[0:00] 20-02 and

[0:03] 20-03

[0:08] we will be reviewing those cases

[0:12] and we will also review

[0:16] a written decision for the board of

[0:19] appeals case

[0:21] 2020-1 board of education of cal

[0:25] cowboy county beach elementary school

[0:29] replacement project my name is jaris

[0:33] spencer

[0:34] i am the chair of the chesapeake beach

[0:37] board of appeals

[0:40] tonight is being conducted virtually

[0:45] each member of the board is

[0:47] participating

[0:48] remotely the hearing is

[0:51] being live streamed and will be

[0:54] published on youtube for those

[0:58] persons logged on to this meeting

[1:01] or the call you will have an opportunity

[1:05] to speak

[1:06] and ask questions and comment for the

[1:09] record

[1:10] at the appropriate time

[1:13] i will ask for your comment

[1:17] so let me take the roll call call of

[1:19] members

[1:21] uh and call this hearing to order

[1:26] david ferguson are you here

[1:30] uh yes i'm here kelly stewart

[1:34] are you here

[1:42] jody whom star are you here jan

[1:49] rutke are you here yes ma'am

[1:56] okay let it be recorded that we have a

[1:59] quorum

[2:01] also with us sharon hume

[2:04] who is the town clerk and secretary of

[2:07] the board of appeals

[2:11] frederick sussman who is the attorney

[2:14] for the board of appeals

[2:16] and christopher jakubiak

[2:20] which is the town planner and zoning

[2:23] administrator

[2:26] first we will hear case 2020-02

[2:30] to consider the application from calvert

[2:33] property partners

[2:35] llc who is the owner and free sample of

[2:38] real property known

[2:40] of 8207 elm lane

[2:43] for a 7.5 foot variance to section

[2:48] 290-19 of the town

[2:51] of chesapeake beach zoning audience or

[2:55] ordinance to allow a new

[2:58] house to encroach 7.5 feet

[3:02] into the required 15 foot front yard

[3:06] and a variance to section 20-17e

[3:12] 2 to allow encroachment

[3:15] into the required 25-foot non-tidal

[3:19] wetland buffer

[3:20] of up to 1863

[3:24] square feet plus

[3:27] area of site disturbance

[3:32] second we will hear case 2020-3

[3:37] to consider consider an application from

[3:41] francis a

[3:42] and stephanie m white owners and fee

[3:45] sample

[3:46] of real property known as 8203

[3:49] elm lane to allow a new house to

[3:53] encroach

[3:54] 7.5 feet into the required 15

[3:58] foot yard and a variance to section

[4:03] 20-17e 2

[4:06] to allow encroachment into the 25-foot

[4:10] non-tidal

[4:11] wetland uh buffer uh plus area

[4:15] uh on site excuse me

[4:19] to allow encroachment into the 25 foot

[4:22] non-title wetland buffer plus area

[4:26] of sight disturbance

[4:30] before we begin with testimony

[4:35] i will ask mr sussman to swear in

[4:38] everyone who intends to offer comments

[4:41] and testify at these evening

[4:45] at least this evening's hearings

[4:48] on either case number

[4:51] 20 20-2 or

[4:54] case number 2020-3

[4:58] so if you wish to speak to the board

[5:01] this evening

[5:03] on these matters please prepare now

[5:06] to be sworn in sessom

[5:10] thank you madam chair everybody who

[5:13] intends

[5:14] or thinks they may want to speak on

[5:16] either case tonight

[5:18] please raise your right hand and

[5:21] repeat after me do you

[5:24] solemnly swear or affirm under the

[5:28] penalties of perjury

[5:30] that the testimony you are about to give

[5:32] and the responses

[5:33] and statements you are about to make

[5:36] will be the whole truth

[5:37] and nothing but the truth uh please say

[5:40] uh yes

[5:41] or no yes yes yes

[5:48] well the record reflects that a number

[5:51] of people i believe it was five or so

[5:53] uh indicated uh that they intend to

[5:56] speak

[5:57] and take the oath by saying yes i did

[6:00] not hear

[6:01] uh any no's so i will assume that

[6:04] everybody who's going to speak tonight

[6:05] has been sworn

[6:07] and agreed to tell the truth the whole

[6:09] truth and nothing but the truth

[6:11] thank you madam chair okay

[6:14] now i'd like to ask the board secretary

[6:17] sharon hume

[6:18] to confirm that both

[6:22] hearings were properly notified

[6:25] and advertised as required

[6:28] by town code

[6:32] yes uh the property owners were notified

[6:35] by letter dated

[6:36] august 14th via certified mail

[6:39] both properties were advertised in the

[6:42] local newspaper for three consecutive

[6:44] weeks beginning

[6:45] august 14th and both properties were

[6:48] posted

[6:49] august 12th

[6:53] thanks sharon this document is now um

[6:58] forwarded for recording as

[7:04] now let's begin with the application i

[7:06] turn to the

[7:07] town planner for a summary i will ask

[7:12] mr jacobiak to summarize the request

[7:16] in case number 20-20 2020-2

[7:22] after we've had an opportunity to ask

[7:26] his questions i will ask the applicant

[7:29] to introduce those members

[7:32] who will be all offering testimony

[7:35] and to present the case on the ordinance

[7:39] once we've heard the applicant's case

[7:41] variant

[7:42] sorry once we have heard the applicant's

[7:45] case for the variants

[7:47] we will hear from anyone who may wish to

[7:49] testify

[7:50] on behalf of or in opposition to

[7:54] the variants mr jacobiak

[7:58] and applicant will be given the

[8:00] opportunity to present

[8:02] any additional comments on the

[8:05] application

[8:07] then i will close the testimony on the

[8:10] variants

[8:11] in case 20-2

[8:15] 2020-2 after we

[8:18] are finished with the presentation of

[8:21] evidence

[8:23] and the public comment on variants

[8:27] the board will formally begin out the

[8:30] liberation

[8:31] and decide on the matter

[8:38] typically the board's decision will be

[8:41] subject to the council to the board

[8:44] preparing a resolution that documents

[8:48] the board's decision

[8:50] and the reason for that decision

[8:57] after the board has conducted the

[9:00] deliberations and actions

[9:02] in case number 2020-2 the board will

[9:06] proceed

[9:07] in case number 20 20-3

[9:11] in the same manner

[9:18] if there is no objection from the board

[9:22] i'd like the applicant's application

[9:25] and town planner staff report

[9:29] entered into the record as exhibits

[9:41] okay miss jacubina please correct

[9:45] variance application

[9:49] uh thank you i would prefer to

[9:53] share my screen that's possible

[9:59] yes okay can everyone see my screen

[10:17] yes okay good um

[10:21] what you see in front of you is just a

[10:23] copy of the

[10:25] staff memorandum dated september 2nd

[10:31] and um madam chair and members of the

[10:33] board my apologies for

[10:36] not getting this to you sooner um

[10:39] i'm glad i got it to you yesterday but

[10:42] in light of the fact you may not have

[10:44] had much time to read it i thought i'd

[10:46] spend a little bit more time than normal

[10:49] introducing the case

[10:53] let me start by

[10:58] showing you something i think is

[11:00] interesting here

[11:05] can everyone see that photograph

[11:10] yeah okay this is a drone photo that

[11:13] we've among many

[11:14] that have been taken

[11:18] of the town and uh

[11:21] and used in part for our comprehensive

[11:23] planning work

[11:25] but i wanted to point out to you on this

[11:27] map

[11:28] or this image where the lots are and

[11:31] just give you a sense of the

[11:33] character of the neighborhood and some

[11:35] of the

[11:36] environmental issues issues that are

[11:38] quite obvious

[11:40] see my cursor moving up and down

[11:42] maryland 260.

[11:45] yeah i want to direct your attention to

[11:47] that okay so follow me down

[11:49] elm street this is elm or elm lane

[11:52] sorry and it effectively dead ends here

[11:55] as a public street

[11:56] and i'm not quite sure where precisely

[11:59] it is and i wouldn't be able to

[12:01] show that on this photograph but it dead

[12:03] ends and then it becomes a private

[12:04] driveway that leads back

[12:07] uh to mr gary coldsmith's house which is

[12:10] in this area these are the existing

[12:14] houses

[12:14] the kind of the pattern of development

[12:16] that has existed there for quite some

[12:18] time

[12:20] and this general area here

[12:24] is where those two lots that are subject

[12:27] to tonight's discussion

[12:28] will be located or are proposed to be

[12:30] located

[12:32] the first one that's on the docket 8207

[12:37] uh is roughly here you can see this

[12:40] little

[12:41] bump out of asphalt um

[12:44] that's well i'll show you later but on

[12:47] the site plan that little bump out actually looks like

[12:51] it's in the front yard

[12:52] of the house that's being proposed but

[12:55] so this is roughly the location of the first applicant's proposal

[13:01] you can see this kind of natural

[13:03] corridor here there's a wetland in there

[13:05] and there's

[13:06] trees and um and you can see also how

[13:10] this

[13:11] low-lying topography drips drops back

[13:14] down to

[13:16] the marshland and those who are familiar

[13:20] with chesapeake beach will know that

[13:22] what we see out here in terms of

[13:24] marsh swamps wetlands uh

[13:27] once covered all of this area so

[13:30] all this area including calmest field or

[13:33] certainly most of it

[13:34] parking lots it's all filled it's all

[13:38] made land and we know

[13:42] that nature is reclaiming it slowly but

[13:45] surely you can see some pockets of water

[13:47] wet spots popping up

[13:49] and uh we also know that the flood zone

[13:52] 100 year flood zone comes right up to

[13:56] that drive that i just mentioned uh

[13:59] may not cross over it just yet but it's

[14:01] right there

[14:03] so all this area is subject to flooding

[14:05] in the in the current um

[14:07] scheme of things so that's where we are

[14:10] we're we're challenged by a number of

[14:12] environmental issues here tonight

[14:14] and i just wanted to give you that

[14:15] bigger picture

[14:18] later why don't i do that now

[14:28] i wanted to point out where the

[14:31] flood zone is since i mentioned it

[14:34] if you follow my cursor again

[14:41] um goodness um

[14:46] oh here's elm going up and down elm

[14:50] uh lane now and the lots that we're

[14:53] concerned about tonight are

[14:54] located right here this blue hashed line indicates

[15:01] the flood zone the 100 year flood zone

[15:05] and the dark indicates open water

[15:08] okay that's the existing condition

[15:12] uh based on uh 2014

[15:15] fema floodplain mapping what um

[15:19] the comprehensive plan is in part

[15:22] studying right now our work on

[15:24] comprehensive plan

[15:25] involves study of sea level rise

[15:28] and how the natural conditions in

[15:32] chesapeake beach will change over time

[15:35] if current trends continue and the

[15:38] current trends take us up to

[15:40] um uh 2.1 feet of

[15:43] sea level rise elevation in the

[15:45] chesapeake bay

[15:46] region um by the year 2050 which is you

[15:50] know effectively 30 years from now

[15:52] um so over time

[15:55] this is kind of the new scenario um that

[15:58] we

[15:59] expect again let me locate

[16:02] the elm lane for you again it's on this

[16:05] map it's here

[16:09] a lot the lots we're talking about are

[16:11] located here

[16:12] they're shaded in blue now

[16:15] okay um this is the edge of

[16:18] predicted open water the dark blue level

[16:21] area

[16:22] is open water and what you

[16:25] see in the various other shades of blue

[16:27] are various

[16:29] um levels of predicted flooding

[16:33] so the 100 year flood which is the

[16:37] one percent exceedance probability

[16:41] um one percent chance a year for

[16:44] you know flooding event that's the light

[16:47] blue

[16:48] and now that comes up and covers

[16:51] you know kellum field quite a bit

[16:55] the darker blue is the 10

[16:58] annual exceedance probability which

[17:01] means in each year there's a

[17:03] 10 chance of a flood

[17:07] event and you can see that that area now

[17:10] comes up over the driveway that i was

[17:12] referring to that leads to mr

[17:14] coldsmith's

[17:15] place and it comes up elm lane a little

[17:18] bit

[17:18] and it actually covers a bit of the site

[17:21] maybe all of it of what we're at least

[17:24] part of it of the property that we're

[17:26] talking about

[17:28] that's wetland that exists now those

[17:31] properties

[17:34] isn't connected tidally just yet in any

[17:37] physical way but with sea level rise in

[17:39] the rising water levels

[17:41] the this natural stream here begins to

[17:43] reassert itself and this all

[17:45] kind of comes back into action as a flood zone an area that's likely to

[17:50] flood now i want to highlight that this

[17:53] is based on maryland department

[17:56] of planning and maryland climate

[17:58] commission actually involved

[18:00] with that is managed by or staffed by

[18:02] the planning department at the state

[18:04] uh and dnr and mde uh it's a predicted

[18:09] flooding events of predicted um sea

[18:12] level rise that's based

[18:14] on other science but it's 2050 that's

[18:17] the projection

[18:19] this is not today this doesn't exist now

[18:22] uh

[18:22] at some point between now and 2050

[18:27] the various data analysis that's done

[18:30] would suggest that this

[18:31] is a real risk and so for for a

[18:34] comprehensive plan that really provides

[18:36] a good understanding of where we want to

[18:38] position

[18:39] land use where we want to avoid uh and

[18:42] also

[18:43] where we want to how we want to make use

[18:46] of this information

[18:47] to boards like yours to consider this

[18:50] information in your judgments now of course a house

[18:53] that exists here for 20 or 30 years before

[18:56] this situation happens

[18:58] may be perfectly fine but you know most

[19:01] houses last longer than that

[19:02] and we want to build sustainability into

[19:06] chesapeake beach so i wanted to go

[19:08] through that

[19:10] summary um uh for you now back to the

[19:14] staff report um

[19:19] the applicant and i uh or the

[19:20] applicant's engineer and i had a chance

[19:22] to talk before

[19:24] the final submittal was done and i

[19:26] encouraged

[19:28] him to move the proposed

[19:31] building site forward on the lot

[19:35] to get it closer to the front builder

[19:39] line or the front

[19:40] get it closer to the street as a way to

[19:44] minimize the amount of building

[19:46] and building activity that would take

[19:48] place in the wetland buffer

[19:51] the buffer is not the wetland the buffer

[19:54] is the 25

[19:56] foot area around the

[20:00] wetland it's there to signal that

[20:03] something environmentally sensitive

[20:05] exist and we should stay away from it

[20:08] and

[20:08] it also signals the fact that wetlands

[20:10] move and migrate and change just like

[20:13] the

[20:13] images i showed you suggest they might

[20:16] and the future is likely to see

[20:20] that wetlands evolve and change over

[20:23] time so that buffer

[20:24] gives us a little leeway and a safety

[20:28] margin of safety

[20:32] so the um the applicant is

[20:36] calvert properties partners llc

[20:39] the proposal is to locate the building

[20:46] seven and a half feet from the front

[20:49] property line

[20:51] rather than 15.

[20:54] and and by virtue of that

[20:59] the structure is moved out of the buffer

[21:03] i'm this line that i'm coursing through

[21:07] now

[21:07] is the buffer

[21:11] everything on this side is within the

[21:12] buffer everything on this side is

[21:15] outside

[21:16] here is the wetland itself

[21:19] the wetland the line of the wetland

[21:22] everything on this side of the

[21:23] line is wet wetland everything here is buffer okay um

[21:30] so the purpose of the ordinance is to

[21:32] move building activity

[21:34] out of the buffer um

[21:37] if the applicant was building within the

[21:39] wetland that would be an entirely

[21:41] different situation altogether

[21:43] and would require a number of other

[21:45] permitting agencies being involved in

[21:47] this discussion

[21:50] so in my

[21:54] staff report as i typically do i i just

[21:57] went through each

[21:58] of the various standards i

[22:01] called out various factors and facts

[22:04] in this particular case it's just a as a

[22:06] matter of correction

[22:08] the applicant's proposal actually

[22:10] suggests that there's going to be

[22:11] 2 400 square feet of disturbance

[22:14] and um and i will just ask that

[22:17] the applicant discussed that to make

[22:19] sure that we're all

[22:22] locked in on what the proposed

[22:24] disturbance is but i think it's 2048.

