Thank you. >> Good evening everybody. Thank you for being here today. This is a regular meeting of the Allen language board at 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 bulletin board in the municipal building and on the boral website by publications in the record on December 9th, 2025 with copies being sent to the Bridgewood 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 and salute the flag to America to the republic for it stands nation
with liberty and justice for all of let's just both and I will take the oath please. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Vice Chairman Dalo >> here. >> Board member Wala >> here. >> Councilman Yakarino >> here. >> Chairman Serico
>> 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 oath of office. Uh Andrew is not here so we're
going to Tyler Yakarino. His term is expiring at December 31st, 2026. So in certain times, perfect. Thank you. We can do it. >> There is almost
>> left hand. Left hand probably. Nick. >> I Tyler Yakarino. >> I Tyler Yakarino >> 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. >> 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 the same thing. and to the governments established in the United States >> and 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 >> 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
get the joy of being >> lord he is >> trying to beat me to the part. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Keep it in a copy on the in the computer. We're going to go through the whole computer so you see everything.
>> All right. Next on the agenda for the meetings of the February 11th, 2026 regular meeting. Um, I reviewed them. I think I think I gave it >> 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 11th, 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 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 for second? Thank you, sir. >> Vice Chairman Dalo, >> yes. >> Chairman Suro, >> 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. take us through
the first one application 20226-01 resolution 26-11 345 East 20ale Avenue New Jersey post 741 block 702 lot 10 it was a minor subdivision
>> yes sir this was a largely conforming minor subdivision where the residue of land was conserved and dedicated to the burrow 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 it would have been rearfacing entry back to the street. Uh they needed some language in a resolution relative to satisfying the D in that regard. It would have created a leap. It would have created a
hazardous position. So the board decline to accept that alternate plan which did trigger barance relief. So by law form subdivision really just to eliminate portions of land that are otherwise environmentally constrained and undevelopable as it is
standard conditions on the pool and the most part of them. Anybody have any questions comments on the resolution? >> Okay, seeing none I bring it back. Could I have a motion to accept? I'll make a motion. Thank you. Second.
Second. Okay. Thank you. >> Vice Chairman Dalo, >> yes. >> Councilman Yakarino, >> yes. >> Chairman Crico, >> yes. >> Mayor Wasinski, >> yes. >> Board member Butler, >> yes. >> Alternate Enson, >> yes.
>> Thank you. >> I'll do I'll do >> All right. I'm gonna 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 26-4 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 body. It's actually required for state law. the fourth and go back and revert to the governing body for a second reading for consideration of adoption or declination at that point. So Mr. Sykes 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. Snyus' presentation. The board found that it was not inconsistent with the burough
code, the master plan, uh, long-range training, 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 of consistency. It then reverts back to the governing body to take
action thereafter at the second reading and I believe already have by this date. Is that right? I think 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's 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. 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. >> Set. >> 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 Enson. >> 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 uh 20265 the request to be heard on 4ch2 in our April meeting 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 sick. 58 Midwood Avenue, Allenville, 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 portatory pursuant to 270-14A 270-57B
270-57D 270-57 E1 270-57F 270-64 C270-63 A1 270-63 B 27 270-57
C, 270-63 A-1, 270-64 C2, and 270-57C. I'm up here a long time. I've never had that many years. >> Okay. >> And this is carried from the public
hearing of February 11, 2026. 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 this conversation.
>> It was interesting to hear from say the least. So council right answer um um do you swear or affirm testimony you're about to provide to me the truth? The whole truth about the truth. Please state your name for the record, spell your last name, and provide an address.
