[0:00] ordinance
[0:27] yeah
[0:34] I thought about that
[0:37] we're ready to go
[0:42] thank you
[0:51] uh all right everybody I think we're
[0:54] going to get started here
[0:55] um this is the board of appeals meeting
[0:58] 7 PM July 31st 2023
[1:02] um as a first item on the agenda we do
[1:05] have a new member joining the board here
[1:07] uh Miss Amy Everett uh welcome is there
[1:11] anything you'd like to say
[1:12] hello hi welcome
[1:16] um okay and uh I guess as a kind of
[1:21] overview to what we do here particularly
[1:24] new member and for uh the applicant
[1:28] um my
[1:30] you know assessment of what we do or
[1:32] we're the people who allow you to bend
[1:34] the rules
[1:36] um there are uh
[1:38] there is a series of uh ordinances and
[1:41] rules that are followed for new
[1:43] constructions and we are your neighbors
[1:46] our goal here is not to
[1:48] say yes or no but to find a nice ground
[1:50] to to bending those rules so um do
[1:53] consider us as hopefully uh you know
[1:55] friends and and neighbors and not uh
[1:58] some board thumbs up or thumbs down
[2:01] um okay on with it uh we are here in
[2:04] case 2023-2 to consider an application
[2:07] from Mr Ronald muffley of property 4007
[2:10] 14th Street for our variants to allow
[2:12] for the construction of a deck a front
[2:14] porch extending eight feet into the
[2:16] required 15-foot front yard uh attended
[2:19] here today are um Can someone can you
[2:22] guys answer present uh Mr Paul Doherty
[2:24] uh present Miss Amy Everett president
[2:27] and Mr Stephen sharp present we are also
[2:30] joined by town clerk Sharon hum and
[2:33] legal counsel Fred Sussman at this point
[2:36] I'll pass to Sharon or confirmation of
[2:38] posting uh posting and documents entered
[2:40] into the record uh specifically the
[2:43] application made the staff report and
[2:46] letters of support
[2:48] a public hearing for the case
[2:52] 202302 was advertised in the southern
[2:55] Maryland news for three weeks July 14th
[2:57] 21st and the 28th notice was also posted
[3:01] on the town's website the hearing notice
[3:04] was transmitted to the Planning
[3:05] Commission on July 10 2023 also on July
[3:10] 10 2003 notice of the hearing was mailed
[3:13] by registered mail to the applicant and
[3:16] adjoining property owners and notice was
[3:18] posted on the property by the Department
[3:20] of Public Works on July 10 2003.
[3:25] thank you
[3:28] at this point we will open up the floor
[3:30] for the petitioner to give their
[3:32] presentation
[3:33] Mr muscle
[3:37] hey thank you for all you for being here
[3:39] for this
[3:40] um I'm not a great public speaker so
[3:42] I'll try to do this as quick as I can
[3:44] um you did mention that the eight foot
[3:46] deck is what I petitioned my original
[3:49] application was for 12-foot deck to to
[3:52] replace the existing 12 foot so I would
[3:53] ask if you consider that 12 foot just
[3:55] since we're here why not
[3:58] um I've been in the house for three
[3:59] years part of buying the house was the
[4:01] selling point was the nice size deck was
[4:03] on the front of the house it gives me a
[4:04] nice view of the water
[4:06] it is falling down now whoever built it
[4:08] before use the wrong materials and it's
[4:11] rotten it's unsafe and it needs to be
[4:14] redone
[4:15] um I just ask that you consider you know
[4:18] the full 12 foot but obviously we can
[4:21] compromise where we need to
[4:25] yeah that's pretty much it I mean okay
[4:27] yeah uh we'll have some uh I guess uh
[4:31] we'll come back and ask you I think you
[4:33] can sit there okay
[4:35] um the board will ask you questions as
[4:37] we go through this okay um uh why don't
[4:39] you go ahead and have a seat and uh I
[4:41] will since uh our our Planning and
[4:43] Zoning administrator uh Mr Kubiak is not
[4:46] here
[4:47] um I will go ahead and read from some
[4:52] I guess a summary of his staff report to
[4:55] the board that he provided uh last
[4:57] weekend is in the record
[4:59] um and I do urge the board to please uh
[5:04] add in anything they think is important
[5:06] that I might have missed here
[5:08] um so please let me know if I have uh
[5:10] there's something important okay so this
[5:13] is from Mr jacobiak and is my summary of
[5:15] his report
[5:16] um Mr muffley applied for a zoning
[5:18] permit to replace the deck attached to
[5:19] the property as it is in a state of
[5:22] disrepair Mr Jakubiak denied the permits
[5:25] stating that only decks under 35 square
[5:27] foot are allowed to be in the front yard
[5:28] according to zoning
