[0:12] good

[0:14] morning am i good on the mic

[0:17] all right uh hello everybody welcome um

[0:20] this is the uh called order for the

[0:23] board of appeals meeting um on july 18

[0:26] 2022

[0:27] um

[0:28] on the agenda tonight is case 2022-1 uh

[0:32] by william sammons on behalf of marcus

[0:35] farbstein

[0:36] for 715 b street uh which is a variance

[0:39] for the zoning 2919a

[0:43] for the north and south side yards uh

[0:45] that's the first on the dock its second

[0:47] one is case 2022-2 uh for jason hein of

[0:51] uh 4008 old bayside uh with regards to a

[0:55] variance concerning swimming pool

[0:56] diameter um at this point i believe we

[0:59] will do a roll call for the board

[1:02] um

[1:04] so richard birch

[1:07] right

[1:08] paul doherty president

[1:10] teresa frederick is sitting out the

[1:12] first uh

[1:13] the first uh item and will be joining us

[1:16] later in this meeting uh steven sharpe

[1:19] uh and from the town we have uh sharon

[1:22] holm

[1:23] and uh legal counsel fred sussman

[1:25] president

[1:27] at this point i will pass it over to

[1:28] sharon for confirmation of the posting

[1:31] and docs entered into the record

[1:33] okay

[1:36] the

[1:38] hearing was advertised june 24th july

[1:41] 1st and july 8th

[1:43] uh planning and zoning was notified on

[1:45] june 17th

[1:47] uh notified the property owner and

[1:50] adjacent property owners on june 14th

[1:53] and the proper the property was posted

[1:56] on july 1st

[1:59] darren can you repeat those please oh i

[2:01] have you a sheet if if that's what you

[2:04] need

[2:06] thank you sharon um in that case uh

[2:09] we'll begin straight away with 2022-1 um

[2:12] william sammons or the agent for 1715 b

[2:15] street um pass it off for presentation

[2:19] um and the board is asking for a little

[2:21] bit of clarification onto which

[2:22] variances are being requested as there

[2:24] might have been some mix-up in the

[2:26] documentation

[2:29] david on behalf of the applicant

[2:33] who was

[2:33] with me and marcus farce is actually the

[2:36] property owner at 775-15

[2:40] b street as to

[2:43] the clarification

[2:45] all mr

[2:47] farbstein

[3:01] associates

[3:02] was here as well back in april of 2016.

[3:06] we offended that on the fly at the

[3:09] hearing on the record we amended the

[3:11] requested

[3:12] variance downward uh

[3:22] what we had originally asked for was a

[3:24] 4.5 foot variance on the north side

[3:26] which would allow the house to be set

[3:28] back 3.5 feet on the south side of the

[3:30] 4.4 foot variance which are allowed to

[3:33] set back

[3:34] 3.6 feet

[3:37] we amended that on the fly

[3:40] to

[3:41] because

[3:42] the lot is smaller than 7500 square feet

[3:45] it allows a reduction in the in the

[3:47] setback

[3:49] but it can't be

[3:50] less than 10 of the lot width here which

[3:53] it could be reduced

[3:54] uh

[3:55] less than 3.2 feet so we met it on the

[3:58] fly yes

[4:14] it's helpful i have notes here of uh 2.8

[4:16] north side

[4:18] okay

[4:19] 2.8 so we went from eight to five point

[4:21] two but on the south side the variance

[4:23] was four point eight feet so from eight

[4:26] feet to 3.4 uh that is all

[4:30] we're seeking uh again tonight um

[4:34] i know i talked spoken mr sussman i know

[4:36] he had distributed to the board

[4:39] the board's ruling from april 2016. i

[4:43] would ask that that be submitted into

[4:45] the record uh as exhibit one um

[4:50] again all we're asking for is what was

[4:53] previously granted i'm happy to go

[4:54] through all the variance criteria

[4:57] again what i would note is

[4:59] i think from the perspective of what the

[5:01] applicant must show the variance

[5:03] criteria

[5:04] nothing has has really changed on this a

[5:06] lot

[5:08] this thought back in 2016. in iceland

[5:10] just big station i walked by this lot

[5:12] all the time it was

[5:14] i had to use the term flight but it was

[5:16] a ram shackle

[5:18] i think 1936

[5:20] shack there were some zoning violations

[5:22] issued to mr forrester that was how he

[5:24] initially came to see me there were

[5:26] concerns that the

[5:29] structure was so decrepit that the

[5:31] roof had so much water and i think the

[5:33] town was scared the walls were going to

[5:34] blow out it was going to explode

[5:37] all over the place so in order to

[5:39] remedy those violations we came before

[5:42] the board we saw

[5:44] these variances in 2017

[5:47] [Music]

[5:50] mr parsley began the process of having

[5:52] getting the permits to

[5:54] the existing structure demolished and

[5:57] retaining walls installed that was

[5:58] accomplished in 2018 mr clarkson could

[6:02] certainly testify to that before

[6:06] wishes

[6:07] he hired a company of the strictly

[6:09] retaining walls and they were they were

[6:11] put up and the structure was demolished

[6:14] as you may recall about a month later in

[6:16] may 2018

[6:18] there were sloughing events uh down the

[6:21] steep slopes excuse me

[6:23] we just want to make sure your mic is

[6:24] turned on

[6:28] there we go oh sorry do i need to start

[6:30] all over again

[6:31] you can actually sit down yeah

[6:35] thank you mr tribute it might be helpful

[6:37] to either sit down there or stand here

[6:39] can you get closer to the mic come up

[6:41] here um

[6:42] so in 2018 as everyone will recall there

[6:44] were the sloughing events

[6:46] on the the slopes there uh

[6:49] below b street going down to the

[6:50] boardwalk uh running between brownies

[6:53] beach and uh 17th street uh there were

[6:55] stop work orders placed by the town

[6:58] uh mr farbstein then had a geotech study

[7:01] completed that was submitted to the town

[7:03] that was approved by the town by the

[7:05] third party engineer i understand that

[7:07] uh the the board and the town are not

[7:09] requiring another

[7:11] text study uh then obviously we get into

[7:14] to covet and all those delays so that's

[7:16] why we're here i know the variance

[7:18] expires after a year uh mr farbstein

[7:22] really just wants to to pick up the ball

[7:23] where he left off and and run with it

[7:25] again as to the the five criteria and if

[7:28] the board

[7:30] [Music]

[7:31] admits its previous findings into the

[7:33] record i think those five criteria are

[7:34] met again i'm happy to go over all of

[7:37] them again

[7:39] but

[7:40] as we sit here today i don't think

[7:41] anything has changed between april 2016

[7:44] and july 2022 as far as those uh

[7:47] variance requirements

[7:49] go the the lot is still the same size uh

[7:52] there are still

[7:53] the same unique features again that i

[7:55] that i can go over but we would ask that

[7:58] with the admission of those previous

[7:59] findings the the board uh grant the

[8:01] requested variances again which are just

[8:04] what uh the board

[8:06] previously

[8:08] uh approved so to the extent we need to

[8:10] amend that on the record again we're

[8:11] seeking a variance of 2.8 feet

[8:14] on the north side of the property and a

[8:15] variance of 4.8 feet on the south side

[8:17] of the property

[8:18] thank you

[8:20] thank you

[8:21] um at this point we will pass it over

[8:24] for staff reports um from mr kubiak the

[8:27] planning and zoning administrator of

[8:28] chesapeake beach yeah thank you thank

[8:30] you

[8:31] um

[8:34] the

[8:35] lot is small here

[8:37] it's

[8:38] about 3 200 square feet just been over

[8:40] that

[8:41] uh the standard lot size in the zoning

[8:44] district is 7 500 square feet so we're

[8:47] dealing with a

[8:49] non-conforming situation a very small

[8:51] lot within the residential zone um

[8:56] i since we have planning commission

[8:58] member

[8:59] board of appeals members that are new i

[9:00] just wanted to

[9:01] just say for the record what a setback

[9:03] is and i included a brief paragraph in

[9:06] my

[9:07] memo

[9:08] to say that the

[9:11] setback is the distance between a lot

[9:14] line

[9:15] and the building

[9:17] so every house your houses everybody

[9:19] everyone's house is required to have a

[9:21] side yard that's the open space between

[9:24] the building foundation and

[9:26] building that's the building wall in the

[9:28] side property line

[9:30] in this zoning district

[9:32] where lots normally are larger

[9:35] the setbacks are eight feet so eight

[9:37] feet of free and clear between the wall

[9:40] and the

[9:40] lot line

[9:44] if this lot were developed under those

[9:46] strict conditions

[9:48] there'd be a very small

[9:50] footprint allowable for building

[9:54] if you have a 32 foot wide lot take away

[9:57] 16 feet eight on each side you've left

[9:59] with 16 feet of space to build a house

[10:03] naturally the

[10:04] zoning ordinance recognizes this and

[10:06] allows for lots within with these unique

[10:09] characteristics

[10:11] to

[10:12] proceed provided that the setbacks

[10:15] are no smaller than 10 percent of the

[10:18] width so we have 32 feet so the smallest

[10:22] yard

[10:23] smallest yard that you can have is 3.2

[10:26] feet on either side

[10:29] the yards that they're requesting are

[10:31] bigger than that

[10:33] right the yards they're requesting

[10:35] are

[10:38] 5.2 feet on the north side and 3.4 feet

[10:42] on the south side meaning that between

[10:44] the edge of the building and the

[10:45] neighbors property line on the north

[10:47] side they'll be 5.2 feet of open space

[10:50] free and clear

[10:51] and

[10:52] 3.4 feet on the south side

[10:56] it just so happens that on the north

[10:57] side

[10:59] that

[11:00] property owner built the house really

[11:03] close to the lot line and uh i was

[11:05] reminded of that when i read over the

[11:07] previous staff reported i think it's

[11:09] within inches

[11:10] of the lot line

[11:12] and that was a factor for the discussion

[11:14] of the previous board years ago when

[11:16] this this case was heard

[11:20] the applicant is proposing to have a

[11:23] bigger

[11:24] yard on that side

[11:26] and by virtue of that is bringing the

[11:28] house would bring the house further away

[11:30] from that that tall

[11:32] wall

[11:33] um

[11:36] you don't need to go far

[11:38] uh to the rear of this lot before it

[11:40] slopes down drastically

[11:42] to the boardwalk below and the

[11:44] chesapeake bay

[11:47] in fact i would say the last 20 or 25

[11:49] feet of the lot just drops off

[11:52] precipitously

[11:54] i was out there today and i noticed that

[11:56] the

[11:57] some construction took place uh there's

[11:59] a

[12:00] not illegally but as part of the

[12:02] original permitted uh

[12:04] plan a retaining wall that's that runs

[12:08] parallel to the chesapeake bay at the

[12:10] rear of the lot it holds up the

[12:13] land behind it so on the b street side

[12:16] of the wall

[12:18] [Music]