>> C H L I S C H E 58 Midwood Avenue. >> And you're testifying tonight, you capacity as the property owner and applicant, but also as a licensed architect network. Is that right? >> Yes. The state of my residence. >> So, so to qualify you, can you just please give us the benefit of your background, credentials, and licensing
that that's current state, New Jersey, and then the board can accept your qualifications? will be effectively the applicant and the expert witness. >> I've been practicing architecture for 43 years. I 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 and alterations, which is
the thrust of the project tonight. And um this is my house. My family bothered >> whole thing called >> 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 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. She's getting married. So that's >> 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 and we'll mark it as an exhibit as we go. Yeah, two things. >> Okay. >> Um, >> I'm gonna 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, though.
>> I just got 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, so the so those are pre-existing conditions, right? And there's 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 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 the 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 block 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 subsumed 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 went over this. Um because there's D relief, we've got classes of membership of the board
that that cannot sit on this case because this is a CPA case, >> right? >> So those members, it includes the mayor and Tyler are not eligible to hear this case, deliberate or vote on it because of the fact that there's use. 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 >> you could stay. You could say, but deliberations really limited. >> You're going to go to sir. Are you okay with the mayor staying here right
now? Are you okay with the mayor saying right now? There will be >> five. You need to carry the scape. That's right. Give me five minimum votes on that >> already. Would have been able to vote on this.
>> Is Andy eligible? >> Andy Frank and >> Charlie. >> 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 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 to 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 up there. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. I'm going to walk you through
the pre-existing zoning conditions of the property and I'm going to walk you through the proposed architectural improvements. Then I'll go through each variance 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 cardboard is here. There's a little bit of half it's like a half a bay storage. And this used to be a screen porch. And I have seen photos of what this screen porch looked
like when I purchased the house. And I 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%
division. It's significantly deficient. The lot width is 75 ft while 115 is required average. So I'm 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 174t 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 setback of 32.7 while 35 fp is required.
Presently the building coverage of the house, the steps and the porch and 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 to 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 first floor. 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 feet of usable area that you can 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 slure itself where I hit my head every day I brush my teeth so it's the second floor is pretty it's not something you can buy
it's more of a me sir are you taking all this okay sorry >> you see those I don't have >> Oh, it is. Oh, I can see it. First floor.
This the first floor. that I just said I'm going to I want to stay within the footprint. The improvements um would be to remove the steps, the landing and the steps that are actually closer to Mwood than what I'm noticing 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 bones front door. It fits nicely right into that. um corner.
Now, I'll get to 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 fireplace that would extend out. This
needs I'll go through that in a minute extended fireplace. The second floor would be at eye level that came with the the roof would be removed and what we're proposing is at eye level basically. New floor
joist 8 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 a 12 foot bed with a length of
a bed, an aisle, and like a dress room. So, these are very modest, tight little rooms. Um, so the whole second floor would be a structure >> and a restriction on the size of that is because we're not changing footprints
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 it 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. 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 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
hung windows. Um, kind of an antucket build. No black windows, white windows, maybe some shutters. I think they're going to have some shutters in the front. So, very classic residential home.
Um, the garage I need these new documents. >> Mr. One page. >> Yes. >> Can I say one page just describing things? >> Sure. >> Photograph taken.
last year since it's how I purchased the home. I 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. 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 resided, 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. Then 25. >> This was 2025 and this was 2026. >> Okay. You said go through the garage and open portion across. Yeah. Roof single gutters siding.
So I'll go through variances one by one first. Well, I I I'll go through these talking about the wire first the front yard set back to the steps step. It's literally the first step. So,
it would be 8 in off the ground almost like 5 ft wide. Um presently the steps are closer to the street. Um they're 32.7 ft. to 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 non-conforming condition and I really don't see any negative impact that would
be caused by one step being too close to the street I think the porch adds a lot of curb appeal a lot of architectural the house. That's variance number one. 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 2 feet 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 the 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 five inches. It's going to look a little bit obscure to the adjacent house on the right hand side. >> Yeah, I have pictures I would say.
