►
From YouTube: December 7, 2021 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Go
ahead,
okay,
good
evening,
ladies
and
gentlemen,
make
sure
everybody
call
the
order.
The
city
of
ithaca
boarding
of
zoning
appeals
meeting
for
december
7
2021
the
board
operates
under
the
provisions
of
the
ithaca
city
charter,
ithaca,
zoning
ordinance,
ithaca
sign
ordinance
and
the
board's
own
rules
of
procedure.
A
The
board
comprises
five
members
nominated
by
the
mayor,
approved
by
common
council
board.
Members
present
tonight
are
stephen
henderson,
stephanie
egan
angles
mike
and
cannon,
as
well
as
assistant
city
attorney,
victor
cres,
kessler
and
zoning
administrator
megan
wilson
staff
of
the
board.
I'm
david
bark,
an
acting
chairperson
of
the
board.
The
secretary
to
the
board
megan
wilson,
will
call
each
case
in
the
order
listed
on
the
agenda.
Appellants
will
then
have
a
maximum
of
five
minutes
to
present
new
material
or
highlight
aspects
of
their
appeal
board.
Members
may
question
appellants
on
any
areas
requiring
clarification.
A
Full
consideration
of
appeals
requires
a
public
hearing
deliberation
and
then
voting
by
the
board.
These
actions
occur
only
after
the
appel
has
filed
appropriate
documents
with
the
zoning
division
and
planning
board.
Public
hearings
include
testimony
from
interested
parties.
The
board
considers
interested
parties,
persons
who
live,
work
or
own
property
within
750
feet
of
the
property
or
authorized
representatives
of
recognized
adjacent
neighborhood,
civic
groups
or
who
are
elected
city
officials
board
members
may
question
testifying
interesting
parties
on
any
areas
requiring
clarification.
A
Parties
who
do
not
meet
the
board's
interest
party
definition
will
not
be
heard.
Comments
are
limited
to
three
minutes.
Appellants
will
then
be
allowed
to
rebut
opposing
testimony,
but
appellants
comments
must
be
limited
to
strict
rebuttal
of
the
issues
raised
by
those
opposed
and
will
be
limited
to
five
minutes.
A
timer
will
sound
at
the
end
of
each
speaker's
allotted
time.
A
While
we
do
not
adhere
to
strict
rules
of
evidence.
We
do
consider
this
a
quasi-judicial
proceeding
when
we
base
our
decisions
on
the
official
record.
The
official
record
consists
of
application
materials
filed
with
the
zoning
division
correspondence
relating
to
cases
received
by
the
zoning
division,
the
planning
and
development
board's
own
findings
and
recommendations.
If
any
in
the
record
of
tonight's
meeting,
an
audio
recording
is
being
made
at
this
meeting.
Therefore,
it
is
essential
anyone
wanting
to
be
heard
speaks
clearly,
so
their
comments
are
recorded
and
heard
by
everyone.
A
Extraneous
comments
will
neither
be
recorded
nor
considered
by
the
board.
We
ask
everyone
to
limit
their
comments
to
the
zoning
issues
of
each
appeal
and
not
comment
on
letters
beyond
the
board's
jurisdiction
following
the
appellant
rebuttal,
the
appeal
hearing
will
be
closed
and
the
board
will
begin
deliberation.
A
The
board
is
required
to
render
a
decision
within
62
days
of
the
public
hearings
closure
once
the
hearing
is
closed.
No
further
testimony
will
be
taken.
It
takes
three
votes
to
approve
a
motion
to
grant
a
variance
or
favorable
interpretation
in
the
event
of
a
tie
vote,
an
appeal
is
denied
tonight's
online
reading
format
requires
us
to
manage
public
comment
differently,
but
the
board
still
welcomes
input
from
interested
parties.
A
Tonight's
appeals
are
available
for
public
review
on
the
city
website
and
the
meeting
is
being
streamed
via
online
youtube.
Interested
parties
are
welcome
to
address
the
board
as
part
of
this
online
meeting
or
may
sub,
submit
written
comments
to
be
read
into
the
record
during
the
public
hearing
megan.
Would
you
kindly
call
our
first
case.
B
The
consolidated
parcel
will
be
located
in
two
zoning
districts:
cr3
in
the
northern
portion
of
the
ala.
The
original
325
dryden
road
parcel
in
cr2
in
the
southern
portion
of
the
lot.
The
320
elmwood
avenue
parcel
the
applicant
proposes
to
construct
a
new
multiple
dwelling
in
the
cr3
district
and
a
new
two-family
dwelling
in
the
cr2
district.
The
consolidated
site
has
sufficient
lot
area
to
allow
two
primary
structures.
On
the
same
parcel,
however,
the
proposed
project
creates
multiple
area
deficiencies
off
street
parking.
B
The
proposed
project
includes
one
one:
bedroom
apartment,
nine,
two
bedroom
apartments,
two
three
bedroom
apartments
in
one
four
bedroom
apartment.
This
combination
of
units
requires
14
off
street
parking
spaces
and
the
applicant
proposes
to
construct
four
spaces
coverage
by
buildings.
Lot
coverage
by
buildings
is
calculated
for
the
portion
of
the
lot
of
the
building
and
lot
in
each
zone,
not
as
a
consolidated
lot.
The
lot
coverage
by
buildings
in
the
cr3
zone
is
53,
which
exceeds
the
maximum
40
percent
allowed
by
the
zoning
ordinance.
B
B
Both
districts
require
a
minimum
front
yard
of
10
feet
in
an
effort
to
provide
more
space
between
the
buildings,
the
applicant
has
shifted
the
larger
building
to
the
north,
resulting
in
a
six
foot
front
yard.
This
has
created
a
front
yard
deficiency
of
four
feet
along
dryden
road
rear
yard.
The
rear
yard
for
the
consolidated
lot
is
located
in
the
cr2
district
adjacent
to
318
elmwood
avenue.
The
proposed
site
plan
shows
a
rear
yard
of
8.9
feet
of
the
required
20
feet.
Minimum
space
of
primary
structure.
B
B
The
proposed
structures
are
located
10.5
feet
apart,
creating
a
deficiency
of
nine
and
a
half
feet
in
the
cr2
district
maximum
building
length,
the
cr3
district
limits,
building
widths
to
45
feet
in
length.
This
regulation
applies
to
the
entire
building,
not
individual
facades,
the
full
building
length
along
dryden
road
measures,
74.5
feet
which
exceeds
that
maximum
allowed
by
the
zoning
ordinance
by
29.5
feet
or
65.6
percent
required
vegetative
buffer.
A
minimum
10
foot
vegetative
buffer
from
the
rear
property
line
is
required
from
all
for
all
properties
within
the
cr2
district.
B
C
B
B
The
board
encouraged
the
applicants
to
consider
its
comment
and
put
forward
a
project
that
better
meet
zoning.
The
applicants
have
declined
to
make
any
changes
to
the
project.
In
response
to
the
board's
comments,
325
dryden
road
is
located
in
the
cr3
district
in
cr2
district
once
proposed
use
is
permitted.
However,
section
32538
requires
that
area
advantages
area
variances
be
granted
before
a
building
permit
is
issued.
B
And,
as
I
mentioned
to
the
board
members
by
email,
the
applicants
are
here.
They
did
board
just
decided
not
to
hear
a
second
project
presentation
of
this
project
this
evening.
But
the
applicants
and
project
team
are
here
to
address
any
questions
either
at
the
start
or,
as
you
continue
to
deliver
your
deliberation.
A
Thanks
megan
also
here's
joe
kirby
he's
just
observing
and
he
is
a
potential
additional
work
here
in
the
near
future.
But
for
tonight
we'll
we'll
start
with
questions
pertaining
to
the
project.
You
could
ask
those
directly
to
the
appellants
if
you
will
like
and
then
also
megan.
I
don't
know
if
you
want
to
read
it
out
beforehand,
but
we
have
a
neglect
negative
declaration
from
the
planning
board
correct
in
their
comments.
B
Yes,
I
would
be
happy
to
read
both
the
planning
board,
so
I
won't,
I
believe,
the
the
bca's
receive
the
neg
deck
from
the
planning
board
by
email.
Some
won't
read
the
whole
thing,
but
I
just
want
to
note
that
the
planning
board
determined
there'll,
be
a
negative
declaration
of
environmental
significance
on
this
project
and
I
will
read
the
comments
that
the
board
has
on
the
different
variants
requests.
B
B
Okay,
so,
and
I
apologize
for
sending
this
so
late,
they
did
not
receive
these
until
late
in
the
day.
So
this
is
the
planning
board's
comments
on
325
dragon
road
on
320
elmwood
avenue.
The
planning
board
does
not
identify
any
negative
long-term
planning
impacts
and
supports
his
appeal
for
the
following
reasons:
spacing
between
primary
structures.
The
lead
agency
finds
that,
since
these
buildings
are
related
structures
on
a
consolidated
lot,
the
spacing
is
less
of
an
issue
in
that
the
space
actually
becomes
an
amenity.
B
The
space
acts
as
an
activated
courtyard
and
benefits
the
tenants
in
both
buildings,
off-street
parking,
the
lead
agency
requested
the
applicant
and
the
applicant
agreed
to
further
develop
a
transportation
demand
management
plan
during
site
plan
review.
The
tdm
will
include
specific
mitigations
and
strategies
to
rationalize
reducing
the
demand
for
the
10
sparking
parking
spaces.
They
are
not
providing
for
the
tenants
maximum
parking
area
coverage.
The
lead
agency
agrees
that
creating
a
smaller
page
area
improves
the
existing
site
conditions.
The
front
yard
setback.
The
lead
agency
finds
this.
B
This
deficiency
is
mitigated
by
the
stepping
facade
rare
yard
setback.
The
lead
agency
finds
that
full
compliance
is
difficult
due
to
the
corner
lot,
which
requires
which
requires
the
rear
yard
setback.
Sorry
I'll
type.
What
I'm
trying
to
figure
out,
which
requires
the
rear
yard
setback
to
be
met
from
both
streets.
This
is
further
exacerbated
by
the
lot
narrowing
from
west.
B
Guessing
that's
supposed
to
be
east.
A
required
vegetative
buffer.
The
lead
agency
uses
the
same
rationale
for
the
rear
yard
set
their
setback.
Variants
of
the
corner
lot
makes
it
difficult
to
meet
the
standard
for
both
streets
and
nearing
from
the
lot
from
the
west
to
east,
as
well
as
the
lead
agency
requested.
A
more
detailed
planting
plan
during
site
plan
review
maximum
lot
coverage
by
buildings.
The
lead
agency
does
not
see
any
negative
impact
to
the
general
character
of
the
neighborhood
planning
wise
with
the
proposed
density.
B
College
town
is
a
place
where
students
housing
in
this
building
answers
this
building
answers
this
need
in
a
compelling
design
maximum
building
length.
The
lead
agency
agrees
with
the
applicant's
rationale
that
the
stepping
facade
of
50
step
back
concept,
softens
the
massing
impact
of
the
building
and
with
the
difficulty
of
full
compliance
due
to
the
corner
lot
requirements
to
meet
the
standard
from
both
streets.
The
lead
agency
also
uses
the
same
rationale
for
the
maximum
lot
coverage
by
buildings.
Above.
A
Thanks
megan,
so
I
think
we
had
a
lengthy
meeting
last
time
where
we
asked
a
lot
of
questions
and
we
interacted
with
the
pellets
and
then
there's
been
a
lot
of
information
sent
our
way
in
between.
So
I
guess
I'll,
just
open
this
up
to
to
board
members.
Maybe
just
go
around
the
room
and
see
if
anyone
has
questions
and
then
just
initial
gut
reaction
steven
maybe
start
with
you,
then
we'll
go
around.
D
E
We
at
the
last
meeting
we
looked,
I
think,
pretty
in
depth
on
all
of
the
variants
that
were
being
requested.
You
know
gave
comments
for
consideration
before
the
proposal
today
with
no
changes.
E
A
F
I
appreciate
the
design
work.
That's
been
done
on
the
elmwood
ave
block
face.
It
seems
to
me
to
fit
in
nicely
with
that.
Neighborhood
the
existing
structures
certainly
don't
conform
that
well
to
zoning.
I'm
not
going
to
go
over
it
point
by
point,
but
I
did
have
some
concerns
regarding
parking
coming
up
short
on
parking,
but
I'm
open-minded
to
hearing
about
them.
C
A
I
guess
all
of
a
question
to
the
appellant
or
their
representative.
Just
a
real
quick
response
is.
F
A
Did
did
the
appellant?
Why
did
the
appellant
decide
to
come
back
without
any
changes
or
and
what
was
their
initial
interpretation
of
our
reaction
and
and
did
you
conceive
of
revisions
or
after
hearing
this
initial
feedback?
Would
you
conceive
of
of
other
revisions,
but
why
did
you
put
forth
the
same
project
and
take
that
chance
tonight.
G
G
We
thought
this
was
last
last
month's
meeting
was
a
opportunity
to
get
some
feedback
from
you
folks
to
bring
to
the
planning
board.
We
never
anticipated
one
meeting
and,
as
you
know,
it's
a
complicated
project.
G
So
we
didn't,
we
didn't
see
a
deliberation
on
each
of
the
variances.
It
was
initial
reactions.
I
mean
some.
Some
members
didn't
really
give
any
reaction
more
of
a
face
value
reaction,
so
we
wanted
to
hear
an
in-depth
discussion.
G
You
know,
based
on
all
the
materials
we
submitted
and
hearing
the
feedback
regarding
the
concern
about
the
neighbors,
opposed
we
reached
out
to
the
immediate
neighbors
who
provided
letters
to
support.
So
I
think
that's
that's
neutralized
in
our
opinion,
yeah.
I
I
think
maybe
I'll
leave
it
at
that.
I
don't
know.
If
greg
you
have
anything,
you
want
to
add.
