Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the September 8th, 2026 meeting of the City of Summit Zoning Board of Adjustment. My name is Miriam Zahn and I'm the Vice Chair of the Zoning Board. Please rise and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. In accordance with New Jersey Statute 10-4-10, adequate notice of this special meeting has been provided to a newspaper record and has been posted here in City Hall. This meeting is a judicial proceeding. Any questions or comments must be limited to the issues that are relevant to what the board may legally consider in reaching a decision. And decorum appropriate to a judicial hearing must be maintained at all times. For the benefit of the interested public, this meeting is being live streamed to the city's YouTube page and also broadcast on Summit's government channel, which is Comcast Channel 34 and Verizon Channel 30. A transcript of this meeting is also being taken using the video and audio, so we need all speakers to utilize one of the microphones in the room. Please note that the fire exits are to my right, your left, and at the back of the room where you entered. The city has a listening system to assist the hearing impaired. If anyone needs hearing assistance, please obtain the system at the dais and return it thereafter.

Ms. Sands, please call the roll of the members. Vice Chair Zahn?

Here.

Mr. Yuko?

Here.

Mr. Malay is excused. Mr. Mullen?

Here.

Mr. Nelson is excused. Mr. Curran is expected but not yet present. Ms. Chifo? Here. Mr. Faskins is excused. Mr. Chanchuli? Here. Mr. Bell? Here. Chairman Liketts is excused. You have a quorum. You may proceed. Thank you.

Andy Ball is the Zoning Board's attorney. Mr. Ball advises the board members on matters of law and is the key interface with an applicant's attorney. Mr. Ball does not vote on the applications. Tonight we have Mr. Nick Hesschen filling in for Mr. Ball. Jessica Sands is a city employee and is acting as the Zoning Board's secretary. Our board secretary works with applicants on preparing their applications, planning our agendas, and keeping our meeting minutes. The board secretary also does not vote on the applications. Also present are experts who are hired annually by the board to provide input. Tonight we have Marie Raffae from Collier Engineering. Also present is Tom Behrens from Burgess Associates, our board planner. These experts are seated at the table to the right of the board, the public's left. They do not vote on the applications. Our board consists of seven regular members and up to four alternates. All members can participate in the hearing tonight, but a maximum of seven can vote. Most applications require a simple majority to be approved. Before we enter into executive session to vote on the application, you will be advised as to how many votes are required. Each case will begin with the applicants or their attorney giving an overview of the application process to date and the variances that are required. We then hear from any additional expert witnesses the applicant may have to help explain the application and why the variances are needed. The board experts followed by board members may ask questions of the applicant, their attorney, and the expert witnesses. Due to recent cases running excessively long, we strongly encourage applicants and their experts to give brief and concise testimony so that we can get to as many cases as possible in a given evening. Once the board members and the board professionals have completed their questioning, the public will have the 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 to how you phrase your questions. They should not be proceeded with a statement about the case, but should be a direct question for the witness. Also, before you ask your questions, please clearly state your name, spell your last name and provide your address. It is important that our court reporter be able to keep a clear and accurate public record. After all witnesses have been heard, members of the audience have their second opportunity to speak. At that time, you may express your opinion, positive or negative, about the application. Then the public hearing is closed and we enter into executive session where the board members discuss the case and vote. You will be able to listen to our executive session, but you will not normally be able to participate in the discussion. At this time, I'm going to ask that each applicant and or their attorney, if present, come up and give a brief synopsis of their anticipated testimony tonight, including the number of witnesses and whether or not they can finish their presentation within 30 minutes. We will begin this evening with 37 Fairview. Can you just give us a brief description of how long, you're not going to give your presentation just yet. We're going to hear from everybody as to how long they think their presentation is going to take and how many witnesses you have.

Okay, I'm sorry, I fell off. Yeah, that's okay. 15 minutes.

Okay, and are there just the two of you?

I'll probably be the only one speaking.

Okay, thank you. 21 Iris Road. Okay, thank you. 115 Butler Parkway.

We'll be about 10 to 15 minutes at the most.

I'm liking the sounds of this meeting. I don't have anybody else, but you know. 19 Hickory Road.

I think we concluded about 10 to 15 minutes as well.

Okay. Two witnesses? Okay. Great. Thanks. All right. So we will begin with 37 Fairview. Please state your name.

My name is Christine Maceo, registered architect and planner in the state of New Jersey. Been licensed for... I want to say almost 40 years, maybe a little longer. My office is at 211 Washington Corner Road, Burnsville, New Jersey. I have been before this board before, but it has been a few years.

Okay. The board will accept your credentials. Continuing. Okay.

Okay.

And do we need to be sworn in?

Yes.

Please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Please state your name and spell your last name for the record.

Christine Miseo, M-I-S-E-O.

Thank you.

Lara Gibbons, G-I-B-B-O-N-S. And just for the record, Ms. Gibbons, you're the homeowner?

I do have one additional thing to put into evidence, and that would be some photographs of the subject property.

Do you mark them, or do I? We'll mark that as A1.

Thank you.

We'll keep this one.

Yeah.

You can begin by giving us a description of the project.

Yes. Here tonight on behalf of my client, Mr. and Mrs. Gibbons-Hare, to request a C1, to request C1 bulk variances for lot coverage and generator location. Such property is a residence located at 37 Fairview Avenue. And my client is proposing a one-story 17 foot by 18 foot, or 306 square foot covered porch in the rear yard. The covered porch will also take place of a portion of the existing patio that's in the rear yard. The covered porch shall be gabled roof structure supported by six decorative columns and it will be directly in the rear of the house and it will also have a fireplace and a TV area to the right side of the loger. Our 10 requirements require 18% lot coverage or 1410 square feet. The existing property uses 17% or 1332 square feet. of lot coverage, we're proposing 21.35 or 1674 square feet. This is a variance of 3.35 or 264 square feet. The generator will also be located a little bit further to the left than it is now. Right now, I believe it has about a 14-foot side yard setback, and we're proposing an 8-foot-4 side yard setback. A 10-foot setback is required in the zone, and variance relief is for 1-foot-8 inches. The main hardship for this lot is the fact that it is an existing non-conforming lot. The zone requires a 10,000 square foot lot, and this lot is only 7,838 square feet. And not only is it undersized in square footage, but it also, Also, it's narrow by 15 feet. Thus, the side yard variance is required from the generator. Sixty feet is required I'm sorry, 75 feet is required in the zone, and 60 feet is the existing side width of the lot. If the lot was full-sized in the zone, we would not be seeking any variances because an 1,800, because 1,800 square feet of the lot coverage would be allowed, and the 1,674 lot coverage that we're requesting is less than the maximum. And a full-size lot is, like I had said before, 10,000 square feet, and this lot is only 7,836 square feet. We will not be requesting a variance for the jungle gym play set in the rear yard. That set will either be taken down or relocated. So we will not have an issue that it will be too close to any structures. I feel that this variance will not substantially harm the public good. Main reason is you can take a look at the photographs that I had given you. There is a between five and six foot fence on three sides of the rear yard. I assume many of you had a chance to go by the property to see that you cannot even see into the backyard because the fence wraps around to the sides of the yard. the building so this addition will also not even be seen from the street because it is a one-story addition behind a two-story house so i don't believe that it would cause any harm to the neighborhood because it's unseen from the neighborhood even the neighbors don't see it unless they grab a stool and peek over the fence because it is a pretty high fence let's see i'm trying to look through all my notes i believe that the hardship on this property because of its undersized both width and square footage would be the reason for our hardship and to allow the board to be able to grant this variance and i don't believe that this variance can I believe this variance can be granted without any substantial detriment to the public good and the variance will not substantially impair the intended purpose of the municipal zoning plan or the ordinance.

Do we have any questions from our board experts?

On questions, maybe just a comment or two, perhaps a question. We'll see where we go. Thank you. That was a pretty succinct overview, so I don't have much. I had similar observations with reference to the existing nonconforming conditions on the property, an undersized lot by almost 25%, as well as the lot width of 60 feet where 75 feet is required. The two variances being requested are for building coverage, as noted, as well as the generator location. Is it accurate to say, and I think you touched on this, that the proposed, we'll call it outdoor space, would be in the rear and not really visible from the street? Absolutely. Is that accurate? Okay.

You can't even see the rear of the house from the street.

Right. And you touched on screening, which was one of my questions, and that the place that would be located in the conforming location. You know, one question that we always ask just specifically pertaining to the generator, one of the reasons we have the setback is so that, you know, to limit noise when it's being exercised. Are there any other opportunities to locate it in a conforming location or is this really the only place, the best place?

It really is the only place because the other side, the right side of the house, is all finished patio. And if we moved it to the right side of the house, I only have 11 feet on that side. So to the right of the patio, which then I would need a variance on that side. The only way a variance could possibly be avoided is if it goes behind the loggia. But then we're talking about 20, 25 feet from the house and the efficiency of both the gas run and the electric for the generator doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

And I believe you pointed to the hardship of the lot worth being a challenge. Would your client accept the condition that the The new space would remain unenclosed, meaning that it couldn't be enclosed in the future without subsequent board approval?

