that this mass has been incorporated into the structure so that it doesn't change the character of the neighborhood and doesn't feel out of place with the neighborhood. And I would argue that um the way Doug has handled it, handled the
architecture, it certainly does not overwhelm the neighborhood. It remains in character of the neighborhood and enhances the character of the neighborhood. the um the uh we think the site first of all the the uh the rear edition um cannot be seen from the street. The side edition is set back
from the front line. Actually, let me just let me just do one thing. Let me go to that second exhibit briefly. And that was the photo board prepared by my office uh December 30th, 2025. And the photographs were taken uh two days ago.
And if we look at the top left photo, this is the subject property at 92 Tulip Street looking east from the street. And you can see the uh you don't really see the the Dutch gaml sides, but you see it's a it's a it's a modest colonial um with a uh a one-story addition to the
right, a sun room. And if you look at the um the property immediately, so this was built in 1925. And if you look at the house immediately to the right of that at 92, this was built in 1911. It was not done in that uh Dutch colonial style. And you can see that in this
property rather than having the right mass, which I think it was probably similar, had a a similar one-story bump out. Uh most of these homes in this neighborhood all had a 25 or 26 x 26 ft footprint with a sun porch added onto it. Some of which when were extended
upward. This one basically fits that same parameters that was built earlier. And you can see that rather than setting that uh off that that mass back on the right as is done on the subject property and many of the others on the block uh the architect in this case aligned them
so that it reads as one long facade. Um if we look at the property um side by side, you can see here's 90 tulip on the left, 92 on the right, and you can see that while the roof is a little lower, it's not as steep, uh it
doesn't have the gamberals to break down the side massing, you see that it has actually, I think, what's a more massive appeal from from the street. If we look at the fourth photograph, which is um that same house at uh 92 um going down the block to 94, you can
see the difference again where 94 is almost identical to our house except that they've put a a full uh porch across the front. And you can see the way that porch breaks down the mass of that facade. Interestingly enough, our um our house will not look any different
from the street. Um in this view, it will be slightly larger. um as we're extending up that uh that second story over the right wing. Um however, the um it will really look no different than the rest of the block. Obviously,
there's a much lower house. Uh and then they go back to very similar style to both 90 uh 4 and 90. And again, you can see if you look at um our house, which will come in at with the proposed additions come in at 38.8%.
The house on the right comes in at 25 just under 25%. Uh and the house to the right of that comes in at about 34%. So uh 3 just between 34 and 35%. So you can see the way that the massing and the way the architectures help the roof line
the not going with the Dutch gam which means the roof does not come at come lower onto the facade. You can see the way that the architecture helps to break down the mass so that three houses which have uh very different F numbers, the one that appears the biggest from the street is actually the one with the
smallest F. The um again, no hard criteria. The rear edition cannot be seen from the street. The side edition um is set back from the front line of the house. So, it's consistent with other homes in the neighborhood. So there's no impact on
the adjoining dwellings to the north um um or to the south um excuse me. Um the architect has varied the roof lines and massing to create sha shade and shadow. He's developed that uh gamber roof to help further break down the massing on the right side of the drawing which is
on my drawing the drawings that are still on the board. Um the uh what was pointed out um by your planner is the architect has also extended which is unusual for the neighborhood because a lot of these have newer additions but they didn't carry that Dutch gaml style in the rear of the home. So the
additions that are on the back appear to be newer and they appear less nuance and less in character with the home. So the architect was careful when they did expand that bed expand that bedroom over the kitchen area that they followed through the gamma roof both to break down the mass and also to carry the style and nature of the home around to
the pro to the back of the property not just the front. The um and I would point out this is uh this is fully conforming in height and as indicated the F is not inconsistent with the neighborhood. Um I would point out
that in 2022 uh property at 9 Laurel um underwent a significant um gut rehab and extension to the rear of the property. Uh they did a lot more work to the inside. They they did an open plan etc. Um but also sought
to have four bedrooms. that was granted approvals for lot coverage of 49 a.5% um building coverage of 25% and an F of 37.5%. And if you if you consider the fact that
um the garage which is doesn't count a certain uh 228 ft of the garage don't count for F um but it does appear as mass on the property. If you calculated that 216qt garage as F, that would be up about 41.1%.
