[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