Yes.

That's all I have, Ms. Chairman.

There is one more thing that I did forget to mention. I'm sorry. And one of the reports had brought it up. I have a... on my building cover, I think it's lot coverage and my chart had stated that the difference was 179 square feet and my table above when you did the math it was 188 square feet and when I did everything it was my that the total was $25.89 and I wrote down $25.98, so it was a straight typo and that the true number is $179.

Okay, and for clarification, in the proposed lock coverage, though, that's 2589 is the number? Yes, it is. It's conforming roughly the same percent?

Yeah, it is. It doesn't change it much, but it was a typo on my part, and I did pick that up on one of the reports.

I would also, sorry, if the board approves the application, I think you should submit a reply. Of course. Thank you.

So that was the one thing I wanted to ask about was just to clarify, it was de minimis, but because it is less than 300 square feet of additional impervious coverage, they're not required to mitigate the runoff from the additional coverage. However, could you talk about where the roof runoff from this new structure is going to go?

We have existing retention on the lot from the previous addition. And I don't think it would be unreasonable, since it seems to work very well and not overflow, that we could tie in the new leaders to the main house and those leaders go into retention. If the engineering department decides that they want the retention a little bit bigger, I don't think it would be difficult. Because at this point, and I don't have it right in front of me, but I'm almost positive that it's a large gravel pit and not a tank. So we would be able to increase that if engineering requires it.

OK, so I think one of the things that we would be curious about is the condition of it. Those stone voids may have filled up. It's only a couple of years old. It's only a couple of years old. OK. And maybe if there was some evidence of the capacity of that, and if it was able to handle the additional 179 square feet.

I don't believe it would technically handle the whole 179. but I think it might mitigate some runoff versus just having it go on splash blocks to the backyard. What I understand from my client, and if you want, she can testify to this, that her neighbors prior to them doing the addition, they had water problems. And when we did the addition just a couple of years ago, because we put the retention and all the extra drainage into the lot, um, they do not have water problems anymore.

Okay. All right. So, um, I think that would be one thing we just, we would just want some evidence that, um, and I think that's all I have. Questions from the board.

Yeah, this is a number question, too, so maybe I missed something somewhere.

But the resolution that we approved in 2020, we approved building coverage of 19.16%, and you have a starting point now of 17%. Was something not done back in 2020, or is that just a mistake somewhere?

No, we jumped up to building coverage. No, the 17 is, oh, didn't we make the addition smaller? I believe we had to come in and make the addition smaller. I think we proposed it smaller. So it is the 17.

So not everything was done back in 2020 because we approved 19.16, so not everything was done? Is that what you're saying?

I think we did make it smaller. I think it was financial, wasn't it?

Maybe.

But this should be correct.

So it is, in fact, 17% now? Yes.

I think it's 17 even.

Okay.

Because it... Yeah, I believe that when we came in, We were requested to have it smaller for some reason.

Well, again, I did participant resolution. All I remember is what's in the resolution. Okay.

But it's very possible because that we made it smaller. We made things smaller. Okay. And I think it was financial.

Well, I just want to make sure that there's not another error somewhere.

No. Okay. Mr. Bell.

Thank you for the photos. I think it shows the logic of the plan and the conditions that are related also in this submittal, the more complete submittal that we could look at online. I have two quick questions. One echoes the Environmental Commission report by Sunil Garg, dated 5-18, suggesting that hydrology in a common sense kind of way is helped by plantings and permeable paving. And that's something to consider. The Environmental Commission report says that they have no objections to the plan, but it is a way, if there's any uncertainty about the size of underground water storage, to augment that. And I see that on the right side there are two large trees, but there's no landscape plan to let anyone really know.

We're not going to be taking any trees down at this point.

Right, but I'm suggesting maybe you want to consider adding them. Oh, adding, but that's... You know, and that's not a condition of approval, but a common sense suggestion. Second thing, just as an architect, and again, not a condition for approval, the rear photograph, the top photograph, looks as if there's a window at the very right edge of the existing... Yeah, it's coming out.

It's in the garage.

Right, to the garage. I was kind of wondering, looking at the floor plan of the proposed change adding the not-enclosed porch, whether, although it wouldn't work where the window is now, whether a door to the garage might not be a... Functional.

Well, we've been back and forth.

Just to be able to move things in and out of the garage's storage space.

This is something that we have discussed.

Again, not a condition of approval. It just seems to be, since the window is not shown on the plan, I assume it was being moved, but there's no door shown.

Yeah, we were basically taking both out. If we did put one in, we would probably put it in on the side.

All right. Thank you. I just have a question. For... Onto the covered porch, so there's going to be a fireplace there, is that what you said? Is there a TV there also? Yeah, a TV.

There'll be a linear gas fireplace with a flat screen above and an extended flat screen.

And what about speakers for the TV? I mean, are they going to, just because we're trying to.

We were just going to use the TV speaker.

Okay.

Yeah, I know. No surround sound?

We have speakers out there already that we use, but we wouldn't add additional.

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Waller?

The generator. Did you discuss the location with your neighbor, since it is closer to their lot one?

Can you please use the microphone? Sorry.

I did discuss the plan with them because they got the letter in the mail, and they said, and I don't know if this is official, they said no objections on their end from what they saw, but I did not specifically discuss the generator placement with them, no.

Thank you.

How often do you use the generator? We have not used it yet.

Well, they get tested. They do test every week for 15 minutes or something, so every week. I have a couple of questions. One is pertaining to the generator, and given that it needs a variance, I don't see any screening directly next to the... I know there's a fence there, so your neighbor can't see it, but... Would you consider adding some trees or something in there to sort of buffer that and help some of the sound coming to the neighbor? It looks like there might be room.

You could do a small fence. They really sort of discourage you from putting shrubbery next to a

Well, maybe around the, I'm thinking about along the fence line, perhaps, because it looks like in the photo here where the jungle gym is, there really is, that is really the view right there in this middle photo where the, if you put something on your side, maybe it would help attenuate some of the sound from the generator.

That's more than reasonable as a condition.

And then the second question I have has to do with stormwater. I noticed when I was at the property today that the current patio, it kind of jogs like steps. And at the top of each step, you have a drain So you have three drains, and I'm assuming these are going to your gravel pit or whatever you have there for stormwater retention. But in this plan, you are building over two of those or at least one entirely and part of another one. So what is, you know, there's no, you're basically impacting how the stormwater runoff is going and there's no plan.

Okay, I did not do the full engineering plans for this approval, and we will submit them to engineering, and then we will put in new grate drains along the perimeter of the loggia, and we are taking out a piece of the patio, so it will line up with the loggia, and then the one-stepped area of the patio, that drain will stay intact. So there will be...

uh at least another 18 millennial feet of drainage um marie do you have any comments on that or like no it's something we should be adding in as a condition or like i mean it's not on the plan there's no storm water management on this plan and effectively this plan is taking away prior storm water management so i do feel we need to address it somehow if that's you know that's perfectly fine it can be a condition

We would be running our leaders to the existing storm system. Like I said, that storm system needs to be increased very easily done with the way it was built.

Where is the stormwater?

It's in the back right, or I should say it's about 15 feet off the back right of the patio. If you look at the survey, it's probably... just to the right of where it says block 1801.

So what goes in there right now?

The meters from the addition and also the patio drains.

So the rest of the house, where do the drains from the rest of the house go? You have just the addition and the patio?

Or just the back? You know what? I honestly don't remember. I know definitely the rear of the house and the patio. I don't remember if we touched the leaders in the front of the house or not. Sorry.

So do you think it's pretty much the whole back of the house that is going into the?

Oh, absolutely, because the roof goes front to back. And so it's the whole back roof.

OK. All right. That's fine. I like roof leaders going into the seepage pits better than I like patio drains going in. They're just cleaner. It doesn't fill up the voids in there. So even if they're taking away some of the grates, maybe they can capture roof runoff. And I don't know that I would make that a condition of approval. I mean, I think if you're OK with it, I can work with them to make sure that they have adequate capacity to take on what they were putting in there before plus what they're putting in now. We can work at that.

Are there any other questions from the board? We can think about how we would write that as a condition because I do think that that has to be captured here since this doesn't even mention stormwater. Are there any questions from the public? Okay, seeing none. Is there any other testimony, testimony from the homeowner, anything like that?

No, I don't have a problem with a condition of the approval being working with engineering to take care of any stormwater management that they would feel is required. Even though it's under 300 square feet, I understand the lot's pretty flat, the neighborhood's pretty flat, and I am very conscious of water problems in the area.

I guess my comment to that is that it might not be less than 300 square feet if you're taking away some of what was captured in the prior design. You might actually be over 300 square feet because, well, you're taking away the patio drains.

It goes by impervious, so the additional drains don't mean anything.

but they were based on the prior design with the prior edition, and that was part of the design that counted all the impervious cover. So whether it's a patio drain or something else, there is change here. Okay, so I guess there are no other questions from the public, so should we just go to public comment, and then we'll go to executive session? Any comments from the public? Okay. Who would like to start? Oh, wait. Do we want to hear our conditions? Any conditions before we start? Sorry. What conditions do we have, Mr. Hesham?