[12:20] it's confirmed up by this this retaining

[12:22] wall and there's a concrete set of

[12:25] stairs that walks walks you down to a

[12:28] kind of a

[12:29] lower platform below the wall the wall

[12:31] is at least eight foot tall um i didn't

[12:34] measure it but it's a tall wall and

[12:36] below that is a kind of a little

[12:37] platform

[12:38] before it drops off again uh in the more

[12:41] naturalized slope down to the the

[12:43] boardwalk

[12:47] if you're familiar with b street this

[12:48] part of b street is quite narrow uh

[12:52] it's about 12 and a half foot of

[12:54] passageway through there

[12:56] um

[12:58] it's a condition that is

[13:00] long existed in town within this

[13:01] particular area while it's substandard

[13:03] it's it is what it is

[13:05] the house next to this on the north side

[13:08] is a two-story house

[13:10] it's well under 35 feet well under 30

[13:13] feet tall

[13:14] the house on the south side is

[13:16] one story or one and a half story

[13:18] structure and it's much lower

[13:22] the reason i mentioned that is that

[13:23] there's a

[13:24] provision in the code that says that

[13:26] houses within

[13:29] these unique situations when they seek a

[13:31] variance

[13:33] they're non-conforming a lot too small

[13:35] lots too small and there's

[13:37] too narrow

[13:40] they can

[13:42] make use of these

[13:44] side yards they can go up to you know 10

[13:47] percent of the lot width so they can

[13:49] spread the house out provided they

[13:52] in this case just have three 3.2 feet at

[13:54] least

[13:55] but that provision that allows that also

[13:58] calls for

[14:00] managing the height

[14:01] so that you wouldn't have in these very

[14:04] narrow compact situations a really tall

[14:07] structure next to two

[14:10] low structures

[14:11] and actually calls for averaging the

[14:14] building height

[14:15] among the the building so that if you're

[14:18] right in the middle your

[14:20] building height has to be the can be no

[14:22] greater than the average of the two

[14:25] on either side of you

[14:28] the proposal is to build a house that

[14:30] looks to me to be about 32 feet tall it

[14:33] it reads as a three-story structure the

[14:36] first

[14:36] level is a garage and

[14:39] and the front door and then there's a

[14:41] level of living space above it another

[14:43] level on top of that then a peaked roof

[14:45] and that's on

[14:49] one two three

[14:51] [Music]