C
D
H
Again,
I
think
really
just
echoing
jason's
point
is
we
just
wanted
to
really
go
point
by
point
and
and
get
you
know,
detailed
feedback
and
not
realizing
that
last
week
was
was
feedback
and
her
last
last
month
was
you
know
the
only
feedback
that
we
were
going
to
get
so
you
know,
I
still
think
we
stand
behind
that
project
and
and
the
planning
board,
obviously
from
a
planning
perspective,
supports
that
the
neighbors
you
know
number
of
the
neighbors
support
it
as
well.
H
G
And-
and
I
I
will
add
that
the
feedback
that
I
really
took
away
was
the
question
about
what
would
an
as
of
right
proposal
look
like,
so
I
showed
that
progression
study,
which
I
hope
everyone's
had
a
chance
to
digest.
G
Just
about
the
the
practical
difficulties
that
the
zoning
and
the
lot
shape
and
the
dual
zoning
district
creates,
and
then
there
was
a
suggestion
about.
You
know
what
are
the
what's
the
financial
hardship
about
creating,
and
I
know
that's
not
a
factor
in
an
area
of
variance,
but
you
know
that
is
part
of
the
equation
for
for
development.
How
do
you
redevelop
a
property?
G
And
you
know
we
wanted
to
show
an
alternative
way
to
develop
with
a
a
unit
mix?
That's
really
undesirable.
That's
that's!
What
is
on
the
property?
We
want
to
move
to
these
two
bedroom
units,
but
every
one
of
those
units
requires
a
kitchen
and
things
grow,
so
we
really
felt
we
balanced.
You
know
any
any
zoning
impact.
You
know.
G
I
think
it
really
really
boils
down
to
building
length
and
the
planning
board
was
okay
with
our
mitigation
and
then
lock
coverage
was
a
little
bit
of
a
trade-off
and
the
diagrams
I
showed
in
the
progression
study.
You
know
I
I
intentionally
put
a
garage
on
the
corner
because
that's
an
accessory
structure
and
I
ran
out
of
allowable
footprint
for
the
primary
building
because
of
the
lot
shape
the
setbacks
and
all
that.
But
I
just
wanted
to
show
that
that
whole
corner
could
be
built
out
and
accessory
buildings.
Don't
have
that
setback.
G
A
I
guess
another
question
conceivably.
If,
if
you
felt
like
you
were
at
an
impasse
with
this
board,
would
you
go
back
to
the
drawing
board
after
this
or
what
happens
to
your
project?
G
I
think
if
we
understand
the
which
variances
are
have
a
serious
impact
or
a
detriment
to
the
neighbor
neighborhood,
you
know
that
outweigh
the
the
benefit
to
the
applicant
and
I
think,
there's
also
benefit
to
the
city
tax
base
and
housing
and
all
that,
but
I've
I've
made
those
arguments.
I
think
greg
should
speak
to
what
we
would
do
you
know.
Maybe
you
know
we
could
shrink
the
footprint
a
little
bit,
but
I
just
don't
know
you
know
how
much
is
is
enough.
G
You
know
it
seems
the
the
multiple
dwelling
on
the
325
parcel
is
obviously
the
the
problem.
Child
will
call
it
and
yeah
I
you
know
we
can
talk
about
that
greg.
Do
you
have
any
thoughts
on
what
what.
H
You
would
I
would,
I
would
just
I'm
having
a
tough
time
answering
that
question
directly
now
right,
not
not
knowing,
I
think,
more
detailed
feedback,
more
direct
feedback
for
each
one
of
those.
So
I
want
to
reserve
the
right
to
answer
that
question,
because
I
think
it's
it's
kind
of
premature
to
to
sort
of
say
hey
what
about
a
redesign.
You
know,
I
think
jason
did
a
really
detailed
job
and
presented
all
of
you
with
with
what
we.
C
H
We
could,
you
know,
do
by
right
or
with
limited
variances,
and
I
think,
that's
probably
a
bigger
detriment.
You
know
to
put
a
garage
there
rather
than
housing
and
do
some
of
those
things
so
trying
to
redesign
and
make
it
financially
viable
and
make
it
a
good
project.
I
don't
know,
but
I
want
to
not
directly
answer
that
question
right
now,
because
I
think
it's
it's
too
early
to
give
an
answer
to
that.
A
That's
fair:
I
respect
that.
I
don't
have
any
other
questions
to
any
other
board.
Members
have
questions.
You
can
always
bring
you
guys
back
on
yeah,
if
not
all
right,
they're
all
muted.
So
I
guess.
A
A
So
we
can
start
to
really
go
through
all
that
we're
not
going
to
be
delivering
a
verdict,
one
way
or
another
tonight
we're
really
just
going
through
the
the
the
meat
of
each
variance
each
one
having
its
own
correct,
the
the
five
criteria
that
we'll
assess
and
then
we're
slated
to
to
vote
in
january.
F
I'll
comment
on
the
first
one,
which
is
whether
an
undesirable
change
would
be
produced
in
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
or
a
detriment
to
nearby
properties.
I
I
came
up
with
a
conclusion.
No
here
I
don't
think
it's
that
radically
different
than
anything
and
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
I
like
how
they
handled
elmwood
and
the
street
facade.
A
I
F
Well,
I
guess
yeah,
I
guess
I'd
have
to
go
one
by
one
off
street
parking.
I
don't
think
produce
an
undesirable
change.
A
lot
coverage
by
buildings,
I
didn't
think
produced
an
undesirable
change,
front
yard.
I
I
didn't
have
a
problem
with
rear
yard.
I
didn't
have
a
problem
with
minimum
space
of
primary
structures.
I
I
didn't
think
was
gonna
create
a
undesirable
change
in
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
and
where
else
are
we
required
vegetation
buffer?
F
That's
what
I'd
like
to
talk
about
a
little
bit,
not
at
the
moment
maximum
parking
area
coverage.
That's
what
I
did
mention.
I
was
wondering
about
the
parking
requirement
and
where
we
were
coming
up
short,
it
appears
on
only
one
of
the
structures.
We
have
a
significant
shortage.
F
B
They're
10
total,
because
that
you
are
a
lot
even
it
will
be
on
one
site,
so
they're
allow
they're
required
to
have
14
for
the
two
buildings
combined
and
they're,
providing
four
on
site.
F
A
E
Good
work
either
way
we
could
also,
I
like
the
idea
of
talking
through
each
point,
each
each
request
for
a
variance
and
and
discussing
all
the
different
just
you
know
where
we're
feeling,
maybe
there's
a
a
deficiency
or
what
what
we
think
would
not,
as
mike
said,
be
a
detriment
to
the
to
the
neighborhood
so
either
way.
A
D
That
whether
the
benefit
can
be
set
by
the
applicant
can
be
achieved
by
a
feasible
alternative.
I
mean
he
they've
presented
footprints
of
buildings.
That
would
be
more
in
compliance
with
the
zoning
so
well.
I
would
say
that,
yes,
it
can
be
achieved
by
a
feasible
alternative.
D
Whether
it's
substantial
in
terms
of
parking,
I
think
that
that's
a
that's
a
tough
one.
Well,
if
there's
four
spaces,
and
we
need
10
more
71
as
a
percentage
is
fairly
substantial,
and
I
mean
we've
decided
that
it
wouldn't
have
an
adverse
impact
and
whether
the
alleged
difficulty
was
self-created.
It
certainly
is.
D
So
for
me
it's
it's
three
yeses
and
two
nos
in
terms
of
the
off
street
parking
component.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
I
I
agree
with
that
sentiment,
so
you
know
we
don't
all
have
to
you
know
we
don't
all
have
to
agree
on
it
on
a
criteria
right.
We
can,
but
I
just
think
it's
good
to
give
the
appellant
and
everybody
a
sense
of
where
we're
starting
from
as
we
go
through
each
merit.
A
D
D
Whether
it's
substantial,
I
think
that
is
up
for
some
interpretation,
considering
the
neighborhood
around
it,
there's
been
a
determination
that
there's
no
no
adverse
impact
on
it
and
again
was
the
difficulty
self-created
and
yes,
it
was.
E
Real
quick,
real,
quick
dave:
this
was
a
lot,
the
one
that
steven
you
were
speaking
to
was
lot
area
coverage.
E
So
in
some
of
the
there's,
some
similar
applications
that
we've
looked
at
before
and
one
of
the
concerns
that
I
have
is
the
coverage
is
pretty
significant
for
what
zoning
will
allow,
there's
other
it
really.
I
believe
that
some
of
the
properties
were
right
along
the
same
street.
E
It
was
only
a
percent
or
two
more
that
was
being
requested,
so
this
is
quite
a
bit
more.
Yes,
I
agree
with
some
of
the
other
statements
you
know.
Looking
at
the
neighborhood,
you
know
overall
detriment,
maybe
not
necessarily,
but
I'm
just
concerned
about
the
amount
there.
The
percentage.
A
So
I
think
in
watching
the
planning
board
go
over
this
and
and
their
conversations
with
their
liaison
to
that
board
sort
of
in
this
sense
lot
coverage
and
going
over.
It
was
a
view
of
all
right.
Well,
in
this
sense,
area
coverage
is
a
way
of
determining
density
and
density
is
what
applies
to
the
intention
of
the
zoning,
which
is
a
recent
change.
So
why
is
it
that
this
appellant
goes
over?
A
Front
yard
projects
is
one
front
yard
in
the
cr3
district,
going
dryden
road
in
a
second
front
yard
in
both
the
cr3
and
cr2.
A
I
I
view
this
as
as
less
substantial,
not
necessarily
a
detriment
to
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
self-inflicted
heart.
You
know
no
hardship
and
let's
see
where
was
I
and
and
again
viable
alternatives
that
we
have
seen
an
alternate
proposal.
F
I
think
when
we
comment
on
the
the
compliant
proposal,
I
believe
our
job
is
to
say:
are
we
getting
a
better
project
without
substantial
impact
with
the
proposed
project,
so
the
the
progression
study
here
I
found
very
instructive.
The
exacerbation
we're
creating
is
minimal
here,
and
so
you
know,
is
it
substantial?
No,
can
the
benefit
be
achieved
by
a
feasible
alternative
to
the
variance?
F
Well,
I
guess
technically
yes,
but
I
think
we're
getting
a
better
project
with
the
proposed
project.
An
undesirable
change
will
be
produced.
I
I
say
no,
would
the
variance
have
an
adverse
effect?
No
was
it
self-created?
Well,
of
course
it
was,
but
that
again
on
this
one,
this
the
front
yard
question
doesn't
concern
me
significantly.
D
So
I
think
this
is
for
me
the
front
yard,
particularly
in
a
neighborhood
of
suburban
character
to
the
east
four
feet
or
forty
percent
of
the
forty
percent.
Less
of
the
required
front
yard,
I
think,
would
create
an
under
undesirable
change,
given
the
suburban
character
adjacent
to
it,
whether
the
benefits
sought
to
be
achieved.
D
But
again,
yes,
they've
shown
how
it
could
be
achieved,
whether
it's
substantial,
I
think,
for
residential
neighborhoods
of
similar
character,
of
which
everything
to
the
east
of
front
yards
are
important
to
maintain
that
character.
So
I
think
it
would
and
whether
the
alleged
difficulty
was
self-created.
Of
course
it
was
so
that's
where
I
am
with
the
front
yard,
variance
request.
A
Thank
you
and
then
just
to
speak.
You
know
we
don't
have
to
agree,
there's
so
many
variance
requests.
We
don't
have
to
agree
on
every
criteria
within
our
analysis
of
each.
So
if
somebody
does
think
that
there
is
an
undesirable
change
in
the
neighborhood
for
one
of
these,
but
not
the
others
right,
we
don't
all
have
to
be
in
agreement.
So
maybe
just
say
for
the
record
that
you
know
number
one
on
our
criteria:
whether
or
not
the
undesirable
change
will
be
created
for
the
neighborhood.
A
E
It's
it's
a
tricky
lot
already
again.
It's
kind
of
this.
You
know
transitional
space
between
urban
and
suburban,
where
we
see
kind
of
many
of
the
front
yards
and
or
rear
yards
for
that
matter.
E
Having
concerns
or
issues
when
variances
are
being
requested,
it's
already
kind
of
existing
and
not
typically
something
that
is
being
created.
E
Unless
it's
you
know
stairs
and
you
know
to
make
their
entrance
safer
or
things
like
they're
rebuilding
a
porch
or
things
like
that,
and
it's
already
pre-existing
and
they
still
are
required
to
request
the
variance,
so
they
can
get
their
building
permits.
So,
at
the
same
breath,
though,
I
don't
necessarily
see
at
this
point
any
concerns.
E
I
A
Let's
see
here,
we
can
move
on
to
mini
minimum
space
of
primary
structures.
That
deficiency.
F
Hold
on
you
skipped
for
your
yard.
Do
you
want
to
talk
about
rare
yard,
after
front
yard,.
F
A
I
can
I
can
take
a
stab
at
this
one,
all
right,
so
the
district
required
the
cr2
requires
a
minimum
of
20
feet
between
primary
structures
on
the
same
lot
and
a
distance
of
10
feet
is
required
in
the
cr3
district.
The
proposed
structures
are
located
10.5
feet
apart,
creating
a
deficiency
of
9.5
feet
in
the
cr2
district.
B
So
the
requirement
is
that
they,
if
you're
in
the
cr2
district
they'd,
be
20
feet
apart.
Cr3
is
10
feet
apart
again,
this
is
in
both,
and
each
portion
of
the
lot
must
meet
the
requirements
of
the
district
in
which
it's
located
so
for
the
cr2
portion.
Any
building
in
cr2
should
be
20
feet
from
another
primary
structure
on
the
same
lot
and
this
one
is
located:
10
10
and
a
half
feet
apart
and
not
20.
So
there's
a
deficiency
of
nine
and
a
half
feet.