So these are numbers that are not inconsistent with the neighborhood. If you look just at the massing, you can see as you move uh to the right or to the south on the street, you can see that there are other homes that are um bigger. They are have larger garages. So
I don't have the full FA F areas for those lots and I hesitate to do calculations on them anyways because again I don't think the numbers really matter but also what I found is that um we have attributed 85 square ft of F to the attic. I can't get that from
property data records on the adjoining homes. So I don't know whether um other properties have 80 100 square feet of of F in their attic. So I tend to discount that that direct comparison. I did happen to have the uh resolution of approval for nine Laurel. So I was able
to get those numbers exactly but the um so I think that uh it's not out of keeping with the neighborhood. With regard to the C variances um first is for um building and lot coverage. Building coverage 20% is permitted. We're at 1,200 uh which is 1,200 square
feet. The existing is 26.8. That's 1608. Uh so that's 408 square feet over what's permitted but that does include the decks does include the cottage. Um the proposed stays identical at 26.8 or 1608. Also need a maximum lot coverage
and again there's no change in this 40 is permitted. That's 2400 ft. Existing is 42.16 and that's also the same proposed that's 50 23 2530 ft. So again that's only 130 square feet over what's permitted. See, these are not huge
numbers to get uh big bumps in the percentages. Um as was indicated in your planner memorandum, um we don't have any record that these were ever approved by um granted, but obviously given the date of the uh the neighborhood, we think that
they probably certainly do predate zoning. Um we think that this can be approved uh under the C2 criteria. That's the flexible C variance where the plan where the um plan as proposed represents a better planning alternative than a conforming one might. Um and this
applies where the purposes of the land use act are advanced and the net benefits of the deviation outweigh any potential detriment. Uh the purposes of the land use act that we think are advanced is general welfare. It allows the owners to contemporize the home with regard to amenities most people require
in 2025. I think we um my heart goes out to any any mother who can live in a house with three boys and a husband with one full bath and a powder room on the first floor. Um and so what they're asking to do, I think, is is a reasonable request. And as indicated by
the architect, there weren't a whole lot of other ways it could be done in this house given its the size of the lot, the uh the location of the existing dwelling. So the um we think we're advancing general welfare. We're also promoting a desira vis visual environment. It's an attractive home. It
actually improves the aesthetics on the back of the house. Um and it's uh as was indicated um by your historic dis by your historic chair. The second story edition adds balance to the front of the elevation. So we think it improves both the front and the rear aesthetics. Actually takes it more into keeping with
the neighborhood and the historic nature of the of the neighborhood. the um we're also uh con uh promoting the con conservation of historic structures. Um this is informally known as the Braden
um Land Company um historic district, but it's not an official district. It's what the uh it's referred to in town, but there's therefore no protections for these homes. And they're really beautiful, and I'm glad to see that most of the owners in the in the neighborhood have sought to preserve them. But without any protections, we're always
happy when somebody seeks to take an existing home um in very restrained manner and very carefully considering the architecture. They decide to add to it to make it work rather than seek to raise it and put up something that would be newer and maybe easier to deal with and and maybe meet the needs of of their
home, but with a new structure. So, I think it certainly preserves an historic structure in an area where there's no protection or little protection. So, we think that the benefits certainly outweigh the detriments, and I'll get to the detriments in and the negative criteria in a second. Um, we also need a variance for the minimum sideyard. We
think this is both this this is really both a C1 and a C2. Uh, the sideyard 8 foot is required where 5.61 uh existing and proposed because we're just vertally vertically extending that in a condition that's again not unique to the neighborhood.
C1 applies where we think the undersized nature of the lot in terms of its lot width and the location of the lawfully existing structure on that being uh set less than eight feet to the to the line creates a hardship in um providing the amenities that the architect is seeking to provide for the owners without the
need for variance relief. The um the narrowness of the lot and location existing house limits the additions to the rear and the right side, the small right side. it it would be structurally gymnastic to set the second floor in another two foot five inches. And to be honest with you, I don't the
architecture up, but um if you were to take two and a half ft out of the primary bath and the master u and the primary closet, they really would be unworkable and usable. So I think that again all of the requests are fairly restrained in keeping with the
architecture. Um the sideyard is really a condition of the existing the location of the existing home and I think C2 always applies for the same reasons we said before uh on net benefit. Um we're advancing three purposes of the land use act. Um the same three I just mentioned
and there's really uh we think the negatives the positives outweigh any detriments. The negative criteria we see no substantial detriment to the public good. The rear edition will be constructed within the buildable area. The addition on the right side is a vertical intensification of the pre-existing non-conforming sideyard
setbacks. Will not encroach any further into the existing setback. Uh both additions will be constructed over the existing first floor. Therefore, there's no change to the building coverage, no change to runoff, no change to lot coverage. Um the additions don't change the building height. It's still well under the it's still more than two feet
lower than the permitted height within the zone. and the additions properly nest lower as they should as would have been done in in those uh Dutch colonial homes. They nest in lower so as they move out they telescope or they telescope back away from the property
line minimizing the impact on the neighbor uh closest impacted. The I think the architecture has done a uh the addition will complement and integrate with the existing house using matching siding, windows, details, colors. Um I think that the uh the architect has
actually done a pretty good job in creating a cohesive architect piece of architecture that feels appropriate to the site. Um there's no substantial impairment to the master plan. Um that we're really um doing nothing to really change the character only preserve the character of the neighborhood. Um and as
I said the amount of F relief requested is similar to that in the rest of the neighborhood. Again the F um being a Dvariance. So we do require five affirmative votes on that. The C the C variances require a simple majority. I'm happy to answer any questions.