[22:30] the one of the conclusions

[22:35] i'm putting forth for you in this memo

[22:38] is that you may

[22:42] wish to approve this and i don't see

[22:46] a lot of downside to approving it

[22:49] provided that there's some care is taken

[22:53] about how the building is built and

[22:55] constructed

[22:56] um in other words that this the

[23:01] long-range planning we're talking about

[23:02] in these environmental conditions

[23:04] are addressed and thought about when

[23:06] that building is constructed

[23:08] so i suggested here that a

[23:11] model that uses piles or some other

[23:13] technique to keep the building

[23:15] up out of wetland so and flood zone as i

[23:19] mentioned so these buildings can exist

[23:21] on this property

[23:23] for a long time and so the town doesn't

[23:25] have to

[23:26] uh work with the property owners

[23:29] decades from now to purchase their

[23:32] property in their house

[23:33] which is actually a proposal that the

[23:35] planning commission is considering

[23:37] uh now generally uh as a strategy

[23:41] for addressing other issues in town

[23:44] there this pattern of ex wetlands moving

[23:47] and floodplains rising

[23:49] uh has presented itself in other places

[23:52] in chesapeake beach and we are

[23:55] [Music]

[23:58] facing the future of having to deal with

[24:02] moving people out of harm's way or

[24:04] watching their properties

[24:06] uh continue to deteriorate so

[24:09] that's um that's a quick summary of this

[24:12] particular proposal

[24:13] it's uh roughly seven and a half feet of

[24:15] a variance

[24:17] um the from the front yard

[24:20] the front lot line the applicant still

[24:22] will have

[24:24] 2 400 square feet of uh

[24:27] encroachment into the buffer uh so that

[24:30] reflects

[24:31] that would be a variance as well so

[24:33] there's two variants decisions

[24:34] to be made tonight thank you

[24:41] are there any questions from the board

[24:46] of mr jacobia presentation

[24:53] uh dr spencer this is david ferguson i

[24:56] have a question for chris

[24:58] um i am not familiar with elm lane

[25:03] uh i mean i know where it intersects uh

[25:06] 260 but i've not driven down it

[25:10] so i'm not very familiar with it but in

[25:13] reading uh public comments we received from mr

[25:17] coldsmith

[25:18] i'm wondering about the width and the

[25:21] construction

[25:22] of the pavement of elm lane uh

[25:28] sounds like there's maybe some question

[25:29] of uh

[25:31] parking space and if and if we grant the

[25:34] variance to seven and a half feet in the

[25:36] front

[25:37] will there be room for off street

[25:39] parking

[25:40] and if there is no off street parking

[25:43] will that

[25:44] present a a problem for

[25:48] uh you know trash vehicles and other

[25:51] trucks that need to get up and down the

[25:52] street

[25:54] or emergency vehicles in that case

[25:58] okay good questions um

[26:02] here is elm lane

[26:06] uh this is a google earth image yes the

[26:10] date is 2020.

[26:11] the image date is october 18th

[26:14] 2019 down there uh okay

[26:18] yeah um

[26:21] is is it a fall too lane is it a full

[26:23] two-lane

[26:24] street or it essentially is until you

[26:27] get down to

[26:30] where the first lot is that's the

[26:32] subject of our proposal is located

[26:34] at this point it feels like a one-lane

[26:37] street right it's fairly narrow as you

[26:39] can see

[26:40] um i'm certainly

[26:44] applicant will have more detailed

[26:46] measurements but if he just threw this

[26:48] on

[26:49] we got 14 feet maybe between 12 and 14

[26:53] feet

[26:54] roughly um up here we have a little more

[26:57] space

[26:58] let's measure that

[27:02] 15 feet i actually think it's bigger

[27:03] than that um

[27:06] well you know this is this is what it is

[27:08] i'm just doing it okay um but this is that

[27:12] parking area that you're referring to

[27:15] these cars that are parked here i

[27:18] believe belong to someone in the

[27:19] neighborhood

[27:21] but these are not this is not the

[27:24] intention as we understand it this is

[27:26] this wasn't designed for a parking pad

[27:28] for

[27:29] neighbors uh this was designed for a

[27:32] turnaround

[27:33] so if you're traveling down you realize

[27:35] you're in a dead-end street

[27:37] and you can't go beyond it you feel that

[27:39] the road is getting narrower

[27:41] uh you you think well it's time for me

[27:43] to turn around you can pull into a

[27:45] three-point turn and

[27:46] head back up

[27:50] i don't know and i've checked with the

[27:53] public works chief

[27:54] on this he doesn't know either exactly

[27:57] when this

[27:58] was constructed

[28:01] but it is within the municipal

[28:04] right-of-way

[28:05] as far as we can tell meaning that the road is much wider now the physical

[28:10] land where the road is located is much

[28:12] wider

[28:13] than the pavement but so this exists

[28:15] today

[28:16] the i see on the plan that the applicant

[28:19] has

[28:19] that this goes away this is essentially

[28:22] is the front yard

[28:24] of the proposed residence

[28:27] um so that's a a matter we need to

[28:31] discuss uh tonight um but that's

[28:34] you know that's okay well that that's

[28:38] even more complicated than i realized i was just concerned

[28:43] about you know granting the seven and a

[28:46] half foot variants and having the

[28:48] front of the structure seven and a half

[28:50] feet

[28:51] from the street and the street being too

[28:54] narrow to park on

[28:56] where is there going to be parking for

[29:00] the resident okay so

[29:03] i'll i'll refer you to the site plan for

[29:05] that but before i do that

[29:07] remember even if the house is built on

[29:10] the front property line

[29:12] there is still quite a bit of space

[29:14] between that front property line

[29:16] and the existing street this through

[29:19] the street is narrow but the

[29:21] right-of-way is relatively wide

[29:24] so it'll feel like a grass strip

[29:26] essentially between

[29:28] the front door and the street

[29:31] and it won't be

[29:34] as extreme as your as you can imagine so

[29:37] let me just

[29:38] flip to the plan

[29:40] [Music]

[29:50] so here's the house here's the property

[29:53] line this dark line

[29:58] um this says remove paved

[30:02] and i will get confirmation tonight i

[30:05] believe that means remove the pavement we just saw from the

[30:08] overhead photograph

[30:10] right but again the street is

[30:14] i believe this is this see this cl

[30:16] that's the center line of the street

[30:18] and we know that street is very narrow

[30:20] and the edge of that street is roughly

[30:22] right here okay so you can see the distance is still fairly big

[30:29] between the house and the actual street

[30:32] even though it's

[30:33] close to the front property line which

[30:35] means that the town owns this

[30:38] as far as parking this is the this is

[30:40] the driveway that's being proposed

[30:44] um the apron you know you come in and park

[30:50] right right

[30:51] and i would imagine there's enough depth

[30:54] there for two cars to be parked

[30:56] um on that now of course a share of that

[31:00] is within the town's right-of-way but

[31:01] that's not unusual

[31:03] you have to access your property and and

[31:05] there's typically an apron that's

[31:07] built within the municipal right-of-way

[31:09] to access

[31:10] a place to put your car

[31:16] okay

[31:19] thank you chris this is jan breckkay hi

[31:22] jan

[31:23] hi there um i'm curious the pavement that's to come up that's i

[31:30] assume that's the

[31:33] parking pad so to speak that is south of

[31:36] the

[31:38] uh fire plug is that right

[31:43] it's and that the the turk

[31:49] it's this i don't know where the fire

[31:51] exactly so

[31:53] and that pavement currently belongs to

[31:55] the town and it'll be the town's

[31:57] responsibility to remove the pavement

[32:00] [Music]

[32:02] no um i don't think the town would take

[32:05] on responsibility for that the town

[32:07] would have to approve it

[32:09] um and whoever did the work would have

[32:12] to do it according to

[32:14] town specifications okay

[32:17] but the town i doubt the town would want

[32:20] to engage itself in doing something like

[32:22] that

[32:26] directly

[32:28] so the the turnaround that's currently

[32:31] being used

[32:32] as a parking place

[32:35] that would the town have any

[32:37] responsibility to

[32:39] enhance sign it um

[32:43] repave it anything like that i mean did

[32:46] the town put it in i assume

[32:49] well it i i'm assuming the town put it

[32:53] in

[32:53] but i couldn't certainly say that the

[32:55] town would have authorized it or been

[32:57] involved in its installation if it

[32:59] didn't actually do it the work itself

[33:01] um there are there's a law about

[33:05] um doing improvements within the town's

[33:08] right-of-way

[33:09] and it's typically an item that gets

[33:11] reviewed and approved by the town

[33:13] engineer

[33:14] and sometimes these things could go to

[33:16] the mayor and town council

[33:18] for specific approval but

[33:21] this thing has predated me and predated

[33:24] the

[33:24] public works chief and we've uh and he

[33:27] actually

[33:28] went back to see if he could find a

[33:29] record of that um

[33:31] and he wasn't able to and i i don't

[33:34] have any more information about it than

[33:36] that

[33:42] okay okay um let's let's hear from the applicant on the

[33:48] matter

[33:49] if you're here

[33:59] good afternoon good evening folks my

[34:02] name is bill watson

[34:04] and i'm speaking as the person who

[34:06] designed this psyc plan

[34:08] and on behalf of my uh client and

[34:12] applicant

[34:14] for the record again my name is bill

[34:16] watson that you can call me that but

[34:18] my formal name is william r watson i

[34:21] reside at 11215

[34:23] oakwood drive dunkirk maryland 20754

[34:28] my cell phone is

[34:33] six 443-532-0866 i have

[34:36] uh am a registered professional land

[34:38] surveyor

[34:39] have been in this business since the

[34:42] summer of 1970

[34:44] longer than some people have been alive

[34:47] and i still enjoy doing this type of

[34:50] work

[34:51] um this lot

[34:54] is known as lot 31r block a of the

[34:57] wickersham subdivision

[35:00] that subdivision was recorded in 1911

[35:05] not 20 but 1911 and the show on the

[35:09] platinum is workers from subdivision

[35:12] in 1994 a replanting was done

[35:17] by the then owner homes america

[35:21] to combine several individual lots

[35:24] into one building or actually two

[35:26] building sites

[35:28] and in the process of doing that

[35:30] combination

[35:32] the rear alley that alley to the east

[35:36] had been abandoned in part or the part

[35:39] that was abandoned that was adjacent to

[35:41] their lot was added into the lots

[35:44] and also part of friedley avenue which

[35:46] is the

[35:47] unopened street to the south

[35:50] of the second lot which we haven't

[35:52] gotten to yet

[35:54] was added into that second lot so the

[35:57] lots

[35:58] were enhanced somewhat

[36:02] the zoning as in the staff report is

[36:04] residential village with a 15-foot front

[36:07] 8 foot side and 20-foot rear yard

[36:09] setback

[36:11] critical area landing's classification

[36:13] is iba

[36:14] or intensely developed area

[36:17] and again as i say i'm i'm answering the

[36:20] two clients here

[36:21] i'm working directly for barrick

[36:23] associates where i'm a sub-consultant to

[36:25] death

[36:26] and toby olecki is on the line

[36:29] listening in and will be taking over

[36:33] after me

[36:34] to fill in some spots that i may

[36:38] not cover direct associates did a lot

[36:42] stakeout

[36:43] had the wetlands uh delineated

[36:46] and then located those wetlands and

[36:50] provided the

[36:50] topographic survey all to me to do the

[36:53] site design

[36:55] the wetland delineation was done by

[36:57] kenneth walls

[36:58] of bay environment inc and that was back

[37:02] in january of this year

[37:06] that delineation was confirmed

[37:10] by a lady by the name of mikko camp from

[37:13] the maryland department of the

[37:14] environment on january 16th to 2020.

[37:18] her approval states quote wetlands

[37:22] at the subject site will be classified

[37:24] as emergent

[37:25] non-violent wetlands and any

[37:28] permanent impacts to wetlands will

[37:31] require

[37:32] mitigation and i address that mitigation

[37:36] uh and permanent impacts in a couple of

[37:39] places

[37:40] in my presentation it should be noted

[37:43] that the vegetation

[37:44] in this wetland area on the site is

[37:47] predominantly fragmites

[37:49] which is well known to everybody as an

[37:51] invasive species

[37:54] the town is located northward of the

[37:56] town

[37:57] where the site is located northward of

[37:59] the town dress coils

[38:00] site which by virtue of the burns

[38:03] surrounding the site

[38:04] will cause the runoff from this lot to

[38:06] take a longer route to fishing creek and

[38:08] ultimately today

[38:09] thereby giving the existing vegetation

[38:11] more opportunity

[38:13] to filter the runoff a critical area

[38:16] responded

[38:18] on august 14 to a request to give their

[38:20] input on this application

[38:23] and stated that they do not have any

[38:24] jurisdiction over the town's local

[38:27] zoning setbacks

[38:28] nor does the critical area commission

[38:30] have jurisdiction over impacts

[38:32] for non-title wetland buffers so

[38:36] given that with background as mr

[38:38] chikubiak stated

[38:40] we have a need for two variances the

[38:42] first is the front yard setback

[38:45] to be reduced from 15 feet to 7 and a

[38:48] half feet

[38:50] and the second is to allow disturbance

[38:52] within the

[38:53] 25 foot wetland buffer

[38:58] now i'm going to try something i hope

[39:00] works i'm going to try to

[39:03] bring my drawing

[39:06] of the site up

[39:10] if you bear with me for a moment because

[39:12] i'm going to be zooming around and

[39:14] hopefully it'll be

[39:15] a little bit easier for everybody

[39:29] has a series of lines popped up on

[39:32] anybody's screen yet

[39:35] different colors okay thank you yes good this

[39:42] is a background

[39:46] component of this site that i

[39:49] use to calculate all the various impacts

[39:53] um there's just so much going on that i

[39:55] put this

[39:56] off to the side so to speak and did not

[39:58] show it on the drawing

[40:00] a lot of them in a table fashion regular

[40:02] fashion

[40:04] the purple line that i'm following with

[40:07] my cursor

[40:08] and i realized when chris was doing this

[40:11] part

[40:12] the screen was a bit slow hopefully

[40:15] you're seeing my cursor

[40:17] follow around yes we do and

[40:20] now on a white line crossing the short

[40:23] section of a blue line to a green and

[40:25] back to purple

[40:27] that is the 25 foot wetland buffer

[40:31] and you see a little starburst

[40:35] type pattern that would look like some

[40:36] plants

[40:38] within that which is in and of itself

[40:42] 3422 square feet

[40:45] that is the our excuses let me correct

[40:50] that

[40:57] so the wetland buffer is 3391 square

[41:01] feet

[41:01] up here at the top within that is a

[41:06] piece of the driveway

[41:07] shown in blue

[41:11] and maybe a half of the house

[41:16] shown in white

[41:21] the driveway has 362 square feet

[41:24] in the buffer the house

[41:28] has 387 square feet

[41:32] in the buffer those are the permanent

[41:36] impacts to the buffer assuming that this

[41:39] site gets built according to this plan

[41:42] through euros approval

[41:45] the green line represents

[41:49] the outline of a silk fence

[41:53] which is used to prevent settlement

[41:57] from going too far away from a

[41:58] construction site or construction area

[42:01] during

[42:02] a rainstorm in some places

[42:05] as chris noted in his stamp report

[42:09] such as in this area the silk fence

[42:13] actually if i were to show the

[42:15] computation i did it earlier

[42:17] there's about 1.66 feet right at this

[42:19] location where i'm kind of sliding my

[42:21] cursor back and forth

[42:23] and a little bit larger down here

[42:27] the purpose of having the soap fence

[42:29] where i've got it

[42:31] is to in this location

[42:35] keep it from getting into the wetland

[42:38] which is this large area

[42:40] to the north and east or to the right

[42:43] and top of the

[42:44] slot while

[42:47] giving as much room as possible to do

[42:49] the grading

[42:50] to shape the lot and make drainage work

[42:54] on the lot similarly with the house

[42:58] which this is the part that's within the

[43:01] um

[43:02] 25 foot buffer we're seeing the house

[43:06] floor elevation at elevation nine

[43:09] the ground elevation in this area i

[43:11] believe was something around

[43:13] three or four um

[43:16] [Music]

