Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] Good evening and welcome to the regular meeting of the city of Bayon zoning board of adjustment. Secretary Lombardi, please call the role. Sure thing. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner D. Ross here. Commissioner Cis Galvin here. Commissioner Ki here. Commissioner Lubach is out. Commissioner Fra is out. Commissioner Elgari here. Commissioner Garvey here. I'm here. Vice Chairman
Panero is out. And Chairman Dulo. I'm here. Having a quorum. Please rise for the rise for the pledge of allegiance. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible
with liberty and justice for all. This regular meeting of the city of Bayon zoning board of adjustments has complied with the open public meeting sunshine law. Annual notice of the scheduled regular meetings were published in both the Jersey Journal and Star Ledger newspapers. The schedule of
regular meetings for calendar year 2025 is filed with the city's clerk's office. A copy of the agenda of tonight's meeting was emailed to the Star Ledger at least 48 hours prior to this meeting and is posted on the bulletin board in the lobby of the municipal building and
on the city of Bayon website. Um we have no minutes. Councelor, do we have any communications? Mr. Chairman, we have no communications, but I'd like to note something for the record. Item number 7, Z-25-00001,
Francis Chowski. Chowski, thank you. 7 714A-716 AvenueE will not be heard this evening. and they are going to uh be on our July calendar, but we don't have to uh carry
this matter because we're going to ru notice. Okay, that's it. That's it. All right. So, first on the first application we have is Z-24-006 J&J Builders
um site 22 East 11th Street, block 273, lot 23. The applicant is proposing to construct a three-story two family house with parking but variances are required for stories, lot frontage and lot area. Mr. Podassa Podessa. Good evening everyone. My name is Matthew Fad. I'm
with the law firm SS Kumus and Gross and I represent the applicant J&J Builders LLC. As recently stated by the chairman, that is absolutely correct. What we're looking to do here tonight is propose a three-story two family new development
located at 22 11th Street. The project itself will be compliant for parking. However, this project does require multiple C variances. Those C variances because the site itself is undersized and because of that hardship, it has plagued us with other variances. But
nevertheless, overall, it is compliant with multiple other bulk standards and it's also consistent with the character of the neighborhood as well. However, the exact bulk measurements uh are triggered with varian the some of the bulk measurements are requiring variance relief because of that undersized lot
area itself. But I just want to reiterate that the use itself is permitted. But for those C variances brings us to this board here tonight. Uh as far as the application goes, I will only have one witness. I'm just going to have my architect. Uh and if I may, I'd
like to call my first witness. Sure. Um Mr. Patada, you'd like to enter your exhibits A1 through A22. Correct? Yes. Okay. And your architect is providing an additional exhibit which we will recognize as A23 color rendering. And
here is a copy if you need to refer to the exhibit list. Thank you so much. You're welcome. You step to the side here so that you both can have be on mic. I do. Jorge Fernandez.
J O R G E F E R N A N D E S. All right. Mr. Fernandez, can you please provide our educational credentials on whether or not your license is still in good standing? Yes. I have a bachelor's in architecture from NJIT and uh my license to practice architecture in New
Jersey is current and in effect. I have been before numerous boards but is my first time in this board. Can you name three boards where you've been qualified before in the past as an architect? Yes, in Newark, in uh Clifton, and in Patterson. Terrific. Does this board
accept him? We will accept Mr. Fernandez as an expert. Thank you so much. Uh Mr. Fernandez, did you have an opportunity to visit the subject site? Yes. And did you also have an opportunity to review the zoning district and those requirements for the subject site? Correct. Did you have an opportunity to draft these plans? Yes. Great. When you
were drafting these plans, did you take in consideration those bulk standards and the character of the neighborhood? Yes. Terrific. Why don't you walk us through what we're proposing here tonight? Certainly. So, what we have uh here is an existing uh
2500 square foot parcel. It is undeveloped currently. It is in between two uh twostory uh frame dwellings and uh what we're proposing to do is to build a uh