[14:53] four five the fifth page of the

[14:56] staff report i just used the elevation

[14:59] that the applicant submitted and so it's

[15:01] you know it's in their packet as well

[15:04] but i wanted to call attention to that

[15:06] um provision because one thing that i

[15:08] believe you're asked to evaluate is

[15:10] whether this

[15:13] house

[15:15] is below or equal to or below the

[15:17] average

[15:18] of the two

[15:19] and i don't have the average

[15:21] i've not done that work

[15:23] it's up to the board

[15:24] it's up to the applicant to persuade the

[15:26] board about the standards but

[15:30] i'm not sure it does

[15:32] comply with that standard

[15:34] so that's not to say you can't approve

[15:36] the variances

[15:38] but i it's a it'll be a point of

[15:42] issue at site plan approval

[15:45] um and

[15:46] zoning permit approval

[15:48] um

[15:50] now the the

[15:54] couple other points here

[16:01] the evaluation

[16:04] is a

[16:05] five-step evaluation their five criteria

[16:09] and while the the previous board went

[16:11] through those

[16:12] uh criteria uh it's important that you

[16:15] as the new constituted board do the same

[16:18] thing

[16:18] and

[16:20] and have your own chance to deliberate

[16:22] on those criteria

[16:24] and um

[16:26] the first item is that the granting the

[16:28] variance shall be in harmony with the

[16:29] general purpose in intent

[16:32] of the of the chapter that is the zoning

[16:34] ordinance that shall not be injurious to

[16:37] the neighborhood or otherwise

[16:38] detrimental to the public welfare

[16:41] one of the most important things that

[16:43] we grapple with when there's a proposal

[16:45] for any redevelopment on these

[16:47] on b street because of the slopes is

[16:50] slope failure and the impact of

[16:52] construction at the top of these slopes

[16:55] and

[16:56] as the applicant's attorney said back in

[16:59] 2018 there was a slothing of the the

[17:01] hillside to a degree that the town

[17:04] actually

[17:05] put essentially

[17:07] a stop work order on a variety of

[17:09] ongoing projects on the street and said

[17:12] you

[17:13] can't do anything else until we grapple

[17:15] with this issue and try to figure out

[17:17] how to handle it

[17:18] and mr farbstein at the time was a real

[17:20] gentleman he was i would say there was a

[17:24] a real community-spirited person he

[17:26] actually allowed the town's third party

[17:28] engineer to use his property for staging

[17:30] and to do uh deep uh

[17:34] well drilling to take soil samples out

[17:37] we really appreciated that because it

[17:38] help allowed us to

[17:40] to put together a plan

[17:42] and as it turns out the requirement was

[17:45] what the town adopted a zoning or

[17:48] an ordinance change in the building code

[17:50] section of the town code

[17:52] and the

[17:54] ordinance change

[17:56] basically said that in order to get a

[17:58] permit

[17:59] or to continue under a pre-existing

[18:01] permit you have to do a geotechnical

[18:04] study and that study basically has to

[18:06] find that the construction will not

[18:08] impact the slope in a negative way it's

[18:11] going to be safe

[18:12] and so mr farbstein did that study

[18:15] submitted it to the to the town our

[18:16] third party engineer confirmed that the

[18:19] the study was well done and it would not

[18:21] negatively impact the slope

[18:23] so when you think about this standard in

[18:26] my natural reaction is to think about

[18:27] injurious to the neighborhood i think

[18:29] about that slope um

[18:31] this study has been done uh it was

[18:33] submitted as part of this uh package by

[18:35] the applicant and it shows uh according

[18:38] to the town's engineer and our third

[18:40] party engineer that it will not be

[18:42] impactful to the slope uh

[18:45] i will say that before we so one once

[18:48] that study was done we reissued the

[18:50] permit to allow the construction to go

[18:53] go forward but for whatever reason the

[18:54] project was not constructed

[18:56] um

[18:58] so the house could have been built

[18:59] previously it hadn't been

[19:01] if the permit had been followed through

[19:03] with

[19:04] the um

[19:07] the

[19:08] the um

[19:12] i guess i forgot where i was headed with

[19:13] that um oh yeah the site plan

[19:17] that the the town received

[19:19] was modified as well in a number of

[19:21] locations and um i share with you this

[19:24] information as sort of an aside because

[19:26] it's something that

[19:28] kind of has run with this project

[19:31] it was important to the town that

[19:35] no water be collected on that site and

[19:37] allowed to infiltrate into the soil like

[19:40] you would in a normal

[19:44] site where you want you don't want to

[19:46] you do not want water running off of of

[19:48] a typical site you want to collect it

[19:50] allow it to percolate into the the

[19:52] ground but up there on those steep

[19:54] slopes

[19:55] the last thing the town wanted is more

[19:57] water to be coming into the slopes and

[20:00] working its way out to push the land off

[20:02] the slope so the site plan was revised

[20:06] and amended

[20:07] with mr fabstein's engineers to convey

[20:10] all the water through piping to the

[20:12] town's drainage system where it goes to

[20:15] once pipe and drain and goes out to the

[20:18] bay

[20:19] and that process was worked out in

[20:22] coordination with uh

[20:23] with the county so i say that again to

[20:26] say that the issue of storm water which

[20:28] is often an issue of concern in building

[20:30] steep slopes has been resolved

[20:33] it's not a concern for the town staff

[20:37] for this particular development project

[20:44] and then then there are other standards

[20:46] that

[20:46] if the board has any questions

[20:49] about as you go through the um

[20:51] the hearing tonight you can ask me if

[20:53] you have any questions about

[20:55] what information i gave you to help you

[20:57] evaluate that feel free to

[20:59] um but again i i provide enough context

[21:02] so that you can grapple with the

[21:04] questions

[21:05] but it's also ultimately up to the

[21:07] the the applicant to persuade you they

[21:09] have to demonstrate to you that these

[21:11] standards are met but i'm here to to

[21:13] guide you and assist if you have any

[21:14] questions okay

[21:17] thank you sure

[21:20] at this point we will move into

[21:22] testimony i will start with anyone who

[21:25] would like to speak

[21:26] as a proponent on behalf of this plan

[21:29] speaker should uh step forward announce

[21:31] their name and address

[21:32] uh and who they represent uh or if

[21:35] they're speaking on their own behalf um

[21:37] we'll do proponents first and if there

[21:39] are any opponents they'll come

[21:40] afterwards but i will call for that so

[21:42] anyone speaking uh in support of this

[21:52] okay

[21:53] um we'll move into any testimony from

[21:55] opponents is there anyone who'd like to

[21:57] stand and speak

[21:58] against this

[22:00] plan

[22:01] once again name address and who you

[22:03] represent if you'd like to speak

[22:09] there's a sign-in sheet right there on

[22:11] the thing if you could sign in please

[22:35] board my name is kevin smith i live

[22:38] adjacent to the property on the south

[22:39] side

[22:40] 7513 b street

[22:43] um my wife trish and i are here and my

[22:45] mother-in-law monica

[22:47] um

[22:49] we're here first because

[22:50] uh we were aware that there was some you

[22:54] know obviously if you own a piece of

[22:55] property you want to prove it a property

[22:59] all for that

[23:00] but the first word we heard anything

[23:02] about it was a certified letter to

[23:04] appear here today

[23:05] and um

[23:07] our concerns come here for

[23:09] about i'd say three

[23:11] would be

[23:13] um

[23:14] the

[23:15] uh the setback

[23:17] pushing our way we could afford it we do

[23:18] have a buffer on our side much unlike

[23:21] our neighbor the opposite side where

[23:23] they're very close

[23:25] however our fence is directly on the

[23:27] property line it's already leaning in

[23:30] so our concern would be when you dig a

[23:33] foundation of a background in

[23:34] construction

[23:35] you have what is the exact number three

[23:37] and a half feet on the side set back

[23:39] from the property line

[23:41] well that's from the foundation to the

[23:43] property line

[23:44] well in order to pour a foundation you

[23:46] need to over dig so that a human can get

[23:48] down there and put the forms in so

[23:50] therefore our concerns are

[23:52] you're gonna dig at least two feet human

[23:55] person to get in there and put the

[23:57] foundation in the forms for the

[23:59] foundation

[24:00] will run a compromise and compromise

[24:02] that hill so we'd be concerned about the

[24:04] fence

[24:04] being damaged in this process

[24:07] that's that's one issue

[24:09] um

[24:10] two

[24:11] because this is the first time we heard

[24:13] of it we don't know who what when where

[24:14] what's going on so all we hear is

[24:19] a grab of additional without any

[24:21] information on what structure what size

[24:23] of the structure is how high is it going

[24:25] to be

[24:26] no information was conveyed to us

[24:28] so that's why we're here so we want more

[24:30] information it's been very informative

[24:32] so far

[24:33] but that's our second issue

[24:35] two because as we talked about here is

[24:37] the slump issues

[24:38] of foundation would that affect our

[24:40] effect our foundation

[24:42] i don't know enough i mean to answer

[24:45] that once you start digging anything

[24:46] could happen

[24:47] but um so those are the three issues

[24:49] that we have

[24:50] um

[24:52] with that

[24:53] said those are our concerns

[24:55] and we presented to the board and you

[24:57] guys uh taken our concerns as the

[24:59] neighbor to the right or the south side

[25:01] of this property

[25:03] sure should have anything else i

[25:04] administered didn't cover

[25:07] i didn't think she's not public

[25:12] so really that that's it you know in i

[25:15] grew up in

[25:16] anne arundel county and you know i know

[25:18] that

[25:19] in the past we applied for a permit and

[25:22] uh

[25:23] we went door to door and conveyed that

[25:25] information so we weren't broadsided and

[25:28] i feel a little bit broadsided as all of

[25:30] a sudden hey we want all this land next

[25:32] to you and no details so that's why

[25:34] we're here to gain more information with

[25:36] that i'll relinquish my time thank you

[25:39] thank you

[25:49] once again take your time to uh write

[25:50] down your name information on the book

[25:52] and uh just go ahead and announce who

[25:53] you are thank you

[25:55] hello board my name is carlton chesson

[25:58] i live on the uh

[26:00] north side of um

[26:03] i'm sorry i i i

[26:05] i'm sorry your name slips inside

[26:07] you're mr barnstein barberstein i'm i'm

[26:10] sorry mr farbs

[26:11] uh yeah i live on the north side of mr

[26:13] fardstein's property

[26:15] um i just had a uh i also have a

[26:19] um background not in construction but in

[26:21] uh

[26:23] in um facilities

[26:25] and i'd kind of deal with the

[26:28] um new constructions

[26:30] new constructions woes

[26:32] and i had a i had a few

[26:35] uh well i have a few um concerns

[26:38] concerning this project due to the

[26:41] this right here

[26:43] this is the distance between

[26:45] the house i have a three foot arm

[26:48] and

[26:49] you know i got

[26:51] a 32-foot

[26:53] lawnmower 32-inch lawnmower you know

[26:55] couldn't get through there um i have uh

[26:57] questions about erosion

[26:59] um uh

[27:02] you know with these heavy storms that we

[27:03] have

[27:04] uh i feel that

[27:07] there could be a troughing issue

[27:09] with

[27:10] with it that you know close i mean the

[27:13] troughing in the water

[27:15] just you know going down to the back

[27:16] street that's a

[27:18] another issue that i had and the

[27:23] a certain uh looming feature i call it

[27:26] looming because like i said if they

[27:28] don't average the um height of these uh

[27:32] houses

[27:33] uh it's it's it's gonna um

[27:36] in my eyes it would directly affect the

[27:38] aesthetics of the you know and

[27:40] quaintness of the neighborhood with this

[27:43] uh going up and down especially

[27:45] you know

[27:46] uh

[27:47] as that's concerned and

[27:49] you know because especially that close

[27:52] i'm going to be literally looking up

[27:54] like this

[27:55] to 32 foot structure

[27:58] and

[27:59] you know i i i will not be going any

[28:01] more than

[28:02] uh two stories uh

[28:05] at all but

[28:06] you know

[28:08] i mean he certainly has the right

[28:10] but at

[28:12] a distance that is

[28:14] you know and like it's like you know the

[28:16] town has um noted before an average

[28:20] uh

[28:22] an average of uh you know just to keep

[28:24] the aesthetics of the um

[28:26] of the uh bay front and the bay line

[28:29] um

[28:30] it's my lovely wife jesse did you have

[28:32] any other um

[28:39] hi my name is jessie chesson i'm carlton

[28:41] chaston's wife

[28:43] property owners with him with 75 17 b

[28:45] street and the other concern that we had

[28:47] was really around um fire um so

[28:50] obviously being that close we still live

[28:52] in a townhouse development where

[28:55] um there was a fire in the development

[28:57] and the fire jumped from townhouse to

[29:00] townhouse and so that's our concern with

[29:01] the property uh the adjacent property

[29:04] being so close is that if there is a

[29:05] disaster at our house's house or the

[29:06] house on the other side that we

[29:09] we would all become

[29:11] impacted if there is any um

[29:13] any damage with fire or storm damage or

[29:16] anything like that it's going to easily

[29:17] jump across to the properties so that's

[29:19] the other thing that i would add in

[29:20] addition to what my husband already

[29:21] provided

[29:22] thank you

[29:23] thank you

[30:05] good evening board my name is beverly

[30:08] stewart and i live

[30:10] at 7514

[30:12] b street

[30:13] which is

[30:15] across the street and up one up the hill

[30:18] on the

[30:21] south side

[30:23] of the property

[30:24] i do want to point out that i am

[30:28] a relatively new neighbor

[30:31] so i was not living at the property

[30:34] when

[30:35] the board met originally

[30:37] to make this determination i also would

[30:39] like to point out that

[30:42] uh

[30:43] the two neighbors on either side

[30:46] are new neighbors also so

[30:49] they haven't either one of them hasn't

[30:51] lived in the property for more than a

[30:52] year is that correct obviously

[30:57] august 31st will be a year for them

[31:00] and

[31:01] april

[31:02] um for

[31:04] jesse and carlton

[31:07] uh so i think that um

[31:10] when a decision was made

[31:14] four years ago when the board made their

[31:17] original determination

[31:19] the viewpoint of the neighbors on

[31:22] the surrounding properties could have

[31:24] been very different

[31:26] because there were different people

[31:28] standing here making

[31:30] their feelings known so i do want to

[31:32] point that out i think it's important to

[31:34] note

[31:36] i do have a major concern

[31:39] about

[31:41] waiving the height limit

[31:44] i think that the

[31:47] average between the two which is the

[31:49] current

[31:50] uh

[31:52] focal point of the height of the

[31:54] construction i think i would like to ask

[31:56] that

[31:58] that average be kept in place i think

[32:01] that

[32:02] um

[32:04] it would be detrimental to all of the

[32:06] surrounding areas to

[32:08] build

[32:09] a structure that would be so much

[32:11] greater than what was originally put

[32:13] into place for

[32:14] i'm sure very

[32:16] specific

[32:18] reasons um

[32:19] [Music]

[32:20] and i too have a concern um

[32:23] [Music]

[32:25] not for

[32:26] my property but for

[32:29] the smiths and the

[32:32] chessons that

[32:34] especially for the chessons because

[32:36] their home was built i think over 100

[32:39] years ago so they weren't involved at

[32:41] all in the process of that home being

[32:43] constructed

[32:44] so it was um

[32:47] it was a one level home at one time and

[32:49] it was added on to but it's

[32:52] it is right on the property line i mean

[32:55] there is just no

[32:57] um

[32:58] building restriction line on their side

[33:00] of the property at all

[33:03] which that's just the way it was when

[33:05] the house was built and they

[33:07] accepted it at that point

[33:10] because they liked the house so much but

[33:14] if i were living

[33:16] so close to a home

[33:18] i would wonder too how could a fire

[33:20] department be able to fight a fire with

[33:26] on that side i think you're looking at

[33:30] 3.6 feet

[33:33] to get any equipment through there

[33:36] for a human to get through there when

[33:37] there's a fire raging for a firefighter

[33:40] to get through that space

[33:43] would be

[33:45] probably

[33:46] impossible due to their safety

[33:50] so

[33:50] i i'm very very concerned about that so

[33:53] i think that there

[33:55] are legitimate um

[33:57] concerns for in my mind for

[34:01] um

[34:02] there to be

[34:04] a variance that's above and beyond what

[34:07] the normal variance would be

[34:09] um

[34:12] on the sides and in the height

[34:15] i appreciate your time very much

[34:18] thank you

[34:24] teresa frederick uh also at 7514 b

[34:28] street

[34:29] sorry

[34:30] and um i am as a citizen here not as a

[34:34] part of the member of the board

[34:37] the one thing that

[34:39] has been mentioned several times is the

[34:42] height of the house

[34:44] and

[34:45] if the variance is granted for the side

[34:48] yard change

[34:51] there is

[34:53] as it's been pointed out a height

[34:54] restriction of 25 feet

[34:58] or the average of the two homes

[35:02] the north home north side home

[35:06] does not set level

[35:09] with the

[35:10] house in question it sits lower

[35:13] than the property

[35:16] at 75.15

[35:18] and so

[35:20] that even will

[35:22] show more heights difference between the

[35:25] houses

[35:27] so

[35:28] the three foot three level house

[35:32] is what concerns me the most because it

[35:34] will definitely stick out in the

[35:36] neighborhood

[35:37] in that location

[35:39] and

[35:41] [Music]