C
A
E
Sure,
sorry
again,
because
it's
the
melding
of
two
different
zones,
the
one
that's
facing
dryden,
is
which
zone.
B
The
one
facing
dragon
is
in
the
cr3
and
the
one
that's
that
currently
is
addressed
as
320
elmwood
is
in
the
cr2.
A
A
They've
they've
worked
with
the
planning
board
pretty
extensively
on
this.
This
specific
ask,
but
it
goes
back
to
the
very
origin
of
the
genesis
of
the
project
in
which
there
could
have
been
a
more
zoning
compliant
approach
to
this
specific
ask
that
would
alleviated
their
need
to
do
this.
In
my
opinion,.
A
A
A
So
there
is
consideration,
I
think,
especially
you
know
for
a
corner
lot,
which
is
the
assessment
of
the
planning
board
right.
They
they're,
saying
hey.
This
is
a
difficult
location
to
build
and
now
is
their
justification
for
recommending
along
those
lines,
though
I
you
know,
a
difficult
lot
means
that
it's
less
geared
toward
development
potential
and
that's
a
condition.
One
knows
when
heading
into
a
parcel.
B
Can
I
just
clarify
one
thing
that
I
don't
think
was
clear
in
the
planning
board?
I'm
not
sure
if
there
was
confusion,
this
property
only
has
one
well,
the
property
has
two
front
yards.
They
only
have
one
rear
yard
and
I
think
the
planning
board
mentioned
that
they
have
to
meet
it
on
two
sides.
But
in
fact
this
the
the
side
opposite.
The
elmwood
avenue
is
a
side
yard
and
the
applicant
has
met
the
setback
for
that.
B
C
B
Yeah
it's.
It
was
a
little
unclear
in
their
comments,
but.
B
Okay,
so
again,
this
is
a
front
yard
along
this
edge
and
this
is
a
front
yard,
and
then
this
is
where
the
rear
yard
is
because
the
plan
is
to
address
the
property
on
dryden
road,
so
the
rear
yard
would
be
the
space
as
steven
on
the
southern
property
line
this,
even
though
this
is
a
front
yard,
this
is
their
side
yard
and
they
have
met
the
setback,
requirements
for
a
side
yard.
C
B
They
referenced,
I
think
they
might
have
misunderstood
that
they
had
deficiencies
on
both
sides
because
they
referenced
the
two
rear
yards
and
there's
only.
There
is
only
one
and
again
this
one
here
is
side,
so
even
it's
just
a
little
confusing,
because
even
though
they
have
two
front
yards,
they
do
only
have
one
rear
yard,
which
is
opposite
where
the
address
side
is
planned
to
be
and
they
do
meet
their
side
yard
requirements
here.
So
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
that.
A
Thanks,
do
you
mind
leaving
that
up
and
then,
if
there's
any
other,
we
can
get
the
play
by
play.
So
going
off
of
that
then
8.9
feet
of
the
required
20
for
rear
yard.
A
Personally
and
other
members
might
disagree,
I
don't
view
it
as
as
a
negative
detriment
to
the
character
of
the
neighborhood.
A
It
is
substantial.
There
are
viable
alternatives.
I
would
I
would
conjecture
and
self-induced
hardship,
though
I
don't
foresee
any
environmental
impact.
F
So
is
the
the
rear
yard
line?
Is
that
driveway
that
butts
up
right
up
to
the
to
the
line.
B
Yes,
the
driveway
is
in
the
is
in
the
rear
yard
right
here
and
that's
the
there
there's
a
piece
of
that
that
there's
exception
made
for
driveway
which,
but
one
of
the
variances
is
here,
is
that
they
have
maneuvering
space
in
the
rear
yard,
setback
and
side
yard,
but
the
but
yes
to
orient
yourself.
That
is
the
rear
yard.
D
D
So
I
don't
think
it
would
create
an
undesirable
change
whether
the
benefits
sought
could
be
achieved
by
feasible
alternatives.
Yes,
they
have
shown
how
it
could
be,
whether
it's
substantial.
I
think
that,
if
it
was,
if
there
wasn't
a
structure
there
already,
it
would
be.
I
think,
given
that
it
looks
like
it
brings
it
more
into
compliance,
or
at
least
equally
in
compliant.
I
don't
think
it
is.
A
I
guess
we
can
move
on
to.
Let's
see
here,
maximum
building
length,
the
cr3
district
limits
buildings
width
to
45
feet
in
length.
This
regulation
applies
to
the
entire
building,
not
individual
facades,
the
full
building
length
along
dryden
road
measures,
74.5
feet
which
exceeds
that
maximum
allowed
by
the
zoning
ordinance
by
29.5
feet
or
65.6
percent.
A
As
I
understand
it,
the
building
length
you
know
they're
trying
to
oh
megan
you're
on
your
emails
thanks,
you
can
go
off
screen
sharing
if
you
need,
but
basically
the
the
stepping
of
the
building
was
an
attempt
to
mitigate
that
variance
request,
or
at
least
the
severity
of
it.
In
terms
of
you
know
when
we're
looking
at
it
from
a
percentage
or
foot
base.
C
F
To
me,
if
you
compare
it
with
the
progression
study,
you
know
what
would
be
compliant
would
be,
and
obviously
it's
intentional
a
bad
looking
project.
F
You
know
with
a
two
buildings
that
you
know
you
can
maybe
walk
between.
I
like
the
the
mitigation.
F
F
Would
the
variants
have
an
adverse
impact
on
the
physical
conditions
in
the
neighborhood?
Not
really,
if
you
are
driving
down
ryden
road,
I'm
sure
the
neighbors
on
elmwood
would
disagree
with
me.
Was
it
self-created?
Yes,
it
was
self-created
thanks.
A
Did
you
see
my
project
that
had
the
same
setback
fashion,
but
that
was
more
compliant
with
the
overall
length
requirement.
C
F
To
propose
you
know
it's
a
bit
of
a
straw,
man
he's
knocking
down
here,
but
you
know
just
because
he
can
do
it.
I
don't
think
necessarily
gives
us
a
better
project.
E
Yeah,
I
agree
with
a
couple
of
things:
that's
been
stated
so
far
to
try
to
mitigate
some
of
the.
I
guess
like
look
at
the
facade
or
the
massing
on
that
one
street
frontage,
the
front
yard,
with
the
having
it
kind
of
progressively
set
back
a
little
bit
I've
seen
that
done
in
other
projects.
E
E
You
know
whether
it
be
a
detriment
or
not.
It's
again,
it's
in
the
transitional
zone,
so
it's
kind
of
unknown,
but
you
know
particularly
it
was
addressed
and
intended
to
have
two
separate
zones
for
those
lots.
So
this
is
a
totally
different
way
and
different
approach
to
combine
everything
and
look
at
it.
So
you
know
just
making
that
point
again
but
again
looking
at
some
of
the
ways
to
mitigate,
and
I
think
that
it
does
a
pretty
good
job
but
again
looking
at
the
overall
percentage.
It's
a
large
ask.
A
Thank
you
on
to
variance
request
number
seven
required
vegetative
buffer,
a
minimum
10
foot
vegetative
buffer
from
the
rear.
The
rear
line
is
required
for
all
properties
within
the
co2
districts.
The
proposed
project
does
not
provide
sufficient
vegetative
buffer
in
the
rear
yard.
A
I'm
less
familiar
with
the
vegetative
buffer
requirements,
but
we
can
go
over.
B
A
B
So
the
requirement
was
put
into
the
cr1
and
two
districts
or
to
have
the
and
actually,
I
think,
co32.
I
have
to
double
check
that,
but
to
have
like
the
the
rear
yard,
have
a
a
green
vegetative
boundary
between
that
and
the
next
property.
So
the
idea
was
that
you
wouldn't
pay.
I
mean
you
wouldn't
have
paving
right
up
to
the
backyard
or
you
wouldn't.
The
idea
was
to
have
a
nice
kind
of
a
green
buffer
between
that
and
surrounding
properties.
B
In
the
area
you
don't
wouldn't
put
trash
enclosures
back
there.
You
wouldn't
put
any
accessory
structures
that
kind
of
thing
it
would
be
focused
on
greenery.
There
were
some
exceptions
in
the
code
for
like
landscape
features
that
could
be
included
in
that
area.
But
the
idea
again
was
just
kind
of
creating
a
dedicated
green
section
of
the
lot
between
that
and
a
neighbor.
A
Thanks
and
then
so,
this
specific
vegetative
buffer
is
that
along
the
driveway
on
the
southern
side
or.
B
Yeah
so
per
requirement.
It
should
be
located
along
the
full
length
of
the
rear
property
line
right
here.
C
G
Okay
yeah
the
light
green
is
all
grass
or
potential
vegetative
buffer.
The
dark
green
is
a
depression
in
the
site
to
make
the
basement
dose
work
and
then
that
brighter
green
is
the
planting
beds.
J
A
E
Yeah,
I
could
start
I
yeah,
I
don't.
I
don't
see
that
as
an
issue,
it's
kind
of
already
pre-existing
in
that
layout.
So
that's
just
my
thoughts.
Keep
it
simple.
A
D
A
Okay,
so
I
would
argue
that
it's
in
character
with
the
neighborhood
that
would
just
you
know,
discern
a
undesirable
change.
It's
not
substantial.
A
You
could
argue
that
there's
a
an
alternative
and
that
they
could
provide
one,
though
you'd
be
ripping
up
the
the
the
pavement
to
do
it,
self-induced
hardship,
because
it's
a
it's
a
zoning
requirement
triggered
by
the
redevelopment
initiative.
A
A
Maximum
parking
area
coverage,
while
driveways
may
be
located
within
the
required,
rear
and
side
yards
parking
and
maneuvering,
must
meet
these
setback
requirements.
The
proposed
site
plan
locates
vehicle
maneuvering
areas
within
both
the
rear
and
side
yards
megan.
Can
you
speak
to
that?
A
little
bit
the
maneuvering
and
the
rear
inside
yard.
B
Sure
so
again,
the
zoning
requirements
allow
a
drive
of
specific
dimensions,
which
is
proposal
meets
to
be
located
in
the
rear
yard,
which
it
is,
but
this
additional
area
which
is
maneuvering
space
is
theoretically
per
code
to
be
in
the
within
the
setbacks,
which
are
the
dotted
blue
lines
here,
so
they
it
it
brings.
It
essentially
paves
a
larger
portion
of
the
rear
yard.
It
brings
it
outside
of
this,
the
parking
is
all
within
the
setbacks.
It's
the
maneuvering
space
that
is,
does
not
meet
the
requirement.
A
Can
you
speak
to
the
idea
of
parking
in
the
front?
Is
that
legal
in
the
cr2
or
right,
because
I
remember
from
watching
the
meetings
right
there's
an
idea
behind
having
the
parking
in
the
rear.
B
Yeah,
so
the
parking
is
not
allowed
to
be
in
the
front
yard
and
see
art
in
this
much
of
college
town
area,
farm
districts.
I
would
say
the
parking
has
to
be
at
the
front
facade
or
behind
the
house
for
much
of
this.
C
B
Don't
can
you
guys
see
my
cursor
when
I
do
that
or
no
no,
it
can't
be,
and
so,
for
example,
in
some
districts
with
other
districts
within
the
city,
you
can
have
a
certain
amount
of
front
yard
parking
but
college,
the
college
town
area
forum
districts.
Well,
you
can
have
a
drive
in
like
a
single
in
a
single
family
home.
There
can
be
a
driveway
that
you
park
in
to
get
to
a
parking
area
required
for
this
type
of
site.
You
cannot
put
that
in
the
front
yard.
B
E
I'm
trying
to
find
I
was
trying
to
find
my
mute
again
layers
of
documents.
I
think
it's
kind
of
similar
to
what
we
spoke
about
with
buffering
that
at
this
point,
what's
currently
there
proposed
doesn't
exacerbate
the
already
pre-existing
condition
it's
just
because
you
know
they
have
to
come
to
the
board
because
it's
you
know
addressing
the
overall
construction
proposed
for
the
property,
but
I
don't.
I
don't
see
either
again
being
any
concern
just
because
it's
already
pre-existing.
A
Thank
you,
stephen
and
then
mike.
D
Yeah
I
had
this
somewhere
thought
I
think
the
whether
it
creates
an
undesirable
change.
I
mean
it's
not
really
much
of
a
change
to
what's
already
there,
so
no
weather
can
be
achieved
by
a
feasible
alternative.
D
Yes,
they've
shown
us
a
way
in
which
they
could
make
the
parking
completely.
Compliant.
To
that
to
this
requirement,
whether
it's
substantial,
I
don't
think
it
is
because
it
already
exists,
would
have
an
adverse
impact
again,
no
and
then
whether
the
alleged
difficulty
was
self-created.
Yes,.
F
A
That
goes
through
all
of
them,
thanks
for
bearing
with
me,
this
is
the
first
time
we've
done
this
in
this
fashion,
with
this
mouth,
I
guess
now,
if
each
chord
member,
maybe
just
itemize
or
go
through,
which,
which
variants
stand
out
to
you,
which
are
of
the
most
concerned,
I'll
start
back
with
you
mike.
F
Well,
I've
mentioned
the
parking
requirement.
I
like
the
design
mitigations.
I
like
the
zigzag
to
the
building
that
softens
the
facade
on
ryden
road.
F
I
think
much
of
this
is
a
real
exercise
in
putting
what
do
they
say:
ten
pounds
in
a
five
pound
sack
or
something
like
that.
I
forget
the
idiom
help
but
it'd
be
nice
to
see
something
a
little
more
compliant
than
this
meaning.
You
know
not
pushing
every
limit,
which
is
what
I'm
interpreting
this
as
but.
F
I
could
live
with
the
project
with
with
a
couple
of
tweaks,
mostly
regarding
parking,
and
that
variance
I
don't.
I
don't
know
where
you
put
it,
though,.