Yes. Conditions that were discussed include working with engineering on stormwater management and potentially putting shrubbery along the fence as a noise buffer near the generator.

Okay. I think I think you had also talked about not enclosing the patio. Right, not enclosing the patio.

And I'm just wondering if we should be a little more specific on the stormwater, something like making sure that it's approved, that the system is, I don't know, just trying to think of how we would do that.

What if it was worded such that it was it was proven that it can capture the previous edition plus this edition. Yes, that's good. Okay.

Perfect. Thank you.

Which I think is, I think is what you were talking about anyway, right? Yep. We can work together on that.

Great. And then because there's stormwater, our normal condition is that the, The city maintains sort of two-year oversight on that, right? And Andy will have like sort of the standard wording for that, but there is usually when there's stormwater, the city preserves a two-year jurisdiction on it in case there are any issues with the system. Okay, so with those conditions, who would like to start executive session?

I'll start. I think it's a fairly reasonable application. I think most of what we're being asked for is driven by the fact that it's an undersized lot. It's about over 2,000 square feet undersized. And if it weren't for that, the addition they're proposing would not need the building coverage variance, for example. I think the negative criteria I met, I don't see any substantial detriment to the public good, and I don't see any substantial impairment to the master plan. I think the conditions effectively address some of the concerns that we've raised. Just for the record, the forester noted that the backyard is fairly well screened, so he had no objections, but I do see the value of some added screening for the noise with the generator. I have a generator myself, and they are fairly noisy when they're running, so I can support the application.

My one concern is the generator. Um, I feel like it was when it was put in, it was put in, in a, in a conforming spot. And now I don't know if this, if it was this homeowner or if it was a previous homeowner that put it in and now it's like, oh, well, we're not gonna put it there. We're gonna just move it into a non, um, conforming spot. And there's a reason why we have those rules, the, those rules on how far the generator should be from the house, from the, from the neighboring property. And they are allowed. They're very loud. And I kind of feel like we're just... Generators, you can argue that... I mean, somebody could argue that they are necessities, but, you know, we are... I don't think the generator's placement should be just dismissed as, OK, we're moving it because we're putting in the covered patio. And I understand that there's really not many other options. And there are people that don't have generators for that reason, because there's no options in the yard for the generators, myself being one of them. So I just think we need to figure something out with the generator. It's moving closer to the neighbor's yard. They are allowed. And like I said, it was placed in that spot because that's where it was allowed to go.

I have a question about that existing location, too. I mean, that's right next to a doorway. Is that even conforming? I thought it had to be five feet from an opening.

It is off the house. It looks in that picture.

Yeah, it's hard to tell.

I mean, assuming they got a permit for it and it was inspected, I would assume it would have compiled the code. I hear what you're saying. Yeah. I don't have the answer to that. But I guess dealing with what we have in front of us, there's a question of, A, what's the impact of, you know, 8 foot 4 inches versus the 10? Are there other conforming locations? I mean, the generator exists, right? So it's there. And you've indicated why you're proposing it there. Is there any way to... modify the location of the proposed structure any which way screwed over a foot or do something different the main reason we put the addition where it was

The other windows are bathroom and behind the garage. So we just really wanted to try to preserve the light in the kitchen and the dinette. That was the main reason. If we shift the covered porch over a little bit, to the right or we make it a little bit narrower, then to get the same amount of square feet, we could push it out to the back a little bit and make it more rectangular than square, squarish. If that works for the board, then we can probably move it over enough and make enough modifications that possibly there is no variance for the generator. Would you be willing to do that? You have to.

Well, just confirm that you're here. Would you do it? I just want to make sure your client understands what you're doing.

So in other words, the addition would be more like that. Do you have a problem with that?

So you're not changing the size of the patty, you're changing the shape.

I'm changing the shape, so I would... shift the addition over two feet to accommodate the 10 feet for the generator, and then push out, it'll be approximately two feet, maybe two feet three inches or something to equal the exact same square footage and the exact same variance we're requesting. We can make that a condition of the approval.

And what does that do to the generator location? It makes it conform. So you can make it to that foot and a half?

Yeah. Yeah, I mean it...

Part of the board on what you want to see.

Personally, I think it's always better to minimize the number of variances, especially ones that are preventable here.

Okay, we would be willing to do that.

And that would eliminate the screening condition, I suppose, since it's your option to put the screening in, but now it's conforming, so you have a fence, right, that counts as...

It sounds like the fence is sufficient. I mean, technically it's supposed to be closed, but at the end of the day, it's does the fence screen it or not.

Right, right. It seems adequate. Yeah, okay. Thank you. Any other comments? Okay. Well, I agree with the comments that came from my colleagues and appreciate your willingness to work with us and put the generator in a conforming location. So I too can support this application. Um, should we, we need a majority vote here and there are six of us, so. Yep. So we can, yep. So we'll take four votes. Yes.

Move to approve.

Second.

Okay. Thanks.

Face chairs on. Yes. Mr. Yuko.

Yes.

Mr. Mullen.

Yes.

Ms. Chifo. Yes. Mr. Chanchuli. Yes. Mr. Bell.

Yes.

Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thank you.

All right. Next, we will hear from 21 Iris. Oh, and happy birthday to whomever that was.

Is it OK if I stand? Yes. OK.

Please state your name, spell your last name, give us your address.

So I'm Patricia Costello, C-O-S-T-E-L-L-O, at 21 Iris Road. So good evening, chairperson, members of the board. I'm sorry, can I swear you in?

I apologize.

Oh, yes, absolutely.

Please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, chairperson, members of the board, and board professionals. My name is Patricia Costello, and my husband Charles and I are the homeowners at 21 Iris Road. We are before you tonight seeking C bulk variance relief for our property at the corner of Iris Road and River Road. Our primary request is for fence height permit, a six foot solid white vinyl privacy fence within our secondary front yard along River Road connecting to a six foot chain link fence along the rear lot line. Because our property is a corner lot, our physical rear and side outdoor living space is legally classified as a front yard along River Road. River Road is a busy roadway with significant pedestrian and vehicular traffic. A standard four-foot fence simply does not provide functional containment, safety, or privacy for our family. We also want to proactively address the September 2nd memorandum from the Assistant Zoning Officer regarding three related site elements. So the patio, we replace an existing aging 12 by 12 wooden deck with stone paver patio in the exact same footprint. While the footprint did not expand, we understand that as a new patio, it technically requires a front yard setback relief at 16 feet, where at 25 feet is required. the HVAC condensers. Our units were positioned along River Road facade at a 20 foot setback. We are fully committed to providing dense landscape screening around the condensers as recommended by staff. And the lot coverage, the minor variance to 41.08% and overage of about 1% over the 40% limit results from the new paver walkway and patio. We have our survey and photos to clarify walkway and dimensions for the board. And regarding the questions raised in the board planner, engineering, and reports, the sight lines and safety, the fence is set back safely on our property line, completely outside of any public right-of-way or corner straight triangle. Both the police and fire departments reviewed the plan and noted no objections. The fence design, the finished good side will face outward towards River Road and no gates will swing into the public right of way. And the landscaping and trees, we confirmed our intent to fully comply with section 29.6, the City of Summit's projection of trees ordinance, The two mature evergreens proposed for removal will be replaced on a one-to-one basis with native in-kind species capable of reaching an equal or greater diameter or breast height maturity planted within 12 months of removal in accordance with species standards of appendage size.

I'm so sorry to interrupt you, and I'm sorry to do that. Would you mind stepping outside to have your further discussion? Thank you. Sorry. No worries.

The existing shrubbery is not subject to Section 29.6 replacement requirements. However, we fully plan to replace any shrubs removed to maintain our screening from River Road. We believe these improvements represent a substantial upgrade to the property, provide necessary safety and privacy along River Road, and will not cause any negative impact in our neighbors or city's master plans. Thank you, and we're happy to answer any questions from the board and its professionals.

Thank you. Board professionals?

Oh, okay. Good evening. How are you? And thank you for that summary. So this began as a fence application to the zoning department, I think, right? That's correct. And then through the process of reviewing things, it was realized that the deck had been replaced with a patio. And I think you mentioned one of the challenges with this property is that it's a corner lot at the corner of Iris Road and River Road, where River Road is a fairly busy area. Yes. Road at that part, right? So is it unique in some respects as far as screening needs, et cetera? It is absolutely, yes. All right. And it looks like from Google Street View images that the property once had a six-foot fence on a portion of the property.

It was actually outside our property line, so it was when we bought it, yeah, it was subject to be removed.

And that's what the older survey sort of shows, right? That's correct. The proposed location, of course, that would be on the property, as shown, and essentially from the corner of the house to the River Road. It's sort of as depicted here, right? Yes, exactly. On your submission? Okay. The landscaping that exists, just to be clear, so you'd be removing what looks like Arborvitae?

Yes, we plan to remove them. Unfortunately, they were not planted correctly and they have the wire basketing still on. So my fear is we just are in the process of building this beautiful home and it's going to come crashing down or on River Road, which we want to prevent any safety hazards.