[35:43] i don't think it's within harmony of the

[35:45] neighborhood

[35:48] the other thing that i

[35:50] um

[35:52] have been

[35:53] made aware of and that i question i

[35:55] don't know if this is the case or not

[35:57] but i believe there's

[35:59] a hundred foot setback

[36:02] buffer zone from the tidal water

[36:06] and i'm wondering if that

[36:10] house encroaches upon that at all where

[36:13] it sits on the lot

[36:15] but my main concern is the heights

[36:17] because it's not in harmony with the

[36:19] houses around it

[36:21] thank you

[36:24] thank you

[36:54] good evening uh my name is kathleen

[36:56] beralt i reside at

[36:59] 7409 b street so i'm not a an immediate

[37:03] neighbor of 7515

[37:06] but i've been on b street for 23 years

[37:10] and um

[37:11] and i just wanted to raise my concern

[37:13] about the height requirement um

[37:16] i had uh

[37:18] i live next to

[37:20] uh

[37:21] on the

[37:22] south side a new house that is

[37:26] 35 feet

[37:28] in the center but on the edges it

[37:30] exceeds 35 feet and it

[37:33] uh i have a two-story house and it

[37:36] almost dwarfs my house it's the house

[37:38] takes the full lot

[37:40] and then to

[37:41] uh the north of me is a residence that

[37:45] basically the mudslide when it happened

[37:48] uh

[37:49] was the the home next to me

[37:52] and uh they have a a large swimming pool

[37:56] in ground that i believe contributed to

[38:00] the mudslide that then created the stop

[38:03] work order along b street so i just

[38:06] wanted to share my

[38:07] uh i do not believe that a a house uh

[38:11] over

[38:12] well 32 feet

[38:14] that is not average is not in harmony

[38:18] with

[38:19] the with b street uh this is the

[38:22] original campground area and we talk in

[38:25] chesapeake beach all the time about

[38:27] small town charm this would be the third

[38:30] um new home along b street and the

[38:35] second one does not also reflect the

[38:37] harmony and you know in the

[38:39] comprehensive plan uh it's been

[38:42] established that the the building uh

[38:45] should be in harmony with the

[38:47] neighborhood and

[38:49] i do not believe that two previous

[38:51] projects

[38:53] and i don't believe this house if it

[38:55] exceeds 32 feet will also not be in

[38:58] compliance with that um i do have the

[39:01] history of a

[39:03] of uh living here where a house was

[39:06] granted a few houses up a variance to go

[39:09] above 35 feet

[39:11] and uh

[39:12] approximately i think it's eight to ten

[39:14] years ago and it this is anecdotal

[39:17] studies were done

[39:19] the ground was yes the house can support

[39:21] the variance of above 35 feet and that's

[39:24] not true the the new structure toppled

[39:27] all the other house um injuring the

[39:30] residents in that house as well as both

[39:32] of us houses

[39:34] were then raised so it's it's a serious

[39:38] consideration and i think uh one despite

[39:42] you know geotechnical studies um i

[39:45] myself uh

[39:47] work on the lawn next to mine and uh i

[39:50] can tell you uh on the the ground that

[39:53] faces the bay

[39:54] i can nail stand there and there's a

[39:56] drop almost to my mid thigh

[39:59] and in over the last uh 15 years i've

[40:02] cut that lawn and

[40:05] that didn't used to be the way so

[40:07] regardless of the studies

[40:10] there is a shifting and a sloping on the

[40:12] hillside and

[40:13] as i said i'm my my home is protected by

[40:17] two large trees that i couldn't even

[40:20] build within 10 feet of it and those

[40:22] trees keep that structure that that hill

[40:25] stabilized but i can tell you on either

[40:28] side of me

[40:29] uh

[40:30] there's been

[40:31] a swimming pool there's been a large

[40:33] structure that

[40:35] impacts the uh hillside

[40:38] so thank you for your time

[40:40] thank you

[41:04] okay

[41:12] thank you all for your comments um

[41:15] uh procedural questions should we if uh

[41:17] we have uh questions

[41:23] if i have some questions for mr jacob

[41:24] okay uh mr still part of the public

[41:27] hearing okay

[41:28] uh mr jacobia i'll start us off so

[41:31] um let me just say i think that the app

[41:33] can also ought to be given the

[41:34] opportunity right to uh address issues

[41:38] raised during public comment

[41:40] uh yes if anyone like to make a remodel

[41:41] please uh step forward i would

[41:52] first and foremost there was a lot of

[41:54] talk particularly about the the three

[41:56] folks

[41:57] uh towards the end the last three folks

[41:59] talking about the height

[42:02] we're not here seeking a variance

[42:05] from the strict provisions

[42:07] of

[42:09] the zoning ordinance as

[42:12] required

[42:14] i believe it's 290 19 d2

[42:18] says if we rely on that language

[42:22] uh for a narrower lot

[42:24] we're confined to 25 feet or the average

[42:26] of the height of the two adjacent

[42:28] structures

[42:29] if we were seeking a variance from that

[42:30] provision we would have put it in the

[42:31] application and we'd be having that

[42:33] discussion so i understand their

[42:34] concerns but

[42:36] candidly it's it's not

[42:37] before the board tonight um and as the

[42:41] condition of when the previous variants

[42:43] was granted one of the conditions was

[42:46] submittal and approval of a category two

[42:49] site plan presumably that concern would

[42:51] be addressed and they would mr farbstein

[42:53] would have to comply with that provision

[42:56] of the zoning ordinance we're not here

[42:58] seeking a variance from that provision

[42:59] of the zoding ordinance so while i

[43:00] understand their concerns uh

[43:03] it's off topic and in canada i think a

[43:05] little bit of a diversion

[43:07] i understand the concerns and six years

[43:09] ago

[43:11] we discussed

[43:12] extensively

[43:14] the idea and mr kubiak can give me the

[43:16] show he will confirm my technical term

[43:19] the canyoning effect and it has been a

[43:22] concern of this board

[43:24] before 2016 and i assume

[43:27] going forward

[43:29] wear these lots

[43:31] it's very common in chesapeake beach

[43:33] where what's on paper is not what's in

[43:35] reality

[43:36] on the ground and you get people like

[43:38] the

[43:39] property of the north of mr farbstein's

[43:41] where they put

[43:42] the structure right on the lot line

[43:46] and that's where it is it's not mr

[43:47] farbstein's fault it's not the current

[43:49] owner's fault

[43:50] but at some point somebody put that

[43:51] structure right on the lot line and now

[43:53] we have to deal

[43:54] with with how how we deal with that

[43:57] that was one of the concerns with the

[43:59] board and i believe with mr jacobiak

[44:01] with the previous request as originally

[44:03] submitted was this cannoning effect the

[44:06] narrowness

[44:07] there were concerns with first

[44:08] responders getting through there that

[44:09] was one of the reasons the request was

[44:12] amended and it's not three feet

[44:13] respectfully it's 5.2 feet that's the

[44:16] amount of the setback

[44:17] okay the setback we're requesting is the

[44:20] variance is 2.8 2.8 8 feet which is the

[44:26] requirement of the zoning ordinance

[44:27] minus 2.8 leads to the 5.2

[44:30] side foot setback so

[44:32] that concern was addressed previously

[44:35] we can address it again but that that

[44:38] concern was squarely before the previous

[44:40] board certainly you have to address

[44:41] those concerns as well uh but it's not

[44:44] three feet it's 5.2 feet um

[44:47] and certainly not something that was mr

[44:49] farbstein's doing but he

[44:52] changed what he originally wanted to do

[44:54] to to accommodate what somebody did

[44:56] previously uh candidly which which

[44:59] shouldn't have been done and if it had

[45:00] been done now uh the board i'm sure they

[45:03] would have been dinged uh because they

[45:05] built right on the lot line and

[45:06] unfortunately

[45:08] that is a

[45:10] recurring issue to the point that if you

[45:12] look through those findings uh from the

[45:15] previous board there was some discussion

[45:17] among the board uh i believe mr kubiak

[45:19] saying hey we need to go to the planning

[45:21] commission and we need to figure out how

[45:23] to address this issue moving forward how

[45:25] can how can we deal with this so we're

[45:27] not doing these

[45:28] variances and jumping through these

[45:30] hoops to fit

[45:32] uh

[45:33] these types of structures

[45:36] within the zoning ordinance um so that

[45:38] again that issue was squarely

[45:41] before for the board previously um again

[45:44] i don't want to dwell on the issue of

[45:46] the height requirement i think to say

[45:48] that a single-family residence is not

[45:50] within

[45:51] harmony in that neighborhood is

[45:53] frankly

[45:55] absurd it's nothing but single-family

[45:57] homes this would be completely in

[45:58] keeping with in harmony uh with with the

[46:02] nature and the characteristics of of the

[46:03] neighborhood along b street there um

[46:07] so certainly that uh

[46:09] concerns addressed uh miss burrell i

[46:12] believe talked about her belief that

[46:14] that there could still be sluffing

[46:15] issues respectfully there was the

[46:17] geotext study which was required

[46:19] by the town it was submitted it was

[46:21] reviewed by a third party engineer they

[46:23] found it to be completely

[46:24] acceptable and that there would not be

[46:26] an issue uh moving forward with that um

[46:31] that was all i i really had to say about

[46:33] the the concerns which were uh

[46:36] raised i i will go through uh the five

[46:38] variance criteria uh the first is that

[46:41] the the variance show the granular

[46:42] variant shall be in harmony with the

[46:44] general purpose and intent of the

[46:45] chapter and should not be injurious to

[46:46] the neighborhood or otherwise

[46:47] detrimental to the public public welfare

[46:50] there's no expansion of the existing

[46:51] non-conformity if there's any

[46:53] certainly it's in keeping i think with

[46:55] the general character and nature of the

[46:57] neighborhood and the surrounding lots

[46:58] and resonance there are

[47:00] many it's almost all single-family

[47:02] resonances uh back back through there

[47:04] and uh well this may be

[47:08] taller than what was previous there it's

[47:09] certainly in keeping uh with the nature

[47:12] uh of single-family residences

[47:14] throughout that neighborhood um say

[47:16] nothing the fact that this would be the

[47:17] completion of a project which

[47:18] significantly upgrades the neighborhood

[47:21] and the curb appeal as i said what was

[47:23] there in 2015 2016 was was a blighted

[47:29] structure that nobody

[47:31] would have ever entered voluntarily to

[47:34] be honest to the point there was a

[47:35] zoning violation issued mr farbstein has

[47:37] taken uh steps to remedy that to build a

[47:40] new structure which which possibly

[47:43] impacts uh and is in keeping in harmony

[47:45] with with the neighborhood uh criteria

[47:47] two that the granting of the variants

[47:48] will not permit the existence within a

[47:50] district of any use which is not

[47:52] permitted in the district as mr kubiak's

[47:54] staff report points out uh this

[47:56] residence is

[47:57] certainly permitted uh within the

[47:59] residential medium uh districts i would

[48:02] also note that the

[48:03] the

[48:04] the residential medium density district

[48:06] is meant to quote promote a pleasant and

[48:08] safe residential neighborhood to allow

[48:10] houses on small lots with public water

[48:12] and sewer to help ensure that new

[48:15] infield development and redevelopment is

[48:16] compatible and harmonious with existing

[48:18] residential activities and to integrate

[48:21] new development with the character and

[48:22] function of town through the use of

[48:23] natural features to provide pedestrian

[48:25] and visual linkage

[48:27] that's that's what we have here this is

[48:28] completely

[48:30] in keeping with the purposes of the

[48:32] residential medium district

[48:35] criteria three that there are special

[48:36] circumstances or conditions fully

[48:38] described in the findings applying to

[48:39] the land or buildings for which the

[48:40] variance is sought which circumstances

[48:42] or conditions are peculiar such lands or

[48:44] buildings are not applied generally to

[48:47] land lander buildings in the

[48:48] neighborhood and that said circumstances

[48:49] or conditions are such that strict

[48:51] interpretation of the provisions of this

[48:52] chapter would deprive the applicant of

[48:54] the reasonable use of such land in

[48:57] building

[49:00] with a previous board found and what i

[49:03] would again urge and argue are the

[49:05] unique circumstances here

[49:07] is that

[49:08] the lot size

[49:09] was not in it of itself unique but that

[49:11] there were extreme slopes in the rear of

[49:13] the yard and the retaining wall on the

[49:15] front that prevented mr farbstein from

[49:17] moving the new dwelling east or west