[5:30] um this deck pre-existed Mr muffley's
[5:32] ownership but the town has no record of
[5:34] a permit for the existing deck Mr
[5:37] muffley applied for a variance uh with
[5:39] the plan provided to the board
[5:42] um and there was a comment here um that
[5:44] there are there's an application for uh
[5:46] 12 foot variants and there's also some
[5:49] on paper for a us a deck that extends to
[5:52] seven foot of the front lot line which
[5:54] would be an eight foot variance
[5:56] um there's a requirement for a 15-foot
[5:59] space between the house and the property
[6:02] line
[6:03] um so and the um and finally the uh
[6:08] the eight foot variants would be uh four
[6:11] foot closer to the house than the
[6:13] existing deck so smaller and farther
[6:14] away from the street
[6:16] um some key points from the staff report
[6:18] by my reading is that there is a
[6:21] neighboring property Three Doors Down
[6:23] that extends about the same amount into
[6:25] the front yard of the uh
[6:27] this particular of the eight foot
[6:29] variants
[6:31] um Mr Jakubiak notes that standard
[6:33] number one uh is one we want to keep an
[6:35] eye on the one about being harmonious of
[6:37] the zoning ordinance
[6:39] um he states that the proposal as it
[6:41] stands isn't in harmony with the zoning
[6:43] ordinance as was as it would impact the
[6:45] character of the street due to the deck
[6:47] design
[6:48] he also notes that for standard number
[6:50] three the one on special circumstances
[6:53] the fact that an unpermitted deck
[6:55] already exists on this property is not a
[6:57] condition that we are to consider
[7:01] um and from my reading he seems uh to
[7:04] recommend to build a deck more like a
[7:06] front porch in style and size
[7:10] these recommendations from Mr Kubiak if
[7:13] the board approves them He suggests we
[7:15] add the following conditions
[7:17] to build a deck that includes decorative
[7:19] skirting through plant vegetation where
[7:21] the old deck was positioned to modify
[7:24] the building plan to include something
[7:26] more along the style of a welcoming
[7:28] porch and prohibit placement of a roof
[7:31] or enclosure on the deck
[7:34] can't quite remember if he put size
[7:36] recommendations on his uh
[7:39] but like any deck sizing in his
[7:41] recommendation
[7:42] um but I assume that applies to his
[7:45] recommendations apply to the eight foot
[7:48] variants as listed in the documentation
[7:50] and not the 12 foot variants the
[7:53] applicant has asked
[7:56] um at this point I'll pause and see if
[7:59] there's anything
[8:01] any other board member or or the
[8:03] applicant wants to it uh
[8:06] income question
[8:09] what was advertised in the newspaper
[8:14] very specific deck size uh in the
[8:18] advertisements
[8:20] it was for the um
[8:23] eight foot into the required 15 foot
[8:25] before it would definitely was advertise
[8:28] something the word is constrained to
[8:31] fundamentally into consideration
[8:33] that the
[8:35] notice that was given okay
[8:43] thank you
[8:51] quick look at his actual
[8:54] the actual paperwork doesn't seem like
[8:56] he
[8:57] adds any additional size constraints on
[9:00] his recommendations
[9:02] sounds like those four suggestions are
[9:06] in addition to the eight foot bearings
[9:13] uh okay uh so that uh hearing no
[9:17] Corrections of my summary
[9:19] um we can move on to a section where we
[9:22] hear a testimony from proponents of this
[9:25] particular plan so if you're a neighbor
[9:27] or a friend or have any concerns on this
[9:30] case in a positive direction please do
[9:33] come up uh to the microphone in the
[9:35] front uh announce your name your address
[9:39] generally and uh if you represent
[9:41] anybody or if you're speaking on your
[9:43] own
[9:45] oh Mr Sussman is also pointing me out
[9:48] that I will also have to swear you in
[9:52] okay you can do it um
[9:56] okay in Massachusetts
[9:58] um so this will apply to everybody and
[10:00] when you step up just state that you
[10:03] agree with this uh do you solemnly swear
[10:05] or affirm under under the penalties of
[10:07] perjury that the testimony you're about
[10:08] to give and the responses and statements
[10:10] you're about to make will be the whole
[10:11] truth and nothing
[10:14] so uh whoever wishes to speak first
[10:17] please come on up
[10:23] um okay
[10:25] uh in that case uh seeing none we will
[10:28] take testimony for our opponents to this
[10:30] plan same rules please come up
[10:32] announce your name address
[10:35] you represent somebody or that you're
[10:37] speaking on your own path
