Good evening everybody. Thank you for being here today. This is a regular meeting of the Allen language board in which formal action will be taken on the items listed on the agenda and upon any other matters properly. Requirements of the old public meetings act have been satisfied through posting
on the public holding board in the municipal building and on the borrow website by publication in the record on December 9th, 2025 with copies being sent to the Ridgewood News and the Herald News. Certain agenda items will be open to the public for comment andor
testimony and the board will advise the public when such matters are open for their comment and testimony. Okay, before we go any further, if we could all stand America to the stands one nation under God with
liberty and justice for all. Let's do rolls. Let's just do both roll first and then we'll do the oath, please. Okay. Okay. Vice Chairman Dalo >> here. >> Board member Wzala >> here. >> Councilman Yakarino >> here. >> Chairman Crico >> here.
>> Mayor Wasinski >> here. >> Board member Butler >> here. >> Walter Tensen >> here. >> Thank you. >> Um we have the next on the agenda which I just switched up is the author's office. Uh Andrew is not here so we're going to handle Tyler Yakarino. His term
is expiring December 31st 2026. Did you have the Bible? >> Perfect. Thank you. We can do it. >> Go ahead. >> Left hand. Left hand. Thank you. >> I
Tyler Yakamino. I, Tyler Aquarina, >> do solemnly swear >> do solemnly swear >> that I will support the Constitution of the United States. >> I will support the Constitution of the United States >> and the Constitution of the State of New Jersey >> the Constitution of the State of New Jersey. and that I will bear true faith and allegiance >> that
>> I will bear true faith and allegiance >> to defame >> and to the governments established in the United States >> to the governments established in the United States >> and in this state >> and in this state >> under the authority of the people >> under the authority of the people >> and that I will faithfully >> that I will faithfully >> impartially and justly perform all
duties of the land use board member >> land use board member >> to the best of my ability >> to the best of my ability. >> So help me God. >> So help me. >> Thank you. >> Yay. Joy being beat me to the >> very
next time. >> Thank you. >> Keep it in a copy in the computer. We're going to go through the whole computer so you see everything. >> All right. Next on the agenda are the meeting of the February 11, 2026 regular
meeting. Um I reviewed them. >> Small change. >> Small change. Okay. Um anybody else have any comments on the meetings, please? Seeing none, uh can I have a motion to accept the minutes of the February 11, 2026 regular meeting, please?
>> So move. >> Thank you. Do I have a second? >> Wait, who just said that? >> Tyler. Myself. Tyler. I don't think you were the last one. >> He was on I was on the zoom the zoom. >> Sorry. >> That's okay. >> Okay. >> He wasn't here, but he was on.
>> Okay. Do I have a second please? Second. Thank you, sir. >> Vice Chairman Dalo, >> yes. >> Chairman Sico, >> yes. >> Mayor Wasinski, >> yes. >> Board member Butler, >> yes. >> Alternate Ensen, >> yes. >> Thank you. Next. Next on our agenda are
the three resolutions which I will pass through the three of them. The first one application file 2026-01 resolution 26-11
345 East Avenue New Jersey one block 702 lock 10 there was a minor subdivision. >> Yes sir. This was a largely conforming minor subdivision where the residue land was going to be conserved and dedicated to the burrow. It was landlock lot. It's
not to be developed. Uh the applicant had really one issue that they needed on the record that we did capture in a resolution for their request which was they did not want to move the house forward which would have created a a turnaround issue that would been rearfacing entry back to the street. Uh
they needed some language in a resolution relative to satisfy the D in that regard. It would have created a lead. it would have created a hazardous position. So the board decline to accept that alternative land which may trigger varants relief. So by and for
subdivision really just to eliminate portions of land that are otherwise environmentally constrained and undevelopable as it is and standard conditions on the pool and the most part of them. Anybody have any questions comments on the brace?
Okay. Seeing none, I bring it back and I have a motion to accept the list. I'll make a motion. Thank you. Second. Second. Okay. Thank you. >> Vice Chairman Dow. >> Yes. >> Councilman Yakarino.
>> Yes. >> Chairman Crico. >> Yes. >> Mayor Wasinski. >> Yes. >> Board member Butler. >> Yes. >> Alternate Enson. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Okay. I'll do both. I'll do >> All right. I'm going to pull them both.
>> So, the the next the next resolutions, there's two of them here. The first one is 20 26-12 for consistency review under ordinance numbers 26-04 and 26-05 as well as resolution number 26-13 which
is the amendment to the house element and fair share plan. I again turn it over to council please. Thank you. So as to the consistency review we consolidated the consistency review and determination of the board into a single resolution a review of ordinances 2604 and 2605.
The statute requires that when there's amendments to codes uh that relate to the um land use element plan that the planning board has to conduct a consistency review following the first reading of the governing bodies. It's actually required for state law for go
back and revert to the governing body for a second reading for consideration of adoption or declination at that point. So Mr. has presented um a high level of the two ordinances that have gone through first reading at the governing body related to fourth round fair share obligations to the planning
board at the February meeting. The planning board considered Mr. Snaggis' presentation. The board found that it was not inconsistent with the burough code, the master plan, uh longrange planning, the land use element and the like all applicable portions of land use that the planning board can
legislatively review for consistency purposes. Your recommendation was a finding a consistency. It then reverts back to the governing body. You could take action thereafter at a second reading and I believe already have by the state. Is that right? I think >> yeah. Yeah. So, so that's done. So, that
was a consistency review. It was more of a courtesy review than anything else. The other matter which was part of Mr. Snipers' larger presentation on notice was the amendment to the housing element and fair share plan which increased the density for a zone within the burrow again to satisfy fourth round affordable
housing obligations that are ongoing. Uh that was presented to the board that was more than a consistency review that required board action. The board heard the presentation of Mr. Stikis. There was no public inquiry or challenge to the amendment that was proposed and the board acted to pass the amendment at the
February public hearings. Thank you. Okay. On what we just heard from council, is there any questions, comments? Okay. Seeing none, I bring it back to the board. Can I have a motion?
>> Yeah. I'll take it. Can I have a motion, please, for um these three or these two resolutions, I should say, to be uh to be accepted. >> Make a motion. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> And then Greg on the Greg on the second. Okay, Linda, we're going to we're going to vote on both of them together. >> Okay. >> All right. >> Yep. Thank you, >> Vice Chairman Dalo. >> Yes,
>> Councilman Yakarino. >> Yes. >> Chairman SO. >> Yes. >> Mayor Wasinski. >> Yes. >> Board member Butler. >> Yes. >> Mr. Ensen, alternate Enex. >> So, now we get into the public hearings part
of our meetings. Um there was there were two applications on Thursday night which is which is u6-05 the request to be heard on 42 in our
April they will go through notice. So the next thing on our agenda is application file number 2026-03. Roger. And I apologize if I mispronounc it, but I'm going to try. Schlick sir. Thank you. 58 Midwood Avenue, Allenale,
New Jersey, 07401, block 2005, lot 9. The application is to construct a second floor addition on top of an existing first floor with a new portator. Pursuant to 270-14A, 270-57B,
270-57D, 270-57 E1, 270-57F, 270-64 C2, 270-63 A1, 270-63,
270-57 C 270-63 A-1 27 70-64 C2 and 270-57 C. I'm not here a long time. I've never had that many. >> Okay.
>> And this is carried from the public hearing of February 11, 2026. And I also want to express my I guess apologies and thanks for you coming here because we we had some scheduling and you know the last couple times you had ones that went a little bit later. So, thank you for
bearing this conversation. It was interesting hearing the policy for God to say the least. So council sir answer um um do you swear or affirm testimony you're about to provide to me the truth? The whole truth about the
truth. Yes. >> Please state your name for the record. Spell your last name and provide an address. >> Schlled SC 58 Midwood Avenue. And you're testifying tonight your capacity as the property owner and applicant but also as a licensed architect. Is that right?
>> Yes. The state of my residence and the architect. Right. >> So so to qualify you, can you just please give us the benefit of your background credentials and licensing and that's state New Jersey and then the board can accept your qualifications. You'll be effectively the applicant and the expert witness.
>> I've been practicing architecture for 43 years. I've testified in front of the board this board a few times. I've testified in front of the committee board of adjustment hearings throughout the county. My license is active. I'm
slowing down my firm so it's mainly residential conditions and alterations which is the thrust of the project tonight. And um this is my house. I am bothered.