[49:19] that is not

[49:21] shared by lots in the other neighborhood

[49:23] strict interpretation

[49:25] of the zoding ordinance and application

[49:26] here would result in a 16 foot wide

[49:28] dwelling which would be smaller than the

[49:30] previous dwelling it would not be

[49:31] feasible for mr farbstein's reasonable

[49:34] use of the property

[49:37] i would also note that

[49:39] the

[49:40] that strike that

[49:42] for that there exists unnecessary

[49:44] hardship if the hardship is general that

[49:46] is shared generally by land or buildings

[49:48] in the neighborhood relief shall be

[49:49] obtained

[49:51] relief shall properly excuse me relief

[49:53] shall be properly obtained only by

[49:54] legislative action or by court review of

[49:56] an attack on the validity of the

[49:57] ordinance uh here i think would produce

[50:00] an unnecessary hardship to not allow

[50:01] redevelopment of this property which as

[50:03] we discussed is peculiar due to the

[50:05] steep slopes uh and the fact that a

[50:08] strict interpretation would result in a

[50:10] 16 foot wide dwelling that would be an

[50:11] unnecessary hardship uh

[50:13] in that

[50:15] criteria five the granting of the

[50:17] variance is necessary for the reasonable

[50:18] use of the lander building that the

[50:20] variance is granted by the board is the

[50:22] minimum variance that will accomplish

[50:23] that

[50:24] purpose again this is a

[50:27] narrow lot with a small dilapidated

[50:29] building that has uh mr farbstein has

[50:31] been attempting

[50:33] to

[50:34] upgrade and make make look better uh

[50:37] we're seeking

[50:39] the minimum variance required mr

[50:42] farmstead previously amended he's not

[50:43] coming back he could have come back and

[50:45] said we want we want

[50:46] something new this is a new board let me

[50:48] take my shot he's not saying they're

[50:49] saying

[50:50] i want what i was granted previously

[50:51] which previous board found to be the

[50:53] minimum variance necessary to require to

[50:55] accomplish that purpose that's all we're

[50:57] asking for again i'm happy to answer any

[50:59] questions

[51:02] thank you

[51:10] there was some mention of uh

[51:12] construction within the 100 foot

[51:14] critical area setback again we're not

[51:16] seeking a variance i i don't think

[51:17] that's an issue here no construction

[51:19] within 100 foot

[51:20] critical area setback is is professional

[51:22] so thank you

[51:31] thank you everybody um

[51:33] i would

[51:34] like to start by asking uh mr jacubi i

[51:37] could talk a little bit about the

[51:38] dependencies

[51:40] and kind of the order of operations here

[51:42] in terms of the variances where

[51:44] we've had a fair amount of talk about a

[51:46] couple different things um

[51:47] mostly the side lot yard which is what

[51:49] we're here today for

[51:50] um which seems to also have some

[51:53] dependence on the house and the height

[51:55] um and then also the size and how far it

[51:57] is set back from the water that 100 foot

[52:00] 100 foot threshold which it sounds like

[52:03] uh we'll all be enforced anyway how

[52:06] can you give us a kind of step by step

[52:08] as to how those three things

[52:10] uh interplay do does the board

[52:13] should the board concern itself with any

[52:15] of the

[52:16] height requirements at this stage or is

[52:17] this something that is

[52:19] going to be addressed later

[52:22] it is true that the applicant is not

[52:24] seeking a variance to the height

[52:27] standards

[52:29] the variance is focused purely on the

[52:31] side yard setbacks

[52:34] but it's also true that

[52:37] having a taller building that's closer

[52:40] than

[52:41] what is generally allowed

[52:43] is material

[52:45] to your consideration right so

[52:47] it seems to me that the building height

[52:50] works its way into your deliberations

[52:52] by the fact that

[52:54] it's related to the

[52:56] this is a physical connection that's

[52:59] closer

[53:00] okay

[53:01] um

[53:02] but the code does say

[53:05] you can go up to three to three point

[53:07] two feet it doesn't say

[53:09] the board has to do that uh but the

[53:12] board the code does sort of as a matter

[53:14] of ordinance allow that

[53:17] amount of incursion into the yards or

[53:19] encroachment into the yards and the

[53:22] applicant is staying out of that

[53:24] kind of red zone uh if you will

[53:26] um so anyway the whole building height i

[53:28] think enters into deliberations by the

[53:30] virtue of the fact that the it's the

[53:32] building is closer to the side law side

[53:35] lot line then generally would be the

[53:37] case in the zoning district so it's

[53:39] relevant

[53:40] to your consideration does the taller

[53:42] structure impose a burden to

[53:45] neighboring properties right i think

[53:46] it's a reasonable consideration

[53:49] um

[53:51] in terms of order

[53:55] should you approve the variance or the

[53:57] variances

[53:59] the applicant would submit a

[54:02] new site plan

[54:05] and

[54:06] imagine it would look a lot like

[54:08] the same site plan was submitted it's

[54:10] actually a competent site plan done by

[54:12] an engineer

[54:15] it would be reviewed by my office and

[54:17] the town engineer

[54:18] and we would process that site plan it

[54:21] would also be reviewed by calvert county

[54:24] for sediment and reversion control and

[54:27] stormwater management

[54:29] and if everything checks out the

[54:31] standards are all met

[54:32] a zoning permit would be issued

[54:35] and then

[54:37] the applicant can file for building

[54:38] permit with calvert county inspections

[54:41] and permits

[54:42] and then they'd look at the construction

[54:44] of the building make sure it was safe

[54:46] and

[54:46] um

[54:48] so

[54:48] that's kind of the

[54:50] the ordering of approvals

[54:53] sure thank you

[54:58] at this point i think we are uh open for

[55:01] uh questions to any of the um

[55:03] anyone who's spoken here today if the

[55:05] board has a question to ask before we

[55:07] move into

[55:09] uh deliberations

[55:12] i i do have one question the

[55:15] height

[55:16] of the house and the original

[55:18] application was it the same

[55:21] yes the application that you see here

[55:23] today was also

[55:25] roughly 32 feet

[55:27] the schematics that were submitted in

[55:29] this application were also part of the

[55:30] original application

[55:32] in 2016 it was 32 feet

[55:35] that's right that's right

[55:42] yes sir to clarify you said in 2016

[55:46] the board it was approved for the

[55:48] variance correct

[55:49] yes

[55:50] what is the reason why

[55:53] the construction didn't follow through

[55:54] and

[55:55] yeah

[55:56] i

[55:57] i can't answer that question but maybe

[55:59] the applicant can

[56:00] you know

[56:02] we'd be happy to

[56:04] have mr farbstein come and testify that

[56:06] was what i alluded to

[56:08] previously was he he did move forward

[56:11] with having the existing structure

[56:13] demolished

[56:14] uh and the retaining wall put up that

[56:16] occurred in april of 2018 in may of 2018

[56:19] was when the sluffing event occurred

[56:20] which put the stock the stop work order

[56:23] was issued by the by the town he got the

[56:25] geotech study

[56:27] uh

[56:28] accomplished and was allowed to move

[56:29] forward back in the fall of 2019 and

[56:31] then cove would happen shortly there

[56:33] after the builder retired he can give

[56:35] you the specifics but that's

[56:37] generally why things did not move

[56:39] forward just the

[56:41] unfortunate confluence of

[56:43] circumstances

[56:44] secondly

[56:50] i'll just have one

[56:52] just to clarify what's the feat that you

[56:55] said there was a change in what we see

[56:57] on the agenda is that right

[57:00] that that's correct i believe it was

[57:02] submitted was what the original

[57:04] application

[57:05] that was submitted back in 2016

[57:08] um

[57:09] that is not what we're currently seeking

[57:12] we're seeking what was approved in 2016

[57:15] which is on the north side of variance

[57:17] of

[57:18] 2.8 feet from the required

[57:20] eight feet

[57:21] of setback so the setback will actually

[57:23] be 5.2 feet on the southern side we're

[57:25] seeking

[57:27] a variance of four point eight feet from

[57:28] the required eight feet so the si the

[57:31] side setback on the south side will be

[57:32] 3.4 feet

[57:40] and i think it's worthwhile noting that

[57:42] the

[57:43] footprint

[57:45] of the proposed structure

[57:47] will at least in the side yards will

[57:49] match

[57:50] the one that was removed

[57:53] and so the building will get no closer

[57:56] to the side yard lines than it

[57:59] previously previously was

[58:01] when they first they applied for

[58:03] variance to build a wider house and the

[58:04] board of appeals stepped them back and

[58:07] it was a collaborative effort i mean

[58:08] they ultimately say okay yeah we'll

[58:09] accept that so they built a house as

[58:12] wide as the current or the house that

[58:14] used to be there

[58:16] with one exception

[58:17] along the south side uh

[58:20] the previous house the smaller house

[58:22] actually the

[58:24] the buildings

[58:25] ran

[58:26] perpendicular you know towards the bay

[58:29] and then it jogged in

[58:31] and then it continued back towards the

[58:33] lot

[58:34] the current proposal would carry that

[58:36] same foundation wall all the way to the

[58:38] back

[58:39] of the back of the house

[58:41] so there's more area that's covered by

[58:43] the house and the house would actually

[58:46] be built closer to the

[58:48] front to to b street than

[58:50] the old house that existed

[58:53] otherwise with respect to the side yards

[58:56] they're maintaining those side yards

[58:58] thank you

[59:05] uh okay um

[59:07] if there are no more questions or

[59:09] comments

[59:10] uh we will um close the public hearing

[59:13] i'd like to

[59:14] uh make a motion am i missing anything

[59:20] oh right okay um i guess the before we

[59:23] move into closing deliberations um there

[59:25] is a question

[59:26] of whether or not the board wants to do

[59:28] a site visit uh to this particular

[59:32] um it sounds like the gist of it is that

[59:34] our site visit would be considered part

[59:36] of this uh meeting here and that it

[59:38] would be uh part of the public record um

[59:40] at which case we go we look we come back

[59:42] we deliver it here and then we close

[59:44] down

[59:47] um

[59:49] i will leave it uh well i guess i'll

[59:51] pass it off to the rest of the board as

[59:52] to whether or not they think they have

[59:54] enough information

[59:55] uh with the reports and uh

[59:58] photographs that have been provided

[1:00:00] to understand

[1:00:02] this particular case or whether a site

[1:00:05] visit to

[1:00:06] the lot

[1:00:08] and our role as the appeals board is

[1:00:10] warranted

[1:00:14] i i don't feel that i need a site visit

[1:00:19] okay thank you

[1:00:20] um in that case i'll make a motion to uh

[1:00:22] close the public hearing and begin

[1:00:24] deliberations do i have a second

[1:00:27] i'll second that thank you

[1:00:29] um the public hearing is closed um at

[1:00:32] this point the board will deliberate and

[1:00:34] uh

[1:00:36] i guess as a

[1:00:37] matter of um

[1:00:39] just getting started uh the standards we

[1:00:42] seek to hold here are

[1:00:44] as i've been mentioned fivefold um is

[1:00:46] the request harmonious and not injurious

[1:00:50] um

[1:00:51] is that's

[1:00:52] criteria one uh number two is it

[1:00:54] permitted within the zoning district uh

[1:00:56] three are there any special

[1:00:58] circumstances uh a reasonable use that

[1:01:00] that

[1:01:01] make this um this is a reasonable use of

[1:01:03] the uh

[1:01:05] site and the plan

[1:01:07] um is there any unnecessary hardship

[1:01:09] that exists to this

[1:01:11] specific plan as proposed the board and

[1:01:14] is this also the minimum

[1:01:17] necessary change the variance required

[1:01:19] in order to fulfill

[1:01:23] uh so i will pause there and we can uh

[1:01:25] open up discussion however

[1:01:38] i guess uh i'll i'll happily start us

[1:01:41] off and i'll let you guys shoot me down

[1:01:42] if uh

[1:01:44] wrong um

[1:01:45] i hear and thank uh the audience who

[1:01:48] attended for all of their thoughts um

[1:01:50] your concerns are

[1:01:51] aren't hidden i would be

[1:01:53] concerned as well if this were my

[1:01:55] property whether or not uh i was the

[1:01:57] owner or the neighbor

[1:01:59] um

[1:02:00] reading through the history of this

[1:02:02] particular

[1:02:05] uh cases it seems interesting because a

[1:02:08] lot of stuff happened predated us

[1:02:10] and uh i think in a lot of ways we want

[1:02:12] to make a decision where

[1:02:16] we're kind of jumping in halfway and and

[1:02:18] trying to understand the whole picture

[1:02:20] where

[1:02:22] sounds like there was a lot of work that

[1:02:24] needed to be done

[1:02:27] goals of this board i think not to

