good
morning am i good on the mic
all right uh hello everybody welcome um
this is the uh called order for the
board of appeals meeting um on july 18
2022
um
on the agenda tonight is case 2022-1 uh
by william sammons on behalf of marcus
farbstein
for 715 b street uh which is a variance
for the zoning 2919a
for the north and south side yards uh
that's the first on the dock its second
one is case 2022-2 uh for jason hein of
uh 4008 old bayside uh with regards to a
variance concerning swimming pool
diameter um at this point i believe we
will do a roll call for the board
um
so richard birch
right
paul doherty president
teresa frederick is sitting out the
first uh
the first uh item and will be joining us
later in this meeting uh steven sharpe
uh and from the town we have uh sharon
holm
and uh legal counsel fred sussman
president
at this point i will pass it over to
sharon for confirmation of the posting
and docs entered into the record
okay
the
hearing was advertised june 24th july
1st and july 8th
uh planning and zoning was notified on
june 17th
uh notified the property owner and
adjacent property owners on june 14th
and the proper the property was posted
on july 1st
darren can you repeat those please oh i
have you a sheet if if that's what you
need
thank you sharon um in that case uh
we'll begin straight away with 2022-1 um
william sammons or the agent for 1715 b
street um pass it off for presentation
um and the board is asking for a little
bit of clarification onto which
variances are being requested as there
might have been some mix-up in the
documentation
david on behalf of the applicant
who was
with me and marcus farce is actually the
property owner at 775-15
b street as to
the clarification
all mr
farbstein
associates
was here as well back in april of 2016.
we offended that on the fly at the
hearing on the record we amended the
requested
variance downward uh
what we had originally asked for was a
4.5 foot variance on the north side
which would allow the house to be set
back 3.5 feet on the south side of the
4.4 foot variance which are allowed to
set back
3.6 feet
we amended that on the fly
to
because
the lot is smaller than 7500 square feet
it allows a reduction in the in the
setback
but it can't be
less than 10 of the lot width here which
it could be reduced
uh
less than 3.2 feet so we met it on the
fly yes
it's helpful i have notes here of uh 2.8
north side
okay
2.8 so we went from eight to five point
two but on the south side the variance
was four point eight feet so from eight
feet to 3.4 uh that is all
we're seeking uh again tonight um
i know i talked spoken mr sussman i know
he had distributed to the board
the board's ruling from april 2016. i
would ask that that be submitted into
the record uh as exhibit one um
again all we're asking for is what was
previously granted i'm happy to go
through all the variance criteria
again what i would note is
i think from the perspective of what the
applicant must show the variance
criteria
nothing has has really changed on this a
lot
this thought back in 2016. in iceland
just big station i walked by this lot
all the time it was
i had to use the term flight but it was
a ram shackle
i think 1936
shack there were some zoning violations
issued to mr forrester that was how he
initially came to see me there were
concerns that the
structure was so decrepit that the
roof had so much water and i think the
town was scared the walls were going to
blow out it was going to explode
all over the place so in order to
remedy those violations we came before
the board we saw
these variances in 2017
[Music]
mr parsley began the process of having
getting the permits to
the existing structure demolished and
retaining walls installed that was
accomplished in 2018 mr clarkson could
certainly testify to that before
wishes
he hired a company of the strictly
retaining walls and they were they were
put up and the structure was demolished
as you may recall about a month later in
may 2018
there were sloughing events uh down the
steep slopes excuse me
we just want to make sure your mic is
turned on
there we go oh sorry do i need to start
all over again
you can actually sit down yeah
thank you mr tribute it might be helpful
to either sit down there or stand here
can you get closer to the mic come up
here um
so in 2018 as everyone will recall there
were the sloughing events
on the the slopes there uh
below b street going down to the
boardwalk uh running between brownies
beach and uh 17th street uh there were
stop work orders placed by the town
uh mr farbstein then had a geotech study
completed that was submitted to the town
that was approved by the town by the
third party engineer i understand that
uh the the board and the town are not
requiring another
text study uh then obviously we get into
to covet and all those delays so that's
why we're here i know the variance
expires after a year uh mr farbstein
really just wants to to pick up the ball
where he left off and and run with it
again as to the the five criteria and if
the board
[Music]
admits its previous findings into the
record i think those five criteria are
met again i'm happy to go over all of
them again
but
as we sit here today i don't think
anything has changed between april 2016
and july 2022 as far as those uh
variance requirements
go the the lot is still the same size uh
there are still
the same unique features again that i
that i can go over but we would ask that
with the admission of those previous
findings the the board uh grant the
requested variances again which are just
what uh the board
previously
uh approved so to the extent we need to
amend that on the record again we're
seeking a variance of 2.8 feet
on the north side of the property and a
variance of 4.8 feet on the south side
of the property
thank you
um at this point we will pass it over
for staff reports um from mr kubiak the
planning and zoning administrator of
chesapeake beach yeah thank you thank
you
um
the
lot is small here
it's
about 3 200 square feet just been over
that
uh the standard lot size in the zoning
district is 7 500 square feet so we're
dealing with a
non-conforming situation a very small
lot within the residential zone um
i since we have planning commission
member
board of appeals members that are new i
just wanted to
just say for the record what a setback
is and i included a brief paragraph in
my
memo
to say that the
setback is the distance between a lot
line
and the building
so every house your houses everybody
everyone's house is required to have a
side yard that's the open space between
the building foundation and
building that's the building wall in the
side property line
in this zoning district
where lots normally are larger
the setbacks are eight feet so eight
feet of free and clear between the wall
and the
lot line
if this lot were developed under those
strict conditions
there'd be a very small
footprint allowable for building
if you have a 32 foot wide lot take away
16 feet eight on each side you've left
with 16 feet of space to build a house
naturally the
zoning ordinance recognizes this and
allows for lots within with these unique
characteristics
to
proceed provided that the setbacks
are no smaller than 10 percent of the
width so we have 32 feet so the smallest
yard
smallest yard that you can have is 3.2
feet on either side
the yards that they're requesting are
bigger than that
right the yards they're requesting
are
5.2 feet on the north side and 3.4 feet
on the south side meaning that between
the edge of the building and the
neighbors property line on the north
side they'll be 5.2 feet of open space
free and clear
and
3.4 feet on the south side
it just so happens that on the north
side
that
property owner built the house really
close to the lot line and uh i was
reminded of that when i read over the
previous staff reported i think it's
within inches
of the lot line
and that was a factor for the discussion
of the previous board years ago when
this this case was heard
the applicant is proposing to have a
bigger
yard on that side
and by virtue of that is bringing the
house would bring the house further away
from that that tall
wall
um
you don't need to go far
uh to the rear of this lot before it
slopes down drastically
to the boardwalk below and the
chesapeake bay
in fact i would say the last 20 or 25
feet of the lot just drops off
precipitously
i was out there today and i noticed that
the
some construction took place uh there's
a
not illegally but as part of the
original permitted uh
plan a retaining wall that's that runs
parallel to the chesapeake bay at the
rear of the lot it holds up the
land behind it so on the b street side
of the wall
[Music]
it's confirmed up by this this retaining
wall and there's a concrete set of
stairs that walks walks you down to a
kind of a
lower platform below the wall the wall
is at least eight foot tall um i didn't
measure it but it's a tall wall and
below that is a kind of a little
platform
before it drops off again uh in the more