threetory uh two family house in this site. Uh we are trying to comply as best as possible with the requirements of the R2 zoning uh district. Uh unfortunately that district requires 3,000 square
feet. We only have 2500. Uh it requires uh 20 ft front yard setback which we are providing uh from the front property line in this case is uh in the the north uh the front
property line to the structure. We do have 20 ft where we are proposing also a driveway but I believe because of the fact that these steps uh uh protrude more than 8 ft from the front of the
house that we are uh having to uh require a variance for front yard setback. Uh again that is a hardship uh as that I will describe when I go over the architectural plans. Uh in the site plan
uh going to the rear we are proposing 20 ft uh rear yard setback to uh comply uh best comply with the zoning regulations. We do have a uh air conditioning condensers in the rear as well as a trash enclosure. Uh we have two uh 3-
foot wide uh access uh walkways on either side of the building. That's how the tenants would be able to go to the backyard to retrieve and replace their uh trash recepticles or recycling on pickup days. Uh we are showing it on the
side here uh up against the uh southern the uh southwestern property line, but it can be moved to the uh rear of the house. So that therefore it being away from the side property lines. Uh the the
rear of the property is predominantly grass. So we're trying to comply as best as possible with the impervious uh requirement. Unfortunately, we still are at 83% given the nature of the site and
the the the uh dimensions of the site and us trying to provide a driveway in the front. Uh the we are providing in that driveway two car parking. Uh the driveway is 18 feet wide from the uh
left uh or in this case uh uh eastern property line to the uh to the stair and uh unfortunately we cannot provide uh two uh 10 foot wide parking spaces but we can provide two 9 foot wide parking
spaces that I I believe are RSIS standard. uh and therefore we're providing two parking spaces in the driveway and one inside of the garage space. Now uh I have described the uh site
plan. I would like to go into the floor plans which are on page A1 of the architectural drawings where we have the uh the three floor plans. The fir starting with the first floor
plan, you see we have a garage that uh gives access to a uh rear uh living space uh that is connected to this second floor apartment. Now the the
intent here is that the homeowner or the user of the second floor apartment will have the use of the garage. They'll be able to park inside the garage and from the garage be able to access the home uh
through this door here on shown on the floor plan where you have a a hallway. You're going to have your laundry and dry uh washer and dryer closet, a full bathroom, a bedroom, a uh family room living area in the rear, and then a
stair that connects you directly to the second floor apartment. Uh in the second floor apartment we have two additional bedrooms and two baths and a kitchen and a living area.
So the uh front stairs also give access to this second floor apartment and uh the way they work is they you if somebody's coming from the sidewalk uh they can uh go up the stairs
from the ground to the second floor and then they'll be able to access the door uh to to their left to give access to the second floor apartment. Uh the uh third floor apartment is accessed by a
door facing the front where then you have another set of stairs that goes directly up to the third floor. And here we have a three-bedroom apartment with a uh kitchen, living area, two uh two bathrooms, and a mechanical room with
laundry and washer and dryer facility. Uh again, the reason that the stair is protruding into the front yard setback is that otherwise we would lose if we
were to have two separate ingresses into the uh into the home that is required for a two family uh home. uh we would essentially eat up too much space out of this uh 19 foot wide floor
plate uh and you essentially the front of the home would be almost useless as it would only have 10 ft in width and for a living room I believe that that that is not adequate. Uh and that is why
we're we requesting the variance for the uh front setback for the uh stairs uh the stair stoop once you go up to the second floor you'll be covered by the uh
canal lever of the uh third floor. So essentially here uh right on this section here of the stoop when you're facing both doors you will have the uh third floor over your head uh protecting you from the elements.