Sure. Pictures I So, that house is basically a solid wall. There's no windows on that side. Um, last I just redid the whole was pretty old 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. 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. >> Got it. Thank you. >> It's not a very active yard that side doesn't use. I actually planted the
bushes too because I got tired of looking at this blank huge blank block have stories of brown sh I don't think there's any negative impact evergreen planted offering if the board feels he want me to kick it
in I'll be glad to kick it in the variance the board feels 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 railings 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 handed
out pictures. I think yeah, 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 this great porch. Um, and then from the back of the
second floor to the onetory roof of the porch, it is 5.75 ft. So the distance here is 5.75 ft. Um, I think the garage is built on 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 isn't viable but add in this overs the porch that was there. It creates a variance.
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 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 U building coverage, including the oversized garage and the proposed
condition, would be 9.4%. So what we're dealing with is a C1 a hardship with an 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 one garage is 264 ft, 12 ft by
22 feet. So there's there's 150 square ft 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 as I mentioned with the second floor these are fairly modest rooms 10 foot six is a very big room and not increasing the footprint of the
burst floor, recycling all the space. If you were to calculate the GVA over the compliant lot, no sorry, you have to calculate over complant um you'd 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 post house first second floor would be at 24.1%
below the 25%. So the house itself it's not too tall. Basically conforming 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 addressing. Um but go through the summary. We just talked about the life a lot with I guess in a lot of areas. Um
I ask a question this you passed out is what you're doing is proposing elimination of a screened important >> that work is complete. This where burning is complete. >> Yes, I did that last year with building.
>> So this is >> before it's like the before and after. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. This is after. >> Yeah. >> So you already did this per >> Yeah. >> So did you subtract out? >> I left the building coverage in because
there's a roof. subtracted out the GBA or because it's open >> that reduced it by 172 ft. You didn't do this for a second. We'll go through some hardships.
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 naroness due to side right side setback and the shallowess of the division lot depth which would be the front yard set
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, the 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 nonline 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 partip 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 Susan shot 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 of four nine photos I think. Franked February 11th. >> 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 at least 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 certain and they're on the site when you
acquired it, but but a pre-existing condition means something else as far as the latest parlance goes with with various grants. for the record. >> 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. And then from there you go forward when zone enactments. I don't know when zon's created, >> but you would also need evidence that these were actually conditions that
predated it anyway. >> You know what I mean? >> Yeah. So just predating you is not going to be enough. But that's really just No, >> I don't think the guy >> for the record safety. Yeah, because it's built. 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 feel what I'm presenting fall into the scale architectural language and you can see I'll point out certain things that exist at other homes that
I'm proposing in my fit well in the neighborhood feel 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 lot 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 street to me. And this one is a 75 ft lot. So you can see how architecturally
a twostory house with some gables and kind of architectural features with the main gable roof exist. So my proposal would be very similar and fitted. I believe streetscape of big wood and wood.
This is actually a quarter lot like 75 ft which is this garage almost like three feet off and this is the street here street for me has a porch and two and a half twotory structure with the gay
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 u element of the project I can leave the porch improving the streetscape
um there are porches not as many but there are streets down street this is diagonal this is diagonal house street that has porch um all the setbacks are conforming
5 in that we talked about and height of the 5T less like so I feel the negative impact is much less if any the positive impact of proposing square footage wise
um houses exist I've talked to the tax assessor kind of got like a mouse of the homes I live within I shot my house they range from 2500 at the high end to like 1600 to 1800.
