[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