[1:02:28] deprive the use of that property but to

[1:02:30] make it

[1:02:32] reasonable while also taking the

[1:02:34] concerns of the neighbors

[1:02:37] the engineers

[1:02:39] i find that the hardest bar to jump

[1:02:42] would be to

[1:02:44] make a stricter constraint on the side

[1:02:46] yards than the one that was already

[1:02:48] approved by the previous board i'm not

[1:02:50] saying i won't take arguments for it but

[1:02:52] that seems to be

[1:02:53] the hardest leap

[1:02:57] previous board had reasons

[1:02:58] and a similar plan as was provided

[1:03:02] i think the question is whether or not

[1:03:07] than that

[1:03:09] and of course there's a whole bunch

[1:03:10] about the

[1:03:12] we don't need to get into first

[1:03:19] i i would agree with that

[1:03:21] um

[1:03:22] the the conditions

[1:03:24] from what i can tell

[1:03:27] are essentially the same as the 2016

[1:03:30] application

[1:03:32] and that application was approved

[1:03:36] so

[1:03:37] applying different

[1:03:40] criteria now

[1:03:42] uh would not be appropriate

[1:03:48] as uh the chairman said or as the

[1:03:51] chairman phrased it

[1:03:53] um

[1:03:56] different criteria or stricter criteria

[1:04:00] i don't think would be uh

[1:04:02] the the right way

[1:04:04] to approach this

[1:04:08] i do agree with that also if this was

[1:04:11] approved

[1:04:12] in 2016

[1:04:19] more restrictions to it

[1:04:22] doesn't leave a whole lot of

[1:04:25] room on the sides so

[1:04:34] i do understand the

[1:04:37] access

[1:04:39] from the mercy

[1:04:41] services fire department

[1:04:44] be concerned

[1:04:50] i agree with the um

[1:04:54] for the fire you know apparatus to get

[1:04:56] there that's um

[1:04:58] that's difficult and um

[1:05:00] before the neighbor's house goes up in

[1:05:02] flames it's gonna be a massive fire and

[1:05:03] could be

[1:05:04] casualties

[1:05:06] um

[1:05:06] i understand that the previous board

[1:05:10] did go forward with it however

[1:05:13] this report

[1:05:14] obviously

[1:05:24] we have thoughts at all on how

[1:05:27] the side lot line side lock

[1:05:30] distance affects the height

[1:05:33] actually

[1:05:34] we don't want to impose any additional

[1:05:36] restrictions

[1:05:37] or

[1:05:38] statements uh

[1:05:40] about the the building height

[1:05:42] in relation to the

[1:05:44] the variance that's been requested

[1:05:47] no i have no uh additional comment on

[1:05:50] that

[1:05:53] really the

[1:05:55] size

[1:05:59] of the requirements on the side

[1:06:09] or is there any is there anything you

[1:06:10] guys know

[1:06:13] be ready to take a uh down boat

[1:06:16] on camera i was saying that i think the

[1:06:20] way the board ought to proceed

[1:06:22] is that

[1:06:23] uh

[1:06:25] when you come time to make a motion the

[1:06:28] motion be made either to approve or

[1:06:30] reject

[1:06:33] or to to direct the

[1:06:35] counsel to the board to

[1:06:38] prepare a resolution either approving or

[1:06:41] denying the application in which case if

[1:06:43] that motion passes then i will prepare a

[1:06:46] draft resolution and circulate it to the

[1:06:48] board members

[1:06:50] for comments and questions and if it's

[1:06:53] acceptable to the board members then you

[1:06:55] all can

[1:06:56] reconvene for a couple minutes to

[1:06:59] approve the resolution in open session

[1:07:10] all right in that case i think following

[1:07:12] mr sussman's advice um i'll initiate a

[1:07:15] motion to

[1:07:16] uh draft a resolution uh to approve the

[1:07:19] requested variances here today

[1:07:22] but i guess we can

[1:07:24] uh go around and

[1:07:27] are doing it

[1:07:28] i'll second that

[1:07:30] uh i will go around and ask

[1:07:33] uh the board members um

[1:07:36] whether they approve or not and uh

[1:07:38] if i may uh there's the issue of

[1:07:40] conditions and whether

[1:07:43] the board would like to impose uh if the

[1:07:46] motion to approve passes

[1:07:48] where uh whether the members of the

[1:07:50] board would like to impose the same

[1:07:53] conditions as in 2016 different

[1:07:56] conditions or no conditions

[1:07:58] so to give me guidance in the

[1:08:00] preparation resolution

[1:08:11] right um in that case the as mr sussman

[1:08:14] mentioned the um

[1:08:17] do we have thoughts on this before we uh

[1:08:19] move into it on the conditions should we

[1:08:22] use the what was already laid out in

[1:08:24] 2016 by the appeals board

[1:08:26] um it doesn't sound like anyone has new

[1:08:29] conditions they'd like to impose but

[1:08:31] perhaps

[1:08:32] that or

[1:08:33] is this variance granted unconditionally

[1:08:37] i have no new or or uh

[1:08:40] additional

[1:08:42] conditions same conditions same

[1:08:44] conditions okay all right in that case

[1:08:46] the motion uh seeking a second is to

[1:08:48] draft a resolution to approve the same

[1:08:50] conditions as were passed by the board

[1:08:52] in 2016. do i have a second on that i'll

[1:08:54] second that

[1:08:56] um and i will go around

[1:08:58] and ask each member uh how they vote uh

[1:09:02] mr burch

[1:09:03] you approve

[1:09:05] i i approve

[1:09:07] uh mr doherty i approve mr sharp no

[1:09:12] no deny all right thank you um

[1:09:15] in this case uh the motion is approved

[1:09:22] scenarios

[1:09:24] um so in that case

[1:09:27] what's the vote right now

[1:09:29] well the i think you need three vote to

[1:09:33] pass the pass all right um i uh approve

[1:09:36] in that case

[1:09:39] spokesman to

[1:09:41] draw raft resolution which we will uh

[1:09:43] revisit

[1:09:45] a future meeting

[1:09:48] with that i believe

[1:09:50] we are wrapping up the end of case 22-1

[1:09:53] thank you everybody who has participated

[1:09:55] thank you all very much

[1:09:58] we will continue on to case 20

[1:10:01] 22-2

[1:10:03] but let's take five

[1:10:12] [Music]

[1:10:18] do you feel them

[1:10:21] [Music]

[1:10:33] [Music]

[1:10:35] see you again

[1:11:03] should we do this

[1:11:20] yeah

[1:11:23] about everything's a one-off

[1:11:28] yeah i'm not sure

[1:11:31] that's uh yeah let's get it

[1:11:37] okay well uh i said five but it looks

[1:11:39] like

[1:11:41] go ahead and get started here and uh

[1:11:42] wrap this up

[1:11:45] case number 2022-2

[1:11:48] uh let's see here

[1:11:51] um

[1:11:53] so

[1:11:54] uh in this case uh i will pass to the

[1:11:57] petitioner for presentation which is uh

[1:11:59] mr jason hein of 4008 old bayside oh

[1:12:05] uh and we uh

[1:12:07] are reconvening the uh the board of

[1:12:09] appeals here

[1:12:10] um

[1:12:12] and are passing to the petitioner uh for

[1:12:16] their presentation um

[1:12:20] pass to mr sussman thank you mr chairman

[1:12:23] uh

[1:12:24] this is an

[1:12:25] unusual

[1:12:27] case because it is an application for a

[1:12:30] variance to some swimming pool

[1:12:31] regulations it's not an application for

[1:12:34] a variance to the zoning ordinance into

[1:12:36] the zoning code

[1:12:43] i'm getting excited again by the clerk

[1:12:45] about not speaking into the microphone

[1:12:48] so uh as i was saying this is

[1:12:52] an unusual uh case because it seeks a

[1:12:55] variance

[1:12:56] uh to certain swimming pool regulations

[1:12:59] not a variant to the zoning ordinance of

[1:13:01] his learning code

[1:13:03] if it were

[1:13:04] a

[1:13:06] proceeding for a variance under the

[1:13:08] zoning ordinance

[1:13:10] then the zoning ordinance sets forth

[1:13:13] various criteria that the applicant has

[1:13:15] to prove and the board has to find in

[1:13:18] order to

[1:13:21] adopt or approve the requested variants

[1:13:24] but curiously in the swimming pool

[1:13:27] regulations there are no standards or

[1:13:30] there are no criteria about

[1:13:32] what the applicant has to prove or and

[1:13:34] what the board has to find before a

[1:13:38] variant can be granted

[1:13:40] so there are a couple ways to deal with

[1:13:42] this uh and i was speaking with the

[1:13:45] chair before the meeting and we just

[1:13:47] want to bring it to the members of the

[1:13:49] board

[1:13:50] uh one way

[1:13:52] is to for the board on an ad hoc basis

[1:13:56] tonight

[1:13:57] to

[1:13:59] adopt certain criteria that you believe

[1:14:03] are appropriate for the consideration of

[1:14:06] this type of variance

[1:14:09] and the other way

[1:14:11] is to have no criteria

[1:14:15] promulgated

[1:14:17] which would mean that

[1:14:19] you would decide the application

[1:14:21] based upon

[1:14:24] your sense of what is fair and

[1:14:26] reasonable and rational under all the

[1:14:29] circumstances and i think under these

[1:14:31] circumstances if the matter ever went to

[1:14:34] court the court would say

[1:14:37] that

[1:14:38] because there were no criteria set forth

[1:14:41] no standards set forth did the board of

[1:14:44] appeals in this case make a reasoned and

[1:14:47] rational decision based upon the

[1:14:49] evidence of record that was before it

[1:14:53] now what i've done

[1:14:55] is i'm going to hand out

[1:14:57] to the members of the board

[1:15:02] i put together

[1:15:05] some

[1:15:06] possible criteria for you to consider

[1:15:10] and these are based upon

[1:15:13] the criteria in the zoning ordinance for

[1:15:16] zoning variants but there are some

[1:15:18] differences i've eliminated some i've

[1:15:21] reworded some things that i thought

[1:15:24] might be appropriate for this type of

[1:15:26] application but again

[1:15:29] and

[1:15:30] uh

[1:15:34] can you provide one to the applicant

[1:15:39] for yourself

[1:15:44] uh

[1:15:45] so i think what i was saying is that

[1:15:49] it'd be appropriate for the board to

[1:15:50] consider this and decide you know

[1:15:53] whether

[1:15:54] you know you feel it's desirable to have

[1:15:58] these criteria as guide posts to

[1:16:02] help your analysis and deliberations

[1:16:04] moving forward or whether you would

[1:16:07] prefer to

[1:16:09] hear the evidence and then discuss the

[1:16:11] evidence and then make a reasoned and

[1:16:14] rational decision

[1:16:16] based upon the evidence

[1:16:19] and based upon the public interest the

[1:16:21] interest uh for the applicants and

[1:16:23] things of that nature

[1:16:24] so uh i think what i was starting to say

[1:16:27] is that if the matter ever went to court

[1:16:29] the court would look at did the board

[1:16:32] follow a reasonable and rational process

[1:16:35] and come to a reasonable and rational

[1:16:38] decision rational decision based upon

[1:16:40] what was presented to it

[1:16:42] so i am not advocating that you adopt

[1:16:45] these but uh i'm presenting them to you

[1:16:49] for your thought and consideration if

[1:16:51] you would feel more comfortable having

[1:16:54] uh some set standards

[1:16:56] thank you mr sussman

[1:16:58] um i think the way uh we'll proceed is

[1:17:01] to um to hear the evidence of this

[1:17:03] uh this case and then uh revisit

[1:17:06] uh whether or not we want to adopt

[1:17:07] criteria or um

[1:17:09] follow a uh reasonable rational standard

[1:17:13] at which point i'll

[1:17:14] go through some of your uh your

[1:17:16] suggestions

[1:17:18] um

[1:17:20] yeah okay so um uh mr hein uh

[1:17:23] 48 or 4008 old bayside road uh tell us

[1:17:26] about it uh first i want to thank the

[1:17:28] board for allowing me to present my case

[1:17:31] for my for the swimming pool

[1:17:33] um

[1:17:34] yeah 4008 uh old bayside road um

[1:17:38] 10 000 uh square foot uh yard uh two

[1:17:43] lots i'm very fortunate to have that on

[1:17:46] the beach uh as

[1:17:48] uh chairman said earlier on the previous

[1:17:50] case uh the average lot size is just

[1:17:53] over seven thousand square feet so i'm

[1:17:54] very fortunate that i have ten thousand

[1:17:56] square feet

[1:17:58] to work with and to to try and update to

[1:18:01] make the the neighborhood look

[1:18:03] uh uh

[1:18:04] you know to add to the beauty of the

[1:18:06] neighborhood

[1:18:09] i have four kids

[1:18:11] and i live in an area that also has

[1:18:14] other kids uh running around and uh the

[1:18:17] neighbors and i

[1:18:18] all are of the like mind that we want

[1:18:20] our kids to play outside okay we don't

[1:18:22] want our kids inside uh when it's nice

[1:18:24] out we want them to enjoy

[1:18:26] uh the neighborhood and each other's

[1:18:27] company ride bikes and whatnot

[1:18:31] well

[1:18:32] it gets hot in the summertime

[1:18:34] and uh i thought that uh it would be a

[1:18:37] good idea to uh put a swimming pool in

[1:18:39] so that the kids

[1:18:41] could have a place to

[1:18:43] convene congregate and enjoy the weather

[1:18:46] and

[1:18:47] swim in the pool

[1:18:51] every

[1:18:53] google search that i put in

[1:18:55] on the internet for the appropriate size

[1:18:57] swimming pool uh said 18 by 36

[1:19:02] what was the appropriate size for a

[1:19:03] family of six

[1:19:04] okay and what 18 foot by 36

[1:19:09] uh in in the

[1:19:10] um

[1:19:12] uh chapter 249 section 249 4c allows for

[1:19:16] an 18 foot by 36 pool

[1:19:18] uh the 18 foot by 36 foot pool is

[1:19:22] roughly 648 square feet

[1:19:26] [Music]

