Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Deck Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Summit board approves Ferraros' rear deck with stair and monitoring conditions after one dissent
Summary
The Zoning Board approved a bulk‑variance request to allow a raised deck and related rear improvements for Anthony and Vanessa Ferraro, conditioned on no permanent enclosure of the patio, submission of revised plans showing exterior stairs and a two‑year stormwater monitoring condition; the vote was 6–1.
The Summit Zoning Board of Adjustment on June 1 approved a bulk‑variance package permitting a raised rear deck and related improvements for homeowners Anthony and Vanessa Ferraro, subject to conditions that address egress, coverage and storm‑water monitoring.
Attorney Lee Schlamowitz said applicants sought only bulk relief (rear yard setback and coverage) for a permitted residential use in the R25 zone and that the work is concentrated at the rear so the front facade would be unchanged. Architect Karen Koff described the deck as an open wood deck above an existing patio, with a black‑metal railing and a fireplace on the deck; she said the proposal would not add habitable floor area and would preserve the patio below.
Engineer Andrew Clark testified the lot is undersized (11,225 sq ft vs. R25 standard 25,000 sq ft) and has terraced grade changes; he calculated the project adds about 85 sq ft of lot coverage (largely for the fireplace/chimney) but does not create drainage or erosion problems and noted mature evergreen screening along the rear and side property lines.
During questioning, board members raised safety and functionality concerns about the initial design’s lack of exterior egress from the deck and the possibility of future enclosure of the patio below. The board engineer proposed two conditions: compliance with the standard engineer memorandum and a prohibition on permanently enclosing the patio beneath the deck. The applicants agreed, after a short recess, to add an exterior stair along the house toward the driveway; engineer Clark estimated the stair would add roughly 48 sq ft (the board asked staff to conservatively allow up to 60 sq ft when revising coverage calculations).
The board also discussed a two‑year storm‑water monitoring condition to allow the city to re‑examine any drainage complaints linked to the added coverage. With those conditions (compliance with the engineer memorandum, no permanent enclosure of the patio, revised plans and engineer review of updated coverage numbers and a two‑year monitoring provision), the board approved the application. The roll call recorded one ‘no’ vote; the remaining eligible members voted yes.
The approval requires the applicants to submit revised plans reflecting the agreed stairs and updated lot/building coverage numbers for the board engineer’s review before permit issuance.