naturalized slope down to the the
boardwalk
if you're familiar with b street this
part of b street is quite narrow uh
it's about 12 and a half foot of
passageway through there
um
it's a condition that is
long existed in town within this
particular area while it's substandard
it's it is what it is
the house next to this on the north side
is a two-story house
it's well under 35 feet well under 30
feet tall
the house on the south side is
one story or one and a half story
structure and it's much lower
the reason i mentioned that is that
there's a
provision in the code that says that
houses within
these unique situations when they seek a
variance
they're non-conforming a lot too small
lots too small and there's
too narrow
they can
make use of these
side yards they can go up to you know 10
percent of the lot width so they can
spread the house out provided they
in this case just have three 3.2 feet at
least
but that provision that allows that also
calls for
managing the height
so that you wouldn't have in these very
narrow compact situations a really tall
structure next to two
low structures
and actually calls for averaging the
building height
among the the building so that if you're
right in the middle your
building height has to be the can be no
greater than the average of the two
on either side of you
the proposal is to build a house that
looks to me to be about 32 feet tall it
it reads as a three-story structure the
first
level is a garage and
and the front door and then there's a
level of living space above it another
level on top of that then a peaked roof
and that's on
one two three
[Music]
four five the fifth page of the
staff report i just used the elevation
that the applicant submitted and so it's
you know it's in their packet as well
but i wanted to call attention to that
um provision because one thing that i
believe you're asked to evaluate is
whether this
house
is below or equal to or below the
average
of the two
and i don't have the average
i've not done that work
it's up to the board
it's up to the applicant to persuade the
board about the standards but
i'm not sure it does
comply with that standard
so that's not to say you can't approve
the variances
but i it's a it'll be a point of
issue at site plan approval
um and
zoning permit approval
um
now the the
couple other points here
the evaluation
is a
five-step evaluation their five criteria
and while the the previous board went
through those
uh criteria uh it's important that you
as the new constituted board do the same
thing
and
and have your own chance to deliberate
on those criteria
and um
the first item is that the granting the
variance shall be in harmony with the
general purpose in intent
of the of the chapter that is the zoning
ordinance that shall not be injurious to
the neighborhood or otherwise
detrimental to the public welfare
one of the most important things that
we grapple with when there's a proposal
for any redevelopment on these
on b street because of the slopes is
slope failure and the impact of
construction at the top of these slopes
and
as the applicant's attorney said back in
2018 there was a slothing of the the
hillside to a degree that the town
actually
put essentially
a stop work order on a variety of
ongoing projects on the street and said
you
can't do anything else until we grapple
with this issue and try to figure out
how to handle it
and mr farbstein at the time was a real
gentleman he was i would say there was a
a real community-spirited person he
actually allowed the town's third party
engineer to use his property for staging
and to do uh deep uh
well drilling to take soil samples out
we really appreciated that because it
help allowed us to
to put together a plan
and as it turns out the requirement was
what the town adopted a zoning or
an ordinance change in the building code
section of the town code
and the
ordinance change
basically said that in order to get a
permit
or to continue under a pre-existing
permit you have to do a geotechnical
study and that study basically has to
find that the construction will not
impact the slope in a negative way it's
going to be safe
and so mr farbstein did that study
submitted it to the to the town our
third party engineer confirmed that the
the study was well done and it would not
negatively impact the slope
so when you think about this standard in
my natural reaction is to think about
injurious to the neighborhood i think
about that slope um
this study has been done uh it was
submitted as part of this uh package by
the applicant and it shows uh according
to the town's engineer and our third
party engineer that it will not be
impactful to the slope uh
i will say that before we so one once
that study was done we reissued the
permit to allow the construction to go
go forward but for whatever reason the
project was not constructed
um
so the house could have been built
previously it hadn't been
if the permit had been followed through
with
the um
the
the um
i guess i forgot where i was headed with
that um oh yeah the site plan
that the the town received
was modified as well in a number of
locations and um i share with you this
information as sort of an aside because
it's something that
kind of has run with this project
it was important to the town that
no water be collected on that site and
allowed to infiltrate into the soil like
you would in a normal
site where you want you don't want to
you do not want water running off of of
a typical site you want to collect it
allow it to percolate into the the
ground but up there on those steep
slopes
the last thing the town wanted is more
water to be coming into the slopes and
working its way out to push the land off
the slope so the site plan was revised
and amended
with mr fabstein's engineers to convey
all the water through piping to the
town's drainage system where it goes to
once pipe and drain and goes out to the
bay
and that process was worked out in
coordination with uh
with the county so i say that again to
say that the issue of storm water which
is often an issue of concern in building
steep slopes has been resolved
it's not a concern for the town staff
for this particular development project
and then then there are other standards
that
if the board has any questions
about as you go through the um
the hearing tonight you can ask me if
you have any questions about
what information i gave you to help you
evaluate that feel free to
um but again i i provide enough context
so that you can grapple with the
questions
but it's also ultimately up to the
the the applicant to persuade you they
have to demonstrate to you that these
standards are met but i'm here to to
guide you and assist if you have any
questions okay
thank you sure
at this point we will move into
testimony i will start with anyone who
would like to speak
as a proponent on behalf of this plan
speaker should uh step forward announce
their name and address
uh and who they represent uh or if
they're speaking on their own behalf um
we'll do proponents first and if there
are any opponents they'll come
afterwards but i will call for that so
anyone speaking uh in support of this
okay
um we'll move into any testimony from
opponents is there anyone who'd like to
stand and speak
against this
plan
once again name address and who you
represent if you'd like to speak
there's a sign-in sheet right there on
the thing if you could sign in please
board my name is kevin smith i live
adjacent to the property on the south
side
7513 b street
um my wife trish and i are here and my
mother-in-law monica
um
we're here first because
uh we were aware that there was some you
know obviously if you own a piece of
property you want to prove it a property
all for that
but the first word we heard anything
about it was a certified letter to
appear here today
and um
our concerns come here for
about i'd say three
would be
um
the
uh the setback
pushing our way we could afford it we do
have a buffer on our side much unlike
our neighbor the opposite side where
they're very close
however our fence is directly on the
property line it's already leaning in
so our concern would be when you dig a
foundation of a background in
construction
you have what is the exact number three
and a half feet on the side set back
from the property line
well that's from the foundation to the
property line
well in order to pour a foundation you
need to over dig so that a human can get
down there and put the forms in so
therefore our concerns are
you're gonna dig at least two feet human
person to get in there and put the
foundation in the forms for the
foundation
will run a compromise and compromise
that hill so we'd be concerned about the
fence
being damaged in this process
that's that's one issue
um
two
because this is the first time we heard
of it we don't know who what when where
what's going on so all we hear is
a grab of additional without any
information on what structure what size
of the structure is how high is it going
to be
no information was conveyed to us
