Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Steep Slopes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Summit zoning board approves steep‑slope variance and landscaping controls for 33 Prospect Hill
Summary
The Summit Zoning Board approved a variance allowing disturbance of regulated steep slopes at 33 Prospect Hill, subject to engineering and landscaping conditions including city‑forester review and two years of retained landscaping jurisdiction. The board concluded revised plans improve stormwater controls.
The City of Summit Zoning Board of Adjustment on Dec. 2 approved a variance allowing disturbance of regulated steep slopes at 33 Prospect Hill, the site of a new single‑family home owned by Happy Life Group LLC. The approval, granted after testimony from the applicant and the applicant's civil engineer and landscape architect, carries three written conditions: compliance with the board engineer's memorandum, submission of the revised landscaping plan to the city forester for review and approval, and retention of landscaping jurisdiction for two years following completion of construction.
Why it matters: Board members said the revised grading, enlarged dry‑well capacity and a 1,700‑gallon cistern would reduce runoff onto downslope neighbors and provide more robust stormwater management than the preexisting condition. Several members said the extensive new planting plan would, over time, buffer neighbors from view of the rear retaining walls and help stabilize soils.
What the board heard: Applicant testimony said contractors exceeded permitted disturbance during demolition and that work stopped once the town raised a notice of violation. Engineer Richard Keller testified the disturbed area was less than the 3,608 square feet initially cited and described a revised site plan with terraces, retaining walls, two dry wells (about 33 percent larger than ordinance minimum) and a cistern for irrigation. Landscape architect Brian Hirsch described an extensive planting palette — including Norway spruces, magnolias and evergreen understory — and said the planting scheme was designed to screen retaining walls and improve long‑term site stability.
Responses and conditions: Board counsel outlined the three written conditions before the vote. Board members said they were persuaded the engineering changes would reduce stormwater impacts and that the landscaping commitment, with forester oversight and two‑year jurisdiction, provided an enforceable mitigation path if plantings failed to establish.
Vote and next steps: The motion to approve passed on a roll call with the voting members recorded as 'yes.' The applicants must submit revised structural calculations, permeability testing and the landscaping plan for the city forester's approval and satisfy any outstanding items in the board engineer's memo prior to final permits.
