October 18, 2012

Mr. Petry presented the variance plan, sheet 1 of 2 with a revision date of 7/12/12, and began detailing the variances that the applicant is seeking. Chairman Neuer asked to have it marked as Exhibit A-1. Mr. Petry presented the steep slope exhibit, sheet 2 of 2 dated 6/7/11, and detailed the slopes on the property from east to west. Chairman Neuer asked to have it marked as Exhibit A-2. Mr. Petry presented photos of the site. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Petry when he visited the site; Mr, Petry said he visited the site in 4/11 and 6/11. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Petry who took the photos and Mr. Petry said his client took the photos and that they accurately depicted the site conditions on those dates. Chairman Neuer asked to have the photos marked as Exhibit A-3. Mr. Petry detailed the neighborhood and the site. He stated that the property is 25,792 sq. ft. Chairman Neuer stated that the application states that the property is 26,000 sq. ft. Mr. Vena asked to have the application amended to 25,792 sq. ft. The request for such amendment was granted by the Chairman. Mr. Petry detailed where the retaining walls were on the site. He described the area as having a deck surrounding an above ground swimming pool and a hot tub. Mr. Sussman questioned one of the photos of one of the retaining wails Mr. Petry presented in Exhibit A-3 and asked if there was a crack in that wall. Mr. Petry said no that it was a pen line that was drawn on the photo. He said that he can verify that there are no cracks on the wall and that he measured the wall and it was straight. Mr. Petry detailed the fencing on top of the retaining wall and stated that it was installed for protection. He said that the applicant did not get the proper permits for the fence and that is why he is before this Board. Mr. Petry said that when the applicant applied for permits for other work, the building inspector advised the applicant that the fencing was installed without permits. Mr. Petry stated that the applicant signed documents with a contractor 5 or 6 years ago, when the walls were installed, and the contractor was responsible for getting the proper permits. Chairman Neuer said that he would like to see the contracts that the applicant allegedly signed. Mr. Petry stated that the 12° wall with the 4’ fence on top of it totals 16’. He said the total height of the wall requires a

t he would like to see the contracts that the applicant allegedly signed. Mr. Petry stated that the 12° wall with the 4’ fence on top of it totals 16’. He said the total height of the wall requires a variance. Chairman Neuer said that on page 2 of the application, the wall is 10°6” and the fence on top of the wall is 5’. He said that Mr. Petry testified that the wall is 12’ and that the fence is 4’. Mr. Vena said, based on the plans submitted, the wall is 12’ and the fence is 4’ high. He said that whatever information he had was on the application when he submitted it. Chairman Neuer said that when this Board gets incorrect information it makes more work for them. Mr. Vena said that he will amend the application to include the correct measurements. Chairman Neuer told Mr. Vena to submit an amended application; Mr. Vena said that they will comply. [9]