Um, I lived in Ridgewood for about 30 years, but I passed away last year. And so, we sold the house, which the kids didn't really be there. They're adults, but the thought is for me to create a home that they can come to for a new
chapter. Um, and eventually my daughter Amy has the intentions of moving into this house after I retire in a few years, raising kids. She's getting married. Still still.
Thank you. >> You want me? >> So, yeah. >> You know the deal, Mr. Swift, as a witness. If anything you're showing us that is mocked up or changed from what's on file, just call it out. We'll mark it as an exhibit as we go. >> Yeah. Two things. >> Okay. >> Um, >> I'm going to let you do tell us what you want to do. I mean, you've been before
the board before. You know, you know how we do this. building. >> I just had a question though. Do I actually need variances for the undersized lot and the narrow lot? >> You need to obtain variances for those. I know they were listed on the notes, but
>> so so the so those are pre-existing conditions, right? And there there's two schools of thought. At any given night of the week, when I'm on your side of the table, it really varies how boards consider that or not. Um I wish our planner was here. Mr. Sikes would certainly have a plan if we get on it. My thought legally is I can certainly
give you argued both ways. You've got pre-existing conditions and then it's a question of are you exacerbating that? I think with a floor area ratio variance, you're not technically exacerbating the undersized lot by making it smaller, but are you now intensifying the use of an
undersized lot? It it comes into play. Um the same thing with the lot width or things like that. But at the end of the day, you've got the relief for the most part. use relief. The case law is clear. It subsumes the bulk relief within the use relief. Now, that's very standard D1
type relief that it's assumed in there because there are no bulk standards when you have a prohibited use that you're proposing. You're proposing a condition for use and a structure that's otherwise permitted notwithstanding the fact that you need F relief. If you meet the F proofs, in my opinion, from a planning
perspective, Country Square standards, the Randolph case standard, if you meet those, I think arguably you've met the bulk standards relative to the C1 and C2 criteria. >> So, um, it's a little gray. Um, and like I said, some towns will take a very firm
position. It is relief. Others will say it's not, and some will say it's up to you how you want to prosecute it. I I would not neglect to discuss how those are not impacted conditions and how they can carry forward without further you know further impact. Um but those are
not the it's not the lion share of what you're here for as I see it if that helps you. >> So it is yes >> it's any given day of the week it's a maybe. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Excuse me sir.
That's right. Linda, we we we we went over this. Um because there's de relief, we've got classes of membership of the board that that cannot sit on this case because this is a CBA case, >> right? >> So those members, it includes the mayor, Tyler, are not eligible to hear this case, deliberate or vote on it because
of the fact that there's use variance relief. This is a ZPA case, >> right? So >> Oh, we're not even allowed to hear it. I can't we can't be here till it's >> You could stay. You could say, but deliberation's really limited. And >> you're going to go he's going to go. >> Sir, are you
are you okay with the mayor staying here right now? >> Are you okay with the mayor saying there will be >> five minimum you need to carry. That's right. Give me five minimum votes on that.
>> Would have been able to vote on this. >> Is Andy eligible? >> Andy, Frank, and >> Charlie. >> Who? >> Chaz. >> Chaz. >> Yeah. >> So, seven's a full board for you. Five is the minimum. If you want to push to a
vote, you can always prosecute tonight. Yeah. If you don't like the way the wind is blowing, you know, you can always ask to Gary come back and ask that the board members that are, you know, missing listen to the proceeding and certify to that that you've got seven eligible members potentially. But >> do they do they listen to the tapes? >> They will listen to the tapes.
>> Okay. No, I'd like to take advantage of the empty room >> and uh present them >> until they see your comments and Okay. >> From there. >> Okay. So, I'm just going to turn it over to you. Tell us what you're doing. Tell us what you want to do. We'll go through all the aspects of it. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. I'm going to walk you through the pre-existing zoning conditions of the property. Then I'm going to walk you through the proposed architectural improvements. Then I'll go through each one by one. Okay. It's 58 MB. It's an A residential zone. Existing is a single
family house. Uh one and a half story with a detached garage. The garage is like an L shape. U the card is here. There's a little bit of half it's like a half a storage. And this used to be a screen porch. And I have some photos of
what this screen porch looked like when I purchased the house. And I've opened it up, created a an open porch, which reduced the GV of the F. Um the lot area is 9,000 square ft while
20,000 ft is required. So it's 55% deficient. It's significantly deficient. The lot width is 75 ft while 115 is required average. So 40 foot deficient in width. I'd also like to point out
that the variances are very dimminimous. It's basically on this side on the uh right side here. This is actually an enhanced setback here. The lock depth is supposed to be 174 feet to get to the 20,000 square foot.
It's 120 ft. So it's a 54 ft short in depth. The house itself is um set back properly. There is a set of steps that come out the front of the house. I'll show you that in a minute. That has a
set back of 32.7 while 35 ft is required. Presently the building coverage of the house, the steps and the porch in the garage is at 18.7 while 15% is allowed. So we're over presently as existing
condition of 3.7%. Then the distance between this L-shaped accessory structure and the existing house is at 7.7 ft while 10 ft is required. So uh that's a pre-existing condition
distance between the house and the garage. So this the property has pre-existing hardships in regards to lot size, lot depth, lot width, lot area and existing structure distances um between the two
principal and accessory structures. There are pictures we had distributed and um Today, the house is primarily a one-story structure. It has a living TV room, a dining room, a galley kitchen,
two small bedrooms, and a bathroom. Um, I do not want to expand the footprint first floor within the footprint door. It's going to recycle the space. I'll show you that in a minute. The second floor is very challenging. You come up the stairs and you walk down
this hallway with sloping ceilings. There's only about 220 square ft of usable area that you could stand up in. There's really you can't even put furniture here. So, it's just this waste of space here. The bed is in here where
you can't even have a headboard. And the bathroom is at the end. in the toilet and the shower actually in the slop of of the structure itself where I hit my head every day brush my teeth. So it's the second floor is pretty
>> it's not something it's more of a me. Okay. Sorry. >> You see those pictures? >> I don't have them. >> Oh, it is. Oh, I didn't see it.
for the propeller's first floor. The first floor and I just said I'm going to I want to stay within the foot. The improvements um would be to remove the steps, the landing and the steps that are actually closer to Midwood than
what I'm doing and take this natural indent in the house and create a little porch. I want to move the front door from here to here so it have a little bit of a curve appeal. Little porch, four columns, front door. It fits nicely
right into that um corner. And I'll get through the variances in a minute, but the only part of this uh proposed improvements on the second floor and the first floor that need a variance is the first step of these steps. Just the first 8 in step. That's
it. Otherwise, we're compliant. I want to recycle the first floor, get a powder room, mud room, kitchen, bedroom, dining room. And then I was proposing a fireplace like a pre fireplace that would extend out
this needs of I'll go through that in the extended fireplace. The second floor would be level that cape would be the roof would be removed and what we're proposing
is at that level basically new floor joist new big foot walls and a new roof system that I'll show you in a minute. Um, so I was proposing a stair going up the center, very traditional, uh, primary suite here, modest rooms,
uh, bedroom, two very small closets, like L-shaped closets, a four fixture bathroom, and then a tall bathroom, which is small vanity, toilet, tub, and uh, three bedrooms. They're only like 10 and 1/2 ft, 10 and 1/2 ft deep. Ideally,
you want 12 foot bed with a length of a bed, an aisle, and the contrast room. So, these are very modest, tight little rooms. Um, so the whole second floor would be a shorter >> and a restriction on the size of that is
because we're not changing footprints of the first footprint of the first floor. Yeah. So the elevations would be um this would be the front elevation. This is the front porch with four
columns with offset door little gable. This is basically in that recess of the first floor exterior wall. This is the what is now my daughter's bedroom and the front door is here. So, this would be a dining room.
Um, and then the back will be an exit to the backyard with some windows in the family room, the kitchen sink, and then this is uh the dining room, the family room, and this is the bathroom. And then the everyday mudroom door,
the second floor, I introduced this low roof. It goes all the way around the house just to break down the pipe. It ties into the porch, ties into this little roof over the mudroom door, and ties into this little roof in the back.