So right in the middle a little bit above. So 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 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. 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 is I'm looking at the plan the
steps start at the edge of the porch then go what if you were to push that last step into porch Yeah, I could push I could push it back, but it would make no difference. >> I'm not saying you have to, but you
could too. >> Um, >> the the whole architectural idea was to have that column there. >> Uhhuh. >> It was kind of balanced. So, I just left green for the column versus jamming it 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 >> an existing area at 37 you said right now you're pushing it back already. >> Yes, but I'd be glad to move this back. I have a little bit of room. The porch
is 5T 5T. 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 it's all exist and you're not making it any
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 better click, 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 3-ft 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, the 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 that column is that you're speaking. Um yeah. >> 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 ft is what's required by cos I could make it 3 feet. Sure. I can
make it more than 3 feet if you want. The landing I can't make less than three feet. And if you had a problem with the right side, I could get this. But I think it might look a little 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 is in the first several pages has been covered by testimony. I just want to take a minute maybe to discuss the section
and I I heard testimony from the applicant use of the addition and finishes color and materials. He asked if it was going to be a textured If we can hear what
kind of explan >> I would just do all of each required just your res but just traditional res. The AC unit is over on the um on the right hand side. There's one
there. So I probably put the other one plus the set 10 ft. >> It'll be 10 ft across no basketball. >> There is there's existing light now. See this picture right here is spot.
It's at the corner of the building, correct? >> And you're playing this one. So they go out uh given the we were asking about discharge locations
exist. Yeah, they would be all very similar location some of them. >> Yeah, that would be the followup question. Please recommend particularly in this neighborhood we had know smaller lots
to address. Um again when we look at these applications that make substantial improvements to the property we recommend facility sanitary service PTV inspectors good shape
if there's any issues that need to be addressed with the department of public 4.6 item 4.7 general note that's all the service will be raised.
publicly second floor two places. >> No existing one exist on the left hand side that's on the right hand side. Yes.
>> The lighting. Do you propose to put any lighting in the uh down? >> Um the ceiling. >> I could either do like scout scouts or down light see the picture but just kind of close.
Yeah, it's nice. >> You have a preference. >> SP I'm not doing any lighting out here. >> Okay, >> by code I need so many thick candles. So be nice to wash the artist. Is there any fences
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? >> Oh, that's forward. That would stay. >> That was stacked.
>> It's forward porch. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Great. And you planted one anchor for this. the tree you're talking about that's forward and they planted you can't see in this photo but they planted
another one to kind of anchor the house existing tree new tree kind of tree that is we did foundation plantings and then all the edge the um
all the boxes and we did some trees in the back the back has a beautiful little stone Second Irish ball on the right hand side of the house from the front of the house always
side of the house storage on the back. We did so a little bit higher so you can see that stone wall box edges and some
walls and on the other side giants and then our neighbors lilac everybody knows watch out They were there this morning. And I guess
despite building a second level, you're still not raising the height of the the current um 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 I'm at 30. >> The existing is Oh, so you are going up. Okay. >> 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 building. 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 neighbors 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 small hopper windows. >> Okay. And then there's she has space then that garage and my driveway. >> Okay. And then I'm 23 ft off of her.
>> Okay. >> And then you got the garage also in between. >> So there'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. I'm trying to Yeah. I guess if I had if I had one I I think that this is helpful
council and I was just going through the house took pictures of there's only really on your walk street. They're huge
across the street. There's, you know, one of those colonials that have like windows up top porch and broad. And then next to them is another long really large scen house is a lot narrower.