so that's why we're here so we want more
information it's been very informative
so far
but that's our second issue
two because as we talked about here is
the slump issues
of foundation would that affect our
effect our foundation
i don't know enough i mean to answer
that once you start digging anything
could happen
but um so those are the three issues
that we have
um
with that
said those are our concerns
and we presented to the board and you
guys uh taken our concerns as the
neighbor to the right or the south side
of this property
sure should have anything else i
administered didn't cover
i didn't think she's not public
so really that that's it you know in i
grew up in
anne arundel county and you know i know
that
in the past we applied for a permit and
uh
we went door to door and conveyed that
information so we weren't broadsided and
i feel a little bit broadsided as all of
a sudden hey we want all this land next
to you and no details so that's why
we're here to gain more information with
that i'll relinquish my time thank you
thank you
once again take your time to uh write
down your name information on the book
and uh just go ahead and announce who
you are thank you
hello board my name is carlton chesson
i live on the uh
north side of um
i'm sorry i i i
i'm sorry your name slips inside
you're mr barnstein barberstein i'm i'm
sorry mr farbs
uh yeah i live on the north side of mr
fardstein's property
um i just had a uh i also have a
um background not in construction but in
uh
in um facilities
and i'd kind of deal with the
um new constructions
new constructions woes
and i had a i had a few
uh well i have a few um concerns
concerning this project due to the
this right here
this is the distance between
the house i have a three foot arm
and
you know i got
a 32-foot
lawnmower 32-inch lawnmower you know
couldn't get through there um i have uh
questions about erosion
um uh
you know with these heavy storms that we
have
uh i feel that
there could be a troughing issue
with
with it that you know close i mean the
troughing in the water
just you know going down to the back
street that's a
another issue that i had and the
a certain uh looming feature i call it
looming because like i said if they
don't average the um height of these uh
houses
uh it's it's it's gonna um
in my eyes it would directly affect the
aesthetics of the you know and
quaintness of the neighborhood with this
uh going up and down especially
you know
uh
as that's concerned and
you know because especially that close
i'm going to be literally looking up
like this
to 32 foot structure
and
you know i i i will not be going any
more than
uh two stories uh
at all but
you know
i mean he certainly has the right
but at
a distance that is
you know and like it's like you know the
town has um noted before an average
uh
an average of uh you know just to keep
the aesthetics of the um
of the uh bay front and the bay line
um
it's my lovely wife jesse did you have
any other um
hi my name is jessie chesson i'm carlton
chaston's wife
property owners with him with 75 17 b
street and the other concern that we had
was really around um fire um so
obviously being that close we still live
in a townhouse development where
um there was a fire in the development
and the fire jumped from townhouse to
townhouse and so that's our concern with
the property uh the adjacent property
being so close is that if there is a
disaster at our house's house or the
house on the other side that we
we would all become
impacted if there is any um
any damage with fire or storm damage or
anything like that it's going to easily
jump across to the properties so that's
the other thing that i would add in
addition to what my husband already
provided
thank you
good evening board my name is beverly
stewart and i live
at 7514
b street
which is
across the street and up one up the hill
on the
south side
of the property
i do want to point out that i am
a relatively new neighbor
so i was not living at the property
when
the board met originally
to make this determination i also would
like to point out that
uh
the two neighbors on either side
are new neighbors also so
they haven't either one of them hasn't
lived in the property for more than a
year is that correct obviously
august 31st will be a year for them
and
april
um for
jesse and carlton
uh so i think that um
when a decision was made
four years ago when the board made their
original determination
the viewpoint of the neighbors on
the surrounding properties could have
been very different
because there were different people
standing here making
their feelings known so i do want to
point that out i think it's important to
note
i do have a major concern
about
waiving the height limit
i think that the
average between the two which is the
current
uh
focal point of the height of the
construction i think i would like to ask
that
that average be kept in place i think
that
um
it would be detrimental to all of the
surrounding areas to
build
a structure that would be so much
greater than what was originally put
into place for
i'm sure very
specific
reasons um
[Music]
and i too have a concern um
[Music]
not for
my property but for
the smiths and the
chessons that
especially for the chessons because
their home was built i think over 100
years ago so they weren't involved at
all in the process of that home being
constructed
so it was um
it was a one level home at one time and
it was added on to but it's
it is right on the property line i mean
there is just no
um
building restriction line on their side
of the property at all
which that's just the way it was when
the house was built and they
accepted it at that point
because they liked the house so much but
if i were living
so close to a home
i would wonder too how could a fire
department be able to fight a fire with
on that side i think you're looking at
3.6 feet
to get any equipment through there
for a human to get through there when
there's a fire raging for a firefighter
to get through that space
would be
probably
impossible due to their safety
so
i i'm very very concerned about that so
i think that there
are legitimate um
concerns for in my mind for
um
there to be
a variance that's above and beyond what
the normal variance would be
um
on the sides and in the height
i appreciate your time very much
thank you
teresa frederick uh also at 7514 b
street
sorry
and um i am as a citizen here not as a
part of the member of the board
the one thing that
has been mentioned several times is the
height of the house
and
if the variance is granted for the side
yard change
there is
as it's been pointed out a height
restriction of 25 feet
or the average of the two homes
the north home north side home
does not set level
with the
house in question it sits lower
than the property
at 75.15
and so
that even will
show more heights difference between the
houses
so
the three foot three level house
is what concerns me the most because it
will definitely stick out in the
neighborhood
in that location
and
[Music]
i don't think it's within harmony of the
neighborhood
the other thing that i
um
have been
made aware of and that i question i
don't know if this is the case or not
but i believe there's
a hundred foot setback
buffer zone from the tidal water
and i'm wondering if that
house encroaches upon that at all where
it sits on the lot
but my main concern is the heights
because it's not in harmony with the
houses around it
thank you
good evening uh my name is kathleen
beralt i reside at
7409 b street so i'm not a an immediate
neighbor of 7515
but i've been on b street for 23 years
and um
and i just wanted to raise my concern
about the height requirement um
i had uh
i live next to
uh
on the
south side a new house that is
35 feet
in the center but on the edges it
exceeds 35 feet and it
uh i have a two-story house and it
almost dwarfs my house it's the house
takes the full lot
and then to
uh the north of me is a residence that
basically the mudslide when it happened
uh
was the the home next to me
and uh they have a a large swimming pool
in ground that i believe contributed to
the mudslide that then created the stop
work order along b street so i just
wanted to share my
uh i do not believe that a a house uh
over
well 32 feet
that is not average is not in harmony
with
the with b street uh this is the
original campground area and we talk in
chesapeake beach all the time about
small town charm this would be the third
um new home along b street and the
second one does not also reflect the
harmony and you know in the
comprehensive plan uh it's been
established that the the building uh
should be in harmony with the
neighborhood and
i do not believe that two previous
projects
and i don't believe this house if it
exceeds 32 feet will also not be in
compliance with that um i do have the
history of a
of uh living here where a house was
granted a few houses up a variance to go
above 35 feet
and uh
approximately i think it's eight to ten
years ago and it this is anecdotal
studies were done
the ground was yes the house can support