Okay. And would the new landscaping be in front of the fence or like which side of the fence would the landscaping be on? Would it be public facing to kind of screen the fencing or would it be on your side?

It would be public facing to screen the fencing.

So it's sort of disguised the white vinyl fence for all intents and purposes. Correct, yeah. Okay. And the patio and air conditioning unit would be within the enclosed fence? Absolutely. So screened for all intents and purposes? Yes. Okay. And then finally, the survey shows that the house is one story, but it sounds like there was some work done in addition.

So we're in the middle of, yeah, construction.

And that was all approved by permit, presumably. Correct. Yes. So the zoning department had an opportunity to review and approve whatever work is being done at this point as far as the addition goes. Oh, yes. Yes. I have no further questions or comments. Thank you.

All right. I think everything's been covered. I have nothing to add.

Questions from the board.

Yeah, I just want to make sure I understand. So the existing Arborvitae, you say that's going to be gone, what's there now? Correct. And will the fence you're putting in be approximately where the Arborvitae is or a little bit inside from that? Or where will the fence be in relation to where the Arborvitae is now?

I believe it's actually in, the fence would be inside of the Arborvitae. So no matter what it would end up, because our property line is kind of funny, well, it's angled on the corner. So it should end up being the fence inside.

And then the new screening, you said, will go outside the fence.

Correct.

And say one more time, what will those plantings be again?

I haven't picked anything, but it would be essentially something similar to the diameter at breast height. Okay.

And explain maybe in more detail, if you're going to have that screening outside the fence and then the fence, why you need a six-foot fence instead of a four-foot fence. What do you gain by those extra two feet?

Just for privacy and, again, safety, my worries is the oncoming traffic and just for noise. It's very, very noisy being at the property of River Road. There is a lot of lights that go on in the middle of the night and sirens from people being pulled over. So it's kind of mainly to block as much light and noise as possible.

I guess I wouldn't have thought that two feet would have made that much difference, but you're saying you believe it would?

I believe it would, correct. Okay.

And I've spent a lot of time, not in your backyard, but behind your backyard on the golf course there. What is your final plan for that fence back there?

We just wanted to put a six-foot chain link fence, just again for safety purposes. I just get worried it's an open fenced area and to keep my child and my dogs inside of my property. Okay.

I think that's it for now. I'll come back if I find other notes here.

Thank you. I'm sure the rest of the board has maybe some questions or comments, but I have one, I guess, that hasn't. Have you seen the zoning officer's comments about three additional variances that he believes are required?

Yes.

So just because we haven't discussed those, I think we need to touch on those. There's a front yard setback of 16 feet to the new patio where 25 is required. Another front yard setback of 20 feet where 25 is required for the HVAC. And then... I'm guessing that you have two front yards, so that's why you're dealing with the extra setback. But the lot coverage, one of the things that he says is that the walkway is really not shown on the plans. And that that wasn't, you know, we don't really know if it's counted and what we do need to capture that in here as part of the variance to say what lot coverage is approved. And so it sounds like he's not even sure what it is at this point. So I don't know if you've taken any measurements or anything like that.

did my measurements, and it actually came to 40.08 in my own measurements. I believe it was 52.5 square footage of the total walkway and the patio. Or it might just be the walkway. It's definitely not 52 square feet. So the walkway, if I remember correctly, I apologize, the walkway would be the 52.5 square foot. And then the patio, because it was an existing deck and we just changed it to the same 12 by 12 patio, I didn't think counted towards unless it did. And that's where the 41.08 came from.

So we would probably want somebody, not the applicant, I'm not saying you're wrong, but somebody other than the applicant confirming those numbers. They should be on a survey or something. Yeah, and should we build enough, if we're going to approve this application, should we build enough leeway so we approve enough to cover... what the number is like and not to exceed kind of thing.

So because that let's see, the walkway goes along the length here and then there's a little extra here and then it's in everyone's interest.

Yeah. To get the right.

I mean, especially that they're under construction, but it's it's a vertical addition primarily. Correct. I mean, sometimes an as built once everything's done, you know, can maybe clarify. So an as built surveys, you know, show the existing once all the work's done, what the property looks like at that point in time. And that would confirm. Obviously, that's after the fact, after granting the relief. But if the board was comfortable with some representation of what we think the number is, I know the zoning officer did his best to estimate based on the width of the walkway as well as the patio dimensions. So that 41% sounds fairly accurate.

So would you be comfortable with that? Because I think you said you calculated a slight lower number. Would you be comfortable with the 41.08? Yes. Okay.

Versus, I just want to make sure, because I know the zoning officer used a particular software that was fairly accurate. Well, he said 41.08, so you concur with his estimation?

Yes.

I mean, typically we try not to use the 100th roundup generally, but...

If that's an underestimate, she's got to come back for variance and so forth.

We would prefer to avoid that.

That's what I'm trying to get at. I want to make sure, if we're going to prove it, I don't want to have to, they're six inches over or something, that they have to come back.

And one of the other things is that the way this is drawn here on the survey right now that we have that shows the fence, I can't, you know, I'm not really able to scale this up. This is probably maybe 15 feet by three feet. So maybe, you know, i don't know but there's there's a space between the walk on this survey there's a space between the walkway and the new driveway that is currently all pavement so this is all like everything to the between the walkway and sort of the road it looks like is pavement so it's really hard to know what the measurement is or is that all going to be paved over is it going to look like this survey i feel like it would be helpful to have A little bit more.

Do you mind if I approach? Yeah.

so right now the walkways it's something like this right along the house and there's this this is paved this is like old pavement i i'm not sure if that's coming yeah not now yeah this is because i think this is still under construction like it's a dirt driveway right this is not dirt this is like old asphalt yeah yeah yeah sure

no so i kind of redid it here it's about like two feet from the house and then maybe like a foot or two absolutely yes my apologies there's a space i guess there's planned to be a space because right now it's like it's old but it's still this is all all it's a this is mostly pavement all here this is very this is very

yeah we think dimensionally let's say that's maybe four feet wide you probably have two feet or 18 inches 18 inches which would be i'm not sure this is this is actually pavement right now Should I get this done as quickly as possible? Absolutely. The issue is what's happening here. That's the pavement. So is this dirt? That's dirt. Yeah, yeah.

And then we do have a permit to replace the existing driveway currently, but it is, yeah.

You're not going to pave up to the driveway?

No, no. What's there is there. Yeah, and this would just be grass. As much greenery as I can. I love it. It's beautiful.

You just have to figure out how to get to some level.

Some reasonable number.

Yes. Well, I mean, we could sort of back into it and use the exhibits and information that we have and just say that the board's come, if you're comfortable.

We're going to call this A1. Okay. And then.

Is that your only copy of your survey? Unfortunately.

Well, you can have. This is actually your real survey, sealed survey, so you want this.

You may keep it. I had multiple copies. I couldn't make a photocopy, and I just gave up. Are you sure you have got that? I do have multiple copies, actually, and I can get additional. Okay.

Is that new walkway in an area where there was a walkway before?

There was a walkway before. It was stones, but they weren't all connected. It was just large stones. I don't know the measurement of it, but stepping stones, essentially, yes.

Okay. So the walkway that you're putting in is an infill of the spaces that were between those papers, but there was already... So that's not all new impervious coverage that you're putting in for that walkway?

Correct. It's not on the survey. It wouldn't show.

I know, I know.

So I'm not sure that matters if it's not on the survey. You know, like it's like, especially with the... I don't even know if the shape of the... It looks like maybe it's 75 square feet, I'm guessing. Give that to Mr. Bell. He's the architect. It's less than three feet wide. It's probably like two and a half feet wide, your walkway. Maybe it's three feet. I think it's three feet. Is it three? Okay. So three by probably 20 plus a little bit up to the porch. Okay.

Could the resolution be crafted in such a way that it recognizes what's been installed as far as the walkway?

What is shown on this photo, like by?

At approximately 41, I don't know if you could say approximately.

So this is, maybe we use Chris Nicola's photos from his September 2nd memo and say that, yeah?

For the rec, yes.

Yes, okay, I like that. We'll add them as another. And then the as built will reflect you know, basically what's here on this, you know, it'll match this and then.

Confirm whatever relief the board might be inclined to grant.

It's hard to do it without a number, though, still.

Yeah, I feel awkward doing it without a number.

Yeah. Because you can't, there's no way to memorialize it, make a resolution with what the coverage is.

So based on your estimate, and I know Frank agrees, are you comfortable, does that add up to 41.08, whatever square footage you were?

I don't know if we have a table here, you know, that actually, that's, I don't think we can.

Well, right, because this started as a fence application, so the zoning officer sort of did it in the interim in the last week or so, so I think he did his best, but... The numbers seem to be, I sort of looked over his shoulder while he was doing it. So I think it's pretty close. Again, I don't think we have to get to the, you know, 100th of a foot.

Yeah, my concern is if we make it even 41.1 and it winds up being 41.12, then they have to go back here. 41.5? Yeah. I mean, I just would hate to see them come back for a small, you know, calculation that we missed.

The applicant's taking risk here. I mean, they've got permits out. Presumably, and correct me if I'm wrong, they can't get their final C of O if the numbers don't check out. So they're taking on some risk.