I didn't have pictures of bigger 6353 right Definitely not going to be the biggest house. I mean personally when I look at when I look at your design and also what you're
doing you're not producing foots that this is important just work in terms of support. I 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 I would I
would person just questions that we ask questions um I don't think it's a bad notification anything so it's 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 be open to those 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 what you are right now. 36 36. >> It's literally just the first step that from that point on the whole house. Um, I have to open this up to the public so
we can barely hear before I open it up. Is there any other discussion or questions? Guess if if he I think there's six or seven proposed variances. >> I did um and I guess I'm just trying to think
like if you total up all of the feet and inches you're you're asking for. I guess do you have do you have the total the total number >> on variable 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 inches. I don't think anybody's gonna notice if the wall is here or here as a 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 dimin >> that if we you know if we did the things just to get rid of those variances I think it would go awkward outside of the house. >> Right. Right. So, you know, it's this
much. It's not two feet into the site. 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 are variances. Um the fireplace is the fourth,
a chimney. You know, a lot of towns allow for encroachments. 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 like to push
the chimney and sell them too. But these are all like literally you know less than half. Um so those four are four variances. It looks really
a long list of variances but if you look at each one it's very diminous. the distance to the garage. Um, you know, somebody built a garage. I don't think they ever got a burned. 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 the porch. You know, I'm not going to sit up there. It's not looking
a lot of money. But uh >> um so I felt like each one had value to the streetscape, whatever it was. I I think it's fitting in the neighborhood with the porches and the roof lines. Um these are houses that look what I look
like what I'm proposing. There are other houses that are a lot bigger. Um but I didn't want to make that first one very stated in 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 as a as a total amount of variances granted versus individual. I don't know if that's the wrong way to look at it. That's how I'm thinking about 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 varian. I think it's the qualitiveness 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 Freeland in his report he did uh provide the statutory criteria for that in recovery 4. I think
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 comical. >> 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 is my >> I got you. I see that one. You said 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 tax. 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 that narrowest lot. >> Yeah, it's the narrowest lot on 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 cighted the one on on Midwood. That's lot 11. That's 12,000. It's more than 12,000. Um, one >> three three on Homewood are are larger
at 12,000 ft. You cited 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 slugs 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 could 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 very large. Sorry,
>> that's a big lot. >> It is a big house. >> I know you gave a variance down Midwood last year. Think it was lot two block 2008.
Yeah. Lock. It's an undersized lot, but they got our marriage, some other variet I didn't take pictures of a 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, but 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 >> giving the floor area ratio standard but it's generally established to make sure that you don't overact
from a B stand of the building attitude with with what's in the air with um in this particular case you know it's a the floor ratio is small because it's a small but so that that ratio is
driven down based on the lot I don't think you need to have a small lot I think the proof has to be but the proposing that does meet that standard still works with the neighborhood doesn't negative impact
on the surrounding property site facility. >> 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 different
size 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 in 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 otherwise help 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 roof does. I'll be glad to put in
twotory box and a lot of detail. I will say that one of the first thoughts that I have and yeah no particular >> but that's insulting. Go ahead. >> Yeah. Yeah. Particularly given the fact
that that you have in in this area like you have small lots, you have houses close to each other uncontrolled. So every opportunity that the board has when they're considering variances has historically taken that as an
opportunity by still it'll be benefit to my native downhill and then my spouse spill out ice >> and become so >> yeah I mean that involves I can push down below.
>> The chambers check chamber and >> that's not a problem. It really is really however the applicant chooses to address the capital there was some landscape like no uh I mean there based on my visit
terrible amount of landscape probably what I heard so I think every question for you regarding the back set back from the house to the porch. Is
there of mentioning that needs to be held? I mean technically I think there's supposed to be room sounds like situation that that's in the building code if you're less than
5T fire So we have usually use that. So it's only um build two build close to each other
dictate how deep fire is. So we have to hear I think opening the screen for help. sign. So really the distance is just the roof. How many is that
created? I think you said 572. >> The garage is 40 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 welcome discuss with people. to listen. >> I didn't either of you a planner. You can offer some testimony.
>> Bringing it back to the board. See that 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 again heard their questions. You could probably read the room and whichever way 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. >> Well, I think the spirit of tonight was present, but I would appreciate if I
could get comments back. The changes are needed. As you heard, I can make these changes with them tonight, but there's something smoking yet but if there is no concerns I would vote but
if there is concerns I'd love to hear it so I could revise your for next month but I haven't heard be glad to do anything you talk about there's any additional items I'd be glad to hear
them either three of them tonight or okay board just heard are the revisions that you want to see you always have to say if you 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 variances. >> So let's push in the front yard step and get rid of that back by code.