the variance of above 35 feet and that's
not true the the new structure toppled
all the other house um injuring the
residents in that house as well as both
of us houses
were then raised so it's it's a serious
consideration and i think uh one despite
you know geotechnical studies um i
myself uh
work on the lawn next to mine and uh i
can tell you uh on the the ground that
faces the bay
i can nail stand there and there's a
drop almost to my mid thigh
and in over the last uh 15 years i've
cut that lawn and
that didn't used to be the way so
regardless of the studies
there is a shifting and a sloping on the
hillside and
as i said i'm my my home is protected by
two large trees that i couldn't even
build within 10 feet of it and those
trees keep that structure that that hill
stabilized but i can tell you on either
side of me
uh
there's been
a swimming pool there's been a large
structure that
impacts the uh hillside
so thank you for your time
thank you
okay
thank you all for your comments um
uh procedural questions should we if uh
we have uh questions
if i have some questions for mr jacob
okay uh mr still part of the public
hearing okay
uh mr jacobia i'll start us off so
um let me just say i think that the app
can also ought to be given the
opportunity right to uh address issues
raised during public comment
uh yes if anyone like to make a remodel
please uh step forward i would
first and foremost there was a lot of
talk particularly about the the three
folks
uh towards the end the last three folks
talking about the height
we're not here seeking a variance
from the strict provisions
of
the zoning ordinance as
required
i believe it's 290 19 d2
says if we rely on that language
uh for a narrower lot
we're confined to 25 feet or the average
of the height of the two adjacent
structures
if we were seeking a variance from that
provision we would have put it in the
application and we'd be having that
discussion so i understand their
concerns but
candidly it's it's not
before the board tonight um and as the
condition of when the previous variants
was granted one of the conditions was
submittal and approval of a category two
site plan presumably that concern would
be addressed and they would mr farbstein
would have to comply with that provision
of the zoning ordinance we're not here
seeking a variance from that provision
of the zoding ordinance so while i
understand their concerns uh
it's off topic and in canada i think a
little bit of a diversion
i understand the concerns and six years
ago
we discussed
extensively
the idea and mr kubiak can give me the
show he will confirm my technical term
the canyoning effect and it has been a
concern of this board
before 2016 and i assume
going forward
wear these lots
it's very common in chesapeake beach
where what's on paper is not what's in
reality
on the ground and you get people like
the
property of the north of mr farbstein's
where they put
the structure right on the lot line
and that's where it is it's not mr
farbstein's fault it's not the current
owner's fault
but at some point somebody put that
structure right on the lot line and now
we have to deal
with with how how we deal with that
that was one of the concerns with the
board and i believe with mr jacobiak
with the previous request as originally
submitted was this cannoning effect the
narrowness
there were concerns with first
responders getting through there that
was one of the reasons the request was
amended and it's not three feet
respectfully it's 5.2 feet that's the
amount of the setback
okay the setback we're requesting is the
variance is 2.8 2.8 8 feet which is the
requirement of the zoning ordinance
minus 2.8 leads to the 5.2
side foot setback so
that concern was addressed previously
we can address it again but that that
concern was squarely before the previous
board certainly you have to address
those concerns as well uh but it's not
three feet it's 5.2 feet um
and certainly not something that was mr
farbstein's doing but he
changed what he originally wanted to do
to to accommodate what somebody did
previously uh candidly which which
shouldn't have been done and if it had
been done now uh the board i'm sure they
would have been dinged uh because they
built right on the lot line and
unfortunately
that is a
recurring issue to the point that if you
look through those findings uh from the
previous board there was some discussion
among the board uh i believe mr kubiak
saying hey we need to go to the planning
commission and we need to figure out how
to address this issue moving forward how
can how can we deal with this so we're
not doing these
variances and jumping through these
hoops to fit
uh
these types of structures
within the zoning ordinance um so that
again that issue was squarely
before for the board previously um again
i don't want to dwell on the issue of
the height requirement i think to say
that a single-family residence is not
within
harmony in that neighborhood is
frankly
absurd it's nothing but single-family
homes this would be completely in
keeping with in harmony uh with with the
nature and the characteristics of of the
neighborhood along b street there um
so certainly that uh
concerns addressed uh miss burrell i
believe talked about her belief that
that there could still be sluffing
issues respectfully there was the
geotext study which was required
by the town it was submitted it was
reviewed by a third party engineer they
found it to be completely
acceptable and that there would not be
an issue uh moving forward with that um
that was all i i really had to say about
the the concerns which were uh
raised i i will go through uh the five
variance criteria uh the first is that
the the variance show the granular
variant shall be in harmony with the
general purpose and intent of the
chapter and should not be injurious to
the neighborhood or otherwise
detrimental to the public public welfare
there's no expansion of the existing
non-conformity if there's any
certainly it's in keeping i think with
the general character and nature of the
neighborhood and the surrounding lots
and resonance there are
many it's almost all single-family
resonances uh back back through there
and uh well this may be
taller than what was previous there it's
certainly in keeping uh with the nature
uh of single-family residences
throughout that neighborhood um say
nothing the fact that this would be the
completion of a project which
significantly upgrades the neighborhood
and the curb appeal as i said what was
there in 2015 2016 was was a blighted
structure that nobody
would have ever entered voluntarily to
be honest to the point there was a
zoning violation issued mr farbstein has
taken uh steps to remedy that to build a
new structure which which possibly
impacts uh and is in keeping in harmony
with with the neighborhood uh criteria
two that the granting of the variants
will not permit the existence within a
district of any use which is not
permitted in the district as mr kubiak's
staff report points out uh this
residence is
certainly permitted uh within the
residential medium uh districts i would
also note that the
the
the residential medium density district
is meant to quote promote a pleasant and
safe residential neighborhood to allow
houses on small lots with public water
and sewer to help ensure that new
infield development and redevelopment is
compatible and harmonious with existing
residential activities and to integrate
new development with the character and
function of town through the use of
natural features to provide pedestrian
and visual linkage
that's that's what we have here this is
completely
in keeping with the purposes of the
residential medium district
criteria three that there are special
circumstances or conditions fully
described in the findings applying to
the land or buildings for which the
variance is sought which circumstances
or conditions are peculiar such lands or
buildings are not applied generally to
land lander buildings in the
neighborhood and that said circumstances
or conditions are such that strict
interpretation of the provisions of this
chapter would deprive the applicant of
the reasonable use of such land in
building
with a previous board found and what i
would again urge and argue are the
unique circumstances here
is that
the lot size
was not in it of itself unique but that
there were extreme slopes in the rear of
the yard and the retaining wall on the
front that prevented mr farbstein from
moving the new dwelling east or west
that is not
shared by lots in the other neighborhood
strict interpretation
of the zoding ordinance and application
here would result in a 16 foot wide
dwelling which would be smaller than the
previous dwelling it would not be
feasible for mr farbstein's reasonable
use of the property
i would also note that
the
that strike that
for that there exists unnecessary
hardship if the hardship is general that
is shared generally by land or buildings
in the neighborhood relief shall be
obtained