So that kind of breaks down the height. The proposed height of the house is 5t lower than that's allowed. It's 30 foot. You're allowed 35 ft deep. not asking for heights. The second floor would be a series of gable roofs. You know, the primary one
that goes side to side and these accent roofs that line up with windows just repeat like an architectural form on the side on the on the rear. Um, it's going to be proposed to be like
a gray cedar shake. Uh, like a blue cedar, like blind cedar, white double pond windows. Um, kind of an antucket build. No black windows, white windows, maybe some shutters if they're going to have some shutters in the front. So,
very classic residential home. Um, the garage these new documents, >> Mr. One page. >> Yes. >> Can I say one page that's describing
things? Sure. This photograph I've taken last year since it's how I purchased the home. It had a screen porch, not even screened. It would have solid walls and then screens above with a roof that came
off the garage. So, what I did was just took out all the walls and two columns and opened it up. So, you can see how it really cuts off back of the the half of the back of the house. Now, you can see the whole back of the house cuz now it's
open. So, I think it helps with that undersized distance between the house and garage by opening it up. Um, I saved the roof. This would all be besided, be shingled to match the house. Um, but I just wanted to show what we did to the
garage. >> Excuse me. Is there a date on the photo? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Is it 25? >> This was 2025 and this was 2026. >> Okay. >> You said the garage and open mass across.
>> Yeah. Shutters siding. So I'll go through one by one. first. Well, I I I'll go through the talk about the wire and the
first the front yard set back to the steps. That's that porch step. It's literally the first step. So, it' be 8 in off the ground. It's like 5 ft wide. Um presently the steps are closer to the street.
Um they're 32.7 ft. So the first step what I'm proposing is 34 feet. So only a foot into the front yard set. No real tread.
Um so reduce the pre-existing performing condition and I really don't see any negative impact that would be caused by one step being too close to the street. Um, I think the porch adds a lot of curb appeal, a lot of architectural interest
to the house. That's varian. Variance number two are the sideyard setback on the right hand side. The left-handed side, just for record, it's 23.4. So, it has an enhanced sideyard set back on the left. On the
right, the existing house is at 15 ft. Um the uh the requirement is 15.4T. So we're 5 in closer to the neighbor
than we're supposed to be 5 in. Um so and then the fireplace, the chimney itself is 13 ft. So that's 2T 5 in into the side. But that's just a 6 foot by two foot rectangle. That looks like a
traditional chimney. off the side. Um second floor I'm proposing to stack on the sorry the second floor proposing to stack on the first floor. So it's a continuation of that wall. Um if you
feel that the five in is unacceptable. I could kick it in and I could be controlling but I think it's going to look a little odd. If it's 5 in it's going to look like a mistake. It's 2 feet maybe 5 in. It's going to look a little bit
obscure to the adjacent house on the right hand side. >> Yeah, I have a picture here. I would say pictures. So that house is basically a solid wall. There's no windows on that side. Um last
spring I just redid the whole was pretty overgrown when I bought the house. I put in probably a hundred species of arms and lightings, trees, boxwoods, did irrigation landscaping, opened up
that forest and patio. Um, so I I planted like seven barley whies on that property line. So that's going to be a green wall that will buffer in approachment. Um, and then his property, as I said, is a dead wall with
air conditioning in it. So he's not really using that space. >> Is there a distance though? >> About 15 ft. >> 15 ft to your from your house to the property. I think 15t
about 20 ft. >> Got it. Thank you. >> It's not a very active yard that side. I actually planted the bushes too because I got tired of looking at this blank huge blank have stories sh
I don't think there's any negative impact evergreen offering if the board feels you want me to kick it in I'll be glad to kick it in the variance the board feels the chimney it's too much of an approach but I can
kick that into whatever you feel it's appropriate Um, that's the second variance. Third is a rear yard setback. Again, the house itself, the proposed house is compliant. It's just these three steps, but I have a code compliant landing out
of the kitchen and then a few steps, three of which are 46.9 ft versus 50 ft. So it's literally three treads of a stair that has no rail piece of blue stone
24 in tall. Otherwise the whole house this is compliant. The house is compliant here. The house is compliant here. It's 5 in to the right approaching and then the chimney. So the house itself I feel is pretty well positioned
with only the right side bearings. So that's third variance. The fourth is the distance between the house and the L-shaped accessory structure. It would be with that step, that open step on an angle to the corner of that
open porch that I just showed you out pictures. I think I did. Um, it's 2.9 ft. So from that open shred, the last tread to that column is 2.9 ft, but it's
very open since I opened up the street porch. Um, and then from the back of the second floor to the onetory roof of the porch is 5.75 ft. So the distance here is 5.75 ft.
Um, I think the garage was built without burn 50 or 60 years ago. They look that way and built that way. Um, that's how I bought the property. So, it's kind of a pre-existing non-conforming condition that I
hopefully improve by opening up the porch. Um, and the distance is I don't think anybody's going to see that. It's not going to look different than what it is today cuz it's in the backyard. Um so
they could test any negative impact to the streetscape or the surrounding properties. Fifth variance is building coverage 20.8% versus 15%. Um
so we're over by 523 square feet. Um, as I said before, the lot is 55% deficient in area. The 20.8 represents 39% over the allowed. So, it's less than if it was a compliant lot. Um,
a lot of that is driven by this oversized garage. Um, you know, this L L shape that's just storage that goes in here. This garage and porch represents 577
square ft. So the house itself is viable when you add in this overs the porch that was there. It creates a barrier. Um the other thing that I did that increases the building coverage is a little from porch but I think there's a
benefit to streetscape curb appeal with a porch versus a porch. But if you feel that it needs to be reduced. I can reduce this to a port, but it just seemed like it it lent itself to a little porch stuck in the corner, placed
in the corner of the existing house. If the lot was a proper size, the um building coverage, including the oversized garage and the proposed condition, would be 9.4%. So what we're dealing with is a C1A hardship with undersized lot. That would
be our hardship for that variance. Um the sixth variance is the gross building area 28.6 versus 25%. So we're over by 324 ft. >> Again this garage is 405 ft. Typical
onebay garage is 264 square feet 12 feet by 22 feet. So there's there's 150 square feet of extra space that you know if I built this I wouldn't build it but this is there so I have to include
it in the calculation but 75% of this variance is due to the size of the garage and the oversized garage for us as I mentioned with the second floor these are fairly modest rooms 10 foot
six is a very big room I and not increasing the footprint of the first floor recycling all the space. If you were to calculate the GVA over the compliant lot sorry you have to calculate it over compliant lot um you
would be 12.9% which is 25%. So again it's a C1A hardship due to the undersized lot. If you looked at the house itself and just disregarded the garage, the proposed house for second floor
would be at 24.1% below the 25%. So the house itself not too tall. basically the form total setbacks and the GBA would be below 25% if you just looked at the house itself.
Those are the six that I I um we're addressing. Um but go through the summary. We just talked about the life a lot I guess in a
lot of areas. Um can I ask a quick question this you passed out is what you're doing is proposing elimination of some citizen. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. This is after.
>> Yeah. >> So, you already did this burn. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So, did you subtract out? >> I left the building coverage in because there's a roof. I subtracted out the GBA because it's open.
>> That reduced it by 172 ft. You didn't do this follow through. So the front yard set back, side set back and the rear yard set back would be a C1A hardship due to the existing lot
narrowness due to side right side setback and the shallowess of the provision lot depth which would be the front yard sil back and rear yard sil back. If the lot was a proper size we wouldn't need these variances. So it's
pre-existing lotion. The third and fourth, sorry, fourth barrier, the distance to the garage is also is a C1C hardship unique to this property with a lawfully existing structure. Both the garage and the house
pre-existing uh with non as I said before I think it's no negative impact. It's pretty much behind the house. I don't think anybody's going to see it and opening up the porch at the count. The building coverage in the F is again
a C1A partn due to the existing oversized lot. If the lot was a proper size, we would be building forward a GBA. Just want to show you how I shot the eye. I can mark this as well.