>> Yeah, but that was more of a fire safety thing and like their jurisdiction, not mine on that. Yeah. Yeah. Second floor. Are we losing sleep over the air over the uh fireplace? >> My opinion,
>> but are we actually voting on variances for the lot? >> Yes, >> you are. >> I think you are. >> In this case with an 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 obviously 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 rear side at all. You want them to kick it in five inches. That's 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 >> right. Right. >> Yes. >> In the back options. >> Sorry.
I was just thinking about the back platform. You go left and right instead of straight out. >> Um, >> yeah. I probably just move the door right now. It's kind of weird.
>> Yeah. >> Like if you're relocating. >> No. CL really both left or right straight out. >> You still wouldn't get 10 ft away.
If you would if your steps are really your issue steps are in depth three. So you're 2.9 off. So 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 either at the house. You'd have to be 10 ft away to >> I'm addressing two foot two foot n
>> Oh, just making it less of the variance. >> Yeah. >> Oh, yeah. Yeah, we took that. I thought you were saying >> Yeah, that that takes away the variance in and it does it does help that dimension too. It's 2.9 takes away the air.
>> How do you get to 10 ft? >> It's 2.9. >> 49. You're 469, right? >> Oh, the backyard. >> Backyard. >> I was right. >> Um,
yeah. >> Yeah. So if you move so if you gain if if you move those steps or redo the steps or platform or something that 46 million takes that you're still going to have the situation
where you're close to the garage I have to have a threeoot landing if I just did a landing and then went right or 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 cuz I can't make the landing less than 3 ft. That's the code. The house is there. The house Yeah, I don't think you guys ever see steps.
>> How many steps on it? A landing and how many steps? >> Two two treads. Three >> ride >> and a landing. >> Yeah. So I step from the house to the landing and then two feet.
>> Doesn't require rail. No, no, you're not reaching. >> I think you know to your point anything that you could do to eliminate in spots was the 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, but >> 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. >> I'll get rid 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 of foot out
or you just looking to get rid of the variances all together. >> Well, speaking of fireplace, so you have the well, window well and a fireplace. What looks at at what's happening at both? >> Yeah, it's a prefab fireplace. >> Oh, it's an
>> Oh, okay. Got it. >> You look at the elevations. >> Got it. Done. >> Understood. here. >> I I think I I think it was the board spirit of what they're saying. Okay. I
read I think there's 12 there. There's more than seven. There's I'll go through my list, right? I can find those real pre-existing lot area lot. We're not going to go 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 report. 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 their report. 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 ratio building area side yard
this is principal building. So which one coverage >> building coverage lot >> depend >> you don't have a lot of depth in the or
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 law.
>> 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 adjusted on 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. 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 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. >> Yeah.
>> Which is 5'8 or whatever. >> If you're reducing the rose in the area, 5x percentage or you know, all of these things will >> 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 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 cooperatively 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 you to be um back to fully communicate if the board. I'm not asking you yes or no.
>> I thought what you were going was you don't want to make these changes come back and hear the board still alive. right next to agree to everything that I think at the end of the day we're being constructed focused on those
20 days versus 20 trials 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 basic so to come back perhaps in the third floor whatever has to be done and show us how you get to the because I think that's where
the F is that it 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 requiring I might need a couple variances here and there. But I could get to that bel
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 be here. It's a very undersized lot staying with existing footprint. Uh I can reduce it
but I can't get rid of it. But I think the land and the property and the hardships that exist warrant some kind of less adjustment board. >> 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 and it's going to fit into the street. There's similar products out there 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 management control. So all the things that you with the varants required trying to explain that's why I took these pictures logically.
So I'll take the comments that we got. That's that's best advice in the plan of action. I mean to chime in here one more time, but I I think the best thing you can do is what we're being hung up on CFA launch.