relief shall properly excuse me relief
shall be properly obtained only by
legislative action or by court review of
an attack on the validity of the
ordinance uh here i think would produce
an unnecessary hardship to not allow
redevelopment of this property which as
we discussed is peculiar due to the
steep slopes uh and the fact that a
strict interpretation would result in a
16 foot wide dwelling that would be an
unnecessary hardship uh
in that
criteria five the granting of the
variance is necessary for the reasonable
use of the lander building that the
variance is granted by the board is the
minimum variance that will accomplish
that
purpose again this is a
narrow lot with a small dilapidated
building that has uh mr farbstein has
been attempting
to
upgrade and make make look better uh
we're seeking
the minimum variance required mr
farmstead previously amended he's not
coming back he could have come back and
said we want we want
something new this is a new board let me
take my shot he's not saying they're
saying
i want what i was granted previously
which previous board found to be the
minimum variance necessary to require to
accomplish that purpose that's all we're
asking for again i'm happy to answer any
questions
thank you
there was some mention of uh
construction within the 100 foot
critical area setback again we're not
seeking a variance i i don't think
that's an issue here no construction
within 100 foot
critical area setback is is professional
so thank you
thank you everybody um
i would
like to start by asking uh mr jacubi i
could talk a little bit about the
dependencies
and kind of the order of operations here
in terms of the variances where
we've had a fair amount of talk about a
couple different things um
mostly the side lot yard which is what
we're here today for
um which seems to also have some
dependence on the house and the height
um and then also the size and how far it
is set back from the water that 100 foot
100 foot threshold which it sounds like
uh we'll all be enforced anyway how
can you give us a kind of step by step
as to how those three things
uh interplay do does the board
should the board concern itself with any
of the
height requirements at this stage or is
this something that is
going to be addressed later
it is true that the applicant is not
seeking a variance to the height
standards
the variance is focused purely on the
side yard setbacks
but it's also true that
having a taller building that's closer
than
what is generally allowed
is material
to your consideration right so
it seems to me that the building height
works its way into your deliberations
by the fact that
it's related to the
this is a physical connection that's
closer
okay
um
but the code does say
you can go up to three to three point
two feet it doesn't say
the board has to do that uh but the
board the code does sort of as a matter
of ordinance allow that
amount of incursion into the yards or
encroachment into the yards and the
applicant is staying out of that
kind of red zone uh if you will
um so anyway the whole building height i
think enters into deliberations by the
virtue of the fact that the it's the
building is closer to the side law side
lot line then generally would be the
case in the zoning district so it's
relevant
to your consideration does the taller
structure impose a burden to
neighboring properties right i think
it's a reasonable consideration
um
in terms of order
should you approve the variance or the
variances
the applicant would submit a
new site plan
and
imagine it would look a lot like
the same site plan was submitted it's
actually a competent site plan done by
an engineer
it would be reviewed by my office and
the town engineer
and we would process that site plan it
would also be reviewed by calvert county
for sediment and reversion control and
stormwater management
and if everything checks out the
standards are all met
a zoning permit would be issued
and then
the applicant can file for building
permit with calvert county inspections
and permits
and then they'd look at the construction
of the building make sure it was safe
and
um
so
that's kind of the
the ordering of approvals
sure thank you
at this point i think we are uh open for
uh questions to any of the um
anyone who's spoken here today if the
board has a question to ask before we
move into
uh deliberations
i i do have one question the
height
of the house and the original
application was it the same
yes the application that you see here
today was also
roughly 32 feet
the schematics that were submitted in
this application were also part of the
original application
in 2016 it was 32 feet
that's right that's right
yes sir to clarify you said in 2016
the board it was approved for the
variance correct
yes
what is the reason why
the construction didn't follow through
and
yeah
i
i can't answer that question but maybe
the applicant can
you know
we'd be happy to
have mr farbstein come and testify that
was what i alluded to
previously was he he did move forward
with having the existing structure
demolished
uh and the retaining wall put up that
occurred in april of 2018 in may of 2018
was when the sluffing event occurred
which put the stock the stop work order
was issued by the by the town he got the
geotech study
uh
accomplished and was allowed to move
forward back in the fall of 2019 and
then cove would happen shortly there
after the builder retired he can give
you the specifics but that's
generally why things did not move
forward just the
unfortunate confluence of
circumstances
secondly
i'll just have one
just to clarify what's the feat that you
said there was a change in what we see
on the agenda is that right
that that's correct i believe it was
submitted was what the original
application
that was submitted back in 2016
um
that is not what we're currently seeking
we're seeking what was approved in 2016
which is on the north side of variance
of
2.8 feet from the required
eight feet
of setback so the setback will actually
be 5.2 feet on the southern side we're
seeking
a variance of four point eight feet from
the required eight feet so the si the
side setback on the south side will be
3.4 feet
and i think it's worthwhile noting that
the
footprint
of the proposed structure
will at least in the side yards will
match
the one that was removed
and so the building will get no closer
to the side yard lines than it
previously previously was
when they first they applied for
variance to build a wider house and the
board of appeals stepped them back and
it was a collaborative effort i mean
they ultimately say okay yeah we'll
accept that so they built a house as
wide as the current or the house that
used to be there
with one exception
along the south side uh
the previous house the smaller house
actually the
the buildings
ran
perpendicular you know towards the bay
and then it jogged in
and then it continued back towards the
lot
the current proposal would carry that
same foundation wall all the way to the
back
of the back of the house
so there's more area that's covered by
the house and the house would actually
be built closer to the
front to to b street than
the old house that existed
otherwise with respect to the side yards
they're maintaining those side yards
thank you
uh okay um
if there are no more questions or
comments
uh we will um close the public hearing
i'd like to
uh make a motion am i missing anything
oh right okay um i guess the before we
move into closing deliberations um there
is a question
of whether or not the board wants to do
a site visit uh to this particular
um it sounds like the gist of it is that
our site visit would be considered part
of this uh meeting here and that it
would be uh part of the public record um
at which case we go we look we come back
we deliver it here and then we close
down
um
i will leave it uh well i guess i'll
pass it off to the rest of the board as
to whether or not they think they have
enough information
uh with the reports and uh
photographs that have been provided
to understand
this particular case or whether a site
visit to
the lot
and our role as the appeals board is
warranted
i i don't feel that i need a site visit
okay thank you
um in that case i'll make a motion to uh
close the public hearing and begin
deliberations do i have a second
i'll second that thank you
um the public hearing is closed um at
this point the board will deliberate and
uh
i guess as a
matter of um
just getting started uh the standards we
seek to hold here are
as i've been mentioned fivefold um is
the request harmonious and not injurious
um
is that's
criteria one uh number two is it
permitted within the zoning district uh
three are there any special
circumstances uh a reasonable use that
that
make this um this is a reasonable use of
the uh
site and the plan
um is there any unnecessary hardship
that exists to this
specific plan as proposed the board and
is this also the minimum
necessary change the variance required
in order to fulfill
uh so i will pause there and we can uh