I can now describe the uh elevations. Here we have the uh the elevations again. We have the front on the on the right hand side of the page. Uh we're proposing uh brick masonry and then uh
of course a mahardy uh panel for this accent here for the canal lever over the uh entrance stoop. Uh the roof is a gable roof and on the sides we're proposing vinyl siding and
we're proposing the uh stucco finish on the ground uh level. Uh I I believe a exhibit was passed around of the colored rendering uh which we are showing the uh color of the brick as well as the color of the uh hardy
plank hardy uh material over the uh entrance stoop. And again, that design for the front entrance with the stoop, that's consistent with the other dwellings in the neighborhood. Uh, yes. Uh, I believe most of the homes have a a stair and an
entrance stoop covered either by a roof or by some kind of canal lever of the of the of the structure. Great. I have no further questions for this witness. Um, so the steps and it looks like there may be a planter box at least in the rendering. Is that go out any further
than the neighboring fences? Going back. Going back to the uh site plan page. We have here uh the neighboring homes to the left and right. They seem to all have fencing to the property line. On
our property line, we do have a planter box shown and the steps are behind that. Yeah. But does that extend past their fencing or is it like contiguous? Like if I take a straight line along the fences, do you go out past that or is it continuous? It would be a continuous
line straight down the block. So the question is whether or not there would be an interruption in the sight line if you were to look to the left or to the right. Correct. Right. If I'm looking at either one of the neighbors fence and I'm looking up or down the block along the fence line, will you be out past the fence line or you even or
behind the fence line? We'll be behind the fence line. Okay. Yes. Um, also I mean this was also a question to the planners. The refuge area in the backyard, would it be better served to move it under the stairs? Maybe is it then it wouldn't be open air to the
neighbors yards or and then it would be enclosed within the steps? No. Is that possible? That is possible. Yes. Is that a better solution or Yeah. And I had just a general question about the configuration because um if the living
space on the ground floor were to be removed and then just keep it on the second and third floor, you can actually move that refuse area to the indoors and actually all the um tenants in the in the dwelling could actually access it to the ground floor rather than for example
the third floor tenant having to come all the way down out to the front and then back around to the back. Uh that's definitely a possibility and that's something that can be worked out. Uh we also solve for the height variance as well, right? It would solve for the height variance. It could actually
reduce the impervious coverage and if the stairs were to be moved back indoors, um you could actually remove the front yard variance as well. Unfortunately, I don't believe that even even if we were to remove that living
space entirely down there, uh the stair will be the same issue uh for us because it is a two family house and we need two separate entrances for each apartment. Uh
even if we were to remove that bedroom and bathroom in and just leave it a completely o open space, the the the we would still need the stairs protruding into the front yard. But again, that protrusion is consistent
with the other neighboring parcels. I believe it matches the uh the neighbor the neighborhood because even if in my site plan here you see the beginning of our stairs is essentially leveled with the beginning of the stairs of the neighbors. They just go back further
because uh these particular neighbors here on either side are not set back 20 ft. Right. Well, would you be willing to remove the living space to solve for all the other issues that we're talking about even if it doesn't solve the the the the front yard?
that that is up to the applicant. Obviously, architecturally we we can do it. I I think architecturally, yes, we could do it, but to lose that much of the livable space would really change uh the actual design of it itself and its functionality. I think what we would definitely be open to doing is what was
suggested prior with the stairs is to relocate the refuge to be underneath the stairs. So, no longer would be troublesome for that second floor tenant to come down the stairs and then back around the uh rear yard in order to get rid of the refues, but rather have it down one flight of stairs.
Um, does the board anybody on the board have other questions? I do. On your uh drawings for the individual floors at the second dwelling, the center
bedroom, there's no window in there. Oh. Uh, I'm sorry. That was a misprint. There should be a double window the same as the bedroom right below it. Any other board questions? Yeah, quick question. So, I see that um on the plans
it show that there is a enough parking for three cars. Correct. However, uh I think like if you consider the garage spot as a parking spot and then the two in front of it as other spot, you know, the internal one will essentially only be used for storage because for someone
to access that first spot on the inside, both cars would have to move and back and forth. It won't be a viable like option of like in someone coming throughout his day going in and out going through every car has to move. So essentially, it's really only two spots. Uh although there is availability for
three, right? because it's already undersized. Uh instead of 10 ft, it's 9 ft each spot. So it would be very even with 10 ft, it's still cannot enter and go out with ease unless all the cars are not there.
Uh we we have 18 ft width in the front. So ideally, whoever parks inside the garage, it also controls the car right behind it. So somebody has two cars in let's say
apartment number two they can use those two spaces in tandem while apartment number three has this car to the side. So if there's one if there's one apartment that has two spots they can control go in and out those two spots even if there's one car parked at
at on so with 9 ft they can go in and out. Yes. Okay. So just to clarify and maybe I should put a little color to the project itself is that that first floor unit or you can call it the second floor. What they would have at their availability is both the garage and the spot immediately behind it. So
essentially it would work in functionality as a tandem parking so that those tenants themselves would have no issues taking their car in and out. They would not have to consult whomever is the tenant on the third floor. The tenant on the top floor would just be assigned just one parking space. Okay. And that's the 9 ft space I guess to the
right and then the one on the left go inside and outside. Correct. Okay. I have a question. Sure. So for that first floor tenant, they would be is it owner occupied? I guess that would be my first question or is this are they going to be both rented apartments? Uh I
don't know that answer as of today if it's going to be rental or owner occupied. But I can tell you that if it were owner occupied, there would be a deed restriction. Uh, and if it was for rental, then it would be included in the lease. Yeah. All right. Thank you for that. Mhm.