[43:17] so it's actually 6.4 on the site plan

[43:21] down in this area here so we've got the

[43:24] house

[43:26] ground level floor set um at 10

[43:30] excuse me rather than nine uh just short

[43:33] of four feet above the ground

[43:35] in this area so there's some shaping to

[43:38] be done

[43:39] although with a proposed crawl space

[43:42] there's not a lot of shaping of the

[43:44] earth to be done

[43:45] other than just to be sure that the

[43:47] rainfall that hits the ground

[43:49] runs away from the house and doesn't

[43:52] wash out alongside the house

[43:56] the downhill side of the house is where

[43:59] i've got the person now

[44:02] that probably will be where a large

[44:05] amount a larger amount of grading will

[44:07] occur

[44:08] just to accommodate putting in the block

[44:11] foundation getting the footings down to

[44:14] an elevation where they can be placed on

[44:16] solid ground

[44:19] probably there will be some small amount

[44:21] of stockpiling in this area

[44:23] other of it could be stockpiled inside

[44:26] the foundation area

[44:28] or possibly even over in the

[44:30] southwestern or bottom left corner

[44:36] the

[44:39] impact of this hearing

[44:42] really boils down simply to if the

[44:45] buffer impact is denied this lot becomes

[44:48] unbearable which i don't think anybody

[44:51] wants to see happen

[44:53] so we need to find a solution

[44:56] that minimizes the impact to the

[44:58] greatest extent

[45:02] in the staff report mr jacobiak

[45:04] suggested having the house

[45:06] on either piles

[45:10] or at least greatly elevated

[45:15] tony had tony alexa fulton has talked

[45:18] with the applicant

[45:20] and they are not opposed to that um

[45:24] obviously brings more cost in but they

[45:27] see the benefit of getting the house

[45:29] a little bit more up into the air and

[45:31] having less

[45:32] potential for uh damage to occur

[45:36] and the result of a flood and this area

[45:38] will flood

[45:39] it did it during isabel and possibly

[45:42] other hurricanes

[45:44] but that was an unusual situation with a

[45:47] wind-driven

[45:48] hurricane with high water or high rain

[45:51] blowing the bay up into the inland areas

[45:55] those of you that were in the town at

[45:57] the time may remember

[45:59] how badly the senate's restaurant was

[46:01] underwater

[46:04] so those things are unusual

[46:09] it's not indicative of the flood hazard

[46:12] maps

[46:13] which presently show no flood

[46:16] area on these lots it's shown as an x

[46:19] which means not impacted by floods

[46:24] so if we put the house on piling

[46:30] i think that helps to

[46:33] minimize the grading although i haven't

[46:36] had the opportunity

[46:37] to study that on this plan it

[46:41] allows for the possibility depending on

[46:43] how high we put it up in the air

[46:46] of having the parking under the building

[46:49] but that is stuff that needs to be

[46:50] flushed out at the time of the building

[46:52] permit application

[46:58] the criteria

[47:02] that the zoning ordinance sets out five key questions that need to

[47:09] be answered

[47:11] you know in an affirmative that the

[47:13] board needs to agree with

[47:16] and the first is that

[47:20] um granting these variances is in

[47:22] harmony with the general purpose and

[47:24] intent of the comprehensive plan

[47:26] zoning ordinance and all department

[47:28] regulations

[47:29] i believe it is and for a couple of you

[47:34] ms spencer chairman chairman spencer and

[47:37] mrs repke

[47:38] you know that i used to be a predecessor

[47:40] to chris in this very role as sony

[47:43] administrator

[47:45] the second criteria assessed is that

[47:48] it's a

[47:49] use as a single family resident that is

[47:52] permitted

[47:53] in the residential village district

[47:55] nothing

[47:56] being inappropriately nothing is being

[47:58] inappropriately permitted

[48:01] there are a couple of special

[48:03] circumstances which apply to the land

[48:05] which are peculiar

[48:06] in this lot and don't generally apply to

[48:08] most other lots within the subdivision

[48:12] these are first the lot is only 9 135

[48:15] square feet

[48:16] and again remember that's after the

[48:18] addition of a piece of alley to it

[48:21] of that 7 451 square feet

[48:25] is contained within the non-tidal

[48:27] wetlands

[48:28] and the 25-foot non-tidal wetlands bar

[48:32] of that is almost 82 of a lot

[48:38] so we're working with 18 of a moderate

[48:41] sized lot

[48:44] maintaining the 15 foot front yard

[48:46] setback will cause more disturbance to

[48:48] the buffer

[48:49] whereas the goal is to minimize that so

[48:52] that's justification for pulling the

[48:54] house closer to the street

[48:56] by seven and a half feet and again

[48:58] denying the buffer

[48:59] impact would make a lot unbuildable the

[49:02] hardship for the development of this lot

[49:05] is that the house is only a modest

[49:07] three-bedroom house

[49:08] a smaller wood house would have a

[49:10] two-bedroom or less bedrooms

[49:12] in the neighborhood where three bedrooms

[49:14] are typical of a single-family home

[49:17] due to the wetlands this site is really

[49:19] only about a third to a half usable

[49:21] as compared to any similar lot

[49:24] applications of requirements with no

[49:27] variance

[49:27] will eliminate that usability proposing

[49:30] amendments to the applicable ordinances

[49:33] would constitute a type of spot zone

[49:35] which also would be

[49:36] it be innocuous so we're faced with

[49:39] interpreting the ordinance and making a

[49:42] call to decide whether to grant these

[49:44] two variances

[49:47] the fifth and final of the requirements

[49:50] is that the granting of the variance is

[49:52] necessary

[49:54] for just about any use reasonable order

[49:57] rise

[49:58] of this lock and should be considered

[49:59] the bare minimum

[50:01] which will give some use back to this

[50:03] lot

[50:06] and because this is in a critical area

[50:08] there's additional conditions

[50:10] even though this is not a critical area

[50:12] of the um variants i thought that it

[50:14] might be beneficial to go through those

[50:17] and due to the conditions and

[50:19] circumstances that i've previously

[50:21] described

[50:23] for this lot these lots will be denied a

[50:26] minimal or reasonable

[50:28] and significant use of the entire lot

[50:30] without the requested variances

[50:32] the literal interpretation and

[50:34] application of the town's critical area

[50:36] program

[50:37] would deprive the applicant of is

[50:39] commonly enjoyed by other properties in

[50:41] similar areas

[50:42] within the critical area of the town

[50:45] granting these variances will not give

[50:47] any special privileges to this lot

[50:49] that would be denied to others

[50:52] approving these variances will not

[50:54] adversely

[50:55] in my opinion will not adversely impact

[50:58] fish

[50:59] wildlife or plant habitat in the

[51:01] critical area

[51:02] and are in harmony with the general

[51:03] spirit and intent of the town critical

[51:05] area program

[51:07] maryland's critical area law and como

[51:10] net regulations so with that

[51:13] i'll entertain any questions that

[51:15] anybody wants to fire at me

[51:17] or otherwise i'll back out

[51:20] and mute myself and turn it over to tony

[51:24] to embellish our head to my testimony

[51:32] are there any questions from the board

[51:34] to the applicant

[51:44] mr jacobiac do you have any questions

[51:47] for the

[51:48] applicant of comments on the

[51:50] presentation

[51:54] i um

[51:58] well i'd first like to say that

[52:01] it was one of the most candid and

[52:05] thoughtful staff reports i've heard from

[52:07] a consulting engineer

[52:09] representing client in front of a board

[52:11] of appeals in a long time

[52:12] exactly i really i have to send a lot of um appreciation

[52:19] to

[52:20] bill watson for that uh excellent job

[52:23] i mean he not only did he describe

[52:27] the um the hardship that's being faced

[52:31] by the applicant

[52:32] here but he described the actual

[52:34] conditions

[52:35] that are there and didn't minimize

[52:39] them at all and i was very thoughtful

[52:41] professional presentation

[52:44] the idea of placing this um building on

[52:48] some stilts or something to elevate it a

[52:50] bit

[52:52] appealed to me because the the the

[52:54] effect of

[52:56] it has on minimizing grading and keeping

[52:59] it safe and secure for the long term

[53:01] um but then ultimately that's something

[53:03] that you and

[53:05] members of the board of appeals will

[53:07] reflect on i suppose and

[53:09] of course there are other issues that he

[53:11] at play here too that

[53:12] the citizens in the neighborhood may

[53:14] raise

[53:16] so i have nothing else to add unless you

[53:19] have questions for me

[53:25] okay we'll hear now hear from the public

[53:28] sharon has anyone signed up to speak

[53:31] on the variance application give me uh

[53:35] madam chair i believe that there's

[53:37] another uh

[53:38] speaker from the applicant

[53:43] is there well my name is anthony olexon

[53:48] i'm the civil engineer and owner of

[53:51] barrett associates here in prince

[53:53] frederick maryland

[53:54] um you know i i agree

[53:57] and appreciate everything that that bill

[54:00] put into this

[54:01] um in realizing that this was going to

[54:04] be a challenging lot that is

[54:05] why we reached out to him um to make

[54:08] sure that we found a

[54:10] good solution and i think i just wanted

[54:13] to reiterate a couple of

[54:14] things that he mentioned is you know

[54:16] it's a very constrained lot

[54:18] um in the placement of the house and

[54:22] um the layout of the lot and trying to

[54:25] provide parking and all the other

[54:26] requirements were

[54:28] with the intention of one staying

[54:31] out of the wetlands themselves into

[54:34] minimizing any type of impact uh to the

[54:38] buffer

[54:39] so you know that along with

[54:42] um mr jacobiak's maps and kind of some

[54:44] discussion that we had before about

[54:47] you know setting the finished floor

[54:49] elevation on this house

[54:51] was something that we absolutely

[54:53] considered um

[54:54] you know with a two foot sea level rise

[54:58] uh being projected i guess in 2050

[55:01] uh you know it's not within a flood

[55:04] plain right now

[55:06] so it's reasonable to think that the

[55:08] floodplain elevation

[55:09] of where it is today and where it would

[55:11] be in the future would raise to about

[55:14] the elevation four or five so

[55:17] we're trying to maintain as much

[55:20] reasonable

[55:21] lift of the house as possible to keep it

[55:24] in compliance with

[55:26] future considerations for sea level rise

[55:30] as well as fema requirements um

[55:34] for not flooding the house or the first

[55:37] floor elevation as well

[55:39] so um i just again wanted to thank bill

[55:42] for all the effort that he put into this

[55:44] and just kind of reiterate you know

[55:47] there's been a lot of thought and a lot

[55:48] of

[55:48] um intention behind how this has been

[55:51] laid out

[55:52] in a way that allows the lot to still be

[55:54] usable

[55:57] chairman chairwoman spencer may ask a

[55:59] question of um

[56:01] yes here

[56:04] yes yeah um anthony can you tell us

[56:08] the dimensions of that parking pad how

[56:11] deep it is

[56:12] how many cars can locate on it

[56:16] and anything else you can say about that

[56:19] uh for the dimensions uh bill if you

[56:22] could take the dimensions off of the cad

[56:24] drawing that you have there

[56:26] um we can give it i know the intention

[56:27] was to have at least two parking stalls

[56:29] there

[56:31] um for uh for the

[56:34] this home

[56:37] this is bill watson again tony thank you

[56:40] um chris bear with me i'm going to pick

[56:43] a couple of dimensions

[56:45] tony is absolutely correct that

[56:48] the parking pad which is

[56:51] 20 feet long on a lot and

[56:55] 20 feet and a quarter wide on the lot

[56:59] is intended to provide for two all

[57:01] street parking spaces as required by the

[57:03] zoning ordinance

[57:07] so it's 20 feet wide you say

[57:11] that's correct typical parking space is

[57:14] 18 by nine

[57:16] so there's a little bit of flexibility

[57:18] in there uh

[57:19] for for less than perfect driving into a

[57:22] parking space

[57:24] okay thank you you're welcome

[57:27] if i may um just in case something

[57:31] happens and i disappear

[57:33] we're beginning to get a thunderstorm

[57:34] over here in dunkirk it's moving down

[57:36] and

[57:37] raining um if i get cut off because of

[57:40] the power tail

[57:42] i'll be back as soon as i can

[57:49] i am also hearing thunder here at

[57:51] chesapeake beach

[57:53] um well

[57:56] anyway let's let's let's move on

[58:01] okay

[58:06] now let's hear from the public is there

[58:08] anyone here

[58:10] has anyone signed up sharon uh to speak

[58:14] this evening

[58:16] uh i only got comments from gary and i

[58:19] believe

[58:20] gary cole smith is on the on the meeting

[58:23] i am okay

[58:26] i would like to okay gary

[58:32] uh gary cole smith 8200 elm lane

[58:35] chesapeake beach

[58:37] uh my driveway starts at the end of the

[58:41] street

[58:42] i bought this property in

[58:45] uh 20 years ago

[58:48] at the time i bought the property the

[58:50] town engineer i don't remember his name

[58:53] uh he was the engineer and uh zoning

[58:55] administrator at the time but

[58:57] uh you all probably remember him uh he

[58:59] actually went over to north beach

[59:01] for a while this was prior to the

[59:03] current town engineer or the current

[59:06] zoning administrator uh i discussed with

[59:09] them before i bought the property

[59:11] uh several things because i was

[59:12] concerned about the dead end street in

[59:14] the driveway that didn't end at the dead

[59:15] end street

[59:17] and we talked about the requirements of

[59:19] the zoning

[59:20] uh i think most of you are aware that

[59:22] i've

[59:24] been involved with zoning issues for a

[59:26] long time in chesapeake beach

[59:28] uh anyway the discussion was

[59:31] several on several fronts there was

[59:33] runoff uh

[59:34] and the right of way for runoff

[59:37] from the street of helm lane into the

[59:41] wetlands

[59:41] or non-tidal wetlands uh there was also

[59:44] discussion on

[59:46] the runoff on the east side of elm lane

[59:49] that

[59:50] occurs all the time and floods that that

[59:52] side washes sediment

[59:54] onto the parking space that had been

[59:56] provided for

[59:57] uh sadie uh in her at her home at the

[1:00:01] end of ellen lane

[1:00:02] uh so there is a real issue with

[1:00:06] a a t turnaround which that paves the

[1:00:09] areas you see down here

[1:00:10] now uh it wasn't created for it was

[1:00:13] created to

[1:00:14] make vehicles be able to turn around

[1:00:16] town vehicles

[1:00:17] uh trash trucks uh

[1:00:21] visitors who you know came down and

[1:00:23] didn't realize the turn there was a dead

[1:00:24] end

[1:00:25] that industry has to have some means of

[1:00:27] turning around that area was paid by the

[1:00:29] town chesapeake beach

[1:00:31] uh it was repaved by the town of

[1:00:32] chesapeake beach just recently and jay

[1:00:34] knows that

[1:00:35] because he paved it so i don't think

[1:00:38] there's any discussion