open up discussion however
i guess uh i'll i'll happily start us
off and i'll let you guys shoot me down
if uh
wrong um
i hear and thank uh the audience who
attended for all of their thoughts um
your concerns are
aren't hidden i would be
concerned as well if this were my
property whether or not uh i was the
owner or the neighbor
um
reading through the history of this
particular
uh cases it seems interesting because a
lot of stuff happened predated us
and uh i think in a lot of ways we want
to make a decision where
we're kind of jumping in halfway and and
trying to understand the whole picture
where
sounds like there was a lot of work that
needed to be done
goals of this board i think not to
deprive the use of that property but to
make it
reasonable while also taking the
concerns of the neighbors
the engineers
i find that the hardest bar to jump
would be to
make a stricter constraint on the side
yards than the one that was already
approved by the previous board i'm not
saying i won't take arguments for it but
that seems to be
the hardest leap
previous board had reasons
and a similar plan as was provided
i think the question is whether or not
than that
and of course there's a whole bunch
about the
we don't need to get into first
i i would agree with that
um
the the conditions
from what i can tell
are essentially the same as the 2016
application
and that application was approved
so
applying different
criteria now
uh would not be appropriate
as uh the chairman said or as the
chairman phrased it
um
different criteria or stricter criteria
i don't think would be uh
the the right way
to approach this
i do agree with that also if this was
approved
in 2016
more restrictions to it
doesn't leave a whole lot of
room on the sides so
i do understand the
access
from the mercy
services fire department
be concerned
i agree with the um
for the fire you know apparatus to get
there that's um
that's difficult and um
before the neighbor's house goes up in
flames it's gonna be a massive fire and
could be
casualties
um
i understand that the previous board
did go forward with it however
this report
obviously
we have thoughts at all on how
the side lot line side lock
distance affects the height
actually
we don't want to impose any additional
restrictions
or
statements uh
about the the building height
in relation to the
the variance that's been requested
no i have no uh additional comment on
that
really the
size
of the requirements on the side
or is there any is there anything you
guys know
be ready to take a uh down boat
on camera i was saying that i think the
way the board ought to proceed
is that
uh
when you come time to make a motion the
motion be made either to approve or
reject
or to to direct the
counsel to the board to
prepare a resolution either approving or
denying the application in which case if
that motion passes then i will prepare a
draft resolution and circulate it to the
board members
for comments and questions and if it's
acceptable to the board members then you
all can
reconvene for a couple minutes to
approve the resolution in open session
all right in that case i think following
mr sussman's advice um i'll initiate a
motion to
uh draft a resolution uh to approve the
requested variances here today
but i guess we can
uh go around and
are doing it
i'll second that
uh i will go around and ask
uh the board members um
whether they approve or not and uh
if i may uh there's the issue of
conditions and whether
the board would like to impose uh if the
motion to approve passes
where uh whether the members of the
board would like to impose the same
conditions as in 2016 different
conditions or no conditions
so to give me guidance in the
preparation resolution
right um in that case the as mr sussman
mentioned the um
do we have thoughts on this before we uh
move into it on the conditions should we
use the what was already laid out in
2016 by the appeals board
um it doesn't sound like anyone has new
conditions they'd like to impose but
perhaps
that or
is this variance granted unconditionally
i have no new or or uh
additional
conditions same conditions same
conditions okay all right in that case
the motion uh seeking a second is to
draft a resolution to approve the same
conditions as were passed by the board
in 2016. do i have a second on that i'll
second that
um and i will go around
and ask each member uh how they vote uh
mr burch
you approve
i i approve
uh mr doherty i approve mr sharp no
no deny all right thank you um
in this case uh the motion is approved
scenarios
um so in that case
what's the vote right now
well the i think you need three vote to
pass the pass all right um i uh approve
in that case
spokesman to
draw raft resolution which we will uh
revisit
a future meeting
with that i believe
we are wrapping up the end of case 22-1
thank you everybody who has participated
thank you all very much
we will continue on to case 20
22-2
but let's take five
[Music]
do you feel them
[Music]
see you again
should we do this
yeah
about everything's a one-off
yeah i'm not sure
that's uh yeah let's get it
okay well uh i said five but it looks
like
go ahead and get started here and uh
wrap this up
case number 2022-2
uh let's see here
um
so
uh in this case uh i will pass to the
petitioner for presentation which is uh
mr jason hein of 4008 old bayside oh
uh and we uh
are reconvening the uh the board of
appeals here
um
and are passing to the petitioner uh for
their presentation um
pass to mr sussman thank you mr chairman
uh
this is an
unusual
case because it is an application for a
variance to some swimming pool
regulations it's not an application for
a variance to the zoning ordinance into
the zoning code
i'm getting excited again by the clerk
about not speaking into the microphone
so uh as i was saying this is
an unusual uh case because it seeks a
variance
uh to certain swimming pool regulations
not a variant to the zoning ordinance of
his learning code
if it were
a
proceeding for a variance under the
zoning ordinance
then the zoning ordinance sets forth
various criteria that the applicant has
to prove and the board has to find in
order to
adopt or approve the requested variants
but curiously in the swimming pool
regulations there are no standards or
there are no criteria about
what the applicant has to prove or and
what the board has to find before a
variant can be granted
so there are a couple ways to deal with
this uh and i was speaking with the
chair before the meeting and we just
want to bring it to the members of the
board
uh one way
is to for the board on an ad hoc basis
tonight
to
adopt certain criteria that you believe
are appropriate for the consideration of
this type of variance
and the other way
is to have no criteria
promulgated
which would mean that
you would decide the application
based upon
your sense of what is fair and
reasonable and rational under all the
circumstances and i think under these
circumstances if the matter ever went to
court the court would say
that
because there were no criteria set forth
no standards set forth did the board of
appeals in this case make a reasoned and
rational decision based upon the
evidence of record that was before it
now what i've done
is i'm going to hand out
to the members of the board
i put together
some
possible criteria for you to consider
and these are based upon
the criteria in the zoning ordinance for
zoning variants but there are some
differences i've eliminated some i've
reworded some things that i thought
might be appropriate for this type of
application but again
and
uh
can you provide one to the applicant
for yourself
uh
so i think what i was saying is that
it'd be appropriate for the board to
consider this and decide you know
whether
you know you feel it's desirable to have
these criteria as guide posts to
help your analysis and deliberations
moving forward or whether you would
prefer to
hear the evidence and then discuss the
evidence and then make a reasoned and
rational decision
based upon the evidence
and based upon the public interest the
interest uh for the applicants and
things of that nature
so uh i think what i was starting to say
is that if the matter ever went to court
the court would look at did the board
follow a reasonable and rational process
and come to a reasonable and rational
decision rational decision based upon
what was presented to it
so i am not advocating that you adopt
these but uh i'm presenting them to you
for your thought and consideration if
you would feel more comfortable having
uh some set standards
thank you mr sussman
um i think the way uh we'll proceed is
to um to hear the evidence of this
uh this case and then uh revisit
uh whether or not we want to adopt
criteria or um
follow a uh reasonable rational standard
at which point i'll
go through some of your uh your
suggestions
um
yeah okay so um uh mr hein uh
48 or 4008 old bayside road uh tell us
about it uh first i want to thank the
board for allowing me to present my case
for my for the swimming pool
um
yeah 4008 uh old bayside road um