Mr. I have copies. >> Who's on photo board? A2 will be a photo board of photos taken by you in the last few months. >> January >> series
photos I think right. >> Yeah. >> And while that's being passed, I'm just one thing to clarify for the records. I I don't disagree with with you know the piece of part of your planning analysis so far and you're not a you're not a licensed planner right just now I don't disagree that see what argument applies
but pulling something in pre-existing conditions in lay terms means one thing in a land use form means another thing unless the suggestion is that these conditions predate the enactment of the code which set forth those bulk standards they're not technically pre-existing conditions um that really
doesn't change much about your argument but but just for the sake of the record pre-existing condition is one that it either predates the code or it doesn't. If the position is not that this predates the enactment of the zoning vote of zone A that established the minimum lot area lock with requirements,
they're not exactly pre-existing conditions. They're predate here. I think they're on the site acquired it. But but a pre-existing condition means something else as far as the latest parlance goes with with various grants. just for the standards
>> I don't know it's the applicant shot to let us know that if you're going to argue um zone was enacted in 1938 I think in the state of New Jersey codified to 41 by by the ML then from there you go forward when zone enactments I don't know when
zone was created >> but you would also need evidence that these were actually conditions that predated it anyway you know what I mean >> yeah just predating you is not going to be enough. But that's really just, you know, >> I don't think the guy permit
>> for the record sake. Yeah. Because it's pretty these are just a series of house photos that are within I shot of my house. Um what I'm trying to present is that I I feel what I'm presenting falls into the
scale architectural language and you can see I'll point out certain things that exist in other homes that I'm proposing in my follow the front porch adding curb appeal and
very similar to some of the other homes and these this house is on the same width block that I have. You can see that it it limits. This is a 75 ft lot, too. This is right there. Couple doors down.
This is on a 65 ft lot. Uh it's twotory. Doesn't have a porch, but it has open steps. Actually, has two and a half stories, but um this is also down doors down the street to me. And
this one is 5 foot lot. So you can see how architecturally a twostory house with some gables and kind of architectural features with the main gable roof exists. So my proposal
would be very similar and fitted I believe of big wood. This is actually a quarter lot like 75 ft which is this garage almost like three
feet off and this is the street to me has a porch and two and a half twotory structure with the gable roofs. So, um, I tried to kind of I didn't want to match any of these, but I tried to
pick and choose, um, and, you know, fit into the scale and the height and the architectural features neighborhood, which I think goes to positive criteria. It's a permitted use residential, single
family. Um I'm maintaining existing first floor which is a positive element of the project. I completed the porch improving the streetscape. Um there are porches not as many but there are streets down street. This is
diagonal. This is diagonal. is your house treat for um all the setbacks and confirming that we talked about and height of the house 5t less than allowed.
So I feel the negative impact is much less if any the positive impact of those square footage wise um houses exist. I talked to the tax assessors and I got like a mouse of the
homes that were within high shot of my house. They range from 2500 at the high end to like 1,600 to 1,800. So right in the middle I'm not the biggest house right now, the smallest
house, but this would not be the biggest house. There are other houses directly across the street. Um this one's almost 2400 ft. Um so the size of the house that field would be appropriate in the streetscape
as well. Try to balance out not only the architectural features but the size of it as well but to answer any questions. Thank you. Um
as we do as we do we start to ask questions and look at other varants other ways to do and one of the first things that came to my mind was um you know to eliminate one of the variances is did you look at pushing the proposed
new front steps into you still have the same design but instead of having what I what I believe I'm looking at the plan. The steps start at the edge of the porch and go. What if you were to push that last
step into porch? >> Yeah, I could push I could push it back, but make no >> I'm not saying you have to, but but you could do um >> the whole architectural idea was to have that column there.
>> Uhhuh. >> It's kind of balanced. So we I just left green for the power versus Janet up against the house. >> Okay. >> So I thought one step was fairly dim and it's an improved to what's there now.
>> Um right now >> and existing at 37 you said right now you're pushing it back already. >> Yeah. But I'd be glad to move this back. I have a little bit of room. The porch is 5T 5T heat. So I could push it back but if
you wish or I could indent one step right here into the porch. >> Yeah that's that's >> so one sticks out and you step in that's you know that could be a bar if the board you know wants to talk about
that. Um second thing I mean in addition to the garage and all that it's all system and you're not making it any >> I guess the stair coming off the back where now it's a 2.9 foot distance to
the corner of the open porch is there and this is better but is there like any sort of distance that's required for fire safety or anything in case someone needs to come out of the back of the house can they like can they turn Yeah. Yeah. It's not
>> because it's three feet, right? >> 2 point and then the rest of it is nearly six feet. So, you're kind of shrinking that turn by half, you know? So, I don't know. Is is is there any um complications since you're you're kind
of taking 50% of the the turning radius out. >> So, like I have to have a three-foot landing and then two treads. It it it is the width of a slider. It looks good when it matches the slider, but I only really need a stair.
I could put the stair here and have have the slider, you know, the fixed part not have a step top of the part have a step. You know, you know what I'm saying? >> Yeah. >> So then it would pull it away from that column. But you can actually uh
whatever that column is that you're speaking. Um >> yeah, my my point is someone comes down this goes down those three stairs out of the back of the house. I don't know. And this seems like they would smack right into that column.
>> Yeah. So you need I would only 3 feet is what's required by cos not I can make it three feet for sure I can make it more than 3 feet if you want the landing I can't make less than 3 ft >> and if you had a problem with the right side I get this but I think it might
look a Before we before we go, you know, further with our questions about visiting the study application generated six. I think a lot of the uh a lot of the stuff that was in the first
several pages has been covered by testimony. I just want to take a minute maybe to discuss the section for the test and I I heard testimony from the applicant
use of the addition and finishes color and materials. did asked if it was going to be textured or if we can hear what kind of explan I would just do all sponsor just your res
maybe not that style but just traditional residence um the AC unit is over on Um on the right hand side there's one there. So I probably the other one said
10 ft >> it would be 10 ft across but no gas there. Is there an existing light going down >> spot? Yeah. See this picture right here.
>> It's at the corner of the building, correct? >> And you're playing this one spotlight. uh given we were asking about the strange location.
Yeah, they would be all very similar location some of them. >> Yeah, that would be the followup question. police recommend particularly in this neighborhood we had you know smaller lots to address
um again when we look at these applications that make substantial improvements to the property we recommend sanitary service PTV inspects good shape I don't there's any issues that need to
be addressed with only 4.6 Six 4.7 general note that's all amendmented responsibility the service will be raised public
floor have two fireplaces. >> No existing exist on the left hand side on the right hand side. >> Yes. the lighting. Do you propose to put any
lighting in the porch down? >> Um, >> the ceiling. >> I could either do like scout scouts or down light see the picture just kind of glows. Yeah, it's nice.
Either one. You have a preference. >> I'm not doing any lighting out here. >> Okay. >> By code, I need so many thick candles. So be nice to bring It's all brand
or do I open it back up to you questions? Are you removing the tree that's in front? I mean, on Google Street Maps, I see a tree that's pretty close to the home where you're going to be putting the porch. Would you be removing that or is it already gone? >> Well, this forward that would stay. >> That was stacked.
>> It's forward of the porch. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Great. >> And you planted one anchor for the tree you're talking forward. Then they planted, you can't say in this photo, but they planted
another one to kind of anchor the house. Existing tree, new tree, forget what kind of tree that is. We did foundation plantings and then all the edge the um
box and we did some trees in the back. The back has a beautiful stone like Irish ball on the right hand. Sorry the way we have to look at the topic of the house from the front of the house
I guess side of the house in the back we did some a little bit higher. So you can see that stone wall box edges and
the walls and on the other side which are blue giants and then our neighbors lilac. Great. Thank you everybody. Excuse me. Watch out for the dance. They were there
this morning. And I I guess despite building a second level, you're still not raising the height of the the current um of of of the current structure. So, I guess if you're going to build all these rooms and have these
windows, there's no privacy infringement. Is there from your neighbors that are on either side of you? Because it's the same. You're actually the the the roof line's actually lower >> than my neighbors >> than what it currently is. I think you said you you had room, but it's not you're you're still going to be below
what's what's allowed when you're building up. >> The existing house isn't 35 ft. You're allowed 35 by code. I'm at 30. >> The existing is Oh, see you are going up. Okay. >> Because um >> 21.
