November 9, 2011

Finerty said that all the homes on Valley View Street were raised-ranch style. She wanted to know what she was up against. Mr. Weston asked Mr. Daniels to confirm that all the homes on Valley View Street had conforming 75 feet minimum lot width, Mr. Daniels answered that the homes on Valley View Street did conform to 75 feet minimum lot width. Mrs. Finerty said that she has questions for the architect. Director Borg said that Mr. Daniels should be able to answer Ms. Finerty’s question regarding lot coverage. Mr. Daniels said that according to the architect’s schematics, there is nothing indicated that violated the current ordinance. The public had were no further questions for Mr. Daniels. Mr. Greenberg introduced Andrew Podberezniak, R.A., architect for the applicant. Mr. Podberezniak was sworn in. The Board accepted Mr. Podberezniak to be an expert witness, Mr. Podberezniak described the proposed house to the Board. The design of the house would require two variances. He said it was a colonial style house roughly 2,400 square feet; that its design would fit in to the neighborhood. He said the house would be situated with a 30 feet front yard set back. The building materials used would be stone and stucco with a front porch to create a family feeling. Mr. Podberezniak described the proposed landscaping plan. Chairman Bagoff asked the Board if they had any questions for Mr. Podbereznaik. Mr. Eben wanted to know what materials were to be used for the front fagade. Mr. Eben stated that he was not sure that any of the existing shrubs would survive the construction phase; he said he wanted to see a snow fence in plans. Mr. Eben said he also wanted to see notes in the plans that would reference protecting the ncighbor’s property. Mr. Eben stated he was not sure a new driveway would work. Mr. Ghebremicael wanted to know how many trees would be removed. Mr. Podberezniak said they would keep two evergreens. Mr. Ghebremicael said that as a condition of approval it would be important to supplement or replace buffering. Mr. Weston stated that the plan shows a 30 feet front yard setback, but the house on Lot 7 has a 35 feet setback. Mr. Weston said would it not be better to have the proposed house not protrude more than the house at Lot 7. He said that a condition could be that the proposed house would have a 35 fect front yard setback. Mr. Weston also

t not be better to have the proposed house not protrude more than the house at Lot 7. He said that a condition could be that the proposed house would have a 35 fect front yard setback. Mr. Weston also asked what were the types of materials of the surrounding houses. Mr. Podberezniak said the surrounding homes were vinyl and brick, Mr. Greenberg asked Mr. Daniels if the proposed house were to be set back an additional five feet, would it be better planning, would it create a more desirable esthetic. Mr. Daniels said if the proposed house was not developed, the lot would remain the unkempt property on the block. Mr. Weston said that the condition of the property was not a planning issue. NAPLANNING. BRI\WP\MINUTES\201 WLI-9-LL Mimutes.doc 4