>> Thank you. Board experts, what questions do you have? >> I um I don't think I have any questions. I heard that um the downspouts are going to be continuing on their historical drainage pattern. So I don't have any further questions. >> Great. Thank you, Marie. Ed,
>> I will say it sounds like you enjoyed this application testimony for sure. >> Yes. Um, and the only thing I would point out is I believe your architect uh talked about there's also the combined sideyard setback. We did not pick that up in our report either, but that it's
probably something that we're looking sort of of confirming or legitimizing certain variances that that pre-exist. So therefore I think under that same vein as you would try to justify building coverage and the lot coverage for the
site uh that would also probably apply to the side. >> Yeah, I think that also would be the C1 and C2 um criteria and for the uh combined sideyard the uh required is 33% which is 16.5.
the existing proposed is 35%. That's 17.73. So we're off by about 1.2 feet, >> right? Just in combined cover that for the record. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> And do we also have to add a a variance for the existing nonconforming side
driveway setback? Like it somewhere in the notes it says it's less than two feet or something. So >> that probably needs to be added in >> as well. Yeah, that would that would be great >> because I think you did identify that in your direct test.
>> Yep. >> What was the figure? >> How many feet? >> Less than 10. >> It's actually 2 feet. >> 22. Okay. >> And I actually did a curve. >> Same thing. Great.
>> Thank you, Ed. Board, what questions do you have for this witness? None. >> You left them speechless. It's very rare, I have to say. >> Very thorough. >> Absolutely. >> And I do like FR varianes and I and I
don't do I I don't take them I only take certain architects and even with certain architects, I have to look at the site, look at the architecture first. >> I've been doing this a long time. I've never heard anybody say they like F variances. >> Mr. Mr. Chairman, can I >> I don't recommend going for them, but but I think they're the most fun for me
as an AR as a Mr. >> I will break the the the good luck spell here. Okay, so explain to me the sideyard, the combined sideyard. >> Okay. >> It sounds like you have 17 ft where only 16's required or you 17 ft required. >> Yeah, I was looking at that. So, I have
um existing is 17.73. >> Okay. >> Um so, actually I get that as conforming. >> Yeah. >> So, I think I had that reversed. So yeah, I think you said it was proposed at 35%, right? Which the minimum required is 33%.
>> You're actually over. >> Yep. You're okay. >> So no variance is required there, but we will note the variance for the driveway at uh 2 ft. >> Thank you. >> Um seeing no questions or comments from the audience.
>> I have a question. the um well I guess it's a garage and everybody other every other um property but it's a cottage in this one and obviously it's been there. Does anything have to be done with that because it's there's no garage but
there's a structure that I think it should be is technically the garage because it's at the end of the driveway. Um it well it would depend on when it was constructed and how it's been used as to whether it can continue there.
>> It's been there. I'm out of the neighborhood. It's been there. It seems like it's always been there and it's like it was always known that they're the one house with the cottage in the back. But >> does anything have to be >> memorialized? Legalizing it. >> Yeah. What is it used for? Well, it's
and it's not really a cottage because it's there's no there's no sleeping in it, but as indicated, it's a it's a an office, kids play area, and the back half is for lawn mower and tool supply, >> but there's no there's no garage. >> There's no garage. >> Correct. >> Should we just legalize the fact that it cannot be converted to dwelling?
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, we've come across this in other cases where, you know, additional space, it may be used as living area or can be converted more easily. Um what we have required in those cases as a
condition is a deed restriction confirming that it'll continue to be used as a single family home. Uh if you're amendable to you know filing that deed restriction that I think would address any potential concerns of the board. >> Yes.
>> Okay. Great. >> Perfect. Thank you. >> Does that prevent it from being used as like an in-laws? Not just renting but like like putting a kitchen in it because I know that those are the kind of that's the kind of thing where >> again that would be a
>> it would depend how in depth you want to get on that condition. You know the deed restriction can limit the use of it in particular. You can be more general in just saying that you know it will continue to be used as a single family home. Depends on what your concerns are.