>> Yeah. >> It's a kid, you know. It's a one and a half story cave. >> Okay. >> It's not really a kid through an attic, >> right? >> I walk down to my bed and play. So now that you have that much more height, um
I guess would is is there any sort of visibility or or privacy uh uh I guess compromises now that there's more glass and more room up there to to see you or your for you to see your neighbors. >> Well, but one photo I only have one the neighbor to my right has no window,
>> right? So he's blocked off, right? >> He has no windows to look >> right out of. And the uh to my left, she has two bedrooms with like a small hopper window. >> Okay. And then there's she has space and
there's that garage and like driveway. >> Okay. And then I'm 23 ft off of her. >> That's actually And then you got the garage also in between. >> So it's a lot of space there. >> Okay. That's where the master will be now
relative to the hallway or whatever it is now. Okay. This way, right? >> The attic. You're not really going to stand up. >> Yeah. >> Want to go 35 ft. It's not a very big
house trying to get down. I guess if I if I think that this is helpful council just the house took pictures of there's only really
find your block here street. They're huge across the street. There's, you know, one of those colonials that have like windows up top porch and garage and then next to them is another kind of
Hen house is a lot narrower. So I didn't have pictures of those. 63 63 pressure law. Definitely not going to be the biggest house
planet. If you guys are I mean, personally, when I look at when I look at your design and also what you're doing, you're not increasing foots
that just a porch for I think, you know. All right. So you're a foot over or foot under with the steps that I you know I talked about but I would I would I person just questions that we ask for the bill
questions um I don't think it's a bad notification anything it's not problems like tripping or something like that. So it's really
if you feel that you need to do that back steps and steps the backst step the backst step situation again that would only be a safety thing I I mean that's that's as far as the com the questions that I posed to you on front that was just you
know I would be open to doing >> I don't necessarily I I'd rather have you told it you know on that particular brand give you that because you're already you're already
better than that you are right now 36 >> that's literally just the first step from that point on the whole house >> um I have to open this up to the public do I open Is there any other discussion or
questions? Guess if if he I think there's six or seven proposed variances. >> I didn't um and I guess I'm just trying to think like if you total of all of the feet and inches you're you're asking for. I guess
do you do you have the total the total number? >> I on one what the five inches on this side plus what you need for the fireplace the foot for for this. I guess I'm just trying to it's it's it's a lot of pieces. So, I'm just trying to get a better concept for like what the
totality is of the variance that you're asking for as a package relative to the house is it just might be an easier way for me to think about it. I mean, I don't disregard these, but um the step
variances and the five in I don't think anybody's going to notice if the wall is here or here and the step is literally down by your ankle front. The back I agree you can make it more clearance. >> So those are three variances that are so diminished,
>> right? that if we you know if we did the things just to get rid of those variances I think it would go awkward side of the house >> right >> right >> so you know it's this much it's not two feet into the side so I know there's a lot of variances but if you take those
three and look at the the u the extent of each one there but they are variances um the fireplace the gent You know, a lot of towns allow burn approachments. They allow chimneys to go
over the side step back. They allow steps to go over the front yard set. It's not true with all. But if you want me to push the chimney in to push the chimney and sell them too, but these are all like literally, you know, less than
half. Um, so those four are for that. And it looks really a long list of variances, but if you look at each one, it's very diminous.
The distance of the garage, um, you know, somebody built a garage. I don't think they ever got a burn. That's what I'm living with. Um, and then the sides is basically an extension of the first floor on the
sides and then the front porch, which I think adds character to the house. So, I thought it was worth building a porch. You know, another public situ. >> Um, so I felt like each one had value to streetscape, whatever it is. I I think
it's fitting in from there with the porches and the roof lines. Um, these are houses that look what I look like what I proposed. There are other houses that are a lot bigger. Um, but I didn't want to make them first. I'm just going
to stated that. Um, so I understand there's a lot of variances, but if you look at each one, >> I guess what what I what I think about um is is sort of the the precedent that
if while individually it's not a lot, but could someone down the road say it all it all added up to this amount and that amount you put through prior? Like I I'm I'm thinking of it as is a is a total amount of variances granted versus
individual. I don't know if that's the wrong way to look at it. That's what I'm thinking about. >> I I I'm going to try real quick. I thought you're on the right track and I'm going to This is for the sake of the board, but Mr. Slick, but by all means, I think you you should hear this, too. >> Is quantitative variance relief is not necessarily a problem in and of itself. It's the quantitative variances. I think
it's the qualitiveness of the variances. So, I think I I don't get a vote. Um I happen to uh be in relative agreement with you that that they are dimminimous some of those items and checking them off the list might make your list go from 9 to six. I don't know if that really changes much about the equation.
I think the bigger variance you have remains the D4 Mike in his report he did uh provide the statutory criteria for that in recovery 4. I think he he laid it out as to what you have to establish and it's really a matter of can a site still accommodate what you want to build
notwithstanding the shortcoming of not compliance with the F. It's similar to the D3 condition use variance case right and and I think what what the chairman was pointing out was five of the nine uh lots you cited under area inventory are lots that are at least 3,000 square feet
larger than yours. Um they're at least 100 by 120 several a few we can't even tell because they're off the radiusless map. One we can assume is a lot that that's even larger than that in the corner of Midwood there. But um at any rate I I think that's the bigger issue that the board needs to focus on is
whether or not the D4 variance is satisfied because that is the heavier lift. That's what brings Mr. Schlick to the board of adjustment requiring a supermajority vote to be approved and that is the heightened standard of scrutiny that needs to be met here. not like a D1 use variance relief of a prohibited use. Um, we don't need to
meet the site suitability test. It's a permitted type of structure, but it's larger than is allowed. So, can it accommodate the shortcomings? And I think that includes an analysis, and I'm going to defer to Mike on this, but are you compromising light air and open space? Are we able to properly manage storm water controls on this property
that's being overdeveloped now? Um, are we in congruent with the streetscape of lots around us? And I think that's what Mr. attempted to do with that exhibit. But but you know, again, I point out that five of those lots at least are are lots that I don't think are similar to yours when we're talking about lot area
because on the one hand, you you know, the argument is my shortcoming is I have a deficient lot area. So that's why a lot of this relief is packaged in here because I'm working with an undersized lot. And on the other hand, citing to the congruence of the streetscape is citing to lots that might be undersized
but are significantly larger than this one. So that that's where I see personally a disconnect on the planning argument of the D4. I'm past the bulb relief. I think that's the smaller potatoes. It needs to be satisfied, but I think the board's focus really needs to remain on the D4 F relief and the
proofs that need to be established that this lot and its shortcomings can accommodate this F enhancement that's being proposed on this lot. And I think the board needs to give whatever value they need to give to that exhibit with the understanding that several of those lots are are not arguably objectively
comparable. >> Bill, can I respond to that? This is 75 ft wide lot to mine. It is uh larger in square feet than mine. Slightly larger. So it's the same width. >> What's the lot number of 77 midfield?
You know, because I don't see it on your radius list. Five block 206. >> Lot five on your street is a 12,000 foot lot. >> You got to be like 206, not 20.
It's this one here. 208. I'm sorry. >> Okay, you're on the far corner. >> Yeah, this I got you. I see that one. You said to the near corner as well. Not this one. I didn't I didn't say this one. That's a huge house.
I'm This This house is right here. It's the same width as mine and it's uh the same depth and it's a larger house square foot based on the taxpay. This lot is 65 ft wide. So, it's 10t narrower
than mine. It's basically the same height probably. And it's um >> that's an that's very much an outlier lot on your street. Definitely the narrowest lot. >> Yeah, it's the narrowest lot of the entire street. >> Well, then there's 22. That one is 75
ft. It's on the same side as mine. These two are on the same side. That one is um >> Yeah, I'm just looking at the one you cited the one on on Midwood. That's lot 11. That's 12,000. It's more than 12,000. Um, one, two,
>> three, three on Homewood are are larger at 12,000 ft. You cite it's a lot 11, which is 30 midwood. >> These are all 75 ft. 75 ft. >> 30 Midwood on the tax map shows it's
larger than that. 30 midwood on the tax map shows it's 120 by 135. >> Yeah, this this 135. Oh, I didn't I didn't realize this. These these This says 135. This slug is 135. But this architecturally looks like >> No, I'm I'm just going by I'm just going
by raw lot area right now. >> Yeah, you can definitely pick other lots that are bigger bigger houses. >> I was trying to pick lots that are equal width of mine >> and then architecturally looks like mine. Across the street, it's a huge house. I
didn't know by that. Um, >> so our house is never large. >> That's a big lot. >> It is a big house. >> Yeah. >> I know you gave a variance down Midwood last year.