10 000 uh square foot uh yard uh two
lots i'm very fortunate to have that on
the beach uh as
uh chairman said earlier on the previous
case uh the average lot size is just
over seven thousand square feet so i'm
very fortunate that i have ten thousand
square feet
to work with and to to try and update to
make the the neighborhood look
uh uh
you know to add to the beauty of the
neighborhood
i have four kids
and i live in an area that also has
other kids uh running around and uh the
neighbors and i
all are of the like mind that we want
our kids to play outside okay we don't
want our kids inside uh when it's nice
out we want them to enjoy
uh the neighborhood and each other's
company ride bikes and whatnot
well
it gets hot in the summertime
and uh i thought that uh it would be a
good idea to uh put a swimming pool in
so that the kids
could have a place to
convene congregate and enjoy the weather
and
swim in the pool
every
google search that i put in
on the internet for the appropriate size
swimming pool uh said 18 by 36
what was the appropriate size for a
family of six
okay and what 18 foot by 36
uh in in the
um
uh chapter 249 section 249 4c allows for
an 18 foot by 36 pool
uh the 18 foot by 36 foot pool is
roughly 648 square feet
[Music]
and so when i started doing the
measurements to see if i can get an
equivalent in a round pool
the only
size or the least
size that i could get to get that kind
of square footage was a 30 foot
round pool that gives me 706.9 square
feet so it's roughly
you know 60
square feet more than what the 18 foot
by 36 4 will give me
so that is why
i requested the 5 foot in diameter is to
give me the square footage so that my
kids and their friends wouldn't be
on top of each other in the swimming
pool um again we're not encroaching or
even coming close to any of the setback
lines or any of the lot lines um my yard
allows
plenty of uh pool to be put in
uh we felt that 30-foot was the least
amount that we could
do to give our kids that
that freedom in that room
it will be and let me add it's not a
pull from kmart or from walmart that's
gonna you know possibly fall apart this
is a
multi-thousand dollar pool this is as a
60-year warranty anti-corrosion
uh lifetime warranty and all the resin
parts um this is not a pool that is
gonna fall apart uh at the as somebody
bumping into the side this is gonna be a
stable pool that will look nice um uh
and and
uh
you know it's not gonna it's not gonna
make the neighborhood look like trash uh
in my estimation based on what i've seen
in the reviews and the pictures it's
going to add to the
beauty of the neighborhood
and it will be professionally installed
by a
reputable installer um
so i think that's all i have for right
now
thank you
um uh mr jacobiak uh provided the board
with a uh written report uh would you
like to go through some of the
highlights
on the second page of my staff report i
have a section called the property and
the plan
and there is a
an excerpt from the site plan that the
applicant
that the applicant's engineer did
actually
um
the same site plan is provided in the
packet information of information the
applicant provided
this
pool would be located on the
lot adjoining
the lot that mr
hein has his house on as you said
there's two lots side by side really one
larger lot
it's set
back from the road quite a distance in
fact it's 11 feet from the rear lot line
it's
set at a lower elevation too which is
interesting if you familiar with that
part of old bayside road
the land drops off pretty quickly
in fact i think the elevation at the
street
is about 36 feet above sea level um
i'm sorry it's about 54 feet foot and
then it drops down to around 36 feet or
so towards the rear of the lot
so it's quite a drop off and the pool
would be
at the lower elevation
um
the
i would imagine although i'm not
i'm pretty sure
that the construction activity would be
accessed through the rear alley
and you could tell that by see
by seeing that a
rectangle at the corner of the lot that
says sc e stabilized construction
entrance
so the the company installing the pool
will put down gravel and grade that area
and make it stable for bringing a truck
in and heavy machinery to
to grade the land a bit
the applicant has proposed a uh
what he's called a semi
in-ground pool or
something to that effect i don't know
what that means and i think it's
material to what you're considering uh
so
maybe we can get that on the record
tonight to understand what that actually
is going to be
um i would imagine it's built into the
slope a bit but i i don't know for
certain
um
can i interject with that
the um
the walls are 54 inches high okay so uh
it is gonna be a semi-in-ground which
means that it will the the area on the
slope will be flattened and it'll be
about a foot it'll be about a foot into
the ground
so it won't be sitting on top it will be
a semi-in-ground pool thank you
um
a lot of my memo after discussing the
basic facts of this application
um
was focused on the criteria and you know
how it is that you consider an
application like this and mr
sussman is
happily described and advised you
already on that i would only
mention that
the
five foot difference in
radius for a pool or for diameter
actually
makes a big difference in terms of the
total surface area coverage
um and currently the town's
code says
maximum
round pull can be is 25 foot diameter so
they're
the applicants asking for a five foot
increase it results in a 44 inch 44
percent increase in the total area
of the swimming pool having said that it
this is a
above average size lot as well so it's
pretty worth mentioning that as well
this is in the chesapeake bay critical
area
and
any lot in the critical area
or any lot development or a lot
improvement in the critical area comes
with certain conditions one of the
conditions is that
storm water management
be addressed
and the way that storm water management
is addressed for small scale projects
like this in a residential setting
generally speaking is through planting
native species on the lot
and the applicants showing
trees and shrubs along the rear lot line
there
they're required to be planted at a rate
of one tree or three shrubs per 100 foot
100 square feet of new surface area and
a swimming pool is a surface area it
covers the lot
so
the applicant is showing
that the critical area stormwater
management guidelines are met
where standards are written
so i'll leave it at that
happy to assist in your deliberations as
you go along
thank you
at this point we will move into
uh any testimony from people wishing to
speak
as proponents of this particular plan uh
or name address and we represent
[Music]
sign in first
hi everybody
i'm pat mahoney from 4-0
[Music]
14th street
i am
here to speak as a private citizen
who's lived in
this neighborhood
for almost 30 30 years
uh first i want to thank you all for
your volunteerism it's it's it's
extraordinary we have so many people
that want to give up their evenings
you know for it's just an exciting topic
yeah
um
i'm here in support of
of of mr hines application for a variant
um
two things i want to say you know the um
i've been a neighborhood for almost
30 years i almost bought that lot so i
know that a lot intimately um
the hinds just came here you know um and
they were a growing family
and and they've done everything that we
really wanna as a town and taught and in
terms of just you know the you know the
whole you know small town charm and
people coming to raise their kids and as
his family
grew i believe you have four children
now an adult since
since you've been there
they elected to stay in town
to
put money lots of money hundreds of
thousands of dollars into their property
you know so they could stay in town send
their kids to you know beach elementary
and be a productive you know member of
our our society
and they are you know the hindus are
everything that we're looking for as um
as town administrators we we just want
someone to good people to come here
raise a family you know uh keep your
property awful tidy and they certainly
have
and they uh um
so now they got a family of six and a
dog and and they want a pool and i think
a totally indoor pool just isn't
feasible for for many reasons um
and i and i think that's a hardship for
them um
i'm on a six kids so i know all about
the hardship of having a house full of
children you know trust me it it is
um so there there's it's a it's a big
lot big lots but there are they are
limited to what they can do and i think
that um you know the this would be an
improvement
i think it'd be improvement to our
neighborhood it'll be um it'll make all
of our homes
you know be more viable for
a would-be
home buyer you know with the family
which is what we we tend to get
and you know quite frankly um
we have a lot of children in our
neighborhood it's great um a pool
would keep these kids you know off the
street safe
staying cool
i think it's a real you know win-win
kind of of a thing you know you know