[10:42] should we read it to the record to the
[10:44] letter that was written that's a good
[10:46] idea
[10:49] though there was one proponent of
[10:54] um this particular plan
[10:56] um this is a letter from Miss Patrick
[10:58] Mahoney
[10:59] I don't know
[11:00] um stating as an adjacent property owner
[11:03] I am writing to support the request for
[11:05] variants from Ronnie muffley case 2023-2
[11:08] uh we live across the street from Mr
[11:10] muffley he's a great neighbor and for
[11:11] the first time in 30 years we finally
[11:13] have a neighbor who's investing
[11:14] thousands of dollars to improve this
[11:16] property it's improving our neighborhood
[11:18] town and our property values regarding
[11:20] this variance his requests will keep uh
[11:22] the front deck of his in line with the
[11:24] other decks on his side of the street
[11:25] he's asking for nothing out of the
[11:27] ordinary here in the older part of the
[11:28] town the streets and older homes get
[11:30] complicated as we are not a cookie
[11:32] cutter development I feel it would be
[11:34] very prudent and a display of some
[11:35] neighborly quote small town charm for
[11:38] you all to look at the bigger pictures
[11:39] right this variance has requested thank
[11:41] you
[11:43] all right
[11:45] um
[11:46] is there anything anybody would like to
[11:48] say or any questions the board would
[11:50] like to ask
[11:52] can I add a couple things so in Mr
[11:55] jacobiak's statement he said that about
[11:57] the skirting around the deck that is in
[11:59] the plan to do lattice underneath to you
[12:02] know so you can't see underneath it and
[12:04] also if you look at the picture of the
[12:05] house currently the front steps are
[12:06] narrow and those front steps are going
[12:09] to be widened to make it look more like
[12:11] a front porch would look rather than you
[12:13] know a deck I guess okay I don't know
[12:15] how you make a deck look like a porch
[12:18] yeah I have a copy of it too sounds good
[12:21] um is there anything that you he was a
[12:23] bit more precise language than I did
[12:26] um
[12:27] specifically with the leading of the
[12:29] stairs
[12:30] um I won't get into it but if you are
[12:32] you
[12:33] did you have any problems with the
[12:36] recommendations that Mr kubac made or is
[12:38] it is this the first time you're hearing
[12:39] of it oh no no I actually spoke with a
[12:41] phone last week sometime I think and we
[12:44] went over some of this stuff so yeah
[12:46] I've I had and he sent me the report as
[12:48] well so I read it yes okay so you don't
[12:49] like there's nothing you'd like the
[12:51] board did because he's making a
[12:52] recommendation we generally take his
[12:54] under advisement
[12:55] um but you're welcome to if there's
[12:56] anything in here that
[12:57] no I mean I don't I don't disagree with
[12:59] anything that he said I mean I just
[13:01] I would like you to consider the whole
[13:03] 12 foot and I understand it was
[13:04] advertisers would advertise I get that
[13:05] but I just yeah yeah I don't uh it
[13:08] sounds like we can't
[13:09] um but we can
[13:11] continue on uh this way and I believe
[13:14] you can always reappeal
[13:16] or ask for a different variance if you'd
[13:19] like to do that you can do this it's all
[13:21] over again
[13:22] um I
[13:24] uh as we haven't actually begun
[13:26] deliberations that looking at your
[13:30] the existing deck is very close to the
[13:32] front and we do we do try and take Mr
[13:35] jacobiak's recommendations
[13:38] are you serious he's been you know I I
[13:39] understand so I think this one it seemed
[13:43] like he came up with a nice reasonable
[13:44] conclusion and I think we'd
[13:47] it would be more difficult I think for
[13:48] the full 12-foot variants
[13:51] but okay
[13:53] okay if nobody has anything else to add
[13:55] at this point I will close the public
[13:58] hearing
[13:59] last call for statements before the
[14:01] board yeah
[14:02] so I'm just curious with some of the
[14:04] some of the recommendations that were
[14:06] made for this the front porch versus
[14:08] deck situation in the drawings to me it
[14:12] looks like there's actually two
[14:13] different variations of stairs being
[14:15] proposed one that goes out to the street
[14:18] kind of like right in front of your
[14:19] front door right the one that goes off
[14:21] to the side so is the side one just to
[14:25] your driveway and then there's a
[14:26] separate one that goes frontwards okay I
[14:29] just wanted to make sure that it's
[14:30] understanding the drawings