[1:00:40] really true discussion about whether or

[1:00:41] not there's the town utilizes the full

[1:00:44] right-of-way

[1:00:45] with at the bottom of the street uh

[1:00:47] sadie

[1:00:48] lawson's lot which was sold to her son grew up there

[1:00:52] has always had parking provided by a

[1:00:54] town the original

[1:00:56] uh subdivision had 50-foot wide

[1:00:59] right-of-ways

[1:01:00] and i discussed this at length with

[1:01:03] several people

[1:01:04] including gerald donovan uh back when i

[1:01:07] bought the property that

[1:01:08] they had fifth foot right away for the

[1:01:10] street because they had off street

[1:01:11] off property parking because the lots

[1:01:13] were so small because it was a

[1:01:15] uh whatever you call it

[1:01:19] a a town that was built here for

[1:01:23] uh visitation or whatever recreational

[1:01:25] purposes

[1:01:27] so anyway uh all that being said we have

[1:01:30] a grandfather's lot on the opposite side

[1:01:31] of the street of this place that gerald donovan and and people prior

[1:01:35] to me

[1:01:36] had prepared a parking space for uh in

[1:01:39] the course but they with what they

[1:01:40] ballet viewed the prior

[1:01:44] planning of that area uh that space is now in this plan shown to

[1:01:50] be gone away

[1:01:52] there's a fire hydrant on that side of

[1:01:53] the street roughly near there and

[1:01:56] that's the reason why the turnaround is

[1:01:58] farther

[1:01:59] north than than where it probably should

[1:02:01] be a this official t turnaround

[1:02:04] and no science has ever been put up to

[1:02:06] stop parking there so people have parked

[1:02:08] there

[1:02:09] uh when the notices went up or when the

[1:02:11] polls

[1:02:12] the new poll relocation happened people

[1:02:15] realized that they you know they didn't

[1:02:16] have a real

[1:02:17] true right to park there they parked

[1:02:19] other other places

[1:02:20] except for the lawson property who has

[1:02:23] no place to park

[1:02:24] because of their grandfather a lot so

[1:02:27] the the utilization of the right-of-way

[1:02:33] for any purposes like going away taking

[1:02:36] the paving away so that there's no

[1:02:37] turnaround anymore or

[1:02:39] utilizing it as part of their driveway

[1:02:42] or whatever it is a non-consideration for the existing

[1:02:47] neighborhood i mean vehicles do do the

[1:02:49] trash trucks people need to turn around

[1:02:51] uh that's my first com real issue with

[1:02:54] the

[1:02:55] with this plan uh the second real issue

[1:02:58] i have with the plan

[1:02:59] is that the reduction

[1:03:02] in front yard setback would not be

[1:03:04] necessary and i've looked at this myself

[1:03:06] i'm i'm a

[1:03:07] commercial builder myself i looked at

[1:03:09] this property myself

[1:03:11] uh back when the property was up for tax

[1:03:14] sales

[1:03:14] numerous times i looked at what i could

[1:03:16] do there and i i thought

[1:03:18] every time about building it on stilts

[1:03:21] just the simple impact that you had a

[1:03:24] issue

[1:03:24] with uh non-tidal wetlands

[1:03:28] now when i look at this plan

[1:03:31] uh first off the any utilization of

[1:03:34] the the talents right away has to be

[1:03:36] approved by the mayor and town council

[1:03:39] and nobody's made an application to do

[1:03:41] that so i don't know without that approval you could not

[1:03:44] regret various anyway

[1:03:46] uh because you'll be taking away part of

[1:03:48] the streets right away

[1:03:50] uh if

[1:03:53] the the planner and developer

[1:03:56] were to look at utilization of stilts

[1:03:59] and raising the structure up in the air

[1:04:01] and parking underneath i think you could

[1:04:03] actually use the property

[1:04:06] effectively for housing as intended

[1:04:09] without impact to the buffer

[1:04:13] and impact to the front yard setback

[1:04:16] so i i i think that was not fully

[1:04:20] uh thought through uh it was like easier

[1:04:24] to apply for a variance than just to

[1:04:26] design to match a lot and the final

[1:04:29] thing i really want to say is

[1:04:31] this thing was re-platted

[1:04:34] and it was replated during a time when

[1:04:37] all all these things were known and all

[1:04:40] the property was one

[1:04:41] was when one ownership at that time and

[1:04:43] it was in one ownership

[1:04:45] and all those joint properties were

[1:04:48] together would make a legal lot

[1:04:52] you don't have a right for a variance

[1:04:53] and someone subdivided it and

[1:04:55] made it into two lots that were actually

[1:04:58] unbuildable so they created their own

[1:05:00] problem

[1:05:01] in i think was it 1994

[1:05:05] in the replanting uh so i i i really

[1:05:08] uh at i'm i i am really against this

[1:05:12] as is fans right now if they were to

[1:05:15] redesign it put the house on stilts not

[1:05:17] impact the front yard setback create a

[1:05:20] means for

[1:05:21] turn around address the

[1:05:24] parking issue for uh the

[1:05:28] house of the end of the road lost his

[1:05:29] home on the end of the road

[1:05:31] uh i could i could uh

[1:05:35] i would not be an objection but uh that

[1:05:38] they haven't addressed any of these

[1:05:39] things

[1:05:39] and i actually don't see where they've

[1:05:41] adjusted off street parking

[1:05:43] directly on both lots that are up for uh

[1:05:48] these two variances uh the the property

[1:05:51] i'm talking about that has

[1:05:52] was grandfathered and does not have

[1:05:54] parking and it has no way of creating

[1:05:56] parking

[1:05:57] is 8202 elm lane

[1:06:00] it used to be the city lost this

[1:06:02] property uh

[1:06:03] it's now calvin lawson and his wife's

[1:06:05] property

[1:06:06] uh so uh they're all those things need

[1:06:10] to be addressed before i think you can

[1:06:11] even consider

[1:06:12] granting either one of the two variances

[1:06:14] are up before you for those two

[1:06:15] properties

[1:06:16] thank you for your time

[1:06:30] is there anyone else

[1:06:35] on this call that would like to speak on

[1:06:37] this matter or ask questions of the

[1:06:39] applicant

[1:06:45] if so now is your time

[1:06:57] okay does the applicant have any

[1:07:01] cross-examination

[1:07:02] of any of the previous speakers

[1:07:06] uh yes madam chair uh this is anthony

[1:07:08] olux and again i

[1:07:10] you know like to address i guess a

[1:07:12] couple of

[1:07:13] the comments that mr cole smith made

[1:07:18] the purpose of the variances that we are

[1:07:21] requesting in this case is in order to

[1:07:25] minimize impacts to the wetland buffer

[1:07:30] [Music]

[1:07:31] the as mr watson mentioned nearly

[1:07:35] 84 of this lot is encumbered by the

[1:07:38] buffer itself

[1:07:41] the house was located in a situation or

[1:07:43] in a location to keep it out of the

[1:07:46] wetlands

[1:07:47] uh and you know

[1:07:51] looking at shifting it further back

[1:07:55] would would just

[1:07:56] create more of a disturbance to the

[1:07:59] wetlands buffer

[1:08:01] uh really that's you know i think the

[1:08:04] crux of

[1:08:05] what it is that we're asking for as part

[1:08:07] of this waiver

[1:08:09] are the two waiver requests is to

[1:08:12] find a solution here that would minimize

[1:08:15] those impacts

[1:08:17] and the owner and

[1:08:21] their builder representative are also on

[1:08:23] this call today and they can kind of

[1:08:25] you know i like to give them the

[1:08:26] opportunity to talk if they'd like

[1:08:30] um you know raising it up on stilts is

[1:08:32] our own pilings is something that we're

[1:08:35] considering uh moving forward i think it

[1:08:37] takes a little bit more but

[1:08:39] even with raising it up uh the area

[1:08:41] that's going to be underneath of the

[1:08:43] house

[1:08:43] will still be graded would still be

[1:08:46] considered a permanent impact to the

[1:08:48] buffer

[1:08:49] uh so the design that we're showing here

[1:08:53] in the location that we're showing here

[1:08:56] with the reduced setback um

[1:08:59] is the minimal amount

[1:09:03] of impact and that's necessary

[1:09:06] in order to keep this as a usable lie

[1:09:10] regarding the work within the

[1:09:12] right-of-way and the removing of the

[1:09:14] pavement

[1:09:15] and the turnaround uh you know i agree

[1:09:18] with

[1:09:18] mr coldsmith is saying is is that

[1:09:20] something that we need to work out

[1:09:22] with the town engineer

[1:09:25] and with work within their public

[1:09:27] right-of-way

[1:09:28] uh but i do not believe that impacts

[1:09:32] what we would be requesting with this

[1:09:34] waiver

[1:09:35] uh just for the simple fact that there's

[1:09:37] nowhere else

[1:09:39] to place the house without being in the

[1:09:41] wetlands themselves

[1:09:57] do either mr jacobiak or the applicant

[1:10:00] have any

[1:10:01] final comments

[1:10:10] if no

[1:10:15] i will close this this part of the

[1:10:17] meeting

[1:10:18] uh and we'll turn our attention to

[1:10:20] deliberation

[1:10:22] on the variance application in case

[1:10:24] number

[1:10:28] 2020-2.

[1:10:30] chairman yes may i

[1:10:33] uh address the comments that were made

[1:10:35] on my addre

[1:10:44] one of the requirements for our variants

[1:10:46] is that it cannot be self-created

[1:10:48] and unfortunately the original owners

[1:10:51] in 1994 created part of this problem

[1:10:54] because as the ordinance read back at

[1:10:56] that time you

[1:10:58] had the opportunity to combine lots and

[1:11:00] create a legal lot

[1:11:02] and met the requirements of the zoning

[1:11:04] ordinance

[1:11:05] and instead they subdivided and made two

[1:11:07] illegal lots

[1:11:08] basically so i i you know

[1:11:12] i wasn't going to bring that up because

[1:11:14] i i thought that was like kind of

[1:11:15] underhanded but

[1:11:16] it was 1994 and these ordinances all

[1:11:19] went in place

[1:11:20] in the 80s so it is self-created in that

[1:11:24] respect

[1:11:25] um

[1:11:29] let's see uh when you park under the

[1:11:32] house

[1:11:32] even though you're impacting uh the area

[1:11:35] under the

[1:11:36] house with imper previous the impervious

[1:11:39] area is actually above the house the

[1:11:40] roof line

[1:11:42] so you're not creating any additional

[1:11:44] impact

[1:11:45] in what the footprint of the house is if

[1:11:46] the parking is under the house

[1:11:48] so you put on stilts and you create

[1:11:50] parking under the house

[1:11:51] you're not creating any additional

[1:11:53] impact so i i disagree with that

[1:11:55] statement

[1:11:56] and uh as i said before i think that

[1:12:01] before you can grant a variance for

[1:12:03] anything that in respect to

[1:12:06] the uh

[1:12:10] front yard setbacks you have to address

[1:12:12] the issues of the street and the town

[1:12:14] would have to

[1:12:16] first of all allow the the redesign of

[1:12:20] their their uh right away

[1:12:24] they usually read utilization of their

[1:12:26] right of way and that requires the the mayor to approve

[1:12:30] it

[1:12:30] and that has not been done yet so this

[1:12:33] plan

[1:12:34] that they have you know it could be you

[1:12:36] can approve it contingent to

[1:12:38] those approvals if you were to so desire

[1:12:42] uh and the same with water runoff on the

[1:12:45] east side of elm lane uh i don't know you we had like a

[1:12:49] conservative rain the other day and

[1:12:51] probably no one knows but me because i

[1:12:53] drive up there every day

[1:12:54] is that but there's an incredible amount

[1:12:56] of runoff on the east side of the road

[1:12:58] that's never been addressed

[1:13:00] and the uh former uh

[1:13:04] talent administrator uh james parent and

[1:13:07] i had

[1:13:08] he had actually visited out there with

[1:13:09] me about that and i have talked to

[1:13:12] um jay about the same same issue is that

[1:13:15] there's an incredible amount of runoff

[1:13:17] on that side of the road and there's no

[1:13:19] there's been no adjustment that and the

[1:13:21] way you have it drawn right now

[1:13:23] water coming down that side of the road

[1:13:25] would run into f

[1:13:26] at a seven and a half foot

[1:13:30] uh front yard setbacks water coming down

[1:13:32] the road would have no place to go but

[1:13:33] run into that house

[1:13:34] that home so that that really needs to

[1:13:37] be addressed the

[1:13:38] runoff on the east side of elm lane has

[1:13:41] never been addressed

[1:13:42] and it's not addressed in these plans

[1:13:44] thank you for your time

[1:13:57] i'd like to now hear from

[1:14:01] the board there any comments from the

[1:14:15] board

[1:14:23] doris i i have a observation

[1:14:27] yes um

[1:14:30] i drove down elm street today

[1:14:34] and sat in my car and and uh and sort of

[1:14:37] scouted the area and relative to

[1:14:42] water runoff i i can only imagine by

[1:14:46] looking at that lot that that would be a

[1:14:48] huge

[1:14:49] problem so i i agree with mr sussman

[1:14:52] that somehow

[1:14:54] that water is going to come down at that

[1:14:56] you know at a tremendous force coming

[1:14:58] down

[1:14:59] lane uh elm lane which is very steep

[1:15:02] in the beginning off of bayside road so

[1:15:04] i would think that there needs to be

[1:15:06] some significant uh

[1:15:10] that the applicant needs to address that

[1:15:13] significant problem

[1:15:16] um you know before before we could look

[1:15:18] to approve it

[1:15:30] okay any other comments

[1:15:34] yes madam chair david ferguson here um

[1:15:37] regarding uh mr cole smith's

[1:15:40] assertion that this was a self-created

[1:15:44] problem by subdividing a large lot into

[1:15:48] two smaller lots

[1:15:50] are either of the applicants

[1:15:53] for these two cases uh

[1:15:59] 2020-2 and 2020-3

[1:16:02] are either of those applicants

[1:16:06] the owner of the larger lot

[1:16:09] that subdivided it back in 1994

[1:16:14] and i don't know if anyone here would

[1:16:16] know that

[1:16:17] but mr coldsmith may know who who owned the

[1:16:23] property

[1:16:24] and subdivided it but it seems to me

[1:16:28] uh mr sussman that

[1:16:31] the current owners unless they were the

[1:16:34] owner

[1:16:34] that subdivided it the current owners

[1:16:37] are not responsible for

[1:16:40] that uh subdivision

[1:16:44] mr sussman yes well i believe i heard

[1:16:48] and somebody can correct me

[1:16:50] that homes for america owned the

[1:16:52] property

[1:16:53] and then uh subdivided it uh by a rock

[1:16:56] consolidation

[1:16:58] into those two watts back in 1994. and

[1:17:02] i believe you're correct mr ferguson

[1:17:04] that these

[1:17:05] uh the current owners if that if that's

[1:17:08] the case

[1:17:09] uh are not necessarily uh

[1:17:12] responsible for any uh

[1:17:17] failure of the rot to meet current

[1:17:19] standards and i'm not even sure

[1:17:21] that it was the real subdivision that

[1:17:24] caused the problem

[1:17:25] uh the current problem i think at least

[1:17:27] with respect to this particular lodge

[1:17:30] you know we've seen how the topography

[1:17:33] and the uh environmental conditions

[1:17:35] impact

[1:17:36] the development there's been no evidence

[1:17:39] thus far to show what

[1:17:42] the overall

[1:17:45] parts look like and also whether

[1:17:50] a house could have been built or could

[1:17:53] be built

[1:17:54] with less impact on the environmental

[1:17:57] conditions

[1:17:58] have the property not been subdivided

[1:18:01] into two rods

[1:18:02] back in 1994.