>> I don't know. We just had we just had a case where we had to say that it wouldn't have a kitchen in it or something. It was a couple weeks ago. >> Garage with the second floor. >> Yeah. So, I was just, you know, wondering why we wouldn't say that here. It seems like something we've sort of
been saying because it because Summit doesn't allow that. Is that correct? So, that you couldn't make that modification in the future without >> I think with the clarification I think that it stays as a single family home. I think that would help cover that from a zoning perspective,
>> right? >> Otherwise, when you put in a kitchen, it starts to >> lead towards two. >> Okay. >> I'd say no kitchen. I I'd specify because I I think that that you can have your college age child living in there,
too. Like that's I don't know. Like I feel like it's kind of like >> um so we'll incorporate that into one condition. And the deed restriction will mention both um yeah no kitchen and continue to be used as single family home.
>> That that's fine. Yeah. >> Okay. With that >> recap conditions for us. >> So that is aside from our general condition we have just the one uh compliance with those conditions noted in our board engineers memorandum. And then as we just discussed that deed
restriction condition is the only other condition I have noted. Um and as Mr. Keller noted five votes are required to approve the application because there is a floor area ratio variance. >> Great. Who wants to open up deliberations?
>> I I I can support this. Um I think it's u very modest. I think it improves the neighborhood. I don't see any negatives. Um, and I know I know what it's like to have three kids with three bedrooms because that's what I have. >> And um, I I can support this.
>> Great. >> Thank you. >> Who else? >> I I could support it, too. And I've been upstairs in that house, but before you bought it, it's it's small. It's small. So, I think it's definitely uh needed and it is a very reasonable um ask and I
think it's, you know, fits in fits in well. I also could support it and I think that um the architect has done a good job of trying to minimize any of the potential negatives. I think the windows that what
you did there on the sides was was really important because when you are, you know, you have less than the sideyard set back and you are close to the neighboring house, you're still maintaining the privacy and I think that um that makes this have the fact that
you have not or not meeting the sideyard setback less of a negative. I think that helped alleviate some of that. Um and I think it's a very thoughtful plan. and the architecture is very cohesive and it is really nice that you extended style into the back because as you said a lot
of people don't do that. So, um I could support this application. >> Yeah, I'll just add I I can support it as well, but I'll just add that all the variances are based on going up and not out or anything like that. So, it is it does create the appearance of a bigger house, but it's not bigger in the sense that it's not going to stand out from
the neighborhood. So, I I can support it as well. >> Yeah. And I just wanted to to reiterate too that the uh the hardship of the width of the the lot I think is a a point worth uh bringing to the forefront
and discussing and um if you had that extra 10 feet it'd probably alleviate some of your issues for sure. So with that can I get a motion to approve? >> So moved. >> Second. Jessica >> Vice Chair Zon
>> yes >> Mr. Yuko >> yes >> Mr. Nelson >> yes >> Miss Chief >> yes >> Mr. Fes >> yes >> Mr. Chan Shulie. >> Yes. >> Chairman Ly. >> Yes. Congratulations. Good luck. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> So, we have some resolutions and some minutes. >> First up, we have uh two resolutions for memorialization 13 Huntley Road, zoning board application number ZB-25-2307. The eligible members to vote are vice
chairs on Mr. Yuko, Mr. Malay, Mr. Mr. Nelson, Mr. Curran, Mr. Feskins, and Chairman Lyz. Could we get a motion? >> So move. >> And a second. >> Second. >> Thank you. Vice Chair. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Yuko. >> Yes. >> Mr. Mallet. Oh. Uh, Mr. Nelson. >> Yes. >> Mr. Fes. >> Yes. >> Chairman Lyens. >> Yes. Next up is 190 Kent Place Boulevard, zoning board application number
ZB-25-2309. The eligible members to vote are Mr. Yuko, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Feskins, and Chairman Lickett. Could we get a motion? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Thank you, Mr. Yuko. >> Yes. >> Mr. Nelson, >> yes.
>> Mr. Fes, >> yes. >> Chairman Ly, >> yes. >> Thank you. Up next, we have the minutes from September 4th, 2025 for memorialization. Could we get a motion? >> So move and a second. >> All in favor?
>> I. >> Any opposed? Thank you. >> Just a reminder folks, uh our next meeting is virtual. All right. And should not take >> instructions for that. >> They went out today. >> I emailed them today. Okay,
>> I get it. >> Does the public know if somebody asks like what what is known about the next meeting? >> It was noticed. I don't know if it was actually published yet, but we sent out the notice >> that it's a virtual meeting >> and it also
>> scheduling purposes only and it has the anticipated um next hearing date as well. >> So, the public can go on if they wanted to. Yes. >> Maybe post a note on the door though just in case. >> Yeah. And there it will be posted actually it was posted today um on the
agenda section and there is also on the kiosk out there and you want it on the door too. >> Okay. Sure. >> Should we fly one of those banners? >> I'm just going by the city. Motion to adjurnn. Unless there's any
other business. All right.