Well, I guess it comes down to what risk are you comfortable with. I mean, if we go with what the zoning office says, 41.08, and it turns out that he was wrong and it's actually more, you might have to come back here.

Right, because he did say he's not sure.

Or takes him out to comply. Or takes him out to comply, right. So if they say we'll approve some number and what ends up being billed is more than that number, you'll either have to come back here or take something out somewhere to comply.

i would be absolutely comfortable with those options um i think it was at the last meeting or maybe the one before when the chair talked about the hardships of corner sites This is a quarter and I don't spend any time on the golf course But I spent too much time on River Road not honking my horn or flicking my lights are getting pulled over I think this is very very special corner site because of River Road and I find it I can't think of the word. Unnecessary to quibble over a number two, three significant figures. I would say if there's any uncertainty about 41.08, round it up to 44. I would say 42.

Just a number so that you don't have to come back. So basically 1% is 69 square feet, right? That's actually a good amount that covers a lot of patio.

I bet Nicole is not off by that much.

Right, right. I think 44 is a lot because that lets you put another 300 square feet in. I just like the number. Yeah.

Yeah, 42, or something that probably is.

Yeah, so we, I mean, how does the board feel about that as a condition, as the maximum, and as built where the maximum lot coverage, right, would be 42%?

If that's a number you're comfortable with, yeah.

I feel like we've practically done executive session now, but we still have to see if there are... Questions from the public. All right. I guess that's any other. Sorry. I interrupted because I had with the board questions because we hadn't discussed this and I thought we needed to make sure we had all the.

So there's four variances to clarify. The three that Chris had noted. Right. And the fence height in the front yard. Right.

So starting with one, we're on four. And then are there any other questions from board members? Okay. Are there any questions from members of the public? No. Okay. Any comments from members of the public?

No.

Okay. So I guess we can... So this is a... They would all be C. This is C, too, for the fence height.

I have a question. For the fence, is it just going to be a solid white vinyl fence, or is it going to be decorative?

I did bring a picture of it if you did want to see it, but it's a solid white up and down to match our house.

Okay.

Um, and just as a note in, I believe it's a backyard. You could ask for up to seven feet. Is that right?

Typically in, in summit, like it's four feet, but you could, I thought there was something in there that was in the rear yard in the rear yard. Right. Not necessarily the case here, but right.

Right. Um, but there is, Oh, I guess they're both side yards then. Nevermind. Yeah.

Well, side and rear. Yeah.

Right. So just, you know, on the, like on the golf course side, you're asking for six feet, but You could ask for – it's the same, right? Or is that even a variance on that side yard, the six feet?

I thought you could have seven, or is that – I'm trying to look that up on the fly, but remember where – The location of the property between the house and the street is still front yard. So a portion of that side fence is still front yard to a point, if that makes any sense. Okay. And so in that area, there's still a variance for the six feet. Okay. So to be eligible for the seven feet, it would be basically where it lines up with the house. Got it. Okay. okay so technically you could you could do a stepped up fence like with the part that's the front yard and then and then you'd be fine there would be no one could do that and i'm trying to confirm that i know what i'm talking about but uh it sounds accurate And the reason being for the applicant's benefit for a taller fence there?

I was just, you know, if you're next to a golf course, I know people aren't actually, I don't think people are swinging in the direction of your house, but I want to prevent as many golf balls as coming to my yard as possible. That's a nice view. That's a nice view, though.

So I might as well. I appreciate that. I find golf clubs in my yard, even. Really? Clubs? Clubs? People get upset. It was a bad day. None of mine.

I did see a golf ball on the ground. Okay, so we need four votes to approve, and what are the conditions, Mr. Hessian?

I believe the only condition would be to, after all construction is finished, get a surveyor to get the exact measure of the impervious coverage and make sure that impervious coverage is less than 42%.

The lot coverage is less than 42%, right? Yeah. Yeah. Yep. OK. Who would like to start executive session?

Or I'll start again. You know, I was concerned about the fence height. I had not appreciated, since I don't live where you live, the issue of the river road issues, and it makes perfect sense. I could see where there's a lot of that kind of activity, and I can definitely get that. I'm sorry to see those arborvitaes go, but from what you're saying, they can't be saved, because that pretty, very effective screening, I would think, they provide.

It was, honestly, if I could keep them, I would, but I'm too worried.

Yeah, so, but it sounds like you have good reasons for letting them go. and I'm glad we found a solution for the coverage issues. Yeah, I can support the application.

There's no discernible negative impacts here, and I've been living in that neighborhood for a while, driving up River Road. I don't see any impact to the sight lines. I probably drove around the predecessor six-foot fence and never noticed it, so I can't imagine I'll notice this one.

Actually, I wanted to say that, too, because I thought there's got to be sight line problems here. But then I drove around that corner, and nope, it's not really so.

Yeah, and I think there is a hardship with this lot. Obviously, the two front yards, that's one. And the other one, and maybe not a hardship, but just a fact of life, is that you are on a main road, adjacent to a main road, and wanting to have some privacy, hoping for some quiet, all of those things, I think... you know, show why this is a, you know, a reasonable request. Um, so I think at this time we can just vote. Move to approve. Second.

Vice chair is on. Yes. Mr. Yuko.

Yes.

Mr. Mullen. Yes. Ms. Chifo. Yes. Mr. Chanchuli. Yes. Mr. Bell.

Yes.

Okay. Thank you so very much. Do you want my copy? Do you have the next one?

Well, I don't know. Is that the? No, no. That's the one that was in my packet. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. Because this one is now A1. You said you don't need it? No. Okay. Thank you so much. All right. Thank you. All right. Next. What do we have? Where did my paper go? Here it is. Okay. 115 Butler.

My name is David and I'm the engineer for the applicant.

I was just going to ask if you could raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Can you please state your name and spell your last name for the record?

David J. Egarian, E-G-A-R-I-A-N.

Thank you.

Can you just go through your credentials for us, standard course here?

I'm a graduate of New Jersey Institute of Technology and a graduate of Rutgers University. NJIT is a civil degree, and Rutgers is an MBA in finance. I've been a registered professional engineer since 1978. I'm a registered PE in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Florida, and three other states. I'm the president and owner of DJ, Gehring, and Associates.

Great. Thank you.

You're welcome.

So if you want to begin with your presentation.

Sure. This project addresses the house at block 307, lot 11, known as 115 Butler Parkway. It's in the R10 zone. The lot is 10,533 square feet. It's a single-family dwelling with an asphalt walk in front, paver walk in front, a small rear patio, 293 square feet, which is roughly 24 feet by 12 feet, made of pavers. a separate play area in the back, and an underground gravel pit in the back left-hand corner for drainage. The gravel pit measures 12 feet by 12 feet by 6 feet deep. It's filled with stone. And it is designed to take the rear yard and a portion of the roof, the rear roof, the overflow of that area. drainage area is piped directly out to Butler Parkway and ties directly into the storm source system. What is proposed is to eliminate the small paper patio and replace it with a 641 square feet paper patio with a fire pit and an outdoor kitchen. The paper patio is slightly larger. Instead of being 24 feet long, it's now 36 feet long. And instead of being 12 feet wide, it's now 18 feet wide. It'll be 14.7 feet from the sideline and 18.8 feet from the rear line. The site plan requires two variances. One is for lot coverage. We're requesting a 3.3% overage to 38.3% where 35.0% is allowed. The 3.7% equates to 348 square feet. And secondly, there will be a need for a rear yard patio setback variance of 18.8 feet where 30 feet is required. And that 30 feet is derived from an overall 40 foot rear setback with a 10-foot allowance for patios. The orientation of the lot itself is really a classic C1 variance because 30 feet from the rear lot line could be achieved if not for this job in the rear line. and 10 feet was not taken, but extended to this point here. So our setback has to be from the rear of the house to this particular lot line. So instead of being 40 feet, it is now 30 feet, which causes the need for the variance. And this is pointed out also in Burgess's common letter. Secondly, on the log coverage, we are proposing, we had proposed tying the patio into the existing gravel pit in the left rear corner. And one of the comments from Collier Engineering was that to confirm that that pit, which has a capacity of, 345 cubic feet could handle the increase in impervious surface and also take in the rest of the existing drainage. And we calculated the new impervious surface for the patio to be 160 cubic feet. So we did do the check on the hydraulics. And we have concluded that a separate drywall should be provided instead of tying everything into that existing that existing pit. So we would be agreeable to a condition regarding stormwater to pipe that patio into a 500 gallon dry well. As I said, it's a fairly simple application. There were comments from the town staff. And there is an issue that I'd like to bring up. And that issue is with a comment from the fire marshal. So the fire marshal made a comment that the fire pit that is shown on the patio should be 15 feet from any structure or combustible exterior wall. In other words, 15 feet from the rear of the house. And we're showing, it is presently shown at 13 feet. And we believe it's a code interpretation because the fire code, which we did check, there's a distinction between, one moment. A distinction between whether or not the fire pit is what's called an open flame appliance or a fireplace where a five foot separation is required or is classified as a recreational fire which would require a 15 foot setback. And this is basically a picture of the fire pit. encapsulated within the structure itself.

