Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Plan Tree Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Summit board approves Alina Holdings’ 29 Ridge Road plan after neighbor accommodations
Summary
After negotiations with nearby homeowners, the board approved Alina Holdings’ application for 29 Ridge Road with conditions on landscaping, tree protection and engineering revisions reflecting a joint exhibit (J‑1) to preserve several trees and shift driveway setbacks.
The Summit Zoning Board of Adjustment approved the Alina Holdings application for 29 Ridge Road on Dec. 16 after attorneys reported last‑minute accommodations with adjacent property owners that preserved key trees and adjusted the driveway setback.
Attorney James Weber told the board a compromise had been reached with neighbors that preserved the tallest Norway spruce (inventory tree #28) and shifted the proposed driveway farther from the shared property line; the agreement was entered as joint exhibit J‑1 and the applicant agreed to reflect the changes in revised engineering plans. The board imposed six conditions, including compliance with the board engineer’s memorandum, a two‑year period of landscaping jurisdiction, required tree replacement per the city tree removal ordinance, and submission of an as‑built survey and revised engineering plans incorporating the J‑1 accommodations for city forester and board engineer review.
Aileen Brennan, representing neighbors Todd and Lisa Glassband, and the applicant’s counsel described the adjustments that produced the agreement: moving the driveway from eight to 11 feet off the property line in the southeast corner, installing a boulder wall to protect preserved trees instead of a continuous retaining wall and other grade adjustments to protect additional trees labeled in the inventory. The board’s conditions require the applicant to submit engineering drawings that incorporate those protections and to work with the city forester on tree replacement where necessary.
During deliberations, board members noted the application had evolved across multiple hearings and praised the parties for negotiation; one member cast a lone no vote but the motion carried and the board approved the application with the listed conditions. Counsel for the applicant confirmed J‑1 will be incorporated into engineering plans and that the applicant will seek any required soil conservation permits.
The board’s written resolution will memorialize the six conditions read into the record; once final engineering and forestry reviews are complete the applicant must return required as‑built documents for the board engineer’s approval.
