Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Addition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Summit Zoning Board approves McPartland family roof-raising and two-bedroom addition
Summary
The Summit Zoning Board on June 1 approved a variance allowing the McPartland family to add two bedrooms by converting attic space and altering their roofline; the board found the pie‑shaped lot caused the side‑yard calculation problem and imposed the usual engineer‑memorandum compliance condition.
The Summit Zoning Board of Adjustment on June 1 approved a single C‑variance to allow the McPartland family to convert attic space into two bedrooms by removing an existing shallow hipped roof, raising the ridge about three feet and adding gabled dormers.
Peter McPartland, sworn as a witness, said he and his wife moved into the four‑bedroom house in July 2021 and that adding two bedrooms would let the family “comfortably say that this will be our home for the foreseeable indefinite future.” Architect Timothy Klesie told the board the project does not change the building footprint; it increases roof pitch and adds a front and rear dormer so the attic can accommodate two bedrooms and a full bathroom.
The application triggered a side‑yard combined ("side combined") bulk variance because the lot is pie‑shaped; Klesie explained the measurement method exaggerates the side‑combined calculation for tapered lots even when the footprint does not change. Board experts confirmed the design meets building‑code limits for height and that no additional impervious coverage is being added. Board attorney Andy Ball said the application involved a single C‑variance and “four votes are required to approve.”
During public questioning and expert review, the architect said materials would be asphalt roofing and that the roof pitch would comply with a six‑in‑12 requirement for roughly 80% of the roof area. Board members and the applicant’s experts reported no expected tree removal and limited neighborhood impact due to existing setbacks and screening.
After deliberation the board voted to approve the variance, with the standard condition that the applicant comply with the requirements noted in the board engineer’s memorandum. The roll call recorded the seven eligible voting members as in favor.
The board’s approval allows the McPartlands to move forward with the roof‑framing and interior work subject to staff and engineer review; no further variances were granted or required at the hearing.