[1:19:27] and so when i started doing the

[1:19:29] measurements to see if i can get an

[1:19:30] equivalent in a round pool

[1:19:33] the only

[1:19:35] size or the least

[1:19:38] size that i could get to get that kind

[1:19:40] of square footage was a 30 foot

[1:19:43] round pool that gives me 706.9 square

[1:19:46] feet so it's roughly

[1:19:49] you know 60

[1:19:50] square feet more than what the 18 foot

[1:19:53] by 36 4 will give me

[1:19:55] so that is why

[1:19:57] i requested the 5 foot in diameter is to

[1:20:00] give me the square footage so that my

[1:20:02] kids and their friends wouldn't be

[1:20:05] on top of each other in the swimming

[1:20:06] pool um again we're not encroaching or

[1:20:09] even coming close to any of the setback

[1:20:12] lines or any of the lot lines um my yard

[1:20:17] allows

[1:20:18] plenty of uh pool to be put in

[1:20:21] uh we felt that 30-foot was the least

[1:20:23] amount that we could

[1:20:25] do to give our kids that

[1:20:28] that freedom in that room

[1:20:32] it will be and let me add it's not a

[1:20:35] pull from kmart or from walmart that's

[1:20:37] gonna you know possibly fall apart this

[1:20:40] is a

[1:20:40] multi-thousand dollar pool this is as a

[1:20:43] 60-year warranty anti-corrosion

[1:20:46] uh lifetime warranty and all the resin

[1:20:48] parts um this is not a pool that is

[1:20:51] gonna fall apart uh at the as somebody

[1:20:55] bumping into the side this is gonna be a

[1:20:57] stable pool that will look nice um uh

[1:21:01] and and

[1:21:02] uh

[1:21:04] you know it's not gonna it's not gonna

[1:21:05] make the neighborhood look like trash uh

[1:21:08] in my estimation based on what i've seen

[1:21:11] in the reviews and the pictures it's

[1:21:13] going to add to the

[1:21:15] beauty of the neighborhood

[1:21:19] and it will be professionally installed

[1:21:22] by a

[1:21:24] reputable installer um

[1:21:29] so i think that's all i have for right

[1:21:30] now

[1:21:32] thank you

[1:21:33] um uh mr jacobiak uh provided the board

[1:21:36] with a uh written report uh would you

[1:21:38] like to go through some of the

[1:21:40] highlights

[1:21:52] on the second page of my staff report i

[1:21:55] have a section called the property and

[1:21:57] the plan

[1:21:59] and there is a

[1:22:00] an excerpt from the site plan that the

[1:22:03] applicant

[1:22:04] that the applicant's engineer did

[1:22:06] actually

[1:22:07] um

[1:22:08] the same site plan is provided in the

[1:22:11] packet information of information the

[1:22:13] applicant provided

[1:22:16] this

[1:22:18] pool would be located on the

[1:22:21] lot adjoining

[1:22:23] the lot that mr

[1:22:25] hein has his house on as you said

[1:22:27] there's two lots side by side really one

[1:22:30] larger lot

[1:22:32] it's set

[1:22:34] back from the road quite a distance in

[1:22:36] fact it's 11 feet from the rear lot line

[1:22:40] it's

[1:22:40] set at a lower elevation too which is

[1:22:42] interesting if you familiar with that

[1:22:44] part of old bayside road

[1:22:47] the land drops off pretty quickly

[1:22:49] in fact i think the elevation at the

[1:22:51] street

[1:22:52] is about 36 feet above sea level um

[1:22:57] i'm sorry it's about 54 feet foot and

[1:22:59] then it drops down to around 36 feet or

[1:23:01] so towards the rear of the lot

[1:23:04] so it's quite a drop off and the pool

[1:23:06] would be

[1:23:07] at the lower elevation

[1:23:09] um

[1:23:10] the

[1:23:10] i would imagine although i'm not

[1:23:13] i'm pretty sure

[1:23:15] that the construction activity would be

[1:23:17] accessed through the rear alley

[1:23:19] and you could tell that by see

[1:23:22] by seeing that a

[1:23:24] rectangle at the corner of the lot that

[1:23:26] says sc e stabilized construction

[1:23:30] entrance

[1:23:31] so the the company installing the pool

[1:23:33] will put down gravel and grade that area

[1:23:36] and make it stable for bringing a truck

[1:23:38] in and heavy machinery to

[1:23:40] to grade the land a bit

[1:23:43] the applicant has proposed a uh

[1:23:46] what he's called a semi

[1:23:48] in-ground pool or

[1:23:50] something to that effect i don't know

[1:23:51] what that means and i think it's

[1:23:52] material to what you're considering uh

[1:23:54] so

[1:23:55] maybe we can get that on the record

[1:23:57] tonight to understand what that actually

[1:23:59] is going to be

[1:24:00] um i would imagine it's built into the

[1:24:02] slope a bit but i i don't know for

[1:24:04] certain

[1:24:05] um

[1:24:07] can i interject with that

[1:24:09] the um

[1:24:11] the walls are 54 inches high okay so uh

[1:24:15] it is gonna be a semi-in-ground which

[1:24:17] means that it will the the area on the

[1:24:19] slope will be flattened and it'll be

[1:24:21] about a foot it'll be about a foot into

[1:24:23] the ground

[1:24:25] so it won't be sitting on top it will be

[1:24:27] a semi-in-ground pool thank you

[1:24:32] um

[1:24:34] a lot of my memo after discussing the

[1:24:36] basic facts of this application

[1:24:38] um

[1:24:39] was focused on the criteria and you know

[1:24:43] how it is that you consider an

[1:24:45] application like this and mr

[1:24:48] sussman is

[1:24:50] happily described and advised you

[1:24:51] already on that i would only

[1:24:54] mention that

[1:24:56] the

[1:24:57] five foot difference in

[1:24:59] radius for a pool or for diameter

[1:25:02] actually

[1:25:03] makes a big difference in terms of the

[1:25:05] total surface area coverage

[1:25:08] um and currently the town's

[1:25:14] code says

[1:25:15] maximum

[1:25:16] round pull can be is 25 foot diameter so

[1:25:19] they're

[1:25:20] the applicants asking for a five foot

[1:25:22] increase it results in a 44 inch 44

[1:25:25] percent increase in the total area

[1:25:28] of the swimming pool having said that it

[1:25:32] this is a

[1:25:34] above average size lot as well so it's

[1:25:36] pretty worth mentioning that as well

[1:25:41] this is in the chesapeake bay critical

[1:25:43] area

[1:25:44] and

[1:25:45] any lot in the critical area

[1:25:49] or any lot development or a lot

[1:25:51] improvement in the critical area comes

[1:25:53] with certain conditions one of the

[1:25:55] conditions is that

[1:25:57] storm water management

[1:26:00] be addressed

[1:26:01] and the way that storm water management

[1:26:02] is addressed for small scale projects

[1:26:05] like this in a residential setting

[1:26:07] generally speaking is through planting

[1:26:09] native species on the lot

[1:26:12] and the applicants showing

[1:26:14] trees and shrubs along the rear lot line

[1:26:17] there

[1:26:19] they're required to be planted at a rate

[1:26:21] of one tree or three shrubs per 100 foot

[1:26:25] 100 square feet of new surface area and

[1:26:28] a swimming pool is a surface area it

[1:26:30] covers the lot

[1:26:32] so

[1:26:33] the applicant is showing

[1:26:35] that the critical area stormwater

[1:26:36] management guidelines are met

[1:26:38] where standards are written

[1:26:41] so i'll leave it at that

[1:26:44] happy to assist in your deliberations as

[1:26:46] you go along

[1:26:48] thank you

[1:26:52] at this point we will move into

[1:26:55] uh any testimony from people wishing to

[1:26:57] speak

[1:26:58] as proponents of this particular plan uh

[1:27:01] or name address and we represent

[1:27:04] [Music]

[1:27:10] sign in first

[1:27:12] hi everybody

[1:27:15] i'm pat mahoney from 4-0

[1:27:17] [Music]