Think it was lot two in 2000 block 2008. Yeah. Lot. It's another size lot, but they got a fair varian, but it's bigger. I was trying to show you homes that
looked like mine and had a lot of people. I didn't want I didn't take pictures of the bigger. So in in in those other proofs that you talked about, I have proper set bounds. There's there's
probably 30 ft distance from my house to the house to my left and to my right. I think that there's one picture floating around showing that. Um so there is light space um between them and not too close. If I was too close, that would be another issue. I'm not suggesting it's
not. I'm just saying these are the proofs that can be established to justify a floor area ratio barrier. >> I mean the floor area ratio standard but it's generally established to make sure that you don't develop
from a B standard attitude with with what's in the air with um in this particular case you know it's a full the floor ratio is small because it's a small but so that that
ratio is driven down based on a lot I don't need to have a small lot the proof has to be but the proposing that does meet that standard still works with the neighborhood doesn't wait a little impact on the surrounding properties
site facilities. >> It's all relative. It's all relative. It's a massing inquiry, right? And because right down to the definition of floor area ratio, it's an inquiry as to your total area as compared to your lot area. It's, you know, it's a like comparison. So, um, comparing
differentiz lots really doesn't help that. And certainly comparing other applications that were granted. There's no pre you're not, you know, there's no precedent setting, you know, that. But, yeah. >> Um, every case has to stand on its own merits. That's why I I only used lots that were similar width and these houses
uh of similar width lots and area exact same area and they're bigger houses than what I'm proposing Texas but there's certainly you know features and tools that have lots make sure that it's not having those
intest such as storm water management and architectural features enhancements down >> which I think the forge does and the skirt booth does and I'll be glad to put in
our twotory box and a lot of detail I will say I have also taking and yeah no particular >> but that's something Go ahead Michael
>> yeah particularly given the fact that they have in in this area like you have small lots you have houses close to each other so it's just uncontrolled so every opportunity that the board has when we're considering variances
has historically taken that as an opportunity but still I think it'll be to my narrative because he's downhill and then my spouse spill out ice and becomes
yeah involved testify that you'll yeah we'll have an engineer calculations usually use the classic one >> please check chamber
>> that's not a problem >> and really really however the applicant chooses to the capital there was some landscape like uh no uh I mean there based on my visit those terrible amount of landscape
what I heard so everything I think every piece of property I have a question for you regarding the back from the house to the porch is there needs to be held I mean technically I
think there's supposed to puts out sounds like situation that evol that's in the building code if you're less than 5T fire and scrub jumps.
a building department without usually use that for. So the building code um build two building very close to each other dictate how deep fire is. So we
have to hear I think opening the screen for help. building side. So really the distance is just the roof. How many square is that created?
I think you said 572. >> The garage is 40500 together 600. Actually, there's not many houses that look that fine. A lot of them look like this. Two story. I think they're going to be more similar
to what's there. There's not many story peeps. to anybody. All right. Um, at this moment I'm opening up to members of the public to anybody unless
discuss with this earth. to listen. >> I didn't ask for you. >> Or either of you a planner, you can offer some testimony. >> Bringing it back to the board. Seeing none out. See no public bringing it back to the board.
>> Again, further discussion. Mr. Schlick, it's up to you now if you would like to move prosecuting your case and ask the board to deliberate. If you would like to adjourn and come back when there's potentially more eligible members this evening, you would know your heard their questions. You could probably read the room and determine
what you believe it to be. You would need to carry all five members to be approved. A 4 to1 vote in your favor would effectively deny yourself. >> Well, I think the spirit of tonight was present, but I would appreciate if I could hear comments back. The changes are needed as you heard. I can make
these changes agree with them tonight, but there's something smoking not allows to listen to but if there is no concerns I would vote but
if there is concerns I'd love to hear it so I could revise drawings for next month but I haven't heard be glad to do anything we talk about any additional items I'd be glad to hear them either
reach of them tonight or okay board just heard are the revisions that you want to see we always have to sing it we want to see the final finals before we go so is there anything that's sticking though I mean I guess I would I would
like to see the revisions so that it doesn't look like you're asking for seven dances. >> So, let's push in the front yard step that gets rid of that. The back by code, right?
>> Yeah. But that was more of a fire safety thing and like their jurisdiction, not mine on that. Yeah. Second floor is a lot. Are we losing sleep over the over the uh fireplace
lot? >> My opinion, >> but are we actually voting on variances for the lot? >> Yes, >> you are. >> I think you are. >> In this case with with F relief for an undersized lot, I think you are. Like I
said at the beginning, my opinion is it's gray. It depends on what the relief is. F relief to expand a structure beyond the parameters allowed on a lot area of your size. I think you are exacerbating lot area issues and then going along for the ride with that
obvious is the lot width which helps create that deficiency. While the delta is not changing on those two items. It's 9,000 existing and remaining as your lot width at 75 ft. I do think it ties into the F relief and my recommendation to the board is that those are variance
items that are on the table that cannot change. >> No, you can mitigate that, right? If your F went down, theoretically it's mitigated by that same logic, but you can't eliminate those conditions. >> Yeah. The ones there could be just the step that's rear
um side at all. You want me to kick it in five inches of basically this and that bear would go away. The back bearings wouldn't go away. It would just get it'd be greater. It'd be less of the bearings. >> Right. Right.
>> Yes. >> The back options. >> Sorry. I I was thinking about the back platform left up and right instead of straight out.
>> Um yeah, I probably just move the door right there. >> Yeah. Like if you're relocating. >> No, I mean a central
platform you could go really both left or right straight out. >> You still you still wouldn't get 10 ft away and if you went your steps are really your issue. Steps
are in depth. So you're 2.9. So if you eliminate the steps and you just fill the platform, it could actually be a greater platform. Let's say 42 in something like this. And then just go down both directions even
at the house. >> You'd have to be 10 ft away. >> I'm addressing two foot two foot. Oh, just making it less of the variance. >> Yeah. >> Oh, yeah. Yeah, we took that. I thought you were saying a limit. >> Yeah, that that takes away the variance and it does it does help that dimension
to the 2.1 takes away the >> How do you get 10 ft? >> It's 2.9 49 469, right? >> Oh, the backyard.
>> Backyard. I was just um yeah so if you move so if you gain if if you move those steps or redo the steps of platform something from that 46 million
it takes that you're still going to have the situation where you're close to the garage. We're going to do that with one foot. Okay. I have to have a threeoot landing. If I just did a landing and then went
right or left. Um, I need a landing. See how the landing sticks out a little bit? So, I can that little piece would be I would need
Then they can't make the landing less than 3 ft. That's the code in the house is there. I don't think you guys can see steps. >> How many steps are the landing? How many steps? >> Two. Two treads. Three
>> ride landing. >> Yes. So I stepped from the house to the landing and then >> two >> doesn't require rail. >> No no recept. I think, you know, to your point,
anything that you could do to eliminate in spots was these front porch back uh firefighters to try to consolidate all these different variances of that.
So, let's push in the front steps. Let's push in the right wall. Push in the park. might look a little weird. >> Maybe you could push in the entire front porch. No, not in the front. >> Yeah, I'll get rid of >> There's a lot of I mean, there's a lot of the front yard.
>> I'll get rid of the side. Do you mind the fireplace sticking out? I can move it in a foot, let it stick in the house a foot out. Are you just looking to get rid of the variances all together? >> Well, I speaking fireplace. So you have
the well window well and a fireplace. What looks at at what's happening there? >> Yeah, it's a prefab fireplace. >> Oh, it's an >> Yeah. >> Oh, sounds. Okay, fine. Got it. >> You look at the elevations. >> Got it.
>> Understood. >> Here. I I think I I think it was the board spirit of what they're saying. Okay, you came in for I read I think there's 12 there 12 things fall down.