[1:18:06] what you have before you what you have

[1:18:08] before you are

[1:18:09] two applications for variances for the

[1:18:12] construction of hot of watts

[1:18:14] on two construction of homes on two

[1:18:17] watts

[1:18:17] that are by all accounts and of

[1:18:20] themselves

[1:18:21] a lot today it's not a situation where

[1:18:24] the lots were subdivided

[1:18:26] into uh well let me strike that so i'll leave my

[1:18:32] comments where they were

[1:18:35] i'm chairman may i yes please

[1:18:39] the original property owner was homes

[1:18:41] america that

[1:18:42] gentleman transferred the property to

[1:18:44] his himself

[1:18:45] at some point or his estate and then the

[1:18:48] property went to his family

[1:18:50] as as someone member of his family so

[1:18:53] the property was

[1:18:54] in ownership by the same person when it

[1:18:57] was subdivided and created the problem

[1:18:59] and then however how it got it's still

[1:19:01] within the same family

[1:19:03] unit i don't know the actual uh

[1:19:06] relationship but at least unless unless

[1:19:09] the

[1:19:10] these have changed uh the my review

[1:19:13] prior to this

[1:19:14] hearing was that that is a

[1:19:18] family um

[1:19:21] buy it or whatever i don't know it's all

[1:19:23] within the same family

[1:19:25] so it's an inheritance i guess or a uh

[1:19:29] a trust that that i think they did

[1:19:32] so uh i don't necessarily agree with the

[1:19:36] uh

[1:19:37] with the attorney's uh opinion on that i

[1:19:39] think that that

[1:19:40] it was it is and was family uh

[1:19:43] property and i don't i they

[1:19:47] town has some responsibility in that

[1:19:48] because that's when they allowed that uh re-subdivision

[1:19:54] uh that you know the constrictions were

[1:19:56] still there at that time so

[1:19:58] you know they have the they have the

[1:20:00] right to build on the lot but they have

[1:20:02] a responsibility to live within build it

[1:20:04] within the means

[1:20:05] that the law allows and it's not

[1:20:08] certainly not utilization of the

[1:20:09] existing right-of-way and it's certainly

[1:20:11] not

[1:20:12] uh encroachment on

[1:20:16] these restrictions that they already

[1:20:17] knew was there

[1:20:19] thank you

[1:20:23] madam chairman this is bill watson may i

[1:20:25] try to clear up some of the

[1:20:26] misconceptions here

[1:20:29] yes you may thank you

[1:20:33] in 1994 holmes america was the owner of

[1:20:36] these lots

[1:20:39] and at that time

[1:20:43] rickerson's subdivision consisted of a

[1:20:45] bunch of 25 foot by 100 foot lots

[1:20:49] this site lot 31r and 32r

[1:20:53] consisted of a handful of those 25 by

[1:20:56] 100 foot or larger

[1:20:58] lots the zoning ordinance

[1:21:03] is silent on the term replay

[1:21:07] and it got started being bandied about

[1:21:10] uh while i was owning administrator but

[1:21:12] this was something prior to me when john

[1:21:14] hoffman was the

[1:21:16] host the administrator of the town

[1:21:17] engineer

[1:21:19] this obviously went through the planning

[1:21:21] commission jim barrett

[1:21:22] as the chairman of the planning

[1:21:24] commission signed it

[1:21:26] he went to all other agencies including

[1:21:29] the health department even though it's

[1:21:30] on public war and sewer

[1:21:32] and it went to record um

[1:21:36] no um subdivision really occurred

[1:21:41] all that occurred was grouping lots

[1:21:44] into building sites and

[1:21:50] using one new line of division

[1:21:54] along the center line of a sewer line

[1:21:56] which

[1:21:57] made only perfect sense to have that run

[1:21:59] down the division line between

[1:22:01] two building sites so that you don't

[1:22:03] have somebody trying to build a house

[1:22:05] over top of an existing sewer

[1:22:07] and you may or may not be aware but that

[1:22:09] sewer line has been very problematic

[1:22:11] over the years

[1:22:13] so if anything these

[1:22:17] watts as we call them today 31

[1:22:21] 32r have been made larger they were done

[1:22:25] through proper review and approval by

[1:22:28] the planning commission of chesapeake

[1:22:29] beach

[1:22:31] and do it recorded in the land records

[1:22:33] they were not a subdivision where you

[1:22:35] take

[1:22:36] a single piece of property and create

[1:22:39] multiple pieces of property

[1:22:41] they were combining multiple pieces into

[1:22:44] lesser pieces that's the idea of

[1:22:47] replanting

[1:22:48] thank you at this time

[1:22:53] um i'd like to hear

[1:22:57] um if there's more from the board if not

[1:23:04] um

[1:23:08] madam chair this is prince sussman

[1:23:12] yes sir yeah uh may i know it's a little

[1:23:15] bit

[1:23:16] out of order but may i ask mr jacoby

[1:23:19] asked a question about process

[1:23:23] yes you may uh mr takubiak

[1:23:26] with respect to the issue about

[1:23:28] stormwater management

[1:23:30] and stormwater runoff is that something

[1:23:33] that would typically be addressed

[1:23:35] at the building permit stage

[1:23:39] yes um after this project were

[1:23:42] if it were approved it would come to me

[1:23:44] as a a

[1:23:45] site plan application it would be

[1:23:48] reviewed by me and the town engineer

[1:23:52] if it were approved uh it would

[1:23:55] obtain a zoning permit and then a um

[1:23:59] an application would be made for a

[1:24:00] building permit

[1:24:02] so these types of impacts would be

[1:24:04] evaluated

[1:24:06] by professionals at that time before any

[1:24:08] permits were issued

[1:24:13] and with respect to the use of the

[1:24:16] public right-of-way

[1:24:17] is that something that also would be

[1:24:19] evaluated

[1:24:20] at the time of building permit

[1:24:24] absolutely

[1:24:27] in fact what we do now is whenever

[1:24:30] there's a proposal for

[1:24:32] the addition of any improvement

[1:24:35] in a right-of-way like a driveway apron

[1:24:38] we refer to the town public works and

[1:24:41] town engineer

[1:24:42] and i can assure you that this would be

[1:24:45] referred

[1:24:46] to those uh individuals right away once

[1:24:48] it

[1:24:49] arrived at on my desk

[1:24:52] thank you

[1:24:59] okay um is there any more discussion

[1:25:03] from the board

[1:25:04] i i have one more question for mr

[1:25:07] jacobiak

[1:25:08] uh dave ferguson here

[1:25:13] along the same lines uh mr jacobiak the

[1:25:17] uh removal of the pavement

[1:25:21] that is currently the turnaround from

[1:25:24] that right of way uh

[1:25:28] in front of this this property

[1:25:31] um that um

[1:25:36] would also need to be approved as part

[1:25:38] of the building you know

[1:25:42] application the uh permit application

[1:25:47] in the sense that it's located in the

[1:25:49] municipal right-of-way

[1:25:52] and it's work being done in the right of

[1:25:54] way yes it would have to be approved

[1:25:57] um i um you know the town

[1:26:00] doesn't have its own streets and roads

[1:26:03] ordinance

[1:26:04] we adopt the calvert county road

[1:26:07] ordinance

[1:26:09] and in the calvert county road ordinance

[1:26:11] there is discussion of a t

[1:26:12] turnaround as a

[1:26:15] solution to dead end streets and new

[1:26:18] subdivisions

[1:26:20] but even reading that one would suggest

[1:26:23] it's not required

[1:26:24] at this level however the town engineer

[1:26:27] may say

[1:26:28] we need that we need to see it on this

[1:26:31] plan or we need to see

[1:26:33] how this public improvement

[1:26:36] would be the loss of the public

[1:26:38] improvement be mitigated

[1:26:41] by the person removing it right so it's

[1:26:43] quite possible that this would be an

[1:26:45] issue and a concern and a condition of

[1:26:47] final approval

[1:26:48] by myself as zoning administrator but

[1:26:52] it's going to take review by

[1:26:53] the town engineer uh and some discussion

[1:26:56] about

[1:26:57] traffic flow how often is it necessary

[1:27:00] is there

[1:27:01] does it warrant a turnaround

[1:27:04] you know those can we manage it in

[1:27:06] different ways does the driveway that

[1:27:08] the applicant's providing provides

[1:27:10] sufficient

[1:27:12] means for someone to pull in and pull

[1:27:13] out which is quite typical on a dead-end

[1:27:16] street

[1:27:16] at low volumes like this so all those

[1:27:19] discussions would be

[1:27:20] had at that time

[1:27:24] it seems to me that you know that is

[1:27:27] something the town will have to deal

[1:27:29] with

[1:27:30] i agree and uh you know that's

[1:27:34] going to be a whole different matter um

[1:27:38] but i i certainly think it it needs to

[1:27:41] be addressed for that for that

[1:27:43] neighborhood

[1:27:45] actually appreciate mr coldsmith

[1:27:47] bringing it up because

[1:27:48] it really wasn't apparent to a lot of us

[1:27:51] we don't get there very often

[1:27:52] and uh it didn't show up in a first

[1:27:54] cursory review of the aerial photography

[1:27:56] then all of a sudden

[1:27:57] boom there it was and it it predates all

[1:28:01] of us

[1:28:01] so um you know it's not used often

[1:28:05] except for parking which wasn't its

[1:28:08] desired intent

[1:28:10] but we're concerned about it and would

[1:28:13] want to make sure that somehow it's

[1:28:15] addressed i don't know what the solution

[1:28:16] is

[1:28:17] but in fact if the board of appeals

[1:28:20] provided guidance to us in a decision that we would act on

[1:28:25] it and

[1:28:27] even provide reports back to the board

[1:28:28] if it was necessary

[1:28:32] yeah i i'm ready to entertain the motion

[1:28:36] i have one question madam chair

[1:28:39] well actually several uh this is frank

[1:28:42] white fw contracting i own the second

[1:28:44] lot

[1:28:46] uh first law is owned by one of my

[1:28:47] customers and the second lot was owned

[1:28:50] by me for

[1:28:50] a second customer

[1:28:54] and we had an email today about the

[1:28:57] possible raising of the house and

[1:28:59] i don't have a problem with that

[1:29:01] whatsoever

[1:29:02] uh if we raise it and there's parking

[1:29:05] underneath

[1:29:06] i'm willing to work with the town on

[1:29:07] that i don't have a problem with that um

[1:29:11] the property was actually bought by

[1:29:12] homes america the wife

[1:29:14] herself uh extremely lovely woman very

[1:29:17] hap very nice

[1:29:18] person uh so we bought the hat we bought

[1:29:22] the property based on

[1:29:23] our customers because they love the

[1:29:26] street they love the neighborhood they

[1:29:27] love the town and

[1:29:28] where they want to live and

[1:29:32] of course we had a scurry around today

[1:29:34] based on the email

[1:29:35] we got today based on placing the house

[1:29:38] forward backwards

[1:29:39] raising it just so many things at the

[1:29:42] last what

[1:29:43] four hours before the meeting and i

[1:29:45] don't have a problem working with

[1:29:47] that at all um as far as the parking is

[1:29:51] concerned

[1:29:52] the the parking that's there now um

[1:29:55] again it's supposed to be a turnaround

[1:29:58] not parking

[1:29:59] and the picture that was shown earlier

[1:30:02] shows three cars and there's typically

[1:30:04] five cars there um so

[1:30:07] when i bought a lot before the one lot

[1:30:10] my customer bought the other lot

[1:30:12] uh i scoured the neighborhood to find

[1:30:14] out who owned the property ruined the

[1:30:16] cars

[1:30:17] to sort it out and the neighbor directly

[1:30:20] across the street

[1:30:21] that doesn't have a driveway he

[1:30:23] apparently owns all the cars

[1:30:26] um and i told him we'd have to work with

[1:30:28] him trying to sort it out because i

[1:30:29] didn't know

[1:30:31] who paved it who didn't pave it i was

[1:30:33] trying to sort all out i've got several

[1:30:34] houses in north beach i'm building

[1:30:37] i was told from the neighbor that

[1:30:40] the town paved it but then the town told

[1:30:43] me

[1:30:44] he paved it so i don't know who paved it

[1:30:47] um

[1:30:48] i thought it was just a part a spot for

[1:30:51] him to park

[1:30:52] but now i realize that this is supposed

[1:30:54] to be a turnaround well

[1:30:58] if there's five cars parked there for

[1:31:00] starters

[1:31:01] and even if i move the turn around to

[1:31:04] the end of the street

[1:31:06] who's to say four or five more cars

[1:31:08] won't park there

[1:31:11] so who who's going who's going to

[1:31:12] enforce that um

[1:31:14] i have no problems working with the town

[1:31:17] on this

[1:31:18] along with barrett uh this is why i

[1:31:20] hired them

[1:31:22] um and again we're just trying to

[1:31:25] build a home for people that's pretty

[1:31:28] much it um

[1:31:30] well thanks a lot uh appreciate it um

[1:31:36] we're closing uh the comment period now

[1:31:39] and the board needs to go into

[1:31:42] deliberation

[1:31:46] at this time

[1:31:52] thank you

[1:32:02] would like to go first

[1:32:16] madam chair david ferguson here uh

[1:32:20] you know it seems to me that the owners

[1:32:23] of the lots

[1:32:24] are uh you know working with their uh you know engineers and and

[1:32:32] developers to try to find a way to

[1:32:36] work within the wetlands setback

[1:32:39] and the uh um

[1:32:42] set back from the street and from the

[1:32:44] town right of way

[1:32:46] um and you know i was impressed by mr

[1:32:50] watson's presentation and the work he's

[1:32:53] done on

[1:32:54] looking into the the drainage and the

[1:32:56] wetlands and the silt fence and

[1:32:59] you know trying to preserve the

[1:33:02] environment

[1:33:04] and i also appreciated uh

[1:33:08] um uh

[1:33:11] i'm sorry your your name is steph on the

[1:33:14] screen uh

[1:33:16] stevenson i think but anyway i

[1:33:19] appreciated your input

[1:33:21] um that's my stage name it's okay okay

[1:33:24] and i appreciate it and by the way i you

[1:33:27] know i've never really done this

[1:33:28] viral video thing but uh i don't mind

[1:33:31] saying i look pretty good on here i

[1:33:32] don't know about you guys but

[1:33:34] well thanks anyway and so uh

[1:33:38] you know appreciate the willingness of

[1:33:40] the applicants

[1:33:42] to uh uh you know build on pilings

[1:33:46] or you know do what they need to

[1:33:49] mitigate the environmental impacts

[1:33:52] my only concern with the application

[1:33:58] before i had it explained to me was the

[1:34:01] seven and a half foot variants from the

[1:34:03] setback

[1:34:04] because i thought it was going to put

[1:34:06] the front of the house seven and a half

[1:34:07] feet from the street

[1:34:09] uh which on a very narrow lane uh

[1:34:12] you know i think is inviting problems

[1:34:14] but since there is

[1:34:16] that's actually a seven and a half foot

[1:34:18] setback

[1:34:19] from the 50-foot wide uh town you know right-of-way easement

[1:34:27] uh so you know that's of a little less concern to me now so i think uh you know for me