F
F
A
A
F
Yeah,
I
said
I
I
am
viewing
it
favorably,
it's
hard
for
me
to
balance
out
with
this
many
variables
what
what
the
the
big
priority
would
be.
So
I
like
the
mitigations
that
have
happened
to
put
this
on
this
kind
of
unique
corner
lot.
F
So
I
see
the
project
favorably
from
a
design
point
of
view
and
from
how
it
attempted
to
solve
the
zoning
issues
that
it's
presented.
I'd
certainly
rather
see
something
there
than
what's
there
now.
E
But
some
of
my
concerns
are
a
lot
coverage
and
less
so
on
building
length,
more
so
on
the
space
between
the
structures
as
well
so
lot
coverage
and
spacing
between
the
structures.
A
C
A
D
Yeah,
so
I
have
some
concern
with
the
size
of
the
off
street
parking
variants.
I'm
given
the
amount
of
people
that
they
would
like
to
have
live
on
the
site.
Let's
see
lot
coverage
by
buildings.
D
However,
they
have
shown
ways
in
which
they
could
meet
that
requirement,
so
I'm
inclined
to
not
support
that
variance,
given
the
fact
that
we
are
supposed
to
allow
the
minimum
variance
for
projects
according
to
city
code,
front
yard.
I
have
concerns
about
that
deficiency
as
well.
D
Neither
is
the
minimum
space
between
primary
structures.
I
think
the
maximum
building
length
is
a
concern.
I
think
that
when
the
city
was
looking
at
the
zoning,
you
know,
obviously
they
took
the
building
length
into
consideration
in
terms
of
density
that
they're
trying
to
create.
According
to
the
comprehensive
plan.
D
Also,
I
have
some
concern
there
required
vegetative
buffer
again,
I
think
that's
similar
to
the
rear
yard
requirement.
That's
not
substantial
other
than
the
maximum
parking
area
coverage.
Again,
I
think,
with
the
existing
structure,
that
request
isn't
substantial.
A
Thanks
steven,
I
guess
on
my
end
in
terms
of
the
off
street.
L
A
A
lot
coverage
by
buildings,
I
think,
is
the
the
biggest
one
and
that's
what
actually
the
planning
board
struggled
with
the
most
and
it
pertained
to
density
and
again
the
intention
of
the
zoning.
This
is
the
the
metric
by
which
it's
being
controlled
in
a
large
sense,
not
through
use
but
saying.
A
Well,
you
can't
build
a
structure
that
is
this
size,
and
you
can't
you
know
they're
you're,
trying
to
work
with
the
limitations
of
what
you've
got
and,
yes,
you
can
try
to
combine
these
lots
to
get
more
density
and
then
try
to,
but,
but
ultimately
it's
just,
I
think
it's
I
think,
they're
coming
up
short
in
that
sense.
So
I
think
lot
coverage
would
be
a
hard
variance
to
pass.
A
You
can
make
the
argument
for
minimum
space
of
between
primary
structures.
That's
also
a
substantial
ask.
I
understand
the
intention
behind
it.
It
was
also
in
collaboration
with
the
planning
board
trying
to
make
that
passing
quarter,
but
that
is
a
strong
deviation
from
the
requirement
maximum
building
length.
I
view
as
in
tandem.
Well,
of
course,
I
view
it.
You
know
in
its
own
category
for
its
own
ask,
but
it's
an
extension
of
the
overall
lot
coverage
right.
A
You
could
still
have
your
mitigations
for
building
length
through
that
step
back,
but
it
wouldn't
be
of
issue.
If
you
had
a
smaller
building.
The
argument
for
needing
the
bigger
building
is
well.
We
need
the
the
increased
density
to
justify
the
demolition
of
the
structures
and
thereby
the
new
construction
costs.
So
it's
a
in
that
sense.
It's
a
self-created
hardship.
That's
that's
hard
to
get
around
in
a
vote.
In
my
opinion,.
F
It
I
want
to
make
one
additional
comment
here:
the
renderings
provided
the
floor.
That
is
it's
not
below
grade,
but
the
you
know
the
basement
level,
the
first
floor
level.
F
I
get
the
feeling
that
when
I
walk
by
this,
if
the
project
were
completed,
it
will
look
substantially
different
than
these
renderings
I'm
trying
to
get
my
head
around
those
lower
level
windows
and
how
that
plays
out
the
rendering
seems
to
minimize
that
I
don't
know
where
it
brings
me,
but
you
know
maybe
I'm
missing.
Maybe
I'm
just
slow
on
these
at
the
moment.
So
just
a
comment
sure.
A
B
A
A
Any
other
questions
or
comments,
and
then
I
can
I'll
just
turn
it
over.
If
nothing
else,
then
I'll,
just
ask
the
appellant
a
question
or
two.
C
G
Greg
I'm
gonna
go
first,
I
jotted
down
a
couple.
Just
just
reactions
just
wanted
to
point
out
the
planning
board.
You
know
supported
the
initial
project
without
the
space
between
the
buildings
and
that
that
did
set
our
path
forward
to
continue
on,
but
I
think
one
of
the
biggest
things
about
what
we've
done
here
is
we
have
one
lot,
but
the
zoning
sometimes
doesn't
allow
us
to
analyze
as
one
lot
it
analyzes
by
district.
G
So
that's
part
of
our
our
difficulty
and
I
bring
that
up
because
we
can't
build
out
the
320
the
cr2
parcel
fully
because
of
the
parking
and
because
of
the
the
zoning.
So
we
didn't
gain
any
lot
coverage
benefit
from
that,
but
because
of
other
factors,
you
know
what
we
could
do
was
was
limited
by
setbacks
that
I
show
in
the
progression
study.
But
if
you
look
at
one
lot,
we're
159
square
feet
over.
You
know
it's
anyway.
Let
me
move
on.
G
I
I
did
want
to
note
that
the
alternate
study
does
not
achieve
what
the
applicant
wants
and
I
don't
think
it's
what
the
city
wants
either.
You
know
these
larger
apartment
houses
can
become
problems
if
not
not
managed
properly.
Two
bedroom
apartments
are
much
more
flexible,
but
again
they
require
kitchens.
They
require
a
lot
more
square
footage
and
unlock
coverage
required
front.
Porches
require
lot
coverage
and
that's
part
of
the
forum
district
requirements.
You
know
overarching
and
on
one
of
the
things
on
parking
and
I'm
not
really
sure
what
the
concern
is.
G
The
parking
is
in
college
town
is
all
for
rent.
Not
every
space
on
the
lot
currently
is
rented.
So
if
people
are
moving
in
knowing
that
they
don't
have
a
parking
space,
that's
their
prerogative,
but
I
also
wanted
to
note
that
the
rpps
system
doesn't
allow
people
to
store
cars
in
the
neighborhood.
G
It
really
regulates
it,
but
it
also
allows
this
property
to
gain
four
spaces,
so
we
see
it
as
eight
out
of
14,
but
really
we
need
zero,
the
rare
yard.
I
appreciate
that
discussion.
You
know
one
big
point
I
would
make
with
that.
Is
it
you
know,
I
think
you
guys
got
it
it's
the
former
side
yard,
so
it's
it's
excessive
to
look
for
20
feet
when
you
need
need
five
spacing
between
buildings.
G
We've
already
always
argued
that
we
don't
think
the
zoning
is
is
accurate
in
this
case,
and
I
provided
graphics
in
that
regard
and
I'll
just
reiterate
in
those
graphics,
two
mid-block
parcels
with
two
side
yards
next
to
each
other
in
a
cr2
zone,
for
both
parcels
sets
the
buildings
10
feet
apart.
So
that's
the
character
of
the
neighborhood.
G
G
Yeah,
let's
see
you
know,
I
think
mike
had
picked
up
on
the
as
of
right
proposals.
One
thing
zoning
is
doing
is
forcing
us
to
create
a
trapezoidal
building
and
to
maximize.
We
can't
even
gain
the
total
allowed
lot
coverage.
Even
with
that,
you
know
only
that
garage
footprint
got
us
there.
It's
it's
it's
a
hardship,
especially
with
the
20-foot
setback,
either
for
the
rear
yard
or
the
spacing
in
the
second
diagram.
G
So
the
two
diagrams
show
that
so
I
think
that
is
a
much
worse
proposal
and
again
not
something
you
know
it's
not
a
benefit
to
go
back
to
either
of
those
compatible
with
the
neighborhood.
G
G
So
I
think,
there's
something
a
little
odd
going
on
in
zoning
and
that's
what
we
were
asking
for
clarity
on,
and
you
know
one
question
I
had
was
if
we
were
to
eliminate
the
building
the
two
family
duplex
on
320
and
gain
parking
since
parking
has
come
up
a
few
times
as
one
of
the
the
bigger
concerns
it
you
know.
G
Does
that
help
the
project,
but,
of
course,
building
length
is
still
at
issue,
so
that's
what's
what's
happening
with
us
is
trying
to
shrink
that
amount
of
building
up
in
that
corner
and
we're
also
not
interested
in
building
parking,
and
neither
is
the
city
if
you
look
at
all
the
planning
documents
in
the
city
and
I'll
turn
it
over
to
greg.
If
he's
got
any
extra
thoughts.
H
Yeah
yeah
one
I
just
first
thank
you
because
I
think
this
this
level
of
detail
and
feedback
was
what
we
you
know
we're
hoping
for.
So
I
again,
I
appreciate
you
taking
the
time
to
be
deliberative
and
and
provide
some
of
that
feedback.
I
think
the
two
two
things
that
really
stood
out
to
me
is
just
because
we
showed
a
progression
study.
H
We
don't
think
that
those
are
feasible
alternatives
right.
So
if
what
we
provided,
there
is
a
rationale
for
a
feasible
alternative.
We
we've
not
presented
anything
that
would
provide
that
that
be
feasible.
I
mean
it
it's
it's
by
right,
but
from
a
from
a
project
and
a
development
perspective,
that's
not
not
a
feasible
project
in
our
mind,
I
don't
know
how
you
all
have
to
define
feasible
versus
how
we
define
feasibility
for
a
project.
But
again
I
just
think
because
it
was
provided
as
a
buy
right
analysis.
H
I
I
hope
that
that's
not
interpreted
as
us
saying
it's
a
feasible
as
we
define
feasibility
and
I'm
just,
I
guess,
seeking
clarity
from
the
board
and
on
how
you
define
the
feasible
alternative
and
then
the
last
thing
on
the
front
yard.
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
it's
a
very
small
corner
of
the
building
that
sticks
out.
It's
not
it's
not
40
of
the
entire
front
yard.
It's
it's
just
a
small
piece
that
sticks
over
by
a
few
feet.
H
So
I
just
that
seemed
to
be
presented
as
we
were,
pushing
the
building
four
feet
closer
to
the
to
the
street,
which
is
not
the
case,
as
you
can
see
by
the
the
renderings
and
the
site
plan.
So
those
were,
you
know
those
were
the
and
then
the
other
thing
is.
H
Is
you
know
the
the
parking
that
stood
out
and
I
think
jason
hit
on
those
points
with
the
ability
to
pick
up
some
on-street
parking
and
then
again
we're
not
we're
not
looking
to
build
a
parking
lot
right,
and
so
I
think
that
you
know
the
the
idea
of
building
a
garage
is
not
something
that
that
you
know
makes
a
lot
of
sense
from
a
development
standpoint
in
college
town.
H
H
So
I
appreciate
you
all
taking
the
time
to
to
go
through
and
and
look
at
that
when,
when
real,
the
real
rear
yard,
you
know
we
do
have
support
from
that
neighbor
and
you
know,
essentially
in
the
rear
yard
that
we've
created
is
butting
up
against
an
existing
driveway.
So
I
again,
I
appreciate
the
consideration.
You
know,
I
think,
we've
we've
you
know
presented.
You
know
our
share
the
information,
so
we'll
be
open
to
any
more
questions
based
on
based
on
our
our
comments.
A
Okay,
so
we're
slated
to
vote
on
this
come
january
and
and
again
we'll
vote
on
every
single
request.
In
the
meantime,
if
you
have
any
questions,
yeah
greg,
yeah.
H
H
F
A
Well,
megan
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
or
missing
anything,
but
essentially
at
your
own
volition.
Should
you
wish
to
you
can
table
this
right
which
and
then
again
megan
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
because
I
know
unless
you
table
it,
we
we
have
to
give
a
determination
within
a
certain
amount
of
time
and
then
you
would
represent
it.
I
believe,
would
trigger
another
public
hearing.
A
Megan
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
there,
but
yeah
you
would
you
would
take
the
feedback
of
this
board
and
you
would
try
to
bring
this
project
into
something
more
compliant,
and
you
would
show
that
good
faith
effort
to
to
bring
this
more
in
line
with
the
restrictions
right
and
I
think
many
board
members
like
the
the
design.
It's
not
an
issue
of
design,
it's
a
question
of
sort
of
going
well
beyond
some
of
the
restraints
that
you're
under
so
yeah.
A
B
Yeah,
I
would
say
greg
and
jason
if
you
guys
wanted
to
revise
that
we
could
work
together
over
the
coming
months.
If
it's
I
mean
I
would
say,
if
it's
a
reduction,
I'm
not
creating
anything
new
or
drastically
different,
we
might
be
able
to
move
forward
on
the
same
set
same
schedule
and
have
you
present
to
the
board
and
if
it's,
if
it's
major
changes
at
that
point,
we
might
need
to
require
a
second
public
hearing.
B
H
Yeah,
I
appreciate
that
I
think
you
know,
as
as
we
start
to
think
about
that,
the
the
challenges
that
that
you
know,
I
think
we
we
face
a
little
bit-
is
not
not
knowing
right.
What
is
it
20
or
is
it
40?