And it's gas powered?

It's gas powered. It's a gas line directly to the pit. If we did conform with the 15 foot setback, we'd have to push back the patio, which would increase the impervious coverage of the patio, which we would not want to do. And if we left the rear wall in the current location here, then pushing this back 15 feet would only be a small separation from the rear wall, which would not be ideal either. So our thought is to, if the board would consider it appropriate, to approve, if the board approves the application, to make a conditional on our going back to the fire marshal with a code interpretation so that we could settle that issue.

So just so I'm clear, so you're saying you want to leave it where it is, but if the fire marshal disagrees with your interpretation... he would be bound by what they said.

Yes. And that raises another procedural issue. And if we do get a determination from the fire marshal or from the DCA on the 15 feet, and the applicant... for whatever reason, does not want to do that, could the applicant revise the site plan in some way and come back for an alternate approval?

Are you asking about putting a different type of fire device in there? Because I think if you remove the fire pit, then it wouldn't be an issue. Like if the fire marshal chief says, no, you can't put it in there, and you say, okay, then I don't think it's an issue. But it's more about putting something different in there, right?

Well, I think what you're saying is you would come back to us at that point. We'd have to come back.

But we can't grant a variance that allows someone to put a fire pit anywhere. You know, like, that's really... Well, the board doesn't have jurisdiction.

You have jurisdiction over the patio. Right, but not the fire pit. I don't know the fire code as well as the fire official does, but I know there are different types of fire products, and some are considered... It sounds like you ticked off the different classifications, but some are considered like barbecues versus open recreation, you know, bonfires, I think. So I think you could probably find something that works. I think the board has seen similar type applications. In any event, it's a building code, fire code issue. So I hear what you're saying, though, is if you move forward with it, you might need to reconfigure the patio. How far is the pit away from the seated wall, as shown?

Four feet? It's about four feet.

Okay. I mean, you might be able to scoot it over and make it work, but I hear what you're saying. I don't know if we can resolve that. fire pit distances.

And the vendors themselves cite a three foot separation to a combustible surface.

I just believe that is not our, we can't really comment on that. That's really going to be about the fire chief. So even if the vendor says that won't be part of our we can approve the or we can decide to approve it but it's still going to be subject to.

Or find an alternative that would Yeah.

Find an alternative device. Right. Correct. Which would meet the five-foot criterion.

I believe that could work. Correct.

Where's the, so that's an outdoor kitchen?

Outdoor kitchen.

Yeah, so the outdoor kitchen is that going to have some sort of a grill on it? Yes. Is there any, do we have any, what's our regulation for that?

You're asking the wrong guy. Well, again, I think because these heating implements are contained, they have greater flexibility. They can be closer to different things. So I don't know, but I think the bottom line is whatever they do after they go through this process, they'll have to comply with the building code, et cetera. But it seems like there's enough flexibility in the design, at least as currently proposed, where they have room to maneuver if they have to.

So the fire pit device could be, you know, you're basically asking for something to be written that you could switch the type of device pending, you know, whatever you learn from the fire chief.

Yes, depending on our interplay with the fire marshal and getting a clear understanding of what the code says.

We'd like to better understand his interpretation.

But either way, it's not a variance.

Right.

It's not a variance. Yeah. So in closing, we have two variances. One is for coverage and one is for the rear patio setback. The small overage of 348 square feet is the increase in stormwater. We're taking care of that with a separate and independent drywall system. And the overflow would be tied into the overflow from an existing stone pit and then piped out to the street. And then secondly, the rear patio setback of 18.8 feet is basically caused by that jog in the rear property line, which creates a hardship because anything that we put in there is going to require a variance because of that. We also have the letters from Burgess Associates and also the Collier letter. I could go through those if you like. I think that the Burgess memo really is commentary on the irregularity of the rear property line. And the Collier letter, I can go through that. Number one and two are, number one is informational. Number two, requests. Have there been any improvements since the April 17, 2026 survey? The answer is no. So the current plan is accurate. Number three. So this deals with the 640 square foot paver patio in the calculation of the impervious coverage.

So it does include the patio, the seat walls, and so on.

Item number four. I believe that my testimony has covered number four. Number five, the site plan identifies an increase in lot coverage from 3682 to 4030. That's the same comment on the calculation of the impervious coverage, which includes the seawall and so on. Number six deals with drainage. I just discussed the drainage with the board number seven is The applicant should confirm that the existing gravel pit was constructed in accordance with the reference number November 23rd, 2018 plan. And yes, we can confirm that, that it was built according to that plan. Number eight. Plan should clarify whether the existing four-inch PVC overflow connects to the municipal storm sewer system. It does. It's a direct connection. Number nine. Plans indicate that natural gas and electrical service will be extended to the outdoor kitchen and fire pit. We'll coordinate those improvements with the fire department construction official. Number 10 deals with soil conservation district. We do not exceed the 5,000 square feet, so that would not be required. Number 11, there are no trees being taken down. Number 12 deals with silt fence will be installed prior to any improvements. There are no steep slopes being affected. That's number 13. Number 14, all excavated soils will be taken off site. We agree to that. Number 15, the applicant will repair any damages to the city right-of-way in case that does happen. 16, the applicant shall be aware that if stormwater runoff or drainage problems occur on their property or neighboring properties as a result of the construction, that they will be responsible and that they would agree to that. And lastly, we will provide a digital set of plans to the city.

Thank you. Do we have any questions from our board experts?

We do have one. So You're proposing to put in a new water collection. Will you be collecting the patio runoff as proposed in your plan, or just rerouting it to a new system?

Yes, we'll have stripped drains, collecting the patio runoff, and we'll take that to a separate drywall.

So currently the pit that's in the backyard collects the roof runoff? just a portion of the roof runoff and most of the backyard you might want to consider that you take the other portion of the roof runoff if that can be the same same square area as the additional impervious coverage that you're adding. That would be a cleaner way of putting water in there, less maintenance on the system.

Take the clean water into the drywall. What? Take the clean water into the drywall. Right, right. With the equivalent area.

I'm just looking at how you collect, you know, the 300 and... What was it, 348 square feet? We take it from somewhere. It doesn't have to be the patio. If you can get it from the roof and it's not too much of a disturbance, that would be a nice thing.

I can do that.

Yeah, you can do that. OK. And where would you propose to put that pit in there?

Probably on the left side of the lot between the current pit and the driveway so that the overflow could tie into the overflow of the existing pit.

Okay. All right, I have no further questions.

Yeah, a few quick ones.

Just to be clear, the patio is uncovered, right? There's no room.

Correct. To be clear. And is it accurate that the yard is already screened with a six-foot high? It seems like a white vinyl fence. Yes. Correct. I'll just concur with the setback issue technically because the patio is connected to the house via the stoop. It has to comply with the principal building setbacks. I would agree that in this case you couldn't do something that's conforming, at least with respect to the setbacks. So I would agree with that. Thank you.

Thank you. Questions from the board? Mr. Bell?

A lot of the conniptions and hardship come from the jog, as you've been calling it, which blowing up this miracle of technology looks to be 10 feet. And it's a jog only in that lot, lot 8 behind.

Yes, I believe that jog lines up with the lot in the back.

Well, it doesn't line up. It's 100 feet on the right, it's 100 feet on the left, and the lot 8 is 110 feet. So it's a 10-foot jog only in that lot. I'm curious about, if you have any information, I didn't see it in any of the memos, you know, about why that job exists. And I hate to ask a stupid question, but I will. Is that 10 feet for sale?

I don't know the answer to that.

I mean, you've talked to your neighbors. I see the list. It's a small lot behind us. It's a very small lot that we're on. I don't know if that came to me. That would solve the problem or at least mitigate it. How did that occur? I mean, it's so weird. It is. All right. No further information. Yeah. Just curious. Thank you.

Any other questions?

Are there any questions from the public for this witness? Seeing none.

Do we go straight to public comment? Yeah.

I guess, are there any comments from the public? No. OK. So Mr. Hesschen, if you could tell us what the conditions are and then how many votes are needed for approval for this.

Yes, of course. Ms. Raffi, I just wanted to confirm your statement about offsetting the impervious coverage with drains. Was that more of a suggestion, or was that actually a condition?

I think it was just a suggestion. OK. I just wanted to make sure. Yeah. Listen, I just want them to take the water from the additional impervious coverage and put it in there. Take that volume of water from somewhere.

That is the condition.

Right. Yeah. OK.

Yeah, so the offset of the impervious coverage with the water. But other than that, there are no other conditions. And this would require four votes to pass.

Thank you. Who would like to start executive session? Someone besides Mr. Yuko, maybe? Yeah, please. I can. I'll go. I can. Okay.

Go ahead. Please. I think this is very reasonable ask. I mean, the patio actually looks small before, so I think it fits in more with the size of the house. I don't think there's any detriments to the neighbors. I can't say anything in defense at all. I think it's fine. So I can approve this.

Support this.