[14:32] one one
[14:37] wide like in the front it will have a I
[14:39] think it's almost six foot wide yeah
[14:46] all right uh with that
[14:49] um we are going to close the public
[14:50] hearing I make a motion to begin
[14:53] deliberations do I have a second
[14:55] a second then
[14:58] okay
[14:59] um so at this point the board will Talk
[15:00] Amongst ourselves and issue any opinions
[15:04] um
[15:05] and uh yeah so
[15:09] um
[15:11] I guess the question for the board is
[15:13] what do we think we have the original
[15:16] plan along with Mr jakubiak's
[15:19] recommendations which it sounds like
[15:21] uh that far outside of the proposed plan
[15:26] anybody have faults
[15:28] concerns yeah I'd like to
[15:31] um I read the report I agree with Mr
[15:33] kubiak's recommendations
[15:36] um
[15:36] the the ones that the one point that
[15:40] um I would make is even for a front
[15:43] front of the house even even eight put
[15:46] eight foot is pretty expansive
[15:49] um and I think a six foot would be more
[15:52] reasonable
[15:54] front of the house you know to make it
[15:57] more porch bike
[15:59] um other than that I had no other
[16:01] comments
[16:04] you know I think the standards have been
[16:06] met
[16:11] a variance would be called for it's just
[16:14] a matter of uh
[16:15] how much the variant should be
[16:26] oh did we go around
[16:28] open open open floor I mean six to eight
[16:32] feet
[16:33] two feet that's not really
[16:35] that
[16:37] it's not we're not talking like five
[16:38] foot ten feet
[16:56] you're stacking decks thank you as well
[16:59] too yeah and so yeah so I think that
[17:03] eight feet would allow him to have what
[17:05] his neighbors have correct well the
[17:07] question is whether his neighbor's deck
[17:09] has been permitted
[17:11] yeah permitted or was there a bootleg
[17:13] deck I don't think we know and I'm not
[17:15] sure if we're allowed to open that uh
[17:17] particular
[17:20] you know the fact the fact that a
[17:22] neighbor has it is less relevant than
[17:26] does it conform to the standards to the
[17:28] to the zoning
[17:30] ordinance
[17:32] you know should we Grant a variance
[17:34] against the zoning ordinance not not
[17:37] should we Grant it based on what
[17:39] somebody else has done
[17:44] my own personal opinion I'm I'm not the
[17:47] size isn't that large of an issue to me
[17:49] my read on
[17:51] Mr jacobiak's recommendations were
[17:53] mostly stylistic that it it appear like
[17:56] a front deck rather than a back deck
[17:59] place on the front of the house and
[18:02] um
[18:03] he seems to be a fairly
[18:05] based on his like historical work of
[18:07] Fairly conservative
[18:08] uh administrator and and makes
[18:11] recommendations that that follow in
[18:13] uh the guidelines as he sees them
[18:16] um I'm specifically remember what we
[18:17] just talked about with the uh
[18:20] back shed that was too close to the back
[18:21] lot line
[18:23] um and I think if he had a problem with
[18:26] the eight foot size he would have said
[18:28] so
[18:30] um
[18:32] well the pictures the examples of
[18:34] porches
[18:36] that were in the report
[18:40] um
[18:41] I remember correctly
[18:44] they looked smaller to me than eight
[18:46] foot
[18:51] I'm not exactly sure what
[18:53] what the standard is for a porch
[18:56] but if you're looking for a front
[18:57] entrance way
[19:00] it it
[19:03] there needs to be some size restrictions
[19:05] on a front entrance way
[19:08] that's why I say that's why I
[19:09] recommended six foot instead of eight
[19:12] looking at the plans that he has too
[19:14] um
[19:15] the way that architect or the contractor
[19:17] has it mapped out it looks
[19:20] familiar to a front board I would have
[19:22] to say I mean it doesn't look like a big
[19:24] massive deck you'd have in your house or
[19:26] something like that it looks it's got
[19:28] the curb appeal
[19:30] um
[19:31] and it doesn't look unreasonable
[20:02] so
[20:08] yeah I guess that falls that discussion
[20:10] falls under the minimum necessary
[20:12] variance this is one of those
[20:14] those gray areas here six or six or
[20:17] eight feet
[20:18] um
[20:19] I think at this point we could probably
[20:23] just go with an up or down when we get
[20:25] to it on
[20:26] on size of the uh of the variants here
[20:33] okay uh so it's uh six foot or eight
[20:36] foot is an issue
[20:39] any other concerns
[20:42] on either the plan or the
[20:44] recommendations
[20:51] and we're fine with the uh prohibition
[20:53] on the the uh no no enclosed decks