[1:34:37] uh i think i could be willing to approve

[1:34:42] the uh the variance uh to the setback

[1:34:45] and to the

[1:34:46] wetland buffer uh with a condition that

[1:34:50] the

[1:34:50] homes be built on pilings uh

[1:34:53] and that there be off street parking

[1:34:56] provided

[1:34:57] and uh also that

[1:35:00] they work with the town to address the

[1:35:03] turnaround

[1:35:04] issue on the street so that's that's my

[1:35:12] input

[1:35:19] you're muted sorry am i moving

[1:35:25] i'm unmuted now um

[1:35:30] i i thought better about things uh about

[1:35:33] the variances being asked for when

[1:35:37] chris made it clear that stormwater

[1:35:39] management

[1:35:40] um you know and that kind of thing is

[1:35:44] going to be addressed at a later stage

[1:35:46] that's not something that if i

[1:35:48] understand correctly

[1:35:49] that we need to address or make as a

[1:35:52] condition

[1:35:53] is that correct chris

[1:35:59] well uh madam chair this fred sussman

[1:36:03] may i speak for a moment all right let me just make this

[1:36:08] observation with russia and members of

[1:36:10] the board

[1:36:11] if the board is inclined to

[1:36:14] uh grant or ask me to prepare a

[1:36:17] resolution

[1:36:18] to approve the variances then what i

[1:36:21] would do is

[1:36:22] uh prepare a series of proposed

[1:36:26] conditions

[1:36:27] for all of you to review and consider

[1:36:29] based upon what we've

[1:36:31] heard you know uh tonight during the

[1:36:33] hearing and then

[1:36:35] yeah you can see whether you're

[1:36:36] satisfied with conditions whether you

[1:36:38] want to erupt eliminate any or add any

[1:36:41] but at least that will give you

[1:36:42] something to look at

[1:36:44] and uh uh it will be more than just

[1:36:47] an approval being approval subject to

[1:36:50] abcde

[1:36:53] okay that that makes a lot of sense i'm

[1:36:55] more comfortable with that i think

[1:36:59] are you willing to make a motion to that

[1:37:01] effect again

[1:37:04] i'm sorry darris are you speaking to me

[1:37:06] yes

[1:37:09] are you willing to put that in the form

[1:37:11] of a motion

[1:37:13] uh madam chair may i help out

[1:37:17] always thank you yeah uh

[1:37:20] you based on what i just heard uh you

[1:37:23] may want to entertain

[1:37:25] a motion from a member of the board that

[1:37:27] the board

[1:37:28] direct counsel to the board to

[1:37:32] prepare a resolution to grant the two

[1:37:35] variances and along with

[1:37:38] uh conditions that council may recommend

[1:37:42] based upon the evidence and testimony

[1:37:45] presented at the hearing

[1:37:51] well i would certainly like to make that

[1:37:52] motion

[1:37:54] jody did you have any comments yeah

[1:37:57] before jan gets started um uh before you

[1:38:00] go with this

[1:38:01] the conditions um i'm of the opinion

[1:38:03] that conditions are not necessary here

[1:38:05] um i think that the next step in the

[1:38:08] process where

[1:38:09] the building goes for its own goes to

[1:38:12] chris as the zoning administrator and

[1:38:13] the town engineer

[1:38:14] uh sufficient and that they will handle

[1:38:16] uh any any kind of conditions we put on

[1:38:19] in this meeting here um i find thus far

[1:38:22] that are

[1:38:24] it's not really our responsibility as

[1:38:26] the board of appeals to re-evaluate the

[1:38:28] lot consolidation of 94. all of the

[1:38:32] proposals put forward

[1:38:34] by the engineers and planners i believe

[1:38:36] are very reasonable given

[1:38:38] the zoning of this particular lot

[1:38:41] i do hear the uh complaint from mr

[1:38:45] coldstone about

[1:38:46] colt smith about the right-of-way and

[1:38:48] the t turnaround

[1:38:50] um but once again i don't i don't think

[1:38:52] that falls

[1:38:53] into the jurisdiction of the plan

[1:38:56] propose us here today um

[1:38:58] so i think i i would like to move

[1:39:01] forward without conditions

[1:39:03] on uh this particular uh issue but that

[1:39:06] i will take other opinions on that

[1:39:10] jody this is dave i i would have to

[1:39:12] disagree with you on the conditions

[1:39:14] uh because if we're going to

[1:39:17] in particular on the the wetland buffer

[1:39:21] if we're going to uh grant

[1:39:24] uh you know a variance to that very important environmental buffer

[1:39:31] i think there need to be conditions

[1:39:33] you know such as uh you know

[1:39:36] building on pilings when you consider

[1:39:40] the uh 2050 uh projected floodplain that

[1:39:46] mr jacubiak showed us i think it needs to be you know for the

[1:39:51] house to be viable 30 years from now

[1:39:55] uh you know in an area that will be

[1:39:59] very likely subject to you know a lot

[1:40:01] more flooding than it is today

[1:40:03] i i think that needs to be a condition i

[1:40:06] would hate to see

[1:40:07] a builder build a a place

[1:40:11] that in the future uh

[1:40:14] you know science tells us is likely to

[1:40:16] be flooded

[1:40:17] i i entirely agree with you i i think

[1:40:20] the incentive structure here is that

[1:40:22] uh the builders and the owners and the

[1:40:24] engineers and all the people with

[1:40:25] expertise in this room

[1:40:27] are not going to try and build a house

[1:40:28] that's underwater 20 years from now

[1:40:31] i don't want to tie their hands with

[1:40:34] artificial restrictions

[1:40:35] when we don't have the full lay of the

[1:40:38] land so to speak

[1:40:40] i think that's our job i think that's

[1:40:42] our job to be sure

[1:40:44] that they meet those conditions if we're

[1:40:46] going to grant

[1:40:48] a variance variants that putting in

[1:40:52] pilings is the engineer's best

[1:40:55] recommendation

[1:40:56] given what they know when they get on

[1:40:58] the ground and start building

[1:40:59] um i'd like to leave it up to their

[1:41:01] expertise to build a house

[1:41:03] for their customers and clients that

[1:41:05] last a long time

[1:41:07] um and not necessarily try and guess

[1:41:09] being that that is not

[1:41:10] my area of expertise but i i do

[1:41:13] appreciate your thoughts

[1:41:14] and i'm not dismissing them i entirely

[1:41:16] agree

[1:41:17] um trying to plan ahead for things we

[1:41:20] don't know

[1:41:21] i think is where i get a little hesitant

[1:41:34] i guess you and i are gonna have to

[1:41:36] agree to disagree on that

[1:41:39] well uh this is jan again uh could i ask

[1:41:42] chris

[1:41:43] to clarify for

[1:41:46] us what's you know if we approve this

[1:41:50] variance

[1:41:52] what this builder now has to go through

[1:41:56] whether it's stormwater management

[1:41:58] whether it's you know anything

[1:42:01] else related to this law because if if

[1:42:04] that's going to be handled by somebody

[1:42:05] else then it's not something that we

[1:42:07] i said storm water management i really

[1:42:09] meant everything to do with this law

[1:42:12] the practice practicality of it um

[1:42:15] if these things are going to be

[1:42:16] addressed at a later time that's

[1:42:18] i guess that's what i'm asking of chris

[1:42:21] what is going to be

[1:42:22] what specific things relative this lot

[1:42:25] are going to be addressed at a later

[1:42:27] time that we could

[1:42:29] step back and say we approve it but yet

[1:42:32] we would know that it would be

[1:42:35] handled uh appropriately up the line so

[1:42:38] to speak

[1:42:42] um

[1:42:46] these lots are in the critical area

[1:42:49] so they're subject to a heightened level

[1:42:52] of review

[1:42:54] um because they're in the critical area

[1:42:57] they will be subject to the

[1:43:00] review by the county uh for grading

[1:43:03] permits

[1:43:05] and the county will review

[1:43:08] the grading plans um

[1:43:11] the the fact that

[1:43:14] the applicants are considering putting

[1:43:16] them on piles the building or the

[1:43:18] building on a pile here

[1:43:20] pilings suggest to me that the amount of

[1:43:23] grading was going to be

[1:43:24] a lot less which is something that i'm

[1:43:28] pleased to see um and we'll look to that

[1:43:32] to make sure that the grading

[1:43:34] complies with um the the

[1:43:38] stormwater management regulations and

[1:43:40] sediment and erosion control regulations

[1:43:42] that the the county administers so a lot

[1:43:44] of these environmental reviews will be

[1:43:47] done by the county the one thing that

[1:43:50] was offered as testimony tonight was

[1:43:52] that there's

[1:43:54] and i think um ms redeke you picked up

[1:43:57] on it

[1:43:57] was there's water coming down elm lane

[1:44:01] presumably from north right

[1:44:04] and that this property may not even

[1:44:06] impact that

[1:44:08] but it may be impacted by it right so

[1:44:11] the

[1:44:11] applicant will certainly have a

[1:44:14] an interest in making sure that it's not

[1:44:16] flooded out

[1:44:17] when water comes down that road and we

[1:44:20] will too

[1:44:22] um and we'll be very careful to make

[1:44:23] sure that

[1:44:25] the project is designed in such a way as

[1:44:28] to capture divert or otherwise minimize

[1:44:31] the issue

[1:44:31] which may in effect help resolve it for

[1:44:34] the benefit of

[1:44:35] the entire community quite frankly um

[1:44:37] although it's not necessarily their

[1:44:39] obligation to do that

[1:44:41] we certainly don't want water washing

[1:44:44] out a lot

[1:44:45] um so there's this physical um

[1:44:49] regulatory steps will be taken uh

[1:44:53] if this is approved by the uh

[1:44:56] and if you if you make a condition that

[1:44:58] it's on pilings then that's the point at

[1:45:00] which we start

[1:45:01] there's no further deliberations between

[1:45:04] me and trying to enforce the requirement

[1:45:07] that its own pylons

[1:45:09] or the county review we start from

[1:45:12] the standards you've established

[1:45:15] and um well i hope that answers your

[1:45:19] question

[1:45:20] well chris it was your recommendation in

[1:45:23] your report

[1:45:24] that you know if the board approves it

[1:45:27] that

[1:45:27] it should be on pilings right yes that

[1:45:30] was

[1:45:30] the loan condition that i suggested and

[1:45:33] um

[1:45:34] because it allows the uh grading to be

[1:45:37] done

[1:45:38] much much great uh reduced which is the

[1:45:41] big issue

[1:45:42] we don't want grading in the wetland

[1:45:43] buffer particularly when it's

[1:45:45] so close to the edge of the wetland

[1:45:47] itself so um

[1:45:49] and that provides us space to introduce

[1:45:53] um parking you know

[1:45:57] there's less lot coverage on the ground

[1:45:59] there's less construction on the ground

[1:46:01] there's no uh basement or a crawl space

[1:46:05] and grading up to it that's necessary

[1:46:07] so maybe that because of that they can

[1:46:09] accommodate the parking we need on the

[1:46:11] property which

[1:46:12] so helps serve these brother issues

[1:46:14] maybe that rather than 20 feet it ought

[1:46:16] to be 25 feet to make it easier to pull

[1:46:18] in and pull out if you're

[1:46:20] a visitor to the area you know so

[1:46:22] there's a

[1:46:23] i think putting on the pilots gives a

[1:46:25] lot of flexibility to the design of the

[1:46:28] site

[1:46:30] all of the conditions would have to be

[1:46:32] in the resolution correct

[1:46:36] that's correct madam chair so

[1:46:40] these conditions we had are not binding

[1:46:43] in any way that they are

[1:46:44] recommendations that that's what it

[1:46:46] sounds like

[1:46:48] no no well if uh the board

[1:46:52] adopts the resolution with conditions

[1:46:54] that those conditions are binding

[1:46:58] uh now as i said before i can if you all uh can't come to a full

[1:47:04] agreement tonight

[1:47:06] on the conditions the resolution that i

[1:47:08] prepare

[1:47:09] can't propose conditions for you to look

[1:47:12] at and think about

[1:47:13] and continue your discussion another day

[1:47:16] once you see the

[1:47:17] proposed conditions uh if you don't want

[1:47:20] conditions

[1:47:21] and you want to approve the application

[1:47:23] then certainly we can do it that way as

[1:47:34] well

[1:47:37] madam chair procedurally i think miss

[1:47:39] rutkay

[1:47:40] had made a motion uh and

[1:47:43] i don't recall that that motion was ever

[1:47:46] seconded

[1:47:47] no i will second the motion uh mr

[1:47:50] assessment

[1:47:52] thank you

[1:47:57] we now have a motion it's been second

[1:48:05] i will entertain the vote

[1:48:08] mr ferguson yes

[1:48:13] sorry it's been a few minutes what is

[1:48:15] what was the full text of

[1:48:16] what the emotion was about

[1:48:21] the motion was essentially uh that the

[1:48:24] board

[1:48:24] uh directs the test the council to the

[1:48:27] board to prepare

[1:48:28] a resolution that would approve the two

[1:48:31] variances

[1:48:32] and recommend to the board conditions

[1:48:36] uh based upon the

[1:48:39] evidence and testimony presented tonight

[1:48:43] and again let me make it clear that

[1:48:46] those are only

[1:48:47] uh proposed conditioned uh from me

[1:48:50] they're not finding upon you as a board

[1:48:53] you may look at them and say

[1:48:54] as you suggested uh jody no we don't

[1:48:57] want

[1:48:58] any of the conditions or you may agree

[1:49:00] we want condition three but not one two

[1:49:02] four or five

[1:49:04] but at least it will give you something

[1:49:05] to uh think about

[1:49:08] as you continue uh deciding how to deal

[1:49:10] with this

[1:49:12] okay thank you

[1:49:16] okay so you're

[1:49:19] right i voted

[1:49:28] you said approve

[1:49:31] yes okay

[1:49:54] um

[1:49:58] attorney assessment do you need anything

[1:50:01] further from us

[1:50:02] in terms of preparation of the

[1:50:04] resolution

[1:50:06] no matter i've been taking notes and i

[1:50:08] have uh all the exhibits

[1:50:10] so i can uh go from here the only thing

[1:50:13] for purposes

[1:50:13] of uh the record keeping the record

[1:50:16] clean

[1:50:17] uh did you madam chair vote or intend to

[1:50:20] vote on this

[1:50:21] motion no no

[1:50:24] okay no

[1:50:28] doctors can i ask a point of order um

[1:50:31] i know i'm not entitled to it but

[1:50:32] there's something that i'd like to raise

[1:50:34] as a potential issue

[1:50:35] um when you read through the

[1:50:39] roll call you mentioned a board of

[1:50:42] appeals member

[1:50:43] whose face doesn't appear with us

[1:50:45] tonight

[1:50:46] but i thought maybe she was trying to

[1:50:49] enter the discussion

[1:50:52] because as soon as you mention her name

[1:50:54] her you know box lit up and is lighting

[1:50:56] up now could you just ask if that member

[1:50:59] can hear you

[1:51:00] um and see if she's present in this

[1:51:02] discussion for the record

[1:51:04] even though we maybe may have a hard

[1:51:06] time getting

[1:51:07] a vote out of her at least we can know

[1:51:09] if she's present

[1:51:10] for this discussion

[1:51:14] well maybe i will i forgot the member's

[1:51:16] name because she's new um

[1:51:20] kelly stewart kelly stewart are you on this call

[1:51:28] i think that's her number there the one

[1:51:30] that's lit up in green here

[1:51:33] an unfortunately this is a problem with

[1:51:34] this uh platform

[1:51:36] we don't know but i just wanted to bring

[1:51:39] that up to you for the record i don't

[1:51:40] know how you would handle that mr

[1:51:42] sussman but

[1:51:43] i believe we have a member who can't

[1:51:47] express her opinion but she can hear us

[1:51:49] but she can't

[1:51:50] voice her opinion well i haven't heard

[1:51:55] uh she wasn't present at the roll call

[1:51:59] and i haven't heard her uh if she is

[1:52:01] president now

[1:52:02] i haven't heard her attempt to join in

[1:52:05] the discussion

[1:52:06] so uh at first i'm concerned

[1:52:10] she's not present if she is present

[1:52:13] and want to be heard i think now is the

[1:52:15] opportunity

[1:52:16] for her to say something and we can

[1:52:18] decide how to deal with it

[1:52:20] uh after that

[1:52:23] okay just i believe she was present at

[1:52:25] the time the roll call i

[1:52:27] in the sense that i saw the same thing

[1:52:29] light up but

[1:52:30] see that as a may i something i just

[1:52:32] want to get on the record so

[1:52:34] um we can honor her

[1:52:38] participation in some way if she

[1:52:40] requests

[1:52:41] it mr mr jacobian

[1:52:44] a roll call was me

[1:52:47] yes i'm aware okay um

[1:53:02] at this time um

[1:53:06] i think we're ready to

[1:53:09] begin discussion on case twenty twenty

[1:53:24] dash

[1:53:38] okay

[1:53:50] case 2020-3 application

[1:53:54] from francis a and stephanie white

[1:53:58] owners and free sample of real property

[1:54:00] known

[1:54:02] of 8203 elm lane

[1:54:05] for a 7.5 variants of section

[1:54:10] 290-19a

[1:54:12] of the town of chesapeake beach to allow a new

[1:54:21] house to encroach 7.5 feet into the

[1:54:24] required 15 foot front yard

[1:54:27] and a variance to section 290

[1:54:30] 17 e 2

[1:54:34] to allow encouragement into the required

[1:54:37] 25-foot non-top

[1:54:39] tidal wetland buffer plus

[1:54:43] area of disturbance

[1:54:53] okay um

[1:55:04] can you see the screen my screen

[1:55:07] yes okay thank you

[1:55:10] um so

[1:55:14] i i i'm not going to go through the

[1:55:16] entire background like we did last time

[1:55:19] this is 8203 elm

[1:55:22] lane the house is shown here in this

[1:55:26] rectangle the house is outside

[1:55:30] of the buffer so it doesn't encroach

[1:55:34] as a physical permanent uh entity

[1:55:38] into the buffer however there will be

[1:55:42] presumably some level of construction

[1:55:45] activity

[1:55:46] and candidly i don't know the extent of

[1:55:48] that

[1:55:49] but it will occur within the buffer

[1:55:54] if you see this line here says lod

[1:55:58] that means a limit of disturbance

[1:56:01] and i believe well i'm going to leave it

[1:56:03] to the applicant to make the case

[1:56:05] but i know there's some overlap and some

[1:56:07] of the level of disturbance

[1:56:10] or limit of disturbance excuse me enters

[1:56:13] into the buffer

[1:56:14] um some amount here so there's the house

[1:56:18] the setback actually looks like it's 7.2

[1:56:20] feet here

[1:56:21] um the this is the driveway

[1:56:26] and the parking area um

[1:56:30] and um

[1:56:34] it seems like all the other off-site

[1:56:36] conditions are have been discussed already in

[1:56:39] context of 8207.

[1:56:42] so i'll just the interest of time end it

[1:56:45] there and if there are any questions

[1:56:46] feel free to ask me

[1:57:04] are you done chris yes yes

[1:57:08] oh okay

[1:57:13] we're not here from the uh applicant

[1:57:19] hello again this is bill watson i'll

[1:57:22] discuss with all of my qualifications

[1:57:24] and so on and keep the

[1:57:28] background information as brief as chris

[1:57:31] did with his

[1:57:33] um the only thing that i say with regard

[1:57:35] to background

[1:57:36] is that lot 32r which is the subject of

[1:57:39] this case

[1:57:41] is slightly larger than the first one

[1:57:43] that we did

[1:57:45] lot 32r is 11 570 square feet

[1:57:50] so we're dealing with a little bit

[1:57:51] bigger lot in large part

[1:57:54] due to the addition of the avenging

[1:57:57] portion of the old friedley avenue

[1:58:01] now as chris pointed out

[1:58:05] there is a pair of

[1:58:09] intersections which occur where the

[1:58:11] limit of work or limited disturbance

[1:58:13] rather

[1:58:14] goes into the buffer one on the

[1:58:17] both are on the rear side of the house

[1:58:20] one

[1:58:20] is up near the existing sewer

[1:58:24] easement line and one is directly south

[1:58:27] of that

[1:58:29] i'm going to turn my screen on again so

[1:58:32] bear with me

[1:58:38] keeps moving around on me

[1:58:43] can you see the drawing

[1:58:49] i cannot okay let me try that again

[1:58:53] i forgot to hit the share button now can

[1:58:56] you see the drawing

[1:58:57] yes sir okay

[1:59:01] the yellow rectangle

[1:59:04] is the proposed house same as before 40

[1:59:07] by 24.

