Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lot Coverage Stormwater topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Summit zoning board carries Rosenthal patio variance after questions about storm drains and coverage
Summary
Homeowners who built a larger patio than approved told the board they will either prove a permit exists for a new backyard inlet or obtain a permit and, if required, submit a stormwater-management plan; board carried the application to June 2 at applicants' request.
Catherine and Todd Rosenthal asked the City of Summit Zoning Board of Adjustment to approve as-built patio work that exceeds the lot coverage and rear-yard setback approved in an earlier variance, telling the board the patio was enlarged during construction.
The Rosenthals and their architect, Daniel Dubinet, summarized the changes and presented photos showing a covered deck and a larger patio area. Dubinet said the as‑built lot coverage is about 40.46 percent, exceeding the 35 percent allowed, and proposed removing roughly 38 square feet of patio to reduce the coverage.
The board’s engineers and members focused on stormwater controls. Board consultant questions showed the property has three inlets tied to the municipal storm system; the applicants said two inlets pre‑existed when they bought the house and a third inlet was installed during later work. Board members asked whether the inlets were permitted and inspected. The board advised that adding about 300 square feet of impervious surface can trigger stormwater‑management requirements, and the engineers asked for documentation that the added drainage was approved by the city.
Architect Daniel Dubinet said the patio flows well, is screened from neighbors and connects roof leaders into the inlets. The Rosenthals said they had a contractor do the work and apologized to the board for not realizing the built patio exceeded the approved plans. They also said two of the inlets existed when they bought the home and a third was added by their landscaper during prior work.
The board directed the applicants to provide proof that the backyard inlet(s) were permitted and inspected or, if no permit exists, to obtain one or prepare a stormwater‑management plan that the city will review. Planning and engineering consultants said that, if the tie‑in was permitted for a smaller patio, the board would still need confirmation that the current, larger patio is acceptable to the city; if not, the applicants must show on‑site stormwater controls.
Because members said there were outstanding questions the board could not resolve that evening—chiefly whether the drain tie‑ins were permitted and whether additional stormwater work is required—the Rosenthals requested and the board agreed to carry the application to the board’s next available hearing, June 2, 2025. The board recorded the waiver of the time frame and a roll‑call carried the matter to that date.
The board left open the possibility of approving the case sooner if the applicants supply the requested documentation; otherwise they must submit a stormwater plan for municipal review before the board acts.