You
know,
because
for
40
or
50
or
60
is
too
much
right
is
where,
where
we're
going
to
be
so
it's
it's
kind
of
it's
hard,
it's
hard,
not
to
spin
spin
the
wheels
right
I
mean,
and
if
we
we
present
a
zoning
compliant
project
it
it.
H
I
don't
think
it's
what
is
is
being
desired
by
zoning
or
by
the
planning
board,
so
that
that's
that's
a
little
bit
of
the
position
we're
in
just
in
full
disclosure
and
transparency.
So
you
understand
our
position
as
the
applicant
is
not
to
try
to
just
jam
something
through
you
know.
We
we've
really
given
a
lot
of
thought
and
detail,
and
consideration
of
this,
I
think,
presented
by
what
we
presented,
that
this
is
a
good
project
for
the
neighborhood
and
there
are
some
asks,
but
I
think
we've
we've
shown
enough.
H
Mitigating
factors
that
trying
to
figure
out
what
what
some
of
those
peeling
back
the
project
items
might
be
is
challenging
because
it's
not
it's
not
the
same
project
and
then
you
get
to
a
question
of
like
well.
If
we
present
something
that's
completely
zoned
and
compliant
is
it
is
it
the
right
project
and
we
need
to
improve
the
housing
stock
and
and
on
those
two
parcels.
A
So
are
okay,
so
that
that
would
be
a
conversation
among
yourselves.
You
know
in
the
coming
week
right
which
did
you
think
of
the
variances
discussed
and
and
which
of
them
are
the
most
essential
for
you
to
make
your
project
work
and
which
do
you
think
you
essentially
have
the
best
chance
of
getting
some
of
them
through
as
they
are
right.
I
think
you
ran
into
some
some
issues
with
your
lot.
Coverage
parking
was
a
concern,
but
again
I
I
think
at
least
as
I
see
it,
part
lock
coverage
is
your
main.
A
Is
your
main
impediment?
Other
members
have
spoken
to
other
issues
right.
The
good
thing
about
youtube.
Is
you
know
you
guys
can
meet
now
and
replay
some
of
this
and
then
at
any
time
before
january?
If
you
do
wish
to
table
this,
you
could
do
so,
but
you
would
have
to
initiate
that
process
on
your
own.
A
Okay,
megan
did
we
follow
everything,
procedurally,
that
that
we
needed
to
here
and
do
you
have
any
input
or
suggestions.
B
Yeah,
I
think
you've
worked
through
the
variances.
I
have
some
notes
to
start
drafting
a
motion
for
the
board's
consideration
at
the
january
meeting
pending
any
revisions
by
the
project
team
and
which
I'll
be
in
touch
with
them
about
in
the
coming
days,
to
see
how
they
want
to
move
forward.
B
Chris,
with
the
board
like
to
take
a
few
minute
break
before
the
next
feel,
I
know
we
usually
break
at
eight,
but
they'll
probably
just
be
getting
started
as
we
get
to
that
point.
B
Would
that
be
okay
with
everybody
to
take
a
few
minutes,
then
I'll?
Let
the
next
applicants
know
so.
F
F
C
F
B
Okay
appeal
number
3202
for
815,
south
aurora
street
appeal
of
suzanne
dennis
and
south
hill
living
solutions.
Llc
of
the
zoning
administrator's
determination
that
the
construction
of
three
multiple
dwellings
at
815,
south
aurora
streets,
meets
the
requirements
of
section
325,
8
column,
1415,
rear
yard
in
section
325,
20,
f3b,
landscape,
compliance
method
for
new
and
enlarged
parking
areas,
with
the
capacity
for
three
or
more
parking
spaces
on
lots
within
residential
zoning
districts
and
325
29
9
fall
zone
and
setback
requirements
for
tier
3,
personal
wireless
service
facilities.
B
B
After
a
complete
review
of
project
plans,
the
zoning
administrator
determined
that
the
new
project
met
all
requirements
of
the
city's
zoning
ordinance
and
no
variances
were
required
on
september
16,
2019
susan
dennis
owner
of
117
to
19,
coddington,
road
and
brian
grou
owner
at
that
time
of
809.
South
aurora
street
submitted
an
application
to
the
board
of
zoning
appeals
to
appeal.
The
zoning
administrator's
decision
and
I'd
like
to
the
footnote,
is
that
mr
grout
has
sent
sold
his
property
and
has
replaced
on
this
appeal
by
south
hill.
B
The
zoning
administrator
determined
that
that
appeal
could
not
be
heard
by
the
bca
because
it
was
submitted
more
than
60
days
after
decision
on
the
project
zone.
In
compliance
the
appellants
filed
in
article
78
proceeding
to
challenge
the
rejection
of
their
appeal
on
on
september
16
2021,
the
appellate
division.
The
department
ruled
that
the
zoning
administrator's
rejection
of
the
appeal
was
improper,
because
initial
no
variance
termination
had
not
been
formally
filed
with
the
city
clerk.
B
The
court
has
ordered
the
bza
to
hear
the
appellant's
appeal
on
october
22nd
2021,
the
appellant
suzanne
dennis
and
south
hill
living
solutions.
Llc
timely
submitted
an
application
to
appeal
the
zoning
administrator's
decision
that
the
project
at
815,
south
aurora
street,
is
compliant
with
the
following
zoning
regulations:
one
325,
8
column,
1415,
rear
yard.
The
appellants
assert
that
the
average
lot
depth
is
calculated
incorrectly
and
the
project
is
deficient
in
the
required
rear
yard
section
325
20
d2e
access
requirements.
B
So
at
this
point
I
have
admitted
zoning
administrator
gino
leonardi,
as
well
as
several
members
of
on
the
appellants
and
as
described
to
the
board
in
all
parties
to
this
appeal
we're
going
to
begin
with
a
presentation
up
to
eight
minute
presentation
by
zoning
administrator
leonardi.
At
this
time.
B
I
Yes,
okay,
thank
you
well
good
evening.
Just
to
review
the
items
in
the
letter
that
I
sent
to
the
board
of
zoning
appeals
dated
november
18
2021.
I
In
item
1
of
the
letter,
section,
325,
29.9
fall
zone
and
setback
requirements,
I
outlined
the
review
process
and
in
detail
and
provided
the
definition
for
congregate
congregate
in
exhibit
c.
This
definition
was
used
as
a
backup
item
for
common
council
in
approving
the
revision
to
the
telecommunication
ordinance.
I
Therefore,
the
zoning
ordinance
was
correctly
applied
to
the
fall
zone
and
no
variance
was
required.
Item
2
of
the
letter
section,
325,
20,
f,
3,
b,
2,
landscape
compliance
method.
The
ordinance
allows
the
developer
the
option
to
choose
the
setback
method
or
the
landscape
compliance
method
for
parking
areas.
There
is
a
distinct
difference
between
the
two
methods.
I
The
setback
method
requires
that
the
parking
area
not
be
located
in
the
required
side
or
rear
yard
setback,
while
the
landscape
method
allows
the
planning
and
development
board
to
just
be
discretion
to
permit
the
parking
in
the
side
or
rear
yards.
Therefore,
the
zoning
ordinance
was
correctly
applied
and
no
variance
was
required
in
item
three
of
the
letter,
section
325
8,
a
14,
a
rear
yard
setback.
I
I
Therefore,
the
illustration
in
the
ordinance
was
used
as
a
guide
for
calculating
the
rear
yard
using
90
degree
angles
perpendicular
to
the
front
lot
line.
The
overall
depth
was
measured
at
the
largest
depth
of
the
property,
as
indicated
in
my
exhibit
e
depth.
1.
subsequently,
the
north
month
or
depth.
2
had
to
be
measured
at
the
northernmost
point
of
the
front
lot
line
using
a
90
degree
angle,
perpendicular
and
the
measured
line
had
to
be
on
the
property.
I
The
two
unequal
lengths
were
then
averaged
to
determine
the
rear
yard
line.
The
rear
yard
setback
was
then
applied.
According
to
the
district
regulations,
chart
section
325
8
for
the
r3b
zone
district,
the
district
regulations
chart
requires
20
or
50
feet.
Whichever
is
less,
therefore,
the
zoning
ordinance
for
determining
the
rear
yard
was
correctly
applied
and
no
variance
was
required.
I
Item
3a
of
the
letter,
32520
d2
e
2,
a
maximum
driver
grade
the
driveway
plans,
provided
exhibit
f,
indicated
the
elevations
used
to
calculate
the
driveway
grade
within
the
first
25
feet
from
the
curb.
The
calculations
show
that
the
driveway
grade
does
not
exceed
eight
percent
within
the
first
25
feet,
as
required
by
the
ordinance.
I
Therefore,
the
zoning
ordinance
was
correctly
applied
and
no
variance
was
required
in
item
3b
of
the
letter,
325
20
e3
front
yard
parking
exhibit
g
was
provided
to
illustrate
the
area
in
the
front
yard
that
was
applicable
to
the
requirements
of
the
zoning
ordinance,
the
result
of
the
calculation
totaled
less
than
25
percent,
which
the
zoning
ordinance
allows.
Therefore,
the
zoning
ordinance
was
correctly
applied
and
no
variance
was
required.
I
B
I'll
also
know
sorry
that
you're
welcome
to
circle
back
to
both
either
party
once
you
hear
both
sides
as
well,
if
that
helps
and
to
both
in
the
future,
if
there's
questions
to
both
mr
leonardi
and
the
appellant's
team,
if
you,
if
there's
anything,
they
any
portion
of
your
appeal,
you'd
like
me
to
share
on
screen,
please
be
sure
to
let
me
know,
and
I
can
bring
it
up
for
the
board's
reference.
A
Thanks
megan,
I
think
we're
ready
to
hear
the
appellant.
M
All
right
all
right,
good
evening,
everyone,
my
name,
is
john
tantillo.
I'm
an
attorney
for
sue
dennis,
who
owns
708,
hudson
place
immediately
to
the
south
and
east
of
the
site
with
me
to
that
tonight,
are
russ
maines
attorney
for
south
hill
living
solution,
jones
809,
south
aurora,
to
the
north
of
the
site,
as
well
as
john
snyder,
and
bear
smith
from
john
snyder
architects,
who
are
here
on
on
behalf
of
both
miss
dennis
and
south
hill.
C
M
Megan
mentioned
it
was
quite
a
process
getting
this
appeal
in
front
of
you
all.
In
the
intervening
two
years,
the
developer
went
ahead
and
started
building,
but
they've
been
fully
aware
of
this
appeal,
since
it's
filing,
we
did
everything
in
our
power
to
get
them
to
hold
off.
While
we
worked
on
getting
this
appeal
heard,
but
they
decided
to
go
full
bore
on
construction
as
a
result,
all
of
that
construction
was
entirely
at
their
own
risk,
since,
what's
in
front
of
tonight,
is
mostly
application
of
objective
standards
and
figures.
N
Good
evening
megan,
can
we
please.
N
And
screen:
oh
okay,
can
you
see
the
form
that
was
prepared
for
you
guys,
I
believe,
from
megan
indicating
the
how
you're
voting
on
each
thing.
N
Perfect,
so
starting
off
the
rear
yard
setback
as
the
code
clearly
states.
If
two
side
lot
lines
are
unequal
in
length,
the
rear
yard
percentage
they'll
be
taking
an
average
of
those
two
lengths.
The
important
factor
here
is
that
the
side
lot
lines
are
going
to
be
the
determining
factor.
N
As
a
part
of
this
back
through
the
court
process,
gino
submitted
an
affidavit
to
the
court
clearly
outlined
how
the
the
side
yards
are
supposed
to
be
applied
to
any
parcel
to
be
able
to
calculate
this
average.
It
clearly
states
the
graphic
depiction
in
the
zoning
ordinance
provides
that
the
side
lot
lines
should
be
drawn
at
90
degree
angles
perpendicular
to
the
front
wall
line
to
determine
the
average
lot
depth.
Accordingly,
when
a
parcel
is
ill-regular
and
shaped
the
side
lot
lines
are
drawn
by
extending
a
line.
N
90
degree
angle
perpendicular
to
the
front
lot
line
from
each
endpoint
of
the
front
lot
line
extending
to
the
furthest
rear
line.
So
here
I
have
illustrated
on
the
first
sheet,
where
you
have
the
front
lot
line
is
intersecting
with
the
side
lock
line,
and
that
is
where
the
first
measurement
needs
to
be
taken
from
and
then
same
thing
on
the
other
side
and
with
each
one.
You
will
extend
up
until
you
intersect
again.
N
Applying
this
principle
to
the
submitted
document
back
in
their
presentation,
we
can
see
that
the
applica
or
the
project
development
team
at
that
time
had
correctly
applied
this
in
terms
of
depth
to
where
the
front
line
intersects
with
the
sidewall
line,
and
they
then
drew
a
line.
Perpendicular
90
degrees
to
where
it
intersects
the
furthest
point
in
the
back.
N
N
It
appears
based
off
of
the
depth
that
they
have
here,
that
they
were
indicating
taking
a
depth
right
in
here,
going
up
and
then
over
to
the
furthest
point
the
back
well,
applying
that
same
logic
in
the
same
methodology,
which
was
used
on
the
other
lot
line,
but
using
the
correct
intersection
where
the
front
lot
line,
intersects
the
rear
lot
line,
you
would
get
a
different
depth
based
off
of
the
fact
that
these
lines
are
not
parallel,
and
you
can
also
see
in
the
diagram
that
they
were
already
showing
that
this
this
building
was
already
over
the
line
when
they
initially
presented
this.
N
They
did
later
correct
this,
so
continuing
on
following
geno's
methodology
of
90
degrees,
from
the
intersection
of
the
front
lot
line
and
the
side
lot
line
measuring
back
depth,
2
we're
all
in
an
agreement
on
there's
no
question
on
that.
One,
however,
on
depth,
one
when
you
measure
from
the
intersection
of
the
front
lot
line
and
side
lot
line.
