Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stormwater Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board approves Johnsons’ renovation and backyard pool at 32 Twambley with stormwater and landscaping conditions
Summary
The Zoning Board approved a renovation of an existing split‑level house at 32 Twambley (Johnson family) that converts it into a colonial form, adds floor area and installs a backyard pool; approval requires dry‑well verification, engineered retaining‑wall details and city forester review of the landscape plan.
The Summit Zoning Board of Adjustment on April 21 approved a renovation and backyard pool for homeowners Mike and Jill Johnson at 32 Twambley, clearing multiple variances including floor‑area‑ratio and lot‑coverage increases while placing conditions on stormwater controls and landscape screening.
The Johnsons told the board they bought the property in 2018 and plan to convert an existing split‑level structure to a more traditional colonial façade, enclose an existing porch area and add a pool and patio in the rear yard. Architect Steven Kowalski explained the design, saying the front‑facing rooflines will be raised to an 8:12 pitch to achieve the desired look while portions of the rear roof will retain the existing lower pitch to limit FAR increases.
Why it mattered: The lot is steeply sloped toward the street; engineer Andrew Clark described the site as having about 5,400 square feet of steep slopes (roughly 36% of the lot). The applicants proposed roughly 3,000 square feet of steep‑slope disturbance for the pool, retaining walls and associated grading; the board and professionals reviewed stormwater proposals and drainage collection details.
Key conditions and technical work: The board required compliance with the engineer’s memorandum and that the proposed dry well (to accept roof and patio runoff) be located, inspected and, if needed, augmented to ensure sufficient capacity. The applicant agreed to place pool equipment and generator at conforming locations and to screen mechanical equipment. The board asked for final retaining‑wall engineering and construction details for the planned approximately 3.5‑foot wall and required silt‑fence limits during construction.
Discussion highlights: Engineer Andrew Clark testified the proposal manages about 3,800 square feet of tributary impervious area with the planned dry well and inlet network, and he agreed to add water‑quality sump details for inlets. Landscape architect Jeff Higginbotham described perimeter plantings intended to screen the pool area from rear neighbors and confirmed no specimen trees on the subject property require removal. Neighbor Jared White, who shares the rear lot line, spoke in support.
Vote and outcome: The board approved the application; the motion carried in open session and recorded a majority vote with five affirmative votes required for the d‑variance. One board member voted no. The approval is conditioned on engineered retaining‑wall details, verification of the dry‑well capacity, and city forester review of the planting plan.
Next steps: Applicants must provide detailed retaining‑wall engineering, final inlet and sump details, confirm pool equipment location, and submit the landscape plan to the city forester for review before the board will issue a formal resolution.
