Zoning board carries application for 573 Springfield Avenue (Sotheby's office); parking, lot coverage and stormwater remain unresolved

An application to demolish and replace the existing structure at 573 Springfield Avenue and to relocate a Sotheby's International Realty office to the site was introduced to the Summit Zoning Board of Adjustment on Jan. 8. The applicant presented a design intended to maintain a residential appearance while accommodating office functions and parking, but the board carried the application for further review and additional experts.

Charles (Charlie) Opler, who testified for the applicant on operations and office needs, said the brokerage employs a small in‑office staff (manager, administrator and marketing person) while most agents work as independent contractors; the applicant estimated typical occupancy in the office would range from fewer than ten people to occasional assemblies for 20–40 people that are scheduled in advance. Opler said the firm currently operates from 309 Springfield and that relocating to a standalone building with parking improves visibility and client access.

Civil engineer Rudy Holzmann testified about site layout and utilities. The proposed project would remove the existing building and construct a new, residential‑scaled two‑story building with a larger front porch and an updated parking layout at the rear. That design requires relief for lot coverage (existing and proposed coverage exceed the code’s 50% allowance), for a new front‑setback porch within 25 feet, and for reduced parking and parking‑screening widths. The submitted plans show 14 onsite parking spaces; technical zoning calculations based on floor area produce a 20‑space requirement, so the applicant requested a parking variance. Mr. Holzmann said the plan includes a stormwater detention/recharge system sized to capture the roof and some adjacent surfaces and that the applicant agreed to increase storage capacity after a comment from the board’s engineer.

Board staff and professionals raised several items the applicant must address: documentation of the existing drainage connections, details for roof‑leader connections to the proposed recharge system, a final landscaping plan (including a proposed row of arborvitae to screen rear parking), and a trash‑enclosure upgrade and buffering to meet distance and screening guidance. The county review is pending; the engineer told the board he had submitted drawings to Union County for curb/sidewalk details and drainage review.

After testimony and questions from board members and professionals, the applicant requested and the board granted a continuation (carried) to allow submission of additional materials and participation by the applicant’s planner and architect. The applicant asked the board to consider a special meeting to conclude the hearing; the board agreed to hold the matter open and set a procedural carry so the applicant could seek a May meeting or a specially scheduled session. The applicant waived the statutory time‑frame for decision while they complete the supplemental documents and scheduling.

Discussion versus decision: the hearing included presentation and technical questioning but no final votes on the substantive variances; the board carried the item and required additional civil, landscaping and drainage details before resumption.