[20:57] doesn't look good if that's in the plan
[20:58] anyway
[21:03] all right
[21:04] um so for the standards for the board to
[21:07] hold our five-fold
[21:09] um
[21:10] first that this change is harmonious
[21:12] with the intent of the ordinance
[21:15] um that this particular application is
[21:18] permitted within the Zone which it is
[21:21] um
[21:22] is this a special circumstance and
[21:24] reasonable use for uh the lot
[21:28] um is there unnecessary hardship
[21:30] for this particular plot as opposed to
[21:33] the neighbors and is the variance
[21:35] granted by this board the minimum
[21:37] necessary
[21:42] does anybody else on the board have any
[21:45] concerns
[21:48] in these standards at all
[21:54] right
[21:56] um in that case I will go ahead and call
[21:59] for I'm going to call for two votes
[22:03] uh one for a eight foot variance and one
[22:06] foot is
[22:08] and that will be for the directory
[22:12] did I get that right six foot length uh
[22:15] six uh the deck would be six feet
[22:17] towards the lot line
[22:19] or um sorry yeah
[22:21] yeah away from that yes
[22:24] um yeah and
[22:27] um
[22:28] and once we call that vote will be to
[22:30] have Mr Sussman draft resolution uh
[22:33] continuing so
[22:35] uh I will start with
[22:39] six
[22:40] um six feet so I'm going to call for a
[22:42] vote so the vote is to allow for a
[22:44] variance uh admitting all of Mr
[22:48] jacobiak's recommendations as noted
[22:52] or a six foot variance
[22:55] um
[22:59] the variance is from So it's 15 feet
[23:01] from the street to the house and the
[23:04] variance would be the distance from
[23:07] house into that 15 foot so it would be a
[23:10] variance
[23:12] am I getting that right oh it's a
[23:14] variance um six foot variance would be
[23:16] six minus 15 so the variance would be
[23:21] that okay
[23:23] uh
[23:26] fine foot and since the house is right
[23:28] on the 15 foot line
[23:32] the other one will be a seven foot
[23:33] mirror
[23:36] either nine yeah nine foot four to seven
[23:38] yeah I'm not quite sure which direction
[23:40] the other okay we'll figure it out
[23:42] um
[23:43] okay so uh let's go around so this would
[23:47] be the six foot deck
[23:50] um
[23:50] and I'll just go around and ask whether
[23:52] you
[23:54] yay or nay on on six feet uh Mr
[23:57] Dougherty yay
[23:59] Ms Everett yeah okay Mr Sharp no no all
[24:03] right so we have two
[24:05] uh I guess that would be me too
[24:09] so are we only voting on one or you can
[24:12] vote on both I mean but ultimately like
[24:13] it switches oh so we could vote
[24:16] I guess it could I mean
[24:19] uh I kind of figured it was either one
[24:21] or the other but yeah well if you can
[24:23] clarify that I might have to reboot okay
[24:24] let's go ahead and do that again so I uh
[24:27] I think it's either six or eight so
[24:29] let's vote on six first if you intend
[24:31] to
[24:32] um allow for the eight vote no on six
[24:36] okay let's do it again uh Mr Doherty
[24:38] yeah Miss Everett nay Mr Charles
[24:42] resolution does not pass
[24:46] um
[24:46] let's do a second one for the eight foot
[24:48] depth on the deck
[24:50] um along with the same contingencies
[24:53] that Mr jacobiak noted in a staff report
[24:57] um
[24:59] okay uh Mr Doherty I will abstain on
[25:02] that one okay uh Miss Everett yeah Mr
[25:05] Sharp yeah and I will also vote yay
[25:10] that motion passes and that is a motion
[25:12] for an eighth foot uh eight foot deck
[25:16] um along with the contingencies from Mr
[25:18] Jakubiak and we will uh have Mr Sussman
[25:22] here draft a resolution containing this
[25:24] decision
[25:25] uh unless there's anything I miss here
[25:30] um in that case that is the oh okay so
[25:33] for the uh for the applicant what
[25:35] happens here is Mr Sussman will draft up
[25:37] the legalese we will get back together
[25:39] and maybe a couple weeks a month from
[25:42] now
[25:44] um depending on how quickly we can get
[25:45] back in here we will vote on the actual
[25:47] final language and once that's done the
[25:49] actual application is
[25:51] late and approved
[25:52] um
[25:54] and that is all on the agenda for this
[25:57] meeting here today so without
[26:01] further Ado I move we adjourn do I have
[26:04] a second
[26:05] all right thank you
[26:07] uh that's it thanks everybody
[26:15] I see your uh
[26:17] in the paper you have with these
[26:20] the swearing in the scoring paper that's
[26:23] going to write it down
[26:28] I know a lot of people named Franklin
[26:30] releases as well as well too I think
[26:34] Lisa's wife Frank