N
N
It
is
over
the
line
now
they
did
change
the
building
shape
so
moving
on,
we
applied
the
same
exact
principle
to
the
new,
the
new
building
diagram
that
they
provided
and
again
we
can
see
that
the
building
is
sitting
over
the
line,
roughly
eight
and
five
eight
foot
five
inches
so
based
off
of
mr
leonardi's
explanation
on
how
the
code
is
supposed
to
be
applied
and
or
how
the
ordinance
is
supposed
to
be
applied
and
how
the
apple
or
the
development
team
applied
it
on
the
other
and
the
north
side
of
the
line.
N
Maximum
driveway
grade
driveways
to
areas
containing
parking
spaces
of
three
or
more
vehicles
shall
be
graded
to
form
a
street
entry
with
a
maximum
grade
of
eight
percent
for
a
distance
of
25
feet
from
the
curb.
Please
note
that
at
the
beginning
of
this
co
or
ordinance,
it
says
maximal
driveway
grades
period.
The
word
form,
which
is
a
verb,
is
in
conjunction
with
street
entry,
followed
by
the
preposition
and
then
maximum
grade.
Nowhere
in
this
code
does
it
state
that
this
should
be
an
average.
N
They
indicate
the
existing
existing
right
away
right
there
and
up
above
you
have
the
up
above
you
have
the
center
line
of
the
street.
If
we
go
to
their
diagram
over
here,
you
see
the
right
away
right
away.
Right
here,
come
on
right
away
right
here,
and
then
you
see
the
center
of
the
street
here
now
in
mr
leonard's
exhibit
that
he
presented
right
where
I'm
showing
number
three
is
the
25
foot
setback
from
the
curb
line
now.
B
Number
four
for
eight
minutes:
just
keep
track
of
time
for
the
board.
J
Gretchen
megan,
we
kind
of
started.
Can
we
get
about
another
three
minutes,
because
we
kind
of
started
with
the
screen
share,
probably
about
three
minutes
in.
M
A
N
Thank
you
all
right.
So
if
we
look
at
this
diagram
right
here,
they
clearly
indicate
in
front
of
the
right
of
way
that
the
transition
of
grade
goes
from
3.5
to
10
slope.
The
code
clearly
states
that
it
should
be
an
8
maximum,
not
an
average,
between
the
different
depths.
This
is
important
because
for
a
fire
you
need
to
be
able
to
have
no
more
than
a
maximum
of
10
percent
grade.
So,
according
to
this,
if
you
go
zero
percent
and
you
average
it
with
16,
a
fire
truck
would
be
scraping.
N
It
just
doesn't
make
sense
by
taking
an
average
more
dose
of
code
state
that,
as
for
front
yard,
I
will
acknowledge
that,
based
off
of
the
calculations
that
there
was
a
28.9
deficiency,
they
indicated
that
the
the
front
yard
should
be
based
on
the
existing
building,
and
I
noticed
that
today
I
did
double
check
the
calculations.
This
would
change
the
percentage
to
be
fair
to
27.3
percent,
so
it
is
still
deficient.
N
A
B
Yes,
if
the
board
doesn't
want
to
ask
any
questions
at
this
time,
we
will
move
to
public
hearing.
If,
if
that's,
what
you'd
like
to
do.
A
B
A
Okay,
all
right
so
yeah.
If
we
could
open
this
up
to
the
public
hearing
and
then
I
guess
we'll
be
hearing
from
the
property
owner
as
well.
B
B
So,
in
terms
of
written
comments,
we
received
one
comment
that
again,
the
board
classifies
all
comments
as
either
being
in
support
or
in
opposition,
so
to
assign
that
one
of
those
I
would
say-
and
we
the
board
hears
comments
in
support
first.
B
So
this
comments
which
you've
received
written,
but
they
did
request
it
to
read
aloud
I'm
a
close
neighbor
to
the
project
at
815,
south
aurora
street.
We
live
at
106
grandview
place.
Our
house
is
now
about
45
to
50
feet
from
the
northeast
corner
of
the
new
building.
In
spite
of
that,
many
of
the
project
documents
provided
to
the
planning
board
in
2019
and
perhaps
to
the
city
as
well,
did
not
even
show
our
house
as
a
close
neighbor.
B
I
would
also
note
that
most
of
the
homes
in
our
neighborhood
are
owner
occupied,
including
ours.
This
project
is
a
huge
encroachment
on
a
quiet
family
neighborhood,
five
out
of
the
six
houses
on
grandview
place
are
occupied
by
working
people,
not
students
and
four
of
them
are
owner
occupied.
The
very
small
rear
setback
of
this
new
building
affects
us
greatly
increasing
the
noise
and
making
the
building
loom
over
ours
blocking
the
sun
for
several
hours
in
the
afternoon.
B
B
And
that
is
the
only
comment
I
received
in
support
and
I
do
not
have
anyone
signed
up
to
speak
in
support
of
the
appeal
we
do
have
representative
the
prop
property
owner
who
I'm
admitting
to
the
room.
Now.
B
L
B
Can
hear
you
okay,
so
the
floor
is
yours
for
your
eight
minutes.
L
Okay,
great,
thank
you.
So
my
name
is
lauren
barron,
I'm
attorney
an
attorney
with
weaver
mancuso
brightman,
the
law
firm
that
represents
the
owner
of
the
property
at
815,
south
aurora.
I
don't
want
to
take
too
much
time
to
walk
back
through
what
mr
leonardi
stated
so
well
and
what
he
submitted,
but
I
would
like
to
just
bring
the
board's
attention
to
a
couple
of
the
items
in
the
letters
that
were
submitted
yesterday
to
the
board
one
from
my
colleague,
john
mancuso
and
another
from
our
architect
on
this
project.
Jason
demarest.
L
So
just
to
reiterate
the
prop
the
project's
fully
compliant
with
the
zoning
code.
No
variances
are
required
for
the
reasons
that
mr
leonardi
stated
in
regards
to
the
fall
zone.
As
mr
leonardi
said,
his
the
definition
of
congregation
area
that
was
previously
applied
by
the
city
was
reasonable
and
and
should
be
accepted
by
the
board,
and
he
stated
also
that
in
the
lease
agreements,
it's
specifically
spelled
out
that
no
nobody's
allowed
to
congregate
in
the
parking
lot
and
the
planning
board
required
signage
to
that
effect
as
well.
L
L
So
in
regards
to
the
average
rare
lot
line,
which
the
architects,
john
snyder
architect
spent
a
lot
of
time,
discussing
I'd
like
to
draw
the
board's
attention
during
their
deliberations
to
the
charts
and
diagrams
submitted
with
mr
demarist's
letter
yesterday
and
the
john
snyder's
character's
characterization
of
the
rear
lot
line
completely
ignores
the
actual
depth
of
the
property,
which
is
what
mr
leonard's
calculation
takes
into
account,
and
it's
correctly
applied
in
our
in
our
estimation.
L
So
in
regards
to
the
driveway
grade,
I
think
that
the
diagram
that
mr
leonardi
submitted,
which
the
developer
did
prepare,
is
correct.
It
actually
indicates
that
the
ten
any
ten
percent
slope
is
beyond
that
25
foot
requirement
from
the
curb
line
and
contrary
to
mr
snyder's
submission,
as
he
just
indicated
so
for
the
front
yard
calculation
for
the
front
yard
parking
the
parking
lot.
The
front
yard
is
actually
calculated
from
an
existing
building
on
the
property
called
concrete
block,
building
which
is
22
plus
or
minus
22
feet
from
the
front
property
line.
L
Any
calculating
it
from
a
different
building,
as
mr
as
the
snyder
architects
proposed
in
their
submission,
would
actually
be
less
beneficial
to
the
developer
so
having
a
smaller
area
in
the
as
far
as
the
front
yard,
calculation
is
actually
more
in
their
favor,
so
I
was
a
little
bit
confused
about
why
they
were
saying
that
it
needed
to
be
a
different
building
but,
as
he
said
so,
the
front
yard
calculation
was
submitted
in
mr
mr
leonardy's,
submission,
which
was
it's
well,
be
well
below
the
percentage
that
it
needs
to
be
in
terms
of
the
area
of
the
square
footage
of
the
parking,
and
I
just
want
to
say
that
that's
all
I
wanted
to
say.
L
B
I
do
not
see
the
other
individual
in
the
waiting
room,
so
we
are
all
set
again.
You
all
can
ask
questions
of
miss
baron
or
you
can
do
that
later,
as
well.
Whatever
the
board
prefers,
we
will
give
an
additional
five
minutes
to
the
appliance
team
to
respond
to
the
testimony
of
the
public
hearing
once
the
board's
ready.
B
It's
there
isn't,
I
guess
I
was
gonna
say
I
can
read
the
planning
more
comment,
but
the
planning
board
comment
was
that
they
have
no
comments
on
this
particular
appeal.
So
that
is
very
brief.
A
Okay
and
we
did
receive
the
board-
did
receive
the
submission,
the
120
page,
submission
from
the
property
owner's
law
firm,
so
we're
delving
through
that
we
did
receive
it.
I
believe
today
or
was
it
yesterday,
but
so
we'll
we'll
keep
working
our
way
through
that
and
reach
out
with
any
specific
questions.
So
I
thought
maybe
miss
baron.
You
could
just
highlight
you
know
what
is
if
you
were
to
summarize
within
120
pages.
What
would
you
want
to
direct
our
attention
to
this
evening
as
the
single
mo?
L
Sure
so
I
think
I
kind
of
touched
on
that
with
what
I
just
said,
but
really,
I
guess
the
overall
point
and
the
thrust
of
our
submission
was
in
support
of
gino
and
his
conclusions
that
he
previously
made,
which
were
rational
and
well
thought
out,
as
evidenced
by
his
own
submission
and
a
couple
of
the
higher
level
things,
particularly
in
terms
of
the
rear
lot
line,
calculation,
which
is
confusing
based
on
the
irregular
shape
of
the
lot.
L
I
think
that
you
know
one
of
the
things
I
have
we
highlighted
in
the
letter
was
schneider.
Architects
submitted
a
different
calculation
to
supreme
court,
which
was
attached
in
one
of
their
affidavits
that
was
attached
to
the
letter
previously.
So
it
is
very
can
a
very
confusing
calculation,
but
I
think
that
the
one
that
mr
leon
already
relied
on
really
is
logical
and
makes
sense
for
the
way
that
the
law
is
configured
so
that's
kind
of
the
higher
level
points.
A
Thank
you
any
other
questions
for
miss
baron.
A
A
All
good,
so,
let's
see
for
for
this
megan,
you
want
the
appellant
to
respond
directly
to
this
last
presentation.
B
Correct,
yes,
the
appellant's
team
can
make
an
has
another
five
minutes
to
to
rebut
any
testimony
from
the
public
hearing
for
our
proceedings.
C
K
I'd
like
to
draw
something
intent:
some
this
is
russ
mains
I
represent,
represent
south
hill
living
solutions.
K
Once
we
fix
our
audio
problems,
I
would
like
to
draw
the
board's
attention
to
one
very
specific
part
of
john
mancuso's
submissions.
If
you
look
at
gino
leonardy's
affidavit,
that's
in
there
look
at
paragraph
10.
He
gives
you
a
formula
and
the
formula
talks
about
how
one
determines
a
real
lot
line.
K
This
is
exactly
what
bear
was
talking
about
and
it's
exactly
what
gino
was
talking
about
and
in
paragraph
10
gino
says
that
you
measure
from
two
end
points
of
the
front
flap
line,
which
is
perfectly
logical.
Until
you
go
two
paragraphs
down,
what
does
he
do?
He
shows
you
a
diagram
and
he
shows
you
where
he
measured
from.
He
did
not
go
from
the
end
points
of
the
front
plot
line
you
didn't
this
is
very
basic
and
it
is
not
ambiguous.
It's
very
clear.
J
Yeah,
I
guess
I'll
chime
in
a
little
bit
here
and
just
to
kind
of
piggyback
on.
You
know
this
kind
of
ambiguity
and
ruling
in
favor
of
the
property
owner
in
in
our
line
of
work.
There
is
no
such
thing
as
ambiguity
when
it
comes
to
zoning
ordinances
or
building
codes
or
ada.
J
It's
all
there
in
text,
it's
very
clear
for
us
to
make
determinations,
and
that
is
the
basis
of
all
the
information
that
you
have
before
you
and
we
are
showing
deficiencies
in
a
couple
of
if
four
points,
a
couple,
major
deficiencies
in
a
couple
points.
So
there
should
have
been
variances
that
were
pursued
by
the
developer
for
this
project,
and
that
was
an
oversight.
J
That's,
I
think,
that's
all.
I
would
like
to
add
to
to
this
again.
There
is
no
ambiguity.
There
is
no,
you
know,
interpretation
by
anyone
in
this.
It's
very
clear
how
these
things
are
calculated.
J
You
want
to
go
through
any
of
the
other
documents
there,
or
I
mean
I
don't
know
how
we're
doing
with
time
here.
Megan.
N
The
one
thing
I
would
point
out
on
the
diagram
given
by
mr
demaris
saying
that
if
they
were
to
entertain
our
method,
which
is
the
correct
method
based
upon
what
gino
has
stated,
he's
saying
that
we
calculated
depth
1
incorrectly
by
roughly
10
feet,
the
point
I
would
make
there
is
those
three
segments
of
that
front
lot
line
are
not
parallel
and
therefore
what
mr
demers
is
showing
is
he's
only
making
everything
parallel
to
the
one
segment
that
drastically
it's
about
a
two
degree.
N
Difference
that
drastically
changes
that
depth
about
10
feet
that
10
feet
in
turn
adjusts
the
average
accordingly.
So,
therefore,
the
diagram
that
he
has
presented
is
incorrect.
He's
also
pointing
at
an
average
front
lot
line.
We
make
no
indication
of
that
whatsoever
in
our
presentation,
so
I'm
not
sure
why
that's
being
brought
up.