Probably, I look at the patio as actually fairly substantial. I've lived in an apartment smaller than this patio. That being said, I think the use of the condition in benefiting storm water management satisfies the positive criteria and given adequate screening around the property, the negative criteria are also satisfied so I can support it.

Anyone else? Okay. I, too, can support this. I think that definitely the jog presents a hardship. There's no place. It's not as if you could set this patio back and relieve some of the issues. And additionally, I think that sort of the width of the patio, it's not super deep. It's the width of it kind of goes with the scale of the house. So, yes, I could support this as well. Do I have a motion to approve?

So moved.

Second. Thank you.

Place chairs on?

Yes.

Mr. Yuko? Yes. Mr. Mullin?

Yes.

Ms. Chifo? Yes. Mr. Chanchuli? Yes. Mr. Bell?

Yes.

All right.

You are approved. Congratulations. All right.

Last but not least, 19 Hickory.

No, it's hard to read the numbers, and I'm hearing this from my eyes. Photograph. Yeah, yeah.

Just a second.

Just a second.

Maybe that was...

Would you please raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Please state your name and spell your last name for the record.

Kurt Ludwig, L-U-D-W-I-G, architect.

If you could please just give a little bit of background on your qualifications and licenses.

Sure. I received my degree from Arizona State University. I obtained my license in 1991, member of the American Institute of Architects and National Council of Architectural Registration Boards. My license is in good standing. I've testified at numerous boards, Throughout the state, they've done a lot of work on Summit, but they've never been in front of this board.

Okay. We'll accept your credentials.

Thank you. Thank you.

Hi, everyone. Chris Palmer, one of the homeowners. I just wanted to introduce a little bit of what we're asking for tonight. Sorry.

Do solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do.

Please state your name and spell your last name for the record.

It's Chris Palmer. Last name's P-A-L-M-E-R.

Thank you.

P-A-L-M-E-R, yes, thank you. So just want to introduce a little bit of kind of why we're here tonight before Kirk gets into far more of the details. We are here, obviously, asking for a variance on our home, 19 Hickory Road. We moved into the property July 2025. My wife and I, Caroline, sitting behind me. We have three children. We have the intent of updating the home, renovating the kitchen. When we moved into the home, the Attached garage was partially renovated to include a breakfast nook. We bought the home as is. And so we've learned a little bit about what Summit requires. And so it is our intent to take that attached garage and turn it into our kitchen for our kind of growing family needs. And in doing so, as we've learned about Summit, that Summit requires, at least in, I think, R10 where we're located, a two-car garage of dimensions 20 by 20. And so the goal and what we're hoping to discuss tonight is our intent to leverage the floor, kind of leverage our first floor and our attached garage to build a new kitchen. And in doing so, bring our house up to code and build a detached garage in the back left portion of our property. Now, we submitted I think a total of four variances. Part of that comes with our ask to build a second floor renovation above the current attached garage. We are going to, in the intent drive kind of resolution here tonight, and to not waste anyone's time, we are omitting those plans to build a second floor renovation above the current attached garage. And secondly, to be mindful of our neighbors, and again, to hopefully eliminate another need for a variance in lot coverage. is potentially ask the board to consider a smaller detached garage not requiring about 20 by 20 but something more along the lines of 15 by 15 16 by 16. um and so that's just a little bit of what i want to introduce tonight a little bit on the background buying the home and then again our intent based on the comments from the board to reduce the scale of the project and to eliminate that second floor renovation and additionally, hopefully, reduce the size of that detached garage that we're asking to build.

So you're effectively amending the application on the fly here, kind of? I didn't hear the beginning of what you're... I was looking through my notes here.

I wanted to go through the drawings.

Chris and Caroline were telling me for recent budget.

Thank you, Chris. For recent budget concerns and so on about the second floor, I suggested if they're probably not leaning that way, why waste your time and push for this FAR variance and take it off the application? And I believe the way the application was submitted that we could communicate that now.

So you're eliminating the FAR variance because you're eliminating the second floor. Are you going to have updated numbers on lot coverage and building coverage for us tonight? Yes. Okay.

So if you like, I could go through the drawings and describe what we were proposing and what we're suggesting now. Sure. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Or maybe just what you're suggesting now and what it, you know, I think it might get confusing if it's what you were, what you are proposing now is probably where we should be. Okay.

How dramatic a change is this going to be? I mean, are we going to have something, say, meaty enough for us to decision here?

I think so. I think it's going to be clear.

No, no.

So if this board, my board A1, I don't know if I need to relabel that or if that's acceptable as A1. As far as a... Okay, thank you. So on A1 I have pictures of the existing home. The top two pictures are pictures of the existing front and then pictures of the rear of the home. Chris mentioned that part of the existing attached garage over the years was converted into some living space. What I'd like to also add to that is that garage is really not usable. drive into the backyard and probably make like 30 K turns, and then pull into this door, which is very tight. So it's really not a usable garage, which is part of the reason we wanted to expand the kitchen into the entire garage. It's not usable. This is my sheet A2. It's a site key plan and bulk schedule. We have Hickory Road here on the bottom of the drawing, driveway to the left. This hatched area here is indicating the existing attached garage where we're proposing to convert that into living space. And we're proposing to go above it with a second floor addition, but we're not proposing that now. As part of the application, because We're required in the R10 zone to have a 20 foot by 20 foot garage. We are proposing a detached garage in the rear left yard. As Chris mentioned, they're willing, I think they're even more open to it. Because of that size requirement, we're needing a coverage variance, two coverage variances. So we're open to not...

meeting the size requirement however that would probably trigger a variance because of the area requirement for detached garage so just so i don't get lost here so the the what's the current attached garage where you're going to propose the kitchen it's the footprint will be the same you're just not going to build the second floor is that what that's correct we were proposing to go straight up on the attached garage Okay, but the outside, the footprint will be the same as it is now?

Correct, correct. Part of the application is we're taking an existing screened-in porch and converting that into living space. We're proposing to add a roof over the existing front porch. This project has two existing variances because of the narrowness of the lot and the undersized lot related to the side yard. So those we have no matter what we do. And then we have the FAR variants which we're not going to have now because we're not proposing the second floor. And then the lot coverage and the building coverage because of the new detached garage. But again, we're willing to make that smaller to omit those two variants. This is my board A5. I have floor plans of the proposed. This is my first floor plan. The front of the house here, the driveway where we have to come around and make this crazy turn to try to get into the garage. What we're proposing is to expand the kitchen into that area. We're expanding the living space into this green porch. And we're proposing the roof over the front porch.

Would this be exhibit A3, or is this an exhibit?

It's my A5, but I can mark it A3 if you like.

Is it the same one we have? Yes.

It's the same one you have.

Right now he's pointing at A5, right?

Correct.

Okay. On my drawing it says A4, so it might be.

That's right. It is different because my, your A5 looks like my A4.

Okay. I know that more than one design was submitted over the last several months, so I can mark this one A3 or A4, whatever you prefer.

Well, we can't see that, so we don't know if it's the same as what we have in front of us.

May I look at what you have? Yes, that's the same plan, the same drawing.

So what we have is A4.

So what are we missing then as what is your A4 that we just didn't see?

Okay.

A4 on my set here includes a basement plan and some zoning information, including the 200-foot list map.

Okay, that's our A3. Okay.

During the submittal process, we were asked for additional drawings indicating the height and sections through the buildings and my A3 on the more updated section, which I did submit to the town.

Yeah, that's A2 for us.

Okay. I apologize. We submitted maybe two or three.

I'd like to know which line we don't have. Sorry. A2.

A2 has a survey.

Yeah, that's that is different.

What are the dates on the plans?

Sorry. Let's see. May 27th, 2026. Yeah, same day.

May I look through this? Sure. Thank you. Okay, I think what occurred since that copy and this copy is that we were asked to separate, this information was squeezed on another page so we took, it's all the same information but it's on one additional sheet.

Do we have the drawing on the left? I don't think we do.

Well, it sounds like this additional sheet A3 was confirmation of the height calculations that were requested during the completeness process. So it's possible that the digital submission is a more current version of the plans? I don't think factually anything's changed. It's just confirmation of the height.

I guess that drawing, whatever, on the left there, what is that representing that we don't have in front of us?

Is that the grade point? Yes. Okay. But dimensionally, just to be clear, nothing about the plan has changed, right, as far as... That's correct.

Your statement just prior, I would agree with 100%.

And, I mean, frankly, the height issue is now moot with respect to the dwelling because the additions were moved, right, to some extent. And then as far as the garage, where the property is a bit sloped, the height is... was originally proposed at 15 feet, which is the maximum. So we asked for some additional information to confirm that. And obviously there's going to be some discussion about what the height of that garage, what size that garage should be. So just to be clear, it sounds like the variance relief being sought at this point has to do with either a reduced garage size, which is no longer 20 by 20, or building coverage and impervious coverage, what we call locked coverage variance, one or the other.

That's correct. And we're doing this to try to be flexible, especially after reading the reports and so on. But yes, that's the goal.

All right. So just to get the ball rolling and make some progress on it. And again, it seems like the only issue is about the size of the garage. And so because the applicants here are requesting relief, what's your preference? I mean, what's your goal as far as a garage? Again, the choice being... Conforming garage, meaning two-car garage that's 20 by 20 with some building coverage and block coverage relief. Let's call it a one-car garage at some different dimension. What would be your preference or ask to the board?