>> There's more than seven. >> I'll go through my list, right? I can find my list real quick. Pre pre-existing lot area lot. We're not going to look pre-existing. Lot area deficiency, lot width deficiency, lot depth deficiency, front yard setback, sideyard setback, rear yard setback,
building coverage, gross building area, separation between structures, and floor area ratio. I have 10 on my list. >> I'm just reading. Go ahead again. Front yard, >> front yard, sideyard,
rear yard, building coverage, gross building area, F separation between structures is relief whether or not it's on every court. Then you have existing non-conforming conditions to remain and I think the case law supports they're
being exacerbated by the FDR relief that being lot area deficiency width and depth. So front yard rear yard wire lot with ratio building area side
this is principal building. So which one >> coverage building coverage lot depend >> you don't have a lot of depth in the or
>> you can I think >> your your plan which I think calls out a required minimum requirement the 174 on your own on the plan that you filed variance. >> But that's not that's not it's in order to get to 20,000 ft. It's not an Allen wall.
>> I'm looking at your zoning schedule. >> Yeah, but it's not that doesn't mean it's a not in your required condition and a proposed condition and that is downward adjusting the proposed conditions. That looks like a deviation. The plan should have been clear perhaps
because the plan that you filed shows a delta for proposed conditions being 54 ft shy of what is being called a quote required condition which makes it a deviation not a variance it's fine but but that's that's an issue for you and
discriminator of that plan the lot area I can't do anything about the lot I can't do anything Uh here it set up back. I'll pick in the wall if you wish. 5 in. Um I'd like to leave the fireplace out a
little bit. It's not a very big roof. Sink gets pushed in. It chews up the room. Um and I'll the back steps, but I'm still not going to play code. I can't get rid of%, but I'll definitely increase the distance to the porch. So I can get rid
of about two and make two two of them better. I can shrink the porch and make the building coverage less. But I think it looks >> the front porch. >> Yeah. >> Which is 5'8 or whatever.
>> If you're reducing the gross food in the area 5x percentage or you know all of these things will >> Yeah, I'll do all this. I just don't want to I would like to know what I'm doing so when I come back but I the
board can't give we're not straw polling the board the board cannot give you an assurance how they would vote I mean but the was >> the inquiry was what are your concerns and you heard from a few members it's the quantitative variance relief and then the horse trading begins well I can do this I can't do that that's
completely up to you Mr. how you want to approach that. You know, the board still vote however they want to vote when they see revised plan. But but but that's the dialogue that that's all this is. It's helpful dialogue should you not want to vote tonight and consider what alternatives you might do
to maybe mitigate relief further. It's completely at your own election. >> I'm trying to be cooperative. Take >> No, no, I understand. and make these revisions without resistance and come back with a set of plans that you guys could see and and then make a judgment
on your own. I'm not asking folk tonight. I'm not asking to be um effectively fully communicate if the board. I'm not asking you to vote yes or no. >> I thought what you were doing was you don't want to make these changes to come back and hear the board still. I put
that last comment to agree to everything that I think at the end of the day being instructed to focus on those footage 28 versus 20 that's probably the council.
This is the problem. I think the best thing could be take into consideration heard tonight back to us. Okay. And then
basically sold to come back perhaps in the third floor whatever has to be done and show us how you get to the F because I think that's where the F is the biggest >> and it all relates to that at some level
lesser houses lower F right >> said hey listen I can get to the F you guys are required I might need a couple variances here and there. But I could get to that double can't get to that double
such small number. It's like one you design a house by the numbers. It's going to be very help. It's it's believe me I've tried. I don't want to transparent. It's a very unsized lot staying with existing footprint. Uh,
I can reduce it, but I can't get rid of it. I don't have to sell the house. But I think the land and the property and the hardships that exist warrant some kind of leak just
>> well they're sitting as a board of They're sitting as a board of now. It's combined landing board. So this is that's why I was >> the hardship again I'll tell the board my guidance is the hardship of the lot area deficiency >> is not a way to justify an F enhancement
of a property again going back to what Mike said and I echoed it. It's all relative. >> I'm not buying it. >> Yeah. >> I'm not justifying that. I'm just buying it. It's going to fit into the street. There's similar products out there with neighbors, you know, three doors down
that have the same lot width, same lot area, bigger houses and not increasing, you know, first floor. I'm doing the the work of management control. So all the things that you require
trying to explain that's why I took these pictures logically. So I'll take the comments that that's that's best in my opinion the plan of action to to chime in here one more time but I
I think the best thing you can do is say what we're being hung up on. So you might not be able to get to another but what can you do to get closer? Okay. And you may come in here with some like all right you know what this doesn't look we'll do this we'll do that
whatever's whatever's required but I think we need to see what else under an umbrella of potential alternative plan that brings us closer to >> definitely helped that you talked about introducing
better >> well if you don't think that you can get to the processing That's where I was going. My third plan. >> I mean, if it's your testimony as as a professional saying, hey, listen, I can't get to this.
>> I have to shop. >> Okay. >> To make a usable house, I have to shop. >> It's not going to work. >> It's unfortunate if it's there. I have to put it's another thing. It's not self. >> Understand? I think the only point about
the third plan is not that you should be bringing one. It's that make the most efficient use of your time. I think so if you're coming back and you say well what about this back pocket plan sometimes works sometimes doesn't but it's again it's up it's it's up to you how you want to skin the cat it's really up to you
>> longer they're in so >> this is just me not knowing does does that L-shaped garage does that of the that unit counts towards the F, >> you know. >> Do you need that middle
that extra >> whatever that idle dead space connects to the portion as well, >> right? So that so aside from that, >> but you would shrink you would at least
take the F down by that block of property that's not really usable. I I I have no idea what's in there. You kind of described it as I parked my cars here. There's like this cubby area and now you've got your four seasons room or three seasons room, but like is is that
if if if you have to fit something into an F number, is that something that you could sacrifice? >> Good point. Because F comes down to massing as well, right? So even though the principal structure say the house is modest, it fits in, you got a large secondary structure. It's all part of
your F calculations. Again, it's up to you what to consider, but I think that's a very good point. It directly ties into the T4 release. I mean, and I I don't know if that piece that you built on that that can be attached to the
>> ground there was, >> right? But I'm saying if if if if you take the middle piece out, can you take what you just built and attach it to where you parked your car? >> Oh, it's >> the L like Yeah. Can you take the elbow out and bring your your the screen porch over there or that that porch over
there? Because then that takes out the stair issue also because I'll move that all over. >> You can't. Okay. >> It's a trip. Okay. If you're not happy with the numbers in the second
I understand that's why I took the screen portion. >> Yeah. That that reduced the F by 17 and that little elbow is not even here. Okay. I'll tell you.
Okay. Thank you for your time. >> When is the next >> April 22nd consent to continue notice Mr. hours ago to be able to extend the public period. If you do want to submit
anything 10 days ahead with the hearing date, then send them in. Send them in digitally as well. Paper copies. It's too um the next the next meeting I'm sorry next meeting at 4:22.
>> Yes. Okay. All right, sir. Thank you for your time and we'll see you. We'll see you in a while. All right. Thank you. Thanks on our public comment. That brings back to the board. Any other
issues, comments, questions? I'd like to turn it over to you for a few moments if I could. >> I just wanted to I didn't >> I don't think I can speak. Sorry. Does anybody um I could show you my email, but I'm going to write about
fair share housing. That's really what I wanted to update everybody. It's actually too long. Um I'll try to see Um so we actually did satisfy our fourth round housing. We had a really good
deal. Um we we had 200 our obligation was 200 affordable and then our RDP or realistic development potential was was four. Using the ratio that would mean we'd have to build about 20 units in Aladdale because the developer is not going to
build just a critical housing to make a profit. So, we would have to find some type of space to go 20 units. And 20 units doesn't sound like a lot, but if you look at like Park and Ivy, that's pretty substantial. That's only five units. Excuse me.
So, what we did to satisfy that was to extend some deed restrictions. So, we had an issue with this one unit 98 Elm and kept on coming up um on the on the radar and I know that's an affordable unit. So then we did like a deep dive into all our existing affordable units
and their deed extensions were going to expire within that 10-year period for the next decade. So we went in and we actually um extended all the deed restrictions. So we actually don't have to build anything in this fourth round. And we that was a
little bit of a problem because we actually did not build any of our unmet need in the third round and that was kind of being used against us. So to show good faith that you are going to build the unmet need. So the number was 200. We have four as our realistic development potential. We have to show
good faith that that 196 we're going to have to try to build somewhere. So they were actually looking at a piece of property in Carterette. They were looking at um some other uh Trinity Church and they were also looking at our downtown and the downtown they were
really pushing to extend the height to like three or four stories on our downtown. And they were like adamant about that. They want they're making us go back. So we had like three hearings going back and forth in the middle of all this
you're facing challenges with Saddle River because Sadd River is building all has all their unmet need on Burline Road on our you know basically in my opinion it's in Allenale. They don't have any infrastructure if you know Saddle River it's all um it's
all septics and it's all wells. So they needed us. So, so our our planner was calling them like pay for plans because they had no infrastructure to support them. But the Avalon Bay one, which is the big one, that was a 27 that's a 275 units.