K
And
you
know
you
folks,
we
thank
you
for
this
attention,
which
should
have
been
given
to
us
two
years
ago,
through
no
fault
of
your
own,
but
before
a
shovel
hits
the
ground
we
put
this
application
and
our
clients
interests
are
supposed
to
be
weighed
you're
supposed
to
look
at
a
balancing
test
between
the
detriments
of
the
neighborhood
against
the
benefit
of
the
applicant
and
we're
in
a
lot
worse
position
now,
because
of
what's
happened,
they've
decided
to
go
ahead
and
start
building.
That's
a
shame.
K
We
were
not
hurt
and
that's
what
we
want
from
you
folks.
We
want
a
fair
shake.
Everything
bear
has
given
you
tonight
is
objective
stuff.
It's
not
subject
to
reasonable
debate
and
we're
asking
you
just
to
give
us
a
fair
shake
and
just
to
give
us
a
chance
to
be
heard
too
bad.
It
didn't
happen
two
years
ago,
but
we
have
ultimately
have
absolute
faith
that
you
can
do
this
for
us.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
okay,
one
more
thing,
so,
actually
that
that
does
it
we'll
now
move
into
deliberation,
but
we
have
everybody
here
in
case
we
have
questions,
I
guess
I'll
start
with
one
question
and
then
can
go
around
the
room
but
gino.
When
was
there
a
new
survey?
I
Yes,
it
was,
it
was
a
stamped
by
a
licensed
surveyor
that
was
presented
to
me.
You
know
for
the
zoning
review.
F
D
I
I
guess
I
I
would
pose
the
same
questions
about
the
average
lot
measurement,
but
if
they're
all
going
off
of
the
same,
was
that
line
two
and
then
the
deepest
point
of
the
lot.
I
don't
know
how
the
measurements
would
be
off
the
way
that
they
are,
and
then
I
guess
in
terms
of
the
congregation
zone.
D
I
think
that
the
stipulations
they
very
explicitly
have
to
state
not
to
congregate
in
that
area
does
make
an
argument
that
it
would
be
in
congregation
zone
naturally.
So
I
guess
I
see
merit
and
both
of
those
arguments.
A
D
Have
only
seen
it
in
like
bank
parking
lots
honestly
yeah,
I
I
guess
I
haven't
really
seen
it
before
so
I
don't
know
if
that's
a
I'm
missing
out
on
the
common
occurrence,
but
that's
just
where
my
thoughts
are
right.
Now.
B
And
I'm
sorry
to
interrupt,
but
could
you
before
the
you
mentioned
the
point
about
the
congregation?
Can
you
just
repeat
your
first
thought
just
so
you
can
get
it
down
about
the
lot
line.
The
lot
segment
two.
You
said
something
about.
D
Yeah
the
measurement
from
the
north
lot
line,
they
seem
to
be
in
agreement
with
where
that
should
be,
and
then
there
there's
a
dispute
on
where
these
southern
lines
should
be
for
that.
D
But
if
they're
both
going
off
of
the
furthest
depth
of
the
lot
anyway,
I'm
not
sure
how
there's
a
discrepancy,
I
guess,
is
kind
of
where
my
confusion
comes
from
in
that
situation.
I
Sure
there,
the
the
front
property
line
on
that
parcel.
Does
you
know
it's
not
linear,
and
there
are,
if
there's
segmented
portions,
that
actually
come
in
a
little
bit.
I
The
ordinance,
though,
when,
when
we're
trying
to
find
an
average
depth,
you
have
to
look
at
the
overall
depth
of
a
lot
and
what
they
did
was
they
actually
went
to
that
reduced
line
or
where
the
corner
of
the
property,
the
property
line,
actually
comes
in
a
little
bit
on
the
southern
portion
and
they
took
their
dimension
from
that
point
to
the
point
on
the
east
or
the
lot
depth,
which
is
not
the
maximum
lock
depth.
D
I
guess
so
it
has
to
be
the
right
angle
from
the
maximum
correct
it
couldn't
be
so
it
curves
inward
slightly
towards
the
south
end
of
that
front
property
line
and
you're
saying
that
that
would
be
disregarded
that
difference
between
the
maximum
front
lot
line
in
the
shortest
segment
there.
That
would
regular
that
would
normally
be
calculated
that
way
in
other
situations,.
D
A
B
Can
you
speak?
Oh
sorry,
I
was
just
wondering
if
there
might
be
a
map
I
could
put
up
for
the
board
and
everyone's
reference
that
I'm
trying
to
look
through
the
packet
to
see
if
there
was
a
basic
survey
that
didn't
have
any
notes
on
it.
Just
that
everyone
might
agree
upon.
I
did
find
a
survey
on
the
county
site,
but
that's
from
2011..
I
don't
know
if
that
is
agreeable.
B
I
swore
I
had
a
survey
here,
but
we
have
a
lot
of
paper
with
this.
Also,
let
me
just.
F
There
is
a
map
on
there's
a
the
calculation
explained
on
the
attorney
on
the
weaver
man,
cue,
so
page
three,
that's
one
version
of
how
they
calculate
them.
I
All
right
well
in
exhibit
f.
If
you
look
at
that
that
plan
that
I
submitted.
I
I
What
I
did
was
in
my
initial
review
was
took
those
two
numbers
for
the
overall
difference
in
height
for
the
driveway
grade
and
as
I
presented
in
my
letter,
I
did
the
calculations
from
those
two
points,
all
right,
which
was
actually
just
understand
that
the
route
96b
as
you
go
north
actually
declines.
I
So
it's
lower
all
right.
So
I
took
the
point,
which
was
the
the
topo
measurement
of
746.28,
which
was
the
lowest
point
on
that
driveway,
and
that
was
that
street
grade.
That
was
not
at
curb
height
and
the
748,
which
was
at
the
top
of
the
25
foot
area,
from
the
setback
from
the
curb
okay
and
average.
Those
two
and
it
came
up
to
the
6.5.
I
So
that's
how
that
was
calculated
and
that's
where
I
came
up
with
that
percentage
now
granted
they're.
You
know
we
have
a
down
sloping
driveway.
I
That
then
turns
and
goes
to
the
street,
and
let
me
just
explain
one
other
thing
as
to
why
we
go
by
the
top
of
the
curb
rather
than
the
street
level,
but
before
I
even
explain
that
if
you
take
those
two
numbers,
the
746.28
and
the
748.5,
it
comes
to
like
seven.
I
believe
it
was
7.4
on
an
incline,
and
that
was
from
the
street
level.
I
Now,
as
a
matter
of
practice,
we
go
from
this
top
of
the
street,
curb
because,
throughout
the
city,
the
curb
heights
are
all
different.
If
you
go
up
steward
avenue,
you're
looking
at
12
to
14-inch
curb
heights,
you
know
and
throughout
the
city,
so
these
standards
have
been
developed
since
1980
of
how
we
actually
enforce
the
ordinance
in
order
to
enforce
it
in
a
uniform
manner.
I
So
hence
that's
why
I
presented
with
the
top
of
the
curb,
because
that's
our
procedure
and
those
are
the
measurements
and
the
total
heights
that
I
use
in
order
to
come
up
with
the
6.5
grade
height.
A
E
Just
one
more
time
I
zoomed
in
on
my
own
topographical
map
and
could
maybe
megan
just
because
you're
actually
sharing
the
screen.
Yeah
just
point
out
exactly
where
that
I
can
see
the
curve.
But
I'm
having
a
hard
time
delineating
which
elevation
mark
is
which.
B
Can
you
correct,
is
this
the
748.5
right
here
where
my
cursor
is.
I
C
A
E
One
of
the
since
the
I
don't
know
the
longest
document
that
we
received
for
this
evening
to
review.
Was
there
any
pages
that
included
the
signage
for
the
I'm
just
curious,
the
no
congregating
in
the
parking
lot
I
might
have
missed
that
like?
Is
there
an
example
of
the
sign.
L
There
was
no
example
of
the
sign
included
with
the
submission,
but
I
can
certainly
look
into
getting
that
information
for
the
board.
If
they'd
like
to
see
it.
F
F
That
a
little
rudely
this
this
was
debated
well
before
I
joined
this
board
and
I
actually
observed
this
debate
and
it
seemed
to
me
that
the
congregation
question
was
dealt
with
by
the
planning
department.
I'm
comfortable
with
enough
eyeballs
saw
it
and
they
made
the
decision
and
gino
was
one
of
them,
but
others.
A
B
A
I
guess
I
can
lean
in
on
what
I'm
thinking
I
right
again
we're
trying
to
determine
whether
or
not
a
variance
or
multiple
variances
should
have
been
sought
in
the
first
place,
and
that's
really
all
that's
being
decided
here
tonight
and
we're
not
delving
into
the
other
components
when
we're
not
going
beyond
our
purview.
A
I
I'm
of
the
impression
that
the
city
acted
in
good
faith
and
that
geno
acted.
A
his
assessment
was
the
correct
one,
but
I'm
curious
to
hear
what
other
people
are
thinking
and
even
in
that
sense
you
know
I
I
could
I
I'll
keep
going
over
this.
But
that's
you
know,
that's
where
my
head
is
at.
F
Speak
to
it
that
that
summarizes
how
I
feel
you
know,
I
don't
care
to
take
down
the
four
points
I
think
gino
did
his
job.
I
think
there
were
a
lot
of
eyeballs
on
this
project
and
I
understand
how
upset
the
neighbors
are,
but
I
have
to
believe
the
city
acted
in
good
faith
here.
A
And
to
speak
to
that
right,
this
is
usually
a
five-member
board.
Currently,
there
are
four
members
there
would
be.
You
know
if
there
were
to
be
two
votes
against
this.
Well,
actually
megan.
How
do
we?
How
do
we
phrase
right?
A
vote
against
this
is
that
a
variance
is
not
required,
so
two
votes
in
favor
would
then
necessitate,
or
it
would.
B
My
understanding
is
that
the
motion
would
be
the
question
again.
We're
considering
is:
did
the
zoning
administrator
correctly
apply
the
zoning
administration,
sony
ordinance
to
the
determination
and
then
will
the
motion
that
will
draft
would
either
be
yes
or
no
depending
on
the
feeling
of
the
board.
It
would
take
a
majority
of
the
board,
which
is
at
least
three
votes
to
make
the
decision
that
a
variance
was
required,
or
vice
versa.
So.
A
D
Yeah,
I
think
the
two
that
I'm
I
have
on
my
mind
are
the
landscape
compliance
method.
I'm
not
super
well
versed
in
that,
so
I
guess
for
me:
that's
the
only
variance
that
might
have
been
needed,
but
again
that's
something
I
can
research
before
the
next
meeting
and
then,
as
it
relates
to
the
congregation
zone.
It
seems
that
it
would
be
ambiguous
ambiguity,
ambiguous
ambiguous,
which
goes
in
favor
of
the
property
owner.
So
the
only
thing
I
want
to
take
a
deeper
look
at
is
the
landscape
compliance.
A
I
You
know
actually,
in
my
write
up
for
the
landscape
compliance
method.
Okay,
I
I
outlined
it
as
clearly
as
I
possibly
could,
and
you
know
in
detail
the
differences
between
the
setback
method
and
the
landscape,
compliance
method
and
the
landscape.
Compliance
method
is
really
a.
It
is
in
zoning.
I
But
it's
really
a
referral
to
the
planning
board
and
the
planning
board
has
the
discretion
to
allow
parking
to
exceed
50
of
any
well
of
the
side
and
rear
yard,
and
that
50
is
not
determined
or
or
limited
by
the
setbacks.
I
I
I
How
that
all
works
and
and
gives
the
planning
board
the
discretion
to
allow
parking
in
side
yards
and
rear
yards.
E
Looking
through
the
documents
that
were
provided
and,
however,
you
want
to
look
at
it
as
evidence,
some
of
the
information
goes
back.
I
thought
I
saw
a
correspondence.
E
A
lot
of
it
was
based
around
the
structural
integrity
of
the
fall
zone
of
the
tower
again
kind
of
in
that
same
sentiment
that
it,
I
think
due
diligence
was
met.
It
was
reviewed
by
many
different
people,
many
different
companies
too,
and
there
was
a
summary
on
one
of
the
pages
as
well
that
while
there
was
some
variation,
ultimately
they
reached
a
similar
conclusion.
E
You
know
based
on
just
again
the
structural
integrity.
As
for
the
other
points,
that
was
just
one
that
just
kind
of
stuck
out
to
me
just
being
kind
of
reviewed
at
length.
I
I
think
I
have
to
sit
with
the
even
with
hearing
the
way
to
calculate
the
maximum
depth
of
the
property.
I
think
I
just
need
to
look
at
the
material
a
little
bit
more,
just
to
make
sure
that
I
reach
the
same
conclusion,
but
you
know
with
what
mike
said.
I
think
that
the
city
did
its
due
diligence.
A
Thank
you
and
then
I
I
would
just
like
to
offer
the
appellants
a
chance.
You
know
I've
been
asking
gino
clarifying
questions.
He
was
the
zoning
administrator
at
the
time,
but
I
would
like
to
ask
the
appellants
you
know,
or
at
least
give
them
an
opportunity
to
respond
to
those
same
questions
that
I
posed
to
him
right:
the
landscape,
parking
method,
the
driveway
yeah.
M
Real
quick
before
we
get
into
that,
could
I
just
address
the
standard
for
the
review.
It's
been
mentioned
a
couple
times
that
that
you
know
gino
acted
in
good
faith
or
did
his
due
diligence,
but
that's
not
the
question
that
that's
in
front
of
the
board
here.
It's
it's.
M
So
we
just
asked
that
the
board,
you
know,
look
at
each
question
and
really
you
know,
try
to
apply
the
the
calculations
themselves
and
see
who
who
applied
them
correctly
and
and
to
that
end,
while
we've
got
john
and
bear
in
front
of
you,
if
you
have
questions
on
that,
I
think
that'd
be
a
helpful
resource.