[1:59:09] the white line that's curving

[1:59:12] and i'm running my cursor over top of it

[1:59:14] now

[1:59:16] is the limit of the non-title wetlands

[1:59:22] the green one uh excuse me the non-title

[1:59:24] wetlands buffer

[1:59:26] the green line that i'm now running over

[1:59:29] is the

[1:59:31] division between wetlands

[1:59:34] and non-tidal wetland buffer

[1:59:38] at the northern part of the property

[1:59:41] there is

[1:59:41] a impact

[1:59:49] and that is 88 square feet

[1:59:54] and the southern part of that area

[1:59:59] there's a second impact uh oops

[2:00:04] just of 33 square feet

[2:00:07] so we've got a total of 121 square feet

[2:00:10] impact

[2:00:13] this is mainly for grading and sediment

[2:00:16] control

[2:00:18] once the project is complete assuming

[2:00:21] that it gets approved to move forward

[2:00:24] which i hope it will um

[2:00:27] that will all be stabilized with grass

[2:00:31] and you'll never know anybody was back

[2:00:34] there grading in a year or two

[2:00:37] the reason that there is even any impact

[2:00:42] is that to put

[2:00:46] non-total wetlands as close to that

[2:00:49] house as

[2:00:50] they are and off of the northeastern

[2:00:54] most corner

[2:00:56] the non-paddled wets

[2:01:03] are only 5 and 45 100 of a float away

[2:01:09] hardly room enough for equipment to get

[2:01:13] out there and dig foundations

[2:01:15] or at least that's what was in my mind

[2:01:17] at the time digging a footer

[2:01:19] and then doing the block work and then

[2:01:21] getting outside of the building and

[2:01:23] backfilling

[2:01:24] the house now since

[2:01:28] my client and barrett's client has

[2:01:29] indicated a willingness to

[2:01:32] uh consider putting the house on piling

[2:01:34] or stilts

[2:01:36] some of that will be minimized uh

[2:01:38] perhaps even go away

[2:01:40] because the amount of grading back there

[2:01:43] will be

[2:01:43] next to none so i could say

[2:01:47] that subject to having an opportunity to

[2:01:50] spend a little bit more time

[2:01:52] looking at the grading plan and looking

[2:01:55] at the design

[2:01:56] of the house on stilts it's likely

[2:02:00] that we'd be able to eliminate the

[2:02:02] impact on the wetland buffer altogether

[2:02:06] but out of a

[2:02:09] an abundance of caution i would rather

[2:02:12] leave that in the application at this

[2:02:14] point

[2:02:15] only so that it doesn't get lost

[2:02:19] because it is rather small at 121 square

[2:02:21] feet

[2:02:24] the driveway is not in the bumper as mr

[2:02:27] truviax said

[2:02:28] it is on the lot again a 20 by 20

[2:02:33] that extends out to the existing

[2:02:35] education

[2:02:37] uh and there's some area to the north of

[2:02:40] the proposed driveway

[2:02:43] that is labeled a removal of existing

[2:02:46] paved parking

[2:02:48] areas 251 square feet

[2:02:51] um

[2:02:54] i from my standpoint i can work with

[2:02:57] either condition of

[2:02:59] providing a turnaround elsewhere leaving

[2:03:02] the pavement there

[2:03:04] or something else that the board may

[2:03:06] come up with but i would defer to my

[2:03:07] client

[2:03:08] to make the final decision on that

[2:03:11] i believe that

[2:03:15] the the pavement removal

[2:03:18] is only um one

[2:03:21] maybe two parking spaces if you jam them

[2:03:23] in there tight

[2:03:25] and could easily be replaced if my

[2:03:27] client has the opportunity and the

[2:03:30] desire

[2:03:33] so i think i've covered the the

[2:03:37] salient points for this site

[2:03:40] which are very minimal amount of impact

[2:03:44] to the wetland buffer

[2:03:46] being out of an abundance of caution on

[2:03:48] being able to give an equipment operator

[2:03:50] adequate room to get around on the back

[2:03:52] side of the house

[2:03:53] to do a traditional foundation if we go

[2:03:56] with a

[2:03:57] piling different story i'd like to have

[2:04:00] the opportunity to take a look at it

[2:04:03] and with that i'll pause

[2:04:06] put myself on mute and let members ask

[2:04:09] me questions

[2:04:10] or let tony um pitch in

[2:04:14] on any additional points that he'd like

[2:04:16] to make on behalf of our mutual client

[2:04:28] okay hearing none i'll ask the applicant

[2:04:31] to introduce

[2:04:34] anyone who's offering testimony

[2:04:38] this is anthony o'lex and again um

[2:04:42] kind of building upon what bill was

[2:04:45] mentioning there

[2:04:46] is is part of the disturbance that's

[2:04:48] associated within the buffer

[2:04:51] is there in order to provide drainage

[2:04:53] around the house

[2:04:54] which with the last case was a concern

[2:04:58] that is that is part of what we have

[2:05:00] looked at at this point

[2:05:02] um to develop what we believe is the

[2:05:05] limits of disturbance and the impacts

[2:05:07] into this

[2:05:08] is in addition to providing room to be

[2:05:10] able to work around the house itself

[2:05:13] is creating a swale uh that directs

[2:05:17] runoff um essentially from the northwest

[2:05:20] corner

[2:05:21] of this house and the other house as

[2:05:24] well that's about

[2:05:24] ranges from about a foot to two foot in

[2:05:27] depth

[2:05:28] compared to the finished floor elevation

[2:05:30] of the house and directs the water

[2:05:32] around each side

[2:05:34] um you know so i guess that was a little

[2:05:36] bit of what

[2:05:37] you know i learned with the last case

[2:05:38] and probably a point that i should have

[2:05:41] made is

[2:05:42] that that is part of what we have looked

[2:05:44] at with this

[2:05:45] um and things that we have taken into

[2:05:48] consideration

[2:05:49] uh and absolutely as we move forward

[2:05:52] through the building permit process and grading

[2:05:55] permit processes that we will also be

[2:05:57] complying with

[2:05:59] all of those requirements as they relate

[2:06:01] to storm water management

[2:06:03] sediment erosion control and any other

[2:06:06] code requirement

[2:06:08] um you know the

[2:06:11] mr white who spoke uh that will be

[2:06:13] building both of these houses and in

[2:06:16] this case is the owner of this property

[2:06:18] uh talked about is you know

[2:06:21] i think we're absolutely willing to look

[2:06:23] at the opportunity

[2:06:25] uh to build the house on piles um it's

[2:06:28] just you know something that just kind

[2:06:29] of came up

[2:06:30] today i think uh whether it's piles or

[2:06:33] whether it's anything we would

[2:06:34] absolutely be looking to make sure that

[2:06:35] we're raising the house high enough

[2:06:38] uh taking into consideration future uh

[2:06:41] potential for flooding in

[2:06:42] the somewhat near future uh

[2:06:46] in all of those things it's there is a

[2:06:49] little bit of

[2:06:51] engineering judgment and calls and

[2:06:52] things like that that we do need to make

[2:06:54] as we work through that

[2:06:56] um and try to figure out what the best

[2:06:59] solution is

[2:07:00] uh but i absolutely know that in any

[2:07:02] case we'll be complying with any codes

[2:07:05] and requirements and ordinances that we would need to in this case

[2:07:11] and really what we've done and kind of

[2:07:13] what bill alluded to

[2:07:15] in this case is that we're taking a

[2:07:17] little bit of a conservative approach to

[2:07:18] make sure that there's enough room

[2:07:20] uh to get the water around the house

[2:07:23] itself

[2:07:23] and provide you know room uh reasonable

[2:07:26] room

[2:07:27] for constructability uh but with the

[2:07:30] front

[2:07:30] setback reduction that actually you know

[2:07:33] that was

[2:07:33] recommended by mr jacobi app was that a

[2:07:37] got us out of the buffer with the

[2:07:39] structure all together

[2:07:40] so the impacts that we're talking about

[2:07:42] here in this case

[2:07:44] with the uh front yard setback are all

[2:07:47] temporary impacts to that buffer um

[2:07:51] you know and that's you know i think was

[2:07:54] it was a great recommendation especially for this

[2:07:59] lot where it was

[2:07:59] able to get us out of that so um

[2:08:02] yeah i just wanted to kind of put that

[2:08:04] out there that there are some of these

[2:08:05] you know some of these details are the

[2:08:07] things that we

[2:08:08] have looked at so far um to to be able

[2:08:11] to define

[2:08:12] these variants requests and we'll

[2:08:14] continue to look at them as we go

[2:08:16] through the next steps

[2:08:17] of permitting

[2:08:21] okay uh madam chair may i uh

[2:08:24] say something for a moment yes uh

[2:08:28] given the way this uh hearing has

[2:08:30] progressed

[2:08:31] uh there were references uh during the

[2:08:34] hearing on 2020

[2:08:36] to this particular application and there

[2:08:39] was some

[2:08:40] uh testimony during the hearing on that

[2:08:43] uh

[2:08:44] 2020-2 that would be relevant to this

[2:08:47] particular application

[2:08:48] i'd like to suggest that the board uh

[2:08:52] accept and incorporate by reference you

[2:08:54] know

[2:08:55] all of the evidence and test testimony

[2:08:58] uh presented in the hearing on 2020

[2:09:00] death 2

[2:09:01] into the record of this particular case

[2:09:03] that way

[2:09:04] if you need to you'll be able to rely

[2:09:06] upon anything from

[2:09:08] that hearing

[2:09:16] okay comment from the board on that

[2:09:29] hearing no objection

[2:09:33] fine yes

[2:09:38] so so directed

[2:09:50] okay any more for the applicant before

[2:09:53] we go to the opposition

[2:09:58] sharon did anyone indicate interest

[2:10:01] in uh given testimony

[2:10:04] for all gangster 2020-3

[2:10:08] i do um

[2:10:16] uh the only comments that i received was

[2:10:19] from gary cole smith and i believe that

[2:10:21] he was

[2:10:22] addressing both of the lots but gary can

[2:10:26] speak for himself if he's still

[2:10:28] on i'm chairman i am still on

[2:10:33] do you want to speak yes ma'am

[2:10:37] please do okay

[2:10:40] uh again i want to reiterate that i

[2:10:43] think that

[2:10:44] with the use of raising the house

[2:10:48] uh and the parking underneath

[2:10:51] there is no need for the reduction in

[2:10:54] setback

[2:10:55] and i think that all the tile elevation

[2:10:59] type installation lessens the impact

[2:11:04] after construction of those houses

[2:11:09] and i would not object to that but the

[2:11:12] two the things i we have to regurgitate

[2:11:15] here are

[2:11:16] there still has to be a t turn around

[2:11:17] there's no it can't have people come down we have the trash

[2:11:21] trucks come down

[2:11:22] once a week cycling truck comes out once

[2:11:26] a week

[2:11:26] a mailman comes out once a day uh

[2:11:30] ups with deliveries fedex

[2:11:33] amazon everybody comes down the street

[2:11:35] to service the people on the street

[2:11:38] and they need a place to turn around a

[2:11:40] turnaround needs to be

[2:11:41] entertained parking for the

[2:11:46] grandfathered lot needs to be uh

[2:11:49] addressed i mean these people cannot

[2:11:51] help that that lot was

[2:11:53] approved the law was approved by the

[2:11:56] old subdivision plan and based on a

[2:11:59] 50-foot wide street

[2:12:01] so that has to be addressed and the

[2:12:04] approval

[2:12:05] by the town of chesapeake beach is

[2:12:06] required to do

[2:12:08] anything in the right of way and i don't

[2:12:10] know how that can follow

[2:12:12] uh an approval by the of ovarian

[2:12:16] when you have to you should know all the

[2:12:19] requirement that all the requirements

[2:12:21] were met

[2:12:23] and it approved this the town did not

[2:12:25] approve the use utilization of

[2:12:27] that right away for any purposes that

[2:12:29] this

[2:12:30] variance addresses then

[2:12:33] your approval was uh

[2:12:38] you know that doesn't exist i i still i

[2:12:41] think that we are good

[2:12:42] doing things out of order i think that

[2:12:44] first that you needed

[2:12:45] that this this plan for this needs to

[2:12:48] address

[2:12:48] the type of foundations you have the the

[2:12:51] stormwater

[2:12:52] management of the street and the

[2:12:54] approval by the town just a big beach of

[2:12:56] you

[2:12:56] any of the utilization of the public

[2:12:58] right-of-way

[2:12:59] and then and only then can you make your judgment that's my personal opinion

[2:13:05] but i believe that's

[2:13:06] the the town ordinances there is a town

[2:13:09] ordinance that says

[2:13:10] you must require acquire the mayor's

[2:13:13] approval may earn tax house approval but

[2:13:15] do anything in the right of way the town

[2:13:17] chesapeake

[2:13:17] beaches street so i i do believe

[2:13:22] that that is definitely going to have to

[2:13:24] be done prior to any approvals you make

[2:13:29] now a quick i'll stop beating a dead

[2:13:31] horse at that point and

[2:13:32] the uh the fact that the this this plan

[2:13:35] now has a

[2:13:36] construction entrance off of a section

[2:13:38] of elm lane that is not a two-way street

[2:13:41] is too narrow it's only 13 feet wide

[2:13:44] at that location and it enters is right

[2:13:47] at my the entrance to my

[2:13:49] driveway and uh i can i can see right now that there

[2:13:55] will be issues with me getting in and

[2:13:56] out

[2:13:57] so it will impact the neighborhood uh so

[2:14:01] i guess that

[2:14:03] [Music]

[2:14:04] if you if you could address those issues

[2:14:08] uh i wanna make so very clear i'm not

[2:14:10] against building on these lots

[2:14:12] i i am very much uh in favor of it

[2:14:16] i just know that they need to meet those

[2:14:18] requirements and and

[2:14:19] i think those requirements are

[2:14:21] legitimate so uh thank you for your time

[2:14:23] man sheriff

[2:14:31] mr jacubia did you have any other

[2:14:34] comments to me

[2:14:41] uh no i have no other comments

[2:14:46] okay

[2:14:49] and we have no more speakers so at this

[2:14:54] time i will close

[2:14:56] the public i

[2:14:59] have one question if i could

[2:15:03] sure

[2:15:07] it's based on well the question i have

[2:15:10] simply

[2:15:11] is let's say the houses aren't built

[2:15:15] where is everybody turning around now

[2:15:19] for one and two they're not turning

[2:15:21] around on the space that's there now

[2:15:23] because they're full of cars so i'm

[2:15:24] trying to figure out where everybody's

[2:15:25] turning around

[2:15:27] i understand fedex and ups and the

[2:15:30] mailman

[2:15:31] and trash man everybody's coming down

[2:15:32] the street but where's everybody turn

[2:15:33] around now

[2:15:35] that's what i don't understand and i

[2:15:36] don't have a problem

[2:15:42] i'm listening go ahead i'm chairman yeah

[2:15:46] yes uh right now a lot of people come

[2:15:49] down my driveway and turn around at the

[2:15:50] bed to my house

[2:15:51] which is not very convenient and it's

[2:15:54] not very well

[2:15:55] the the vehicles that are parked up

[2:15:57] there as you said there are three

[2:15:59] vehicles that belong to

[2:16:01] his grandfather-in-law the other

[2:16:04] vehicles

[2:16:04] you probably see there are people who

[2:16:06] live with the other in two of the other

[2:16:08] homes

[2:16:09] and occasionally they don't park there

[2:16:11] the requirements for a t turnaround

[2:16:13] are signage by the town chesapeake beach

[2:16:16] that require

[2:16:17] no parking that is to be maintained as a

[2:16:20] turnaround

[2:16:21] sometimes vehicles do have a difficult

[2:16:23] time turning around there

[2:16:24] in in in that is a a

[2:16:28] issue for the town but the fact that you

[2:16:31] take away

[2:16:33] any possibility of

[2:16:36] a vehicle being able to turn around

[2:16:37] there and

[2:16:39] have it in fact the driveway to a new

[2:16:42] home

[2:16:43] where those people may want to park out

[2:16:45] in

[2:16:46] front of the their homes uh it just

[2:16:49] complicates the problem so yes that

[2:16:52] right now there is a problem

[2:16:53] and and i sent an email out to town

[2:16:55] chesapeake beach telling them that what i want to see is i would like to see that the teeth turn around