[1:27:19] 14th street

[1:27:21] i am

[1:27:23] here to speak as a private citizen

[1:27:26] who's lived in

[1:27:28] this neighborhood

[1:27:30] for almost 30 30 years

[1:27:37] uh first i want to thank you all for

[1:27:39] your volunteerism it's it's it's

[1:27:41] extraordinary we have so many people

[1:27:43] that want to give up their evenings

[1:27:45] you know for it's just an exciting topic

[1:27:48] yeah

[1:27:48] um

[1:27:49] i'm here in support of

[1:27:52] of of mr hines application for a variant

[1:27:56] um

[1:27:58] two things i want to say you know the um

[1:28:00] i've been a neighborhood for almost

[1:28:03] 30 years i almost bought that lot so i

[1:28:06] know that a lot intimately um

[1:28:09] the hinds just came here you know um and

[1:28:12] they were a growing family

[1:28:15] and and they've done everything that we

[1:28:17] really wanna as a town and taught and in

[1:28:20] terms of just you know the you know the

[1:28:22] whole you know small town charm and

[1:28:24] people coming to raise their kids and as

[1:28:27] his family

[1:28:29] grew i believe you have four children

[1:28:30] now an adult since

[1:28:32] since you've been there

[1:28:34] they elected to stay in town

[1:28:37] to

[1:28:38] put money lots of money hundreds of

[1:28:40] thousands of dollars into their property

[1:28:43] you know so they could stay in town send

[1:28:45] their kids to you know beach elementary

[1:28:47] and be a productive you know member of

[1:28:49] our our society

[1:28:51] and they are you know the hindus are

[1:28:53] everything that we're looking for as um

[1:28:56] as town administrators we we just want

[1:28:58] someone to good people to come here

[1:29:01] raise a family you know uh keep your

[1:29:03] property awful tidy and they certainly

[1:29:06] have

[1:29:06] and they uh um

[1:29:10] so now they got a family of six and a

[1:29:11] dog and and they want a pool and i think

[1:29:14] a totally indoor pool just isn't

[1:29:16] feasible for for many reasons um

[1:29:19] and i and i think that's a hardship for

[1:29:21] them um

[1:29:22] i'm on a six kids so i know all about

[1:29:24] the hardship of having a house full of

[1:29:26] children you know trust me it it is

[1:29:29] um so there there's it's a it's a big

[1:29:31] lot big lots but there are they are

[1:29:33] limited to what they can do and i think

[1:29:36] that um you know the this would be an

[1:29:39] improvement

[1:29:40] i think it'd be improvement to our

[1:29:42] neighborhood it'll be um it'll make all

[1:29:44] of our homes

[1:29:45] you know be more viable for

[1:29:47] a would-be

[1:29:48] home buyer you know with the family

[1:29:50] which is what we we tend to get

[1:29:54] and you know quite frankly um

[1:29:56] we have a lot of children in our

[1:29:58] neighborhood it's great um a pool

[1:30:01] would keep these kids you know off the

[1:30:04] street safe

[1:30:06] staying cool

[1:30:07] i think it's a real you know win-win

[1:30:10] kind of of a thing you know you know

[1:30:11] it's good for the town it doesn't cost

[1:30:13] the town any money what he's trying to

[1:30:14] do

[1:30:15] and it'll just make our neighborhood you

[1:30:18] know more safe and and just more things

[1:30:20] for you know all these kids to

[1:30:22] to do i don't see any downside at all

[1:30:25] uh you know the hinds and and myself you

[1:30:28] know we live in a lovely neighborhood

[1:30:30] and um

[1:30:31] people want to buy in our neighborhood

[1:30:32] and i think you know the fact that we

[1:30:34] have children and stuff it just you know

[1:30:36] it's

[1:30:37] it's a plus

[1:30:39] so i would probably we're talking about

[1:30:41] 60 square feet more i would i would

[1:30:43] definitely um

[1:30:45] i do definitely

[1:30:47] support that variance i think it's a

[1:30:49] small

[1:30:50] a small action on the town to do

[1:30:53] something that's not only better for the

[1:30:55] town but better for a family that has

[1:30:58] contributed you know so much time and

[1:31:00] money into into their property so having

[1:31:02] said that thank you very much it's cold

[1:31:05] in here so i think i'm going to leave

[1:31:08] thank you

[1:31:10] thanks again

[1:31:21] all right um

[1:31:23] is there anyone who would like to speak

[1:31:25] in opposition to this

[1:31:28] thank you um

[1:31:31] in that case i believe we uh start with

[1:31:34] any questions board members have um

[1:31:38] directed to uh any party they'd like

[1:31:47] can i say one more thing i just want to

[1:31:49] clarify as far as the um

[1:31:51] the sizes here okay um when i when i

[1:31:55] uh talk about an 18 foot by 36 pool

[1:31:59] that is the size that is allowed for a

[1:32:01] rectangle pool in the coat okay so

[1:32:05] that's why i reference that size pool

[1:32:08] for that um

[1:32:09] and then the 25 foot in diameter is the

[1:32:11] round size pool so the square footage of

[1:32:14] both of those pools is very different

[1:32:17] okay uh the the 18 by 36

[1:32:20] is 648 square feet

[1:32:23] whereas the 25 foot

[1:32:26] round pool is 490 square feet so you can

[1:32:29] see the difference in square footage if

[1:32:32] i was to get an 18 by 36 full foot pool

[1:32:36] it wouldn't be it wouldn't be a problem

[1:32:39] but all of a sudden a 25

[1:32:41] uh diameter round pool is significantly

[1:32:44] less square footage so that's why i'm

[1:32:46] asking for the variance i'm trying to

[1:32:48] get to the

[1:32:50] to the

[1:32:51] the square footage that the rectangle

[1:32:53] pool allows and the 30-foot pool in

[1:32:56] diameter gets me there

[1:32:58] so that that's you know i just want to

[1:33:00] clarify that yeah i have two questions

[1:33:02] um

[1:33:04] it's my understanding that uh you chose

[1:33:06] the round uh over the square just

[1:33:08] because that's how your lot best fits

[1:33:10] a pool

[1:33:12] yes so the appeals application tells me

[1:33:15] not to get into

[1:33:16] the financial

[1:33:18] benefits okay

[1:33:21] i live on a slope like uh the chairman

[1:33:23] said uh

[1:33:25] if i was to get a rectangle pool a

[1:33:27] rectangular uh in-ground pool i would

[1:33:30] have to get retaining walls

[1:33:32] so that it wouldn't wash out

[1:33:34] okay

[1:33:36] and the quotes that i was getting were

[1:33:38] just ridiculous i mean it wasn't even

[1:33:40] feasible

[1:33:41] so

[1:33:42] they actually said why don't you get

[1:33:46] an semi-in-ground round pool and there

[1:33:49] therefore you wouldn't have to get the

[1:33:50] retaining walls so

[1:33:52] i i know we're not supposed to talk

[1:33:54] about the financial benefits of making

[1:33:56] this but i mean it was a it was a clear

[1:33:58] after that was told to me that was a

[1:33:59] clear choice

[1:34:01] yeah i think that's i think that's

[1:34:02] relevant and i don't think you're yeah i

[1:34:04] i like i said i i i'm putting my my five

[1:34:07] criteria in here i'd love to throw that

[1:34:09] in there but i'm like

[1:34:11] um other question for you is were you

[1:34:14] aware of the did you go and look up the

[1:34:17] size limits before you order the pool or

[1:34:18] did you kind of like

[1:34:20] so here's what i got no so so i had

[1:34:23] multiple contractors come out for the

[1:34:24] rectangle fiberglass pool and the

[1:34:28] um

[1:34:30] the retaining walls and after i found

[1:34:32] that that was not going to be a viable

[1:34:34] option i ordered a pool and i ordered it

[1:34:37] hastily because it was in the spring and

[1:34:39] there were sales so i ordered it and

[1:34:42] before i you know got going on any of

[1:34:45] the demo work to get it all done i just

[1:34:48] happened to get a gander at the

[1:34:51] at the uh at the code and i said oh my

[1:34:53] gosh i have to get a permit for for an

[1:34:55] above ground pool and so that was my

[1:34:58] you know and again

[1:34:59] i didn't want to put that in either

[1:35:01] because i wasn't looking for sympathy or

[1:35:03] empathy or whatever if if it was a

[1:35:06] mistake it's a mistake

[1:35:07] you know so but the fact is i i can't

[1:35:10] return it so you know it is what it is

[1:35:13] yeah thank you

[1:35:15] do any other board members have

[1:35:17] questions they'd like to

[1:35:19] mine was answered about what a semi

[1:35:22] in-ground pool so thank you yes

[1:35:25] one question are there any other

[1:35:27] above-ground pools in your neighborhood

[1:35:31] um

[1:35:32] there are

[1:35:33] there is one

[1:35:35] uh

[1:35:36] that is

[1:35:37] yes there is one

[1:35:44] um

[1:35:45] with that um i think we are set to close

[1:35:48] the hub public here i'd like to

[1:35:50] make a motion for the board to begin its

[1:35:52] uh deliberations

[1:35:54] second

[1:35:57] the board will begin uh deliberating

[1:36:00] um

[1:36:01] and

[1:36:02] to get us uh well

[1:36:05] i guess uh

[1:36:06] we can we can do it a couple ways um we

[1:36:08] can talk about the specifics of this

[1:36:11] particular case

[1:36:13] or we can go directly to criteria by

[1:36:15] which we handle cases

[1:36:17] like this where the rules are not

[1:36:22] as well defined or well laid out as

[1:36:24] other areas of the

[1:36:25] zoning

[1:36:27] standards

[1:36:29] happy to go either direction does anyone

[1:36:31] have preference or thoughts

[1:36:36] i do have a comment on the on the

[1:36:38] application um

[1:36:40] one thing i noted that i thought was

[1:36:42] strange and mr heinz pointed it out

[1:36:46] it seems that the criteria for a

[1:36:49] rectangular pool is very different from

[1:36:51] a circular pool

[1:36:55] looking at the code provision

[1:36:58] a rectangular pool if i

[1:37:01] did my calculation correctly

[1:37:05] the limits on a rectangular pool

[1:37:08] are a perimeter of

[1:37:11] 120 feet

[1:37:14] and a square area of 800 square feet

[1:37:19] uh the six foot

[1:37:22] i'm sorry the 30 foot circular pool

[1:37:26] is smaller in both perimeter and square

[1:37:28] footage

[1:37:32] so i i thought that was unusual

[1:37:36] i'll just make that comment

[1:37:46] can you repeat those again please

[1:37:49] the code the code provision

[1:37:54] allows a rectangular pool to be 40 by 20

[1:37:57] which is 120 foot perimeter

[1:38:01] and 800 square feet

[1:38:04] in area

[1:38:06] whereas a a circular pool

[1:38:10] that is 30 feet in diameter which is

[1:38:12] what mr heinz is applying for

[1:38:16] is a smaller perimeter and a smaller

[1:38:19] square area

[1:38:41] go a little bit towards the stand

[1:38:56] ad ad-hoc

[1:38:58] case-by-case basis

[1:39:04] those

[1:39:05] um

[1:39:06] i think that in this case they are not

[1:39:08] well-defined

[1:39:10] uh rules the request

[1:39:12] is reasonable but my only concern is how

[1:39:16] we

[1:39:17] deal with situations

[1:39:20] where i certainly understand and very

[1:39:23] well could have made the exact same

[1:39:24] choices

[1:39:26] events here um in my personal life

[1:39:29] i want to make sure that the board

[1:39:31] doesn't get into the position of

[1:39:34] saying uh

[1:39:35] well we did it once then we're gonna

[1:39:37] have to do it

[1:39:43] i'm not sure how you

[1:39:45] balance those two

[1:39:49] an unofficial thought which was having

[1:39:51] something to do with the privacy of the

[1:39:53] property and

[1:39:54] what the project was but that's all

[1:40:00] my gut says that this is

[1:40:02] reasonable use

[1:40:07] out of bounds it's been requested and

[1:40:14] aside from that i just like to figure

[1:40:15] out how the board moves forward

[1:40:19] our park that's too big

[1:40:22] you know something

[1:40:30] i would agree i do believe this should

[1:40:32] be done on a case-by-case basis

[1:40:36] and

[1:40:37] in this case

[1:40:38] mr hein has two lots

[1:40:41] so in my opinion that makes a big

[1:40:43] difference

[1:40:44] that he has the room to sustain this

[1:40:46] pool

[1:40:48] so

[1:40:49] um i believe it should be a case-by-case

[1:40:51] basis

[1:40:54] i agree

[1:41:00] maybe i'll make this add too

[1:41:02] and only because mr sussman might be

[1:41:05] able to add this in

[1:41:06] into the reasoning it's also set back

[1:41:09] far from the

[1:41:10] street it's

[1:41:12] quite a distance it's in the rear part

[1:41:14] of the lot line lot area and

[1:41:17] uh is actually set lower

[1:41:20] than the main street so it's not gonna

[1:41:23] what's considerably larger than a

[1:41:24] 25-foot round pool it's not as if it's

[1:41:27] in anyone's face and so obvious and it's

[1:41:30] not just any type of disruption if that

[1:41:33] were even a factor that the town council

[1:41:36] considered when they adopted the 25 foot

[1:41:38] standards

[1:41:40] the location is

[1:41:41] in size of a lot location on the lot and

[1:41:44] the size a lot of relevant factors

[1:41:51] it's even built into the ground

[1:41:52] partially so lowers it by another foot

[1:42:07] yes one mother

[1:42:09] its location and its use of the

[1:42:12] applicants use the round pool avoids

[1:42:16] much more massive grading that would be

[1:42:18] required which is something we try to

[1:42:20] avoid in the critical area

[1:42:22] and i think that foundationally that

[1:42:23] might be actually one of the most

[1:42:25] important points

[1:42:26] um that the round pull actually fits and

[1:42:31] limits the amount of

[1:42:33] on-site grading

[1:42:34] we have to do in the critical area

[1:42:38] i think it's a very reasonable request

[1:42:40] we're not talking 25 extra feet it's

[1:42:42] five feet for a pool um

[1:42:54] all right thank you everybody um

[1:42:57] uh mr sussman how

[1:43:00] do we go about doing the standards hey

[1:43:04] we don't need to do the standards well

[1:43:06] uh i think the motion should

[1:43:08] be based on what i seem to be hearing as

[1:43:12] consensus from the members of the board

[1:43:14] that the board of requests or directs

[1:43:16] that i prepare a resolution to approve

[1:43:20] the

[1:43:21] variance request

[1:43:23] will let

[1:43:25] without any conditions unless there are

[1:43:27] conditions that the board wants to

[1:43:29] oppose

[1:43:30] what i will do is i'll make appropriate

[1:43:32] findings

[1:43:33] for

[1:43:34] consideration

[1:43:37] in that case i do exactly that motion to

[1:43:39] prepare resolution to

[1:43:40] approve the variance without conditions

[1:43:43] um do i have a second

[1:43:45] oh i will second that

[1:43:47] um in which case uh we will go on with

[1:43:51] uh with the voting

[1:43:53] um

[1:43:54] as

[1:43:54] uh before um

[1:43:56] [Music]

[1:43:57] mr burch how do you find

[1:43:59] proof uh mr daugherty i approve

[1:44:02] uh miss frederick

[1:44:07] the resolution is approved for mr

[1:44:10] sussman to prepare a resolution which we

[1:44:12] will

[1:44:13] revisit at a

[1:44:15] later meeting and sign off on

[1:44:17] um

[1:44:19] with that i believe i can move to unless

[1:44:21] there's anything else i believe i can

[1:44:23] move to during the meeting and call it a

[1:44:24] day exactly

[1:44:28] thank you everybody

[1:44:43] try and keep notes every time we do this

[1:44:45] so all the stuff that i forget from the

[1:44:46] previous meeting i don't forget in the

[1:44:48] next one thank you so much

July 18, 2022 Board of Appeals

Transcript