Fair share housing really wanted this. They even told us the leadership of Fairshare Housing got involved. Um, we had a little bit of leverage because what happened in the middle of all this, a Avalon Bay took us to court and they the judge, it was called a case
management hearing where you're not supposed to make decisions. The judge ordered me to sign a TWWA, which is like the permit in this case management. So, that's pretty much unheard of in the legal world, right? >> There you go. >> So, um, so this judge did that. So, we signed under protest and we appealed
right away. So, that actually had a lot of leverage with Avalon Bay. So because they probably knew if we took this it might have cost you know it would have been like two years down the road but they would have probably lost and I think they knew that. So we kind of had that leverage. Um so what we did then is we said that we would allow them to use
our sewer. We we did the feasible feasibility study so we knew it was okay right there. And we moved our downtown overlay zone to Burline Road also. So, we also had existing units there that were um or our
unmet need from the last round. We just increased the density. So, we pushed it out of our downtown. We let Avalon Bay use our sewer. We don't have to build anything this round. And then we also did a side deal with Avalon Bay and got $500,000, which was really nice. Um our
planner at the top, our planner said that we do have like one of the better um deals in in all of the area just because we don't we don't have to build anything like that. and the $500,000, which is funny. All of a sudden, now Sadd River wants some of the $500,000. We're like, well, you know, you could
have, it's a two-party deal, solid, and um they want to use some of that for the liner project. So, with this sewer that we're using in Saddle River, there has to be a liner put in it just to protect it because there's some ion flow and um infiltration, but that's all on Saddle River. So,
they're trying to use our $5,000 to try to pay for that. But that's a battle for another day. But we're all we're all um we're all buttoned up. We have all our ordinances. You have the final one today. Um and um yeah, I think we're in really really good shape. So, we're really proud of that.
>> Yeah. So, um I have a like two-page memo going out um for the residents to kind of understand it because it's just so hard to un explain and this has been going on for so long. One of the uh pillars of our s that we assembled a new team of experts really early on like a
year before kind of anticipating this. We did that hazard vulnerability study if you remember and we did the um the uh we redid our master plan and that hazard vulnerability study actually helped us with our downtown because the flood zone kind of changed a little bit and it went into a lot of our downtown. So that was
kind of one of the reasons we could push it out too and also you know we talked about traffic and it's just tinier. Our downtown's tiny. I mean the way that the parking is anyway you go some a lot of times you have to go into the other lane just to go by. So it would have been an absolute disaster. But um Fairshshire
Housing Center um is an advocacy group. They're not elected officials. They were directed by the DCA to oversee this. They have veto power. They have so much power. And at one point with the sewers for example,
so where their two other projects are is the Rosie OD in Santa River, the Rosie O'Donnell property which is right next to Well School. Then there's two more Toll Brother. Oh, that's a Toll Brother project. Another Toll Brother project in Elgangquin which is coming down the hill going to Saddle River and then the Avalon Bay which is in Saddle River. So
there's another way to go like down um West Saddle River Road to right to to the Waldwick uh exchange. We offered that to them. Everybody was like, "Oh my god, this great idea." They they literally were like mad at us. Like we got they're like, "How dare you?" So it
was it was clear that they wanted Applebee. the leaders of the fair share housing came and they and said we want Avalon Bay. So we knew early on that we were not going to be able to we had that we were going to have to use let them use our sewer. So um we we held off as as far as we can. We were lucky that we
got the you know the $500,000 and at the end of the day we did have the capacity and they're paying for the liner and our deal is with Saddle River not Avalon Bay which is one thing that we stipulated. We did not want to have any deals with the developers only with the municipality and they were trying to
push that the whole time too and we were like steadfast like we're only dealing with Saddle River developer in 20 years could be gone you know >> so so yeah so we're really we're really um excited about that and a lot of other towns are still really suffering and Mont Bell's getting
>> because he's the one that started that whole coalition which we joined but it made it all the way to this big point to and all the KPMG property now. >> Yes. >> How about the data center? >> The data center. Yeah. But they want housing. >> KPMG also BMW.
>> Yep. >> Yep. Woo. 400 up there. >> Yeah. >> So that's a lot. The whole area is really going to be um so anyway that's that. Um I also just want to say congrats to Joanne who uh is our new uh
secretary and congratulations to Linda on your retirement. Thank you. >> Anybody have any questions now that my voice is back? >> So, when's the retirement party? >> That's what I said. >> Next week. >> Yeah.
>> No question. Just Well done. Yeah. Well done. >> Thank you. Yeah. No, we're really we're really excited about >> our big part of it as well. And >> he's been rather expert. So >> we only had small >> like like he's named. >> It was a good strategy. No, it was a
good strategy. We had a we had a good team. >> We had you know we hired a fair housing lawyer. We knew all the ins and outs. We knew how they thought we knew you know. >> So that was that was really really helpful.
I don't know what's theable inside like March test. I mean, what was the >> he supposedly he took a very simplistic approach and you said you have capacity or do you not have capacity? Well, like we're not even done with, you know, the study yet. So, he he he kind of was blindsided. Our attorney, Ray, that's
what Ray said. He's just kind of blindsided and just um you know >> it it was and it was funny because the fair share housing judge had a different judge and he said the same things like wow like I've never even heard of that
before. How how's that? But in the long run, it actually was good leverage for us because, you know, when we saw the writing on the wall that Avalon based on get their way and they and then um and that was part of the deal that we had to release the the appeal. Um because if we would if we would take it would have
been so much expensive anyway to take that appeal all the way, but I think they probably knew that they would have lost. Yeah, it was just a lot of back and forth, a lot of up and down, but yeah, nothing. So, but if anybody has any questions, feel free to reach out to me.
>> Yes, sir. >> I haven't answered any questions. Anybody on that? >> Um the burrow is of um uh looking to acquire 274 um West Allenale the Turner property the one across Pres. So in the process
of that I'm talking with the owner and uh looking to grant >> owner property >> and and and what's the >> thought Oh, good question. Um the thought would just be take the house down because that is a big flooding area. >> Yes. >> And almost just make kind of like a bog
for the you know just plant like um put a path through it and just plant like trees that like absorb water and just make an open space. So just like a little path from like the grand stand to grasswood and keep it as open space.
Yeah, I'm excited about that actually and we have a very good chance of getting about 85% of the acquisition cost and the count and our timing is perfect. So fingers crossed. >> Anybody have any other questions about the bureau's going on? Our budget
looking really good. I know you're still doing I know you're still dealing with the guardian. >> Yeah, I'm not we're not talking. >> No, we're not going to talk about you've been doing job. >> Oh, guardian. I thought if you guys if you guys don't go to the to the town halls, right town halls?
>> Yeah. >> That that that the mayor's holding. They're super informative. >> Nobody likes to go to council meeting. So >> I'm sorry. Yeah, that's the other one. And it's very >> the chairs like this. >> They're super informative. is very it's
very it's informative and informal. Okay. And it's it's it's it's a wealth of knowledge or it's a wealth of thought of hearing what's going on in just a different more comfortable form instead of coming to hear it as America said and talking
in front of those accounts and people can get intimidated by that. But as far as guardian angel, the uh cardinal actually did come come and say he's putting up foss on the whole we are this thing anyway. And Allenale's made a pretty big stink that um I think we're I'm very comfortable that nothing's
going to happen to anyone. >> All right. Thank you. Thank you. And Linda again, how long you join us? >> Sorry, >> how long you been with the sport? >> Seven years. almost eight years >> been an interesting seven especially putting up with me.
>> So thank you very much for everything. >> Thank you. >> Thank you and your accessibility and everything. So >> thank you. >> Best wishes in in moving on, chilling out, doing very good deal of retirement. >> So thank you. Thank you. So all right, anybody else have any comments,
questions? Okay, seeing none, motion to uh motion to adjurnn. Thank you. Second. Thank you. All in favor? Thank you. All right.