it's good for the town it doesn't cost
the town any money what he's trying to
do
and it'll just make our neighborhood you
know more safe and and just more things
for you know all these kids to
to do i don't see any downside at all
uh you know the hinds and and myself you
know we live in a lovely neighborhood
and um
people want to buy in our neighborhood
and i think you know the fact that we
have children and stuff it just you know
it's
it's a plus
so i would probably we're talking about
60 square feet more i would i would
definitely um
i do definitely
support that variance i think it's a
small
a small action on the town to do
something that's not only better for the
town but better for a family that has
contributed you know so much time and
money into into their property so having
said that thank you very much it's cold
in here so i think i'm going to leave
thank you
thanks again
all right um
is there anyone who would like to speak
in opposition to this
thank you um
in that case i believe we uh start with
any questions board members have um
directed to uh any party they'd like
can i say one more thing i just want to
clarify as far as the um
the sizes here okay um when i when i
uh talk about an 18 foot by 36 pool
that is the size that is allowed for a
rectangle pool in the coat okay so
that's why i reference that size pool
for that um
and then the 25 foot in diameter is the
round size pool so the square footage of
both of those pools is very different
okay uh the the 18 by 36
is 648 square feet
whereas the 25 foot
round pool is 490 square feet so you can
see the difference in square footage if
i was to get an 18 by 36 full foot pool
it wouldn't be it wouldn't be a problem
but all of a sudden a 25
uh diameter round pool is significantly
less square footage so that's why i'm
asking for the variance i'm trying to
get to the
to the
the square footage that the rectangle
pool allows and the 30-foot pool in
diameter gets me there
so that that's you know i just want to
clarify that yeah i have two questions
um
it's my understanding that uh you chose
the round uh over the square just
because that's how your lot best fits
a pool
yes so the appeals application tells me
not to get into
the financial
benefits okay
i live on a slope like uh the chairman
said uh
if i was to get a rectangle pool a
rectangular uh in-ground pool i would
have to get retaining walls
so that it wouldn't wash out
okay
and the quotes that i was getting were
just ridiculous i mean it wasn't even
feasible
so
they actually said why don't you get
an semi-in-ground round pool and there
therefore you wouldn't have to get the
retaining walls so
i i know we're not supposed to talk
about the financial benefits of making
this but i mean it was a it was a clear
after that was told to me that was a
clear choice
yeah i think that's i think that's
relevant and i don't think you're yeah i
i like i said i i i'm putting my my five
criteria in here i'd love to throw that
in there but i'm like
um other question for you is were you
aware of the did you go and look up the
size limits before you order the pool or
did you kind of like
so here's what i got no so so i had
multiple contractors come out for the
rectangle fiberglass pool and the
um
the retaining walls and after i found
that that was not going to be a viable
option i ordered a pool and i ordered it
hastily because it was in the spring and
there were sales so i ordered it and
before i you know got going on any of
the demo work to get it all done i just
happened to get a gander at the
at the uh at the code and i said oh my
gosh i have to get a permit for for an
above ground pool and so that was my
you know and again
i didn't want to put that in either
because i wasn't looking for sympathy or
empathy or whatever if if it was a
mistake it's a mistake
you know so but the fact is i i can't
return it so you know it is what it is
yeah thank you
do any other board members have
questions they'd like to
mine was answered about what a semi
in-ground pool so thank you yes
one question are there any other
above-ground pools in your neighborhood
um
there are
there is one
uh
that is
yes there is one
um
with that um i think we are set to close
the hub public here i'd like to
make a motion for the board to begin its
uh deliberations
second
the board will begin uh deliberating
um
and
to get us uh well
i guess uh
we can we can do it a couple ways um we
can talk about the specifics of this
particular case
or we can go directly to criteria by
which we handle cases
like this where the rules are not
as well defined or well laid out as
other areas of the
zoning
standards
happy to go either direction does anyone
have preference or thoughts
i do have a comment on the on the
application um
one thing i noted that i thought was
strange and mr heinz pointed it out
it seems that the criteria for a
rectangular pool is very different from
a circular pool
looking at the code provision
a rectangular pool if i
did my calculation correctly
the limits on a rectangular pool
are a perimeter of
120 feet
and a square area of 800 square feet
uh the six foot
i'm sorry the 30 foot circular pool
is smaller in both perimeter and square
footage
so i i thought that was unusual
i'll just make that comment
can you repeat those again please
the code the code provision
allows a rectangular pool to be 40 by 20
which is 120 foot perimeter
and 800 square feet
in area
whereas a a circular pool
that is 30 feet in diameter which is
what mr heinz is applying for
is a smaller perimeter and a smaller
square area
go a little bit towards the stand
ad ad-hoc
case-by-case basis
those
um
i think that in this case they are not
well-defined
uh rules the request
is reasonable but my only concern is how
we
deal with situations
where i certainly understand and very
well could have made the exact same
choices
events here um in my personal life
i want to make sure that the board
doesn't get into the position of
saying uh
well we did it once then we're gonna
have to do it
i'm not sure how you
balance those two
an unofficial thought which was having
something to do with the privacy of the
property and
what the project was but that's all
my gut says that this is
reasonable use
out of bounds it's been requested and
aside from that i just like to figure
out how the board moves forward
our park that's too big
you know something
i would agree i do believe this should
be done on a case-by-case basis
and
in this case
mr hein has two lots
so in my opinion that makes a big
difference
that he has the room to sustain this
pool
so
um i believe it should be a case-by-case
basis
i agree
maybe i'll make this add too
and only because mr sussman might be
able to add this in
into the reasoning it's also set back
far from the
street it's
quite a distance it's in the rear part
of the lot line lot area and
uh is actually set lower
than the main street so it's not gonna
what's considerably larger than a
25-foot round pool it's not as if it's
in anyone's face and so obvious and it's
not just any type of disruption if that
were even a factor that the town council
considered when they adopted the 25 foot
standards
the location is
in size of a lot location on the lot and
the size a lot of relevant factors
it's even built into the ground
partially so lowers it by another foot
yes one mother
its location and its use of the
applicants use the round pool avoids
much more massive grading that would be
required which is something we try to
avoid in the critical area
and i think that foundationally that
might be actually one of the most
important points
um that the round pull actually fits and
limits the amount of
on-site grading
we have to do in the critical area
i think it's a very reasonable request
we're not talking 25 extra feet it's
five feet for a pool um
all right thank you everybody um
uh mr sussman how
do we go about doing the standards hey
we don't need to do the standards well
uh i think the motion should
be based on what i seem to be hearing as
consensus from the members of the board
that the board of requests or directs
that i prepare a resolution to approve
the
variance request
will let
without any conditions unless there are
conditions that the board wants to
oppose
what i will do is i'll make appropriate
findings
for
consideration
in that case i do exactly that motion to
prepare resolution to
approve the variance without conditions
um do i have a second
oh i will second that
um in which case uh we will go on with
uh with the voting
um
as
uh before um
[Music]
mr burch how do you find
proof uh mr daugherty i approve
uh miss frederick
the resolution is approved for mr
sussman to prepare a resolution which we
will
revisit at a
later meeting and sign off on
um
with that i believe i can move to unless
there's anything else i believe i can
move to during the meeting and call it a
day exactly
thank you everybody
try and keep notes every time we do this
so all the stuff that i forget from the
previous meeting i don't forget in the
next one thank you so much