[2:17:01] remain

[2:17:02] and be marked as it's supposed to be

[2:17:04] with no parking signs

[2:17:11] i completely understand that but the

[2:17:12] thing is every time i come down there

[2:17:14] there's four to five cards in there but

[2:17:16] there is no marking there is no signs

[2:17:19] and that's what i don't understand i i

[2:17:21] just don't

[2:17:23] know i'm trying to wrap my head around

[2:17:24] it that's all i mean

[2:17:26] madam chair can i try to address this i

[2:17:28] think

[2:17:30] so yeah um i think what we're talking

[2:17:34] about is a lot of work that's going to

[2:17:35] occur

[2:17:36] with inside of the right-of-way the

[2:17:38] public right-of-way that is there

[2:17:40] that is going to be part of the

[2:17:41] permitting process that we're going to

[2:17:43] have to work through after this step

[2:17:45] um if i remember right from the drawings

[2:17:49] uh the wetland buffer does not really

[2:17:51] encroach into any part of the right of

[2:17:53] way

[2:17:54] the buffer itself is on the lots of

[2:17:57] themselves

[2:17:58] um so if they're you know i think we're

[2:18:00] absolutely willing to try to figure out

[2:18:02] a good solution with mr jacubiak and the

[2:18:04] town engineer

[2:18:06] as we move forward um to try to address

[2:18:08] any concerns that the town may

[2:18:10] have about turn around or parking that

[2:18:12] is lost

[2:18:13] um in a reasonable manner but as far as

[2:18:16] this request for variances or these

[2:18:20] requests for variances go it really goes

[2:18:22] to the siding of the house

[2:18:24] on the lots themselves which

[2:18:27] i believe has been cited in a way um

[2:18:31] to minimize any impact to those buffers

[2:18:34] whatsoever so

[2:18:35] we'll um you know absolutely continue to

[2:18:38] work through the process in the next

[2:18:40] steps

[2:18:40] um i know it's very common of any board

[2:18:43] approval or planning commission approval

[2:18:45] that you're you're required to get any

[2:18:47] necessary permits moving forward and

[2:18:49] comply with code

[2:18:51] with the next steps that you are have to

[2:18:54] take

[2:18:54] with part of that uh i just as it stands

[2:18:58] right now we've

[2:18:59] sighted the house and we've taken

[2:19:01] measures on the lots themselves

[2:19:04] to try to minimize those impacts and

[2:19:06] that's what these variants requests are

[2:19:08] based on

[2:19:18] does anyone else want to speak before we

[2:19:22] stop the public comment and the board

[2:19:26] begins discussion madam chair dave dave

[2:19:29] ferguson here

[2:19:30] um i you know listening to you know mr

[2:19:33] coldsmith's

[2:19:34] argument that the board shouldn't

[2:19:37] consider the variance

[2:19:38] until these uh issues with the

[2:19:42] turnaround and the parking

[2:19:44] are resolved uh

[2:19:49] you know i this is beyond my area of

[2:19:51] expertise but it seems to me

[2:19:53] and and maybe between mr jacobiak and mr

[2:19:56] sussman

[2:19:57] we can clarify that seems to me that the

[2:20:00] application for the variants needs to

[2:20:03] precede

[2:20:05] the application for building permits and

[2:20:08] uh you know the the things that

[2:20:11] then the town has to get involved with

[2:20:14] as far as the right of way

[2:20:16] and the turnaround and signage and so

[2:20:20] forth

[2:20:22] it seems to me that without approval of

[2:20:24] the variance

[2:20:26] the applicants cannot go forward with

[2:20:29] building plans

[2:20:30] uh and a request for a building permit

[2:20:35] am i correct in that uh

[2:20:38] from the town planner's response first

[2:20:41] uh yes and this is a

[2:20:45] the subject before you as a variance two

[2:20:47] variances

[2:20:48] all related to the building placement on

[2:20:50] the lot i suppose that sometimes

[2:20:52] other issues could come into the um

[2:20:55] the discussion but here the location of

[2:20:58] the parking

[2:20:59] lot and whether the tap parking pad and

[2:21:00] whether the town will require

[2:21:03] uh a 16 foot uh throat for the driveway

[2:21:06] or

[2:21:06] 18 or 25 or even may even require that

[2:21:11] the parking pad extend further into the

[2:21:14] site but not into the buffer but further

[2:21:16] in order to give more space for so

[2:21:19] there's no one parking

[2:21:20] in an area where someone could come in

[2:21:22] and use it as a turnaround

[2:21:23] those are issues we're going to work out

[2:21:25] i mean i can assure you we're going to

[2:21:26] work it out

[2:21:27] but that's not subject to the variance

[2:21:28] request before you in my view

[2:21:32] and yes any work in the town right of

[2:21:35] way

[2:21:35] does require town approval um and if

[2:21:39] it's a changing street or adding street

[2:21:41] or improving the street

[2:21:42] adding new parking on the street

[2:21:44] widening the street

[2:21:46] uh and if someone wants to do it as an

[2:21:48] individual private owner yes they need

[2:21:49] they require town approval

[2:21:51] and and often that approval requires

[2:21:54] mayor and council approval but but

[2:21:57] building a driveway

[2:21:59] off of a public street does not require

[2:22:01] mayor and council approval

[2:22:03] um it's

[2:22:08] if i may uh just you know add to what mr

[2:22:11] tsukubiak said

[2:22:12] first i agree with everything he said

[2:22:14] and the second point i would make

[2:22:16] is that uh if the applicant

[2:22:20] is unable to procure all the necessary

[2:22:24] uh town approvals and perhaps county

[2:22:26] approvals to the extent county approvals

[2:22:28] are required

[2:22:29] to build the houses uh that have been

[2:22:32] authorized

[2:22:33] by the variants so they won't be able to

[2:22:35] build them this is

[2:22:36] precisely it is the first step in a

[2:22:39] multi-multi-layer process

[2:22:43] i'm sure may i

[2:22:48] yes uh

[2:22:53] actually the use you have

[2:22:56] shown on your drawings that you're going

[2:22:58] to remove

[2:22:59] part of the street of chesapeake beach

[2:23:02] that chesapeake beach

[2:23:03] owns and installed i was present when it

[2:23:06] was paid

[2:23:07] the last time i wasn't president was

[2:23:09] paid the first time it was paid when i

[2:23:10] first moved here

[2:23:12] 20 years ago so the town chesapeake

[2:23:14] beach owns that right away

[2:23:16] and with without their approval the information that you have on your

[2:23:21] various requests

[2:23:22] is incorrect so that is why i'm saying

[2:23:26] that what you are that there are certain

[2:23:29] aspects of this various requests that

[2:23:31] need to be addressed

[2:23:33] prior to the variance being approved or

[2:23:35] contingent upon the various beings

[2:23:39] thank you mr kohl's mr cole smith uh

[2:23:42] dave ferguson here uh the

[2:23:47] only variances we are approving is the

[2:23:50] seven and a half foot

[2:23:51] setback and the uh encroachment into the

[2:23:55] wetlands buffer

[2:23:56] those are the only two variances that

[2:23:58] this board is addressing

[2:24:00] all of those other issues i believe will

[2:24:02] be addressed

[2:24:04] in the building permit process

[2:24:07] you know later on hey i'm

[2:24:11] madam chairman uh

[2:24:15] the information that you have in front

[2:24:17] of you is the information necessary for you to

[2:24:21] make the determination for the variance

[2:24:24] part of the variance that they're

[2:24:25] requesting is the seven and a half foot

[2:24:27] difference in the setback if i have if

[2:24:30] we have a t

[2:24:31] turn around in front of that house and

[2:24:33] you it is only seven and a half feet

[2:24:35] from the t turn around and i have a

[2:24:37] garbage truck

[2:24:38] and you all have seat garbage trucks

[2:24:40] from the back wheel base

[2:24:42] to the end of the dump of that garbage

[2:24:44] truck is probably seven and a half feet

[2:24:46] so if someone were in a garbage truck

[2:24:48] and use the t turnaround and it was at

[2:24:50] that

[2:24:51] property's entrance or properties

[2:24:54] uh property line and we utilize the

[2:24:58] entire width of the right-of-way

[2:25:00] then that garbage truck would probably

[2:25:01] strike the structure

[2:25:03] so i'm telling you it is very important

[2:25:05] to consider

[2:25:06] what we are doing in that street prior

[2:25:09] to approving a seven and a half foot setback

[2:25:13] allowance

[2:25:14] thank you

[2:25:22] before i go to the board for discussion

[2:25:26] chris uh mr jacobia

[2:25:30] yes can you cite again what will happen

[2:25:36] should uh the variances

[2:25:40] be approved conditionally

[2:25:45] the um the applicant will

[2:25:48] obtain your approval your resolution and

[2:25:52] those conditions will establish

[2:25:54] uh what they actually submit to you or

[2:25:57] to me

[2:25:58] as the zoning administrator um

[2:26:03] a a detailed sally plan like

[2:26:06] what you see here perhaps even more

[2:26:08] detailed will be submitted to me

[2:26:10] and to the town engineer and we will

[2:26:13] review it

[2:26:14] and it will also be reviewed at the same

[2:26:19] time by

[2:26:20] calvert county and

[2:26:23] there are other issues that we even

[2:26:25] haven't even mentioned there's critical

[2:26:27] area mitigation requirements

[2:26:31] for instance this property is probably

[2:26:33] going to have to plant a lot of trees

[2:26:35] uh and if they can't plant them on the

[2:26:37] site they may have to pay a fee in lieu

[2:26:39] of

[2:26:40] planting the trees we may could

[2:26:42] potentially require that part of the

[2:26:44] driveway be

[2:26:46] made of pervious pavers conceivably you

[2:26:49] know there's a whole series of standards that

[2:26:52] have to be applied and met

[2:26:53] and i would imagine a thorough review

[2:26:56] process just like we would give

[2:26:58] uh any applicant even more so because

[2:27:01] it's in the critical area

[2:27:03] so the questions about what the driveway

[2:27:05] is where it's located

[2:27:06] uh what the maneuverability in this

[2:27:09] street

[2:27:10] is and what it ought to be for the type

[2:27:12] of street it is

[2:27:13] all those issues will

[2:27:16] be reflected and i hear mr goldski

[2:27:19] smith's concerns and i

[2:27:21] share some of those concerns too but

[2:27:24] those are ultimately

[2:27:26] site plan issues and town issues about

[2:27:28] how it wants to use its own

[2:27:31] right-of-way but they will be

[2:27:35] addressed yes

[2:27:42] okay

[2:27:47] at this time i think

[2:27:50] the board needs to move into

[2:27:54] its deliberation

[2:27:57] and i'd like to start with uh

[2:28:00] with you mr ferguson

[2:28:05] uh yes madam chair um

[2:28:09] i would uh

[2:28:12] i i'm at the point right now where

[2:28:16] these two particular cases

[2:28:19] uh o2 and o3 are so similar

[2:28:22] that i would like to make a motion

[2:28:28] uh well i won't make a motion until

[2:28:29] after we've heard from all the board

[2:28:31] members but i believe

[2:28:32] uh you know that this one looks

[2:28:36] uh very much like the previous case and

[2:28:38] that we should uh

[2:28:40] you know ask mr sussman to uh to

[2:28:44] draft a memo uh with

[2:28:47] uh approval and conditions

[2:28:54] uk

[2:29:00] you're muted

[2:29:04] so sorry uh i agree with mr ferguson these cases are

[2:29:14] extremely similar i think all of us have

[2:29:19] well certainly mr cole smith has brought

[2:29:22] up some excellent points and if they're

[2:29:25] going to be addressed

[2:29:30] then i think we ought to have that

[2:29:32] memorandum from

[2:29:33] mr sussman and take a look at the

[2:29:36] conditions and see what uh makes sense

[2:29:38] or does it make sense

[2:29:46] mr holm star i agree with both mr

[2:29:49] ferguson and miss brooking

[2:30:02] okay

[2:30:08] uh david you're muted excuse me

[2:30:13] thank you i uh i'm unmuted now

[2:30:17] i was just going to say i will make a

[2:30:19] motion

[2:30:20] that uh the board

[2:30:27] asked mr sussman to uh draft a memo

[2:30:32] reflecting approval of the two variances

[2:30:35] in this case

[2:30:36] and proposing uh some conditions

[2:30:40] including the one recommended by mr

[2:30:43] jacobiak

[2:30:44] that the building be on pilings

[2:30:48] uh and others that uh you know

[2:30:52] we may wish to consider based upon the

[2:30:54] testimony we've heard

[2:30:56] and provide those to the board for

[2:30:58] consideration

[2:31:02] i second the motion made and accepted

[2:31:26] approved

[2:31:31] and uh mr sussman

[2:31:35] you will prepare the resolution

[2:31:38] yes madam chair i'll prepare both

[2:31:40] resolutions for the board

[2:31:45] okay

[2:31:52] with that

[2:32:08] well now

[2:32:17] i will now take a look at the resolution

[2:32:20] i assume you have a copy of it

[2:32:29] madam chairman i think i can go ahead

[2:32:31] and sign off now i just wanted to thank

[2:32:32] everybody for their time tonight

[2:32:34] um i know there was a lot there

[2:32:38] challenging lots so i appreciate

[2:32:39] everybody's time and consideration

[2:32:41] thank you thank you yeah thanks very

[2:32:45] much

[2:32:46] have a good night good night

[2:33:00] uh yes thank you very much

[2:33:03] thank you thank you too

[2:33:13] okay we'll now move on to review of the

[2:33:17] written

[2:33:18] decision

[2:33:21] uh for the board of appeals case

[2:33:24] 2020-1

[2:33:28] board of education of calvary county um

[2:33:31] beach elementary school replacement

[2:33:34] project

[2:33:35] at seventy nine hundred o bayside road

[2:33:39] chesapeake beach maryland

[2:33:49] has um all of the board members

[2:33:54] received and reviewed the resolution

[2:33:58] yes yes

[2:34:17] sharon do we have required signatures

[2:34:23] um what i'll do is i'll send the

[2:34:25] resolution out

[2:34:26] uh via docusign for everybody to sign it

[2:34:32] if you approve it of course

[2:34:38] any comments from board members

[2:34:44] i only have one administ administrative

[2:34:47] observation

[2:34:48] and it may be an incompatibility of the

[2:34:52] version of

[2:34:52] microsoft word i've got but every page

[2:34:55] number is

[2:34:56] two we have ten pages two ten second

[2:34:59] pages

[2:35:00] um uh

[2:35:03] mr ferguson the one that i was sent out

[2:35:07] has every page separately numbered there

[2:35:09] were ten pages

[2:35:10] and at the bottom you know so that's why i said it may have been an

[2:35:14] incompatibility with my version of word

[2:35:16] i've got an older version

[2:35:19] so mine has 10 pages okay

[2:35:27] i'm assuming everyone else's does

[2:35:30] jan yes ma'am mine does

[2:35:34] yeah okay that's why i said it was

[2:35:37] administrative

[2:35:39] um i had one

[2:35:42] i thought the the uh

[2:35:46] everything was written up really well

[2:35:49] i thought this was very well documented

[2:35:51] and uh i didn't have any issues

[2:35:56] with uh anything except uh

[2:35:59] on the next to last page

[2:36:03] the

[2:36:06] near the bottom of the next to last page

[2:36:09] uh

[2:36:10] paragraph c says this variance is

[2:36:12] subject to the time limitation

[2:36:14] set forth in 290-32h of the town code

[2:36:18] and then the special exception is

[2:36:20] subject to time limits

[2:36:22] sent forth in 290-12 i three

[2:36:25] of the town code so i recall

[2:36:28] a case not too long ago where we

[2:36:32] as the board had to go in and reconsider

[2:36:35] or grant an extension

[2:36:36] because somebody didn't get their permit

[2:36:40] didn't start building within the one

[2:36:42] year time limit and

[2:36:45] having 41 years experience is a

[2:36:48] government

[2:36:48] plan planning programming and budgeter i

[2:36:51] know

[2:36:52] this is a government project to build

[2:36:54] this school

[2:36:55] and our town code i looked it up

[2:36:59] and and both time limits are

[2:37:03] uh the the approvals

[2:37:06] are valid for a period of one year uh

[2:37:10] unless a zoning permit is obtained and

[2:37:13] erection of the alter or alteration uh

[2:37:18] is underway uh

[2:37:22] and then there's also on the special

[2:37:24] exception it's

[2:37:26] one year and there can be two successive

[2:37:29] extensions

[2:37:30] of periods not longer than six months

[2:37:32] each

[2:37:33] so i'm just i looked back through all of

[2:37:36] the documentation on the school project

[2:37:39] and i didn't find a date

[2:37:42] a funding year or a start date or when

[2:37:46] they

[2:37:46] intend to start construction so i'm

[2:37:49] you know wondering if we're building

[2:37:51] ourselves a box here

[2:37:53] uh you know because this

[2:37:57] uh variance is limited to

[2:38:01] one year and is the school construction

[2:38:03] going to be

[2:38:04] sufficiently underway

[2:38:09] and i don't know that we have any option

[2:38:13] to grant them a longer period of time

[2:38:15] because it's in the town code

[2:38:17] so that i just thought i should express

[2:38:19] that concern

[2:38:22] and mr ferguson i think that you're

[2:38:23] absolutely right uh

[2:38:25] even if it was not in the resolution

[2:38:27] it's in the town code and they would

[2:38:29] still be bound by those time limits

[2:38:31] uh and then if they're approaching the

[2:38:34] end of them

[2:38:35] and they're still uh not underway yet

[2:38:38] they can come back to the board for an

[2:38:39] extension

[2:38:41] yeah so don't buy paperwork away we may

[2:38:44] see this again

[2:38:47] exactly well um

[2:38:51] the clock will essentially start

[2:38:54] once they come they have a year to come

[2:38:56] in and obtain a

[2:38:58] zoning permit right then that extends

[2:39:00] things

[2:39:01] again and i expect them in front of the

[2:39:04] planning commission

[2:39:05] imminently maybe even in september quite

[2:39:09] conceivably

[2:39:10] if not then certainly october um

[2:39:13] and i have a sense that they're moving

[2:39:14] pretty pretty quickly but i had the

[2:39:16] exact same issue

[2:39:17] concerned i thought about bringing it to

[2:39:19] your attention then i saw

[2:39:21] the the code doesn't allow us for you to

[2:39:24] put a condition

[2:39:25] in the approval to extend that and i

[2:39:27] thought wow that would be a nice thing

[2:39:28] to have the ability for the board of

[2:39:30] appeals to

[2:39:31] extend an approval as you grant it i

[2:39:35] know some jurisdictions do that

[2:39:36] yeah let us talk to the town council

[2:39:38] about that right

[2:39:40] maybe it's yeah worthwhile doing okay

[2:39:43] that was my only concern i i know

[2:39:47] you know that the not only do you have

[2:39:50] the timeline for the permitting

[2:39:52] and you know process and zoning but then

[2:39:55] you

[2:39:55] then you've got the whole government

[2:39:57] budgeting process and nothing happens

[2:39:59] faster

[2:40:05] well that concludes

[2:40:09] our hearings for today well madam chair

[2:40:12] you need a vote on the resolution

[2:40:18] i thought we did that maybe i'm not it

[2:40:20] is time

[2:40:25] everyone received their copy reviewed it

[2:40:30] let me take the vote

[2:40:36] mr ferguson hi

[2:40:42] mr k hi

[2:40:47] mr hoonstown hi

[2:40:57] the resolution is accepted and

[2:41:04] one side

[2:41:08] will be placed in the record

[2:41:15] and that concludes

[2:41:19] our hearing unless there's something

[2:41:22] else

[2:41:23] you like to address anything else

[2:41:35] thank you thank you thank you good night everybody

[2:41:49] you

September 3rd Board of Appeals Hearing

Transcript