N
So
addressing
the
same
questions
that
we're
asked
of
gino,
the
first
point
I
would
make
is
to
the
maximum
grade.
The
two
highlighted
points
that
gino
points
to
are
on
opposite
sides
of
the
driveway
and
in
fact
the
one
line
is
an
existing
topo
line,
not
the
proposed
topo
line,
and
the
code
is
very
clear
that
if
there
is
any
maximum
grade
greater
than
eight
percent
in
in
that
first
25
feet,
it's
not
it's
not
compliant
with
the
code
and
the
diagram
that
is
on
that
sheet.
N
So
you
can
see
right
in
the
middle.
It
says:
transition
from
slope
of
3.5
to
10
slope
and
that
transition
is
occurring
between
the
right-of-way
line,
the
center
line
of
the
street
that
right-of-way
line
in
the
center
line
of
street.
That's
that
section
of
25
feet.
So,
if
you're
transitioning
to
10
10,
slope
you're
above
the
maximum,
that
is
a
variance
and
then
in
regards
to.
J
N
N
N
So
if
you
take
the
blue
and
the
yellow,
which
are
each
five
feet,
you're
seeing
that
you're
going
from
one
foot
to
topo
increments
over
ten
feet.
Well,
one
divided
by
ten
is
a
ten
percent
slope
and
that
diagram
on
the
right
hand,
side
clearly
indicates
that
they
even
call
out
that
the
driveway
slope
is
10.
N
So
I
don't
understand
how
there's
any
ambiguity
when
the
code
clearly
says
maximum
because
yeah
that's
enough
I'll
say
on
that
point.
I
guess.
J
And
I
guess
to
go
back
to
the
landscape
compliant
method.
Just
briefly,
I
think
you
could
probably
jump
to
that
just
quickly.
N
N
So,
with
the
front
yard,
what
I
was
indicating
was
on
the
diagram
presented
or
provided
by
the
development
team.
They
gave
no
dimension
between
the
existing
building
and
the
property
line.
So,
admittedly
I
use
the
dimension
that
they
gave,
which
you
can
see
at
the
top
of
building
a
of
the
24.3.
N
Now
the
development
team
did
present
that
120
page
document.
Today
I
reviewed
it
and
I
recognized
that
they
were
going
based
off
of
that
existing
building,
which
is
at
22.06
or
zero,
eight
feet
that
they
indicated
and
so
to
be
fair,
recognizing
that
yup.
I
made
an
error
on
this
diagram
that
I
provided
to
you
guys.
I
went
through
and
re-evaluated
the
calculation
because
I
was
at
28.5
28.4,
I
think
for
the
setback,
and
I
wanted
to
be
fair
to
the
development
team.
N
When
I
looked
at
those
numbers
today,
it
is
still
at
27.3
percent
and
now
the
calculation
error
that
I
think
that
the
development
team
is
making
is
that
our
red
areas
are
identical,
we're
showing
the
red
areas
exactly
the
same,
the
green
area
they
do
not
clearly
show
on
any
of
their
drawings.
Nor
does
gino
show
on
his
exhibit
clearly
of
what
is
the
area,
that's
not
affected
by
front
yard
parking.
N
Now,
when
you
look
at
those
two
areas
in
combination-
and
I,
if
I
would
be
allowed
to
share
my
screen,
I
can
show
you
the
screen
grabs
that
I
did
of
today.
I
figured
it
just
wouldn't
be
allowed,
given
the
fact
of
it
wasn't
submitted
in
a
timely
fashion,
so
I
haven't
presented
it,
but
I
did
redo
the
calculation
today
just
to
be
fair
to
the
developer
and
it
still
doesn't
comply.
J
A
B
It
is
an
area
variance,
it's
part
of
the
zoning
ordinance,
so
it
would
be
an
area.
I
If
you
look
at
the
plans,
all
right
that
were
submitted,
okay,
yes,
there
is
the
station
graph
that
indicates
the
transitions
in
elevation.
Okay,
the
scale
I'm
totally
unsure
of,
but
after
reviewing
thousands
of
plans,
okay
and
there
are
topo
lines
on
a
plan-
all
right.
That
gives
me
the
indication
that
the
topo
lines
on
the
plan
are
correct.
I
The
the
architect
also
put
where
the
driveway
slope
was
10,
and
so,
if
you
look
at
the
plan,
it
indicates
where
the
driveway
is
10
and
there's
a
line
that
actually
goes
to
the
area,
which
is
past
the
25
foot
setback
for
the
driver.
I
So
I
mean
you
know,
I
I've
reviewed
many
plans
and
I
wanted.
I
want
to
say
that
I
have
found
many
errors
on
plants
and
in
this
specific
situation
and
for
this
plan
that
I
reviewed
I've.
I
also
had
discussions
with
the
architect
for
to
verify
what
what
is
actually
happening
at
that
driveway
and
are
those
grades
that
I
am
using
to
assess
whether
or
not
it
meets
zoning
are
correct
and
from
what
I
can
tell
you
is
that
those
total
line
heights
are
correct.
I
My
calculations
are
correct
and
that
driveway
meets
the
the
eight
percent
requirement
of
the
zoning
opens.
So
I
I'm
not
sure
you
know
how
much
more
I
could
say
about
that,
but
I'm
just
telling
you
from
those
topo
lines
and
that
driveway
it
is
at.
I
According
to
the
calculations,
I
gave
you
it
is
at
six
and
a
half
percent,
as
I
stated
if
you,
and
that
was
from
the
top
of
the
curve
it's
at,
like
7.4
percent.
I
believe,
don't
quote
me
there,
because
it
could
be
seven
point,
almost
five
percent-
I
don't
know
but
and
that's
from
the
street
level
at
that
low
point.
So
I
you
know,
I
don't
know
how
much
we
could
argue
semantics
here
or
you
know
what's
correct
and
what
isn't?
I
A
Okay,
thank
you,
gino.
I
think
we'll
move
on
from
this.
I
think
cell
tower
too,
but
I
guess,
let's
see
if
you
guys
could
address
to
the
appellant,
let's
just
once
more
go
over
the
the
rear
yard.
I
think
that's
the
crux
right,
not
that
that's
one
of
it.
What
the
math
is
really
kind
of
weird
again
go
over
it.
N
So,
in
regards
to
rear
yard,
the
code
is
very
clear
that
it
says
the
two
side
lot
lines.
Nowhere
in
the
ordinance
does
it
say
anything
about
maximum
lot
depth.
Now
I
understand
that
we're
trying
to
calculate
the
rear
yard
and
therefore
that's
why
I
took
exactly
what
gino
had
said
in
his
affidavit,
applied
it
to
the
drawings
of
what
the
development
team
had
presented
applied
it
to
when
they
changed
the
building
shape,
to
make
sure
that
it
was
in
compliance.
N
If
you
take
the
method
of
how
they
calculated
depth,
one
which
or
sorry
depth
two,
I
want
to
make
sure
I
get
this
correct
how
they
calculated
depth.
Two
were
in
agreement
with.
If
you
apply
that
same
principle
of
how
you
apply
that,
according
to
gino's
own
words
in
his
own
affidavit,
you
go
to
the
other
side
of
the
prop
or
the
front
lot
line
where
the
side
lot
line
and
the
front
lot
line
meet
at
the
furthest.
N
Extents
of
the
front
lot
line
90
degrees
back,
applying
that
same
principle
from
depth,
2,
which
we
both
agree
on
to
depth
one
you
get
a
different
average
lot
depth
now
to
speak.
To
the
point
of
how
is
our
number
different
from
their
number
again
when
I
was
evaluating
all
this?
It's
because
that
front
lot
line
is
three
segments
and
none
of
those
segments
are
parallel
to
each
other,
but
all
three
segments
front
the
street.
N
So
it
is
very
important
that
that
is
taken
from
the
correct
points
of
either
end,
because
if
they're
only
doing
the
one
segment
which
they're
kind
of
sort
of
indicating,
then
I
would
say
you
don't
go
all
the
way
to
the
rear
depth.
You
apply
exactly
like
you
did
on
depth
2
and
you
go
as
soon
as
you
hit
a
property
line
which
doesn't
seem
fair
to
the
developer,
and
nor
does
that
follow
what
gino
said
in
his
affidavit.
N
So
therefore,
we
weren't
indicating
that
we
want
to
be
fair
to
the
development
team
and
just
make
sure
that
everyone
is
following
the
rules.
We
understand
that
the
neighbors
are
not
happy
with
the
project.
We
understand
that
there
are
certain
things
that
they
wish
they
could
change
and
they
have
no
control
over.
N
Hence
why
we
are
going
after
the
the
variances
that
were
required,
clear
we're
going
after
the
clear-cut
items,
they're
they're
there
we've
shown
you
in
depth
in
detail
based
off
of
gino's
own
words,
who
is
the
authority
on
this
of
how
these
are
to
be
calculated?
We
went
based
off
of
his
own
words
on
how
to
calculate
this
and
on
the
zoning
ordinance
to
prove
how
this
gets
calculated.
J
N
It's
it's
a
line.
They
call
it
a
front
line
a
but
front
lock
line
a
is
actually
made
up
of
three
segments
side
la
which
we
agree
with
gino
and
the
development
team.
On
that.
That's
lot
line
a
side,
lot
line
b.
That's
a
side,
lot
line
side,
lot
line
e,
that's
a
side
lot
line
c
is
a
side
lot
line
d
is
the
rear
line.
We
agree
with
all
of
that.
J
A
Thank
you
at
a
certain
point.
We
might
be
going
not
in
circles,
but.
A
Since
we're
not
voting
on
this
tonight,
we
might
get
to
a
point
where
we,
you
know,
have
a
good
stopping
point
so
I'll,
throw
it
back
to
board
members
one
last
time
you
have
both.
You
have
three
parties
here
that
are
more
than
happy
to
answer
questions.
If
you
have
anything
else,
now
would
be
the
time
to
ask
it
and
then
we'll
deliberate
on
this
ahead
of
january.
F
D
Yeah,
I
think
that
I
have
the
information
I
need
well.
The
the
parties
will
be
here
in
january
to
answer
any
questions
like
with
the
first
appeal
tonight.
Correct.
B
We'll
invite
them
to
attend
and
and
answer
any
questions.
Next
month,
too,.
B
I
would
ask
that
you,
you
referenced
a
document
that
you
updated,
that
you
didn't
submit
because
of
the
late
hour,
but
I,
if
you
could
send
that
to
me
tomorrow,
I'll
make
sure
the
board
has
the
updated
version.
N
Absolutely
I
appreciate
that
opportunity
to
send
a
document
because
again
we
want
to
be
fair
to
all
parties.
That's
all
we
want,
and
I'm
more
than
happy
to
share
that.
A
B
No,
I
don't
believe
so.
I
think
it
was
good
for
the
board
to
hear
from
both
well
all
three
parties.
It
is
complicated
and
I'm
a
lot
of
information
to
go
through.
So
I
think
this
probably
was
helpful
to
the
board
to
hear
the
rationale
behind
the
different
thought
processes
and
the
board
can
ask
further
questions
next
month.
Don't
you
have
a
little
bit
more
time
to
process
all
the
information.
B
Yeah,
I'm
gonna
try
to
turn
my
video
on
and
hopefully
it
won't
crash
the
meeting
again
but
we'll
try
so
for
I
believe
our
next
item
was
minutes.
Is
that
correct
that
we
had
listed
sorry.
B
Oh,
the
january
agenda
review.
Okay,
sorry,
the
so
the
january
agenda
review
right
now
includes
the
two
appeals
from
this
evening
that
we
will
have
returned.
B
We
also
have
a
telecommunications
appeal
which
we'll
probably
get
some
more
information
from
victor
and
other
staff
to
help
that
it's
a
newer
one
for
the
board
to
see
so
we'll
do
some
information
on
that
that,
and
we
also
have
a
preliminary
presentation
from
the
catherine
commons
project,
which
is
pre-submission
of
an
application
they're
still
early
in
the
planning
board
process.
B
This
is
to
try
again
we're
constantly
trying
to
find
ways
to
improve
the
way
to
get
the
board's
feedback
to
these
large
projects
before
they
you
know,
are
at
the
final
stages
of
approval
with
the
planning
board.
So
the
idea
that
is
they're
still
pretty
early
in
the
process,
so
they'll
be
coming
just
to
present
sure
you'll
receive
a
zoning
analysis
from
me
prior
to
the
meeting,
and
we
can
discuss
they'll
just
do
an
overview
and
explain
where
they're
at
in
their
project.
B
The
next
thing
I
want
to
talk
about-
and
we
mentioned
this
briefly
previously-
was
a
joint
training
with
the
planning
board
and
when
I
talked
to
the
board
about
this
at
a
recent
training
that
we
held,
we
decided
that
maybe
the
second
tuesday
in
february
might
work
for
people
second
or
third
and
I
believe
the
pla
the
we
were
interested
in
february
15th.
B
C
B
Yeah,
okay,.
B
I
had
on
the
agenda
was
approval
of
minutes
for
october
and
november
2021,
but
I
was
sorting
through
a
lot
of
other
paper
this
past
week
and
did
not
get
to
finalize
the
minutes,
but
I
will
get
all
three
sets
of
minutes
out
to
you
before.
Our
january
meeting
also
might
be
helpful
to
have
these
to
review
as
you
go
forward,
and
I
don't
know
if
this
david
or
someone
else
brought
up
a
really
good
point.
B
These
are
all
on
youtube
now,
which
is
a
bit
of
a
benefit
that
if
you
want
to
go
back
and
review
anything,
I
believe
the
links
are
posted
pretty
quickly
and
you
can
always
go
back
and
review
if
you
want
to
as
you're
going
through
all
these
materials
and
such
for
the
appeals.