Yes. Uh, what can be done to prevent the first floor to be turned into the third dwelling? Well, we actually took some precautions for that. And one thing that we tried to do is not have an exterior door. So you know and the stair that
gives access interior stair that gives access from that rear space to the second floor uh is we're not showing a door or or any wall separation. It's essentially a railing. So if you're on this kitchen level here, dining level
here, you'll see a railing and then you'll you'll have stairs that go down and you're into that space. So it's it's meant to be used in unison. And then I guess to answer that question from a legal perspective, just as similar as the parking requirement
itself, it would also be a deed restriction and also in the leases that it could not be converted for an additional livable space. And I can say unequivocally that this developer has been in this municipality for many years and has multiple other projects. So this is not something that they're looking to
do. I have one other question. It's more of a curiosity. What are you going to do with the utility pole? It's in the basically in the middle of the uh property as it stands right now. Uh we will have to get PS&G to move it.
That's the only way that this is a viable project. Yeah, that that would be a part of the if this board would find in the affirmative, that'd be part of the catchall with outside agency governmental approvals. Um although it's not governmental, I think PSG functions like one. So, we would have to get uh
permission for them to relocate that pole. Yeah. And the fire isn't an issue. That's off to the side enough. Uh yeah, I believe the fire line the the Yeah, I believe that's okay. It's the uh the pole that that has to be moved.
Um do our professionals have any questions or addition? Oh, yeah. I do have just general questions. I feel like it would be best if we can just go through the planners report and then just make sure that you hit all the points and for the board to be aware as well.
If we start on page four or of the report, page four. Yep. So, we can start with our comment 2.7. Okay. you have a reference to a turf/concrete paver to be used in the driveway.
However, we don't have details of this information and I know that um per permeable pavers vary. So, if you can provide a detail or a cross-section that really tells us how they work and just more information, you know, more than
just the picture. Sure. Okay. All right. We will provide that. for the if we jump to 3.1 for the proposed building the exterior design um the renderings have they indicate a low
sorry a gable roof however the on sheet two I believe of the floor plans there is a low hipped roof shown on the rear elevation so it that is not matching the front uh roof roof design. If you can just
clarify which roof is going to be used for the house. Uh correct. We have a gable roof in the front and then in the back we have the hip the the rear elevation. But then Oh yeah, it'll be it'll be a a
gable roof in the front and we'll do a hip in the rear. We we'll just have to alter the uh elevation. Yeah. So then the west elevation will have to be altered as well. Okay. Yes. If we jump to page five, there's the gap shown under the stairs
as shown in the renderings. And in the floor plans, it shows the west elevation and the east and the east elevation show a solid wall under
the stairs. So that's not really matching the So there's there's a gap in I understand I understand the uh the stairs will be solid uh uh and as we was mentioned
earlier we'll we can store the trash underneath. Uh yeah they will be solid. Okay. And that trash enclosure would also be gated meaning that no one will be able to see the actual records underneath the stairs. Thank you. And then you provided some testimony
about how the parking would work. I just wanted to point out that the driveway space and the and the curb cut, they don't really align. So, can you just reiterate how the tenants will be able to get in and out without going over the sidewalk?
Uh, so the uh the first car on on the right, they they can just back out uh straight as can the uh obviously the car parked in the garage. They can back out straight into the curb cut. The uh one on the left has to maneuver a bit over
the sidewalk, but would still be able to exit out of the curb cut. Okay. And then I know we kind of already touched on this, but in terms of the ground level living space, um we note
that there's new flood regulations in addition to FEMA, um which we point out on page two of our report. Um, so if the applicant can confirm that the climate adjusted flood elevation, which
adds another five feet to on top of FEMA's 100-year flood elevation, if the property is affected by this, they might not be allowed to have a ground floor ground floor living space.