I would probably say something closer to 15 by 15, 16 by 16. My previous home had a 12 by 24 garage, and that was accommodated in my car, and I think we want to get one car in essentially with some storage and be mindful of our neighbors and not have something sitting in the backyard that would be...

So a functional one-car garage is more or less the ask. I mean, I'll defer to the board. Well, maybe I'll ask the applicant or your architect. In this particular neighborhood on this particular street, which I think is just one block long, right? Yeah. I agree. Are there other houses that have one-car garages? I mean, is there a range of garages? Are there one-car, no garages? Would this stand out as being unique, I guess?

I wish I had more evidence. I can only speak to my neighbor, 15 Hickory, that has a detached garage that is neighboring against my property that is about a 20 by 20 garage.

It's up to the board. I think at the end of the day, you just want something for your own benefit that's functional.

Tom, great description, but just go back. What variances are you left with?

Building coverage and lot coverage as depicted on the zoning table. Because the dwelling addition was vertical, right? Correct. And the side yard setbacks go away because the vertical addition is no longer proposed. That's true.

Oh, I thought the side yard, I thought the lot was narrow and so there was a side yard still.

Well, they're existing non-conforming conditions because they're not being exacerbated.

So building coverage, lot coverage, and whatever they want to do with the garage they're asking for.

Well, it's an either-or proposition. Either-or. If they do a conforming 20 by 20 two-car garage, they would need the building coverage and locked coverage relief. Theoretically, if they do a one-car garage, that relief might go away, depending on the numbers, how the numbers work out.

And again, I've spoken to some neighbors. i've never gone into their garage only a couple and i understand that varies from one car to two car garages but most of these garages are behind the home but i think our ask is for something to accommodate maybe one car i don't know the exact dimensions for your benefit you would want a depth of at least 20 feet to park a vehicle in and you want to store some things in there as most people do you know

I agree. The proposed garage is 21 by 21 outside so that it meets the city code of 20 by 20 on the inside. And I would recommend 20 feet deep inside.

Okay. Well, I think we, sorry, we got a little sidetracked because our pages didn't match. I apologize.

There is a loose sheet that is the new A3 of 72. Okay. Okay.

I'm not, so I don't know if you're done with presenting here with the updated numbers or anything like that, if you want us to. Oh, that's the updated line?

Yeah, but it was 283. Oh, no.

I don't think I have that one. Oh, yeah, that wasn't in there.

Well, that's the basics of it. We would need to reduce the proposed detached garage about 185 square feet to comply with both lot and building coverage. By how many? 186 square feet, which is about six feet less in width than what we proposed here. So I think that would be more like a one and a half car garage.

So then is that a 21 by 15 garage, or what would that be in dimension? Yes. 21 by 15? Correct.

Well, if we did an eight or a nine foot door, that would leave us a couple feet on each side.

How many vehicles do you currently own or lease? We have two.

Okay. So is that done? Or is your presentation done?

I think so. I can answer questions about design details or anything else, but that's the basics of it. Yes, thank you.

Do we have questions from our board professionals?

I tick off most of them. I guess just to help get everything to a point in the decision. So the ask, is it being driven primarily for budgetary reasons or to minimize the impact on neighbors? What's your primary...

On the second floor, it's budget, and I think the most important thing to us when we started to come up with these plans was to have a kitchen and an operable garage. So when we reevaluated, we said what's most important to us, and those are the two things.

From the garage perspective, I'm sorry, I'm not able to speak.

You have to come up and state your name. Yes, you can come up. Sure.

You can send me out.

Caroline.

Can you say it into the microphone?

Caroline Cochran Palmer. All right. Thank you. Could you please raise your right hand? Yes. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?

Yes, I do.

Thank you.

I just wanted to add in there that from the garage perspective, we live like our street. It's pretty small lots. We want to make sure that our neighbors aren't impacted by the garage. So that is really driving. our desire to have a smaller footprint in the garage.

I have nothing for you. Thank you. I have nothing for you.

Marie?

So can we just talk about some of the stormwater on the site? I think there was, where do your existing group leaders go right now?

They're all piped underground at the moment. We do not know where but we will Research that make sure that they're they seem to operate and make sure that they operate One of the things in the resolution from 2007 is

specifically said that none of the improvements on the property could impact 21 Hickory Road so there must have been some concerns at that point so I just want to make sure that the roof leaders from the proposed garage aren't impacting the neighbor's property and you're going to have them directed somewhere away

Yes, they would be directed most likely into this underground system. Overall, even with the larger proposed garage, we're reducing our coverage, even though we're still over with the larger garage. But yes, we'll make sure that the Lear pipes and so on are done in a positive way so that the neighbor is not affected.

Okay, so we want to make sure that the additional coverage can be contained within that underground system, whatever that underground system is. We want to make sure we're not overloading it.

I agree, yes. We will research what's there and make sure that it's working, and if it needs to be modified, we will.

So maybe the condition is that you provide a system and if the one that exists suffices, that's fine, but just there is going to be a stormwater management, you know, there is going to be stormwater management associated with the new garage, basically.

Could that be its own system? Yes. Okay. Absolutely. Thank you. Just for the garage.

It's probably better if you don't know what the other one is.

I agree. I mean, it's certainly not mandatory, but, yeah, that would be good to have a brand-new system. Then, you know, if you don't know where the other system goes and you don't know what's happening, it's better to just put a new one in.

Okay. Great. Thank you.

OK.

Questions from the board? Looks like no. Oh, you have one, Mr. Bell?

Yeah.

I understand the primary purpose is the kitchen, as you said, and a fusible garage, which is partially based on turning radius. Looking at an enlargement of the aerial photograph, and it looks like there are several detached garages at least across the street, if not on the same side. So there's certainly precedent for a detached garage that isn't necessarily an annoyance to the neighbors on the assumption that they've been there for a while. The question is, you know, if you're thinking that the downsizing not just for budgetary reasons,

But is not to have impact on the neighbors.

Have you talked to the neighbors about the location, size of the garage? Is this predicated on comments you've received? Or is it just sort of common sense that something smaller might be less bulky and an adjacent property owner?

It's the latter. I think it's just more common sense to have something not obstruct our neighbors' backyards.

We also have three young children, so we also want to make sure we have a large enough yard for them to play in.

Yeah.

Yeah, at previous hearings on other projects, there's no precedent carryover of this board necessarily. But I've kind of pointed out that many people don't use garages for cars. They use it for lawn equipment, maybe a tractor's car or a storage or other things. And it's irrelevant, perhaps, to this board whether you ever use the existing garages. you know, difficult to get into a garage for a motor vehicle. But I'm trying to figure out how to make this into a question. Do you ever use the garage for a car?

In our previous home, we did use it. And every time my dad visits, he's upset that I don't use the garage, so we'd like to use it more. So, no, we did use it previously, and we'd like to do it again.

And that's for at least one car? For at least one car, yes. That sort of corroborates what you were saying before. I just wanted to get a sense of that. This would be so easy just to try to get rid of the variance by reducing the size of the garage. If we were going along with it, which is the direction I'm going with the question. Thank you.

Yeah, I just want to make sure that we're all clear on what you're now asking for, and I apologize. It's going to be a repeat, but I want to just hear it all confirmed. So the smaller detached garage you're proposing, exterior dimensions of 21 by 15, is that—

Correct. 21 by 16.

21 by 16? Okay. And your professional testimony is that that would eliminate the building coverage and the lot coverage variances?

Yes. Could we say that the total final shape of the garage would conform with...

And diminishing 21 by 21 to 21 by 16 takes out 105 square feet, pretty obviously 5 by 21. If that's enough, great, but it isn't.

Yeah, so Tom, do you have an opinion on that? I mean, is that enough to get rid of those?

I thought he said it was 185 foot over.

If we're to satisfy... building in lot. So I'm thinking maybe, you know, maybe.

Or you could grant a land somewhere in the middle. Right. At this point, I think it's what would meet the applicant's needs if it were a selling client. You know, the difference between a 12-foot wide one-car garage and 16 for the board, you know.

I think this could be something for executive session, too, because.

Well, we need to know what they're asking for.

Right.

Are you asking for a garage that will be small enough that it eliminates the... Let me rephrase it that way. You're asking for a garage that will determine that it will be small enough to eliminate the building and not coverage variances.

I would just like to add that that's true, but we could also not reduce the garage as much and reduce some driveway to still satisfy both. I'd like to have a little wiggle room while I'm laying out the doors and so on.

we don't have a garage that's 21 by 21. It is smaller than that, again, to accommodate for our larger lot size, but that still might be over our lot coverage and building coverage, and we do request a variance for that. I think that's what would... be in the best interest of our family and our home and for future resale value in the neighborhood and i know that like i'm worried that if we create a garage that's too small that's not realistic either so i want to make sure we have enough room for one car and some storage but it's not too excessive for the property a lot so speaking for myself i'm at the more position we can get out of you what you're asking us to prove the better i will feel about voting um