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 I'll use under
an umbrella of alternate plans that brings us closer to even >> definitely do the talked about introducing that command >> well if you don't think that you can get
to the process for 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 unfortunately it's there. I have to put it in place. It's another thing that 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 what about this back pocket plan sometimes works sometimes doesn't but it's 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 there
and this is just me not knowing does does that L-shaped garage does that of That unit counts towards the F, you know. >> Do you need that middle piece that extra >> whatever that idle dead space
to the portion as well, >> right? So, but 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 when 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 P4 release. >> Yeah. I mean, and I I don't know if that piece that you built on that that can be attached to the ground. >> It's there, >> 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 like where you park 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. >> Yeah. >> If you're not happy with the numbers and go to I understand that's why I took the screen portion. Yeah. That that reduced the F by
So, it's just going to be And that little elbow is not even here. Okay, I'll tell you when. Okay, thank you for your time. When is the next? April 22nd consent to continue
Mr. scenario 11 to be able to second public hearing. If you do want to submit anything 10 days ahead this will be hearing date and send them in send digitally as well paper copies.
Right. Um the next the next meeting I'm sorry next meeting at 42. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right, sir. Thank you for your time and we'll see you we'll see you in a moment. All right. Thank you.
Next on our designate is open to the public for 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 talk though.
I don't think I can speak. Sorry. Does anybody have 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
speak. 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 our realistic development
potential was was four. Using the ratio that would mean you'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 build 20 units. 20 years doesn't sound like a lot but if you look at like Park and Ivy that's
pretty substantial. That's only five Phoenix, 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 like 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 feed 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 three or four stories on our downtown and they were like adamant about that. I mean one 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
Allenville. 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 paper 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 at 275 units. Fair Share House 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. >> Very. >> 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 roof right there might tell you
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 is 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 yeah and the $500,000
which is funny. All of a sudden now Saddle 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 iron inflow 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. We have the final one today.
Um and um yeah, I think we're in really really good shape. So, 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 safe is that we assembled a 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. 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, Fair 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 Saddle 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
Elonquin 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 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 were like, "How dare you?" So it was it was clear that they wanted Avalon Bay. The leaders of the fair share housing came and they even 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. We're like, we're only dealing with Sadd 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 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 the big point which >> all the KPMG property now. >> Yes. >> 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 do. 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, when's the retirement party? >> That's what I said.
Next week we'll film it. >> No question. Well done. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. Yeah. No, we're really we're really excited about our >> Mike is a big part of it as well and >> he's been small like like he's a lot.
>> It was a good strategy. No, it was a good strategy. We had a we had a good >> We had a you know we hired a fair housing lawyer. But that's we knew all the ins and outs. We knew how they thought. We knew you know >> so that was that was really really helpful
if you're inside the TWWA center up wanted. 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 Ray said he was just kind of blindsided and just um you know >> it it was and it's funny because the fair share housing judge had a different
judge and he said the same things like why 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 Bay is going to 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 what 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? Hills needs to be discussed. >> Um the burrow is of um uh looking to
acquire 274 um west Allenale out the Turner property the one press. So in the process of that I'm talking with the owner and uh looking into grant as well >> owner property already
>> and and and what's the thoughts >> 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 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 Casswood and keep it as open space. Yeah, I'm excited about that actually. 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 brows? 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 you guys if you guys if you guys don't go to the to the town halls right >> that that that the mayor's holding they're super informative. >> Nobody likes to go to council meetings.
>> I'm sorry. Yeah, that's the other one. And it's very chairs like this. >> They're super informative. It's 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 have coming to hear 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 floss on the whole we are this thing anyway. And Allenale's made a pretty big stink that um I think we're very I'm very comfortable that nothing's going to happen any long >> sorry >> how long you been with this board? Seven
years >> almost eight years been an interesting seven especially putting up with this. >> 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 whatever you got to do over time. >> So thank you. Thank you. So all right. Anybody else have any comments, questions? Okay. Seeing none. Motion to uh motion to adjurnn. All right. Thank you. Second. Thank you.
All in favor? >> Thank you. All right. I'll see you guys.