Uh I have looked at the preliminary uh FEMA map uh for this area. It uh appears that this particular site is on the uh zone X which is outside of the areas of
a 0 2 flood zone. Uh, and the closest base flood elevation, which is the elevation that you have to add 5T to, uh, is somewhere on the other side of the light rail and, uh, which is a bit
further down. And, uh, our finished floor elevation is essentially at elevation 15 already. So that's four feet higher than the closest base flood elevation that I found on the
map. Uh if we need to raise that living level finish floor another foot, it would still work because we're pro we're proposing 8 ft and uh we would end up with seven feet. So that wouldn't really affect the height of our of our building.
Okay. At the end, we do defer to the flood plane manager. Um it is subject to the review and approval of the flood plane manager but we just you know raise it as a concern. Thank you. On page seven, uh, regarding fencing,
uh, we see that the applicants proposing, oh, there's an existing 5-ft high solid vinyl fence, or rather it is proposed as well as a 4ft high raw iron fence and driveway gate. We didn't see
the raw iron fence and driveway gate. And we just wanted to confirm where this was located because if it's the white uh the the solid vinyl fence that extends along the front, that's what's triggering the
uh um no, we we will not have a uh solid vinyl fence across the front. uh that it will the solid vinyl fence will end at the essentially at the sideyards on
either side and at the house. So from the front yard uh setback of this of this property will we can have either row iron fence or or just no fence at all. Okay. Yeah. Then the site plans would
have to be updated. Correct. Okay. Sure. Um for 5 uh two we notice that there is an ex exception. However, we do recommend uh that it would be granted should the board grant approval of the application
just because it prevents creating a dead zone between the properties that would not be maintained otherwise. Agreed. Uh regarding street trees 5.3 um if you can revise the plant list to
specify the correct names of the plants as well as the heights. Yes, we will. Uh regarding 5.4, we notice that the race planters in this location, it would obstruct access to
the sidewalk and it also constrains the turning movement of vehicles. Uh we do recommend that it would it be moved. Is that something that you can do for bettering? It could be moved.
Regarding the existing trees, we do recommend that as a condition of the approval that the existing trees be maintained and be preserved. There's currently uh I believe there's some trees in the rear yard.
As long as they're in the rear yard, uh if they're in good health, I I believe there would be no reason to cut them down. Um for on page eight, uh we know the planting details and notes just additional revisions on the plant list
if you can make those. Yes. Um 5.7 for the lighting. Uh we noticed that there's two types of lighting not depicted on the plants. The L2 on the side and L3 in the front. We just saw
that there was one in the rear yard. Correct. We will provide the L2s along the side uh for to eliminate the walkways and they will be pointing down uh to not produce glare to the neighbors. Yeah. And if you can provide those details as
well in the plans. Yes. Okay. And this came up um earlier 6.1. You said that you can relocate the trash under the stairs. That is correct. Okay. And for utilities, we do recommend that they are provided underground.
And for the mechanical equipment 6.3, we noticed on the rear elevation, they're provided right under the window that seemed kind of close to the to the bedroom. Is there a better alternative for this spot? Well,
I I don't really see a better alternative. I mean, that is not a bedroom. Well, it's a bedroom on the second floor. Um otherwise you're you're going too close to the sidey yards or too far away in
the rear yard and add more impervious coverage. I believe he had we we should keep them in this uh location in the in the behind theuh rear wall of the property. Okay. And those were my main comments,
but I just wanted to reiterate that the reconfiguration of the ground level living space. Um, if it w if there was no living space in the ground floor, there is a possibility for removing a lot of the variances that the applicant
is requesting. For example, building height as well as the stair encroachment. There could be reduced impervious coverage if that area could be used for parking or storage. and also if the trash enclosure well it's being moved but all of those things would
contribute to lower impervious coverage. Those were all of our comments. Thank you. Do we have any questions from the audience for Mr. Fernandez? Um do we have any comments from the audience in general? No.
Oh, you only had the one witness. I'm my uh planner is now here, so I like to call one more witness. Thank you. Sorry. Oh, good evening. I do. Matthew Flynn. F L YN.
Uh, Mr. Flynn, can you please provide your educational credentials, whether or not your license is in good standing, and name three boards where you've been qualified in the past as a qualified planner? Sure. My education comes from Ruckers. I have my um master's degree in planning and public policy. Uh, my professional Exced,
correct? Yeah, we'll accept him as Fantastic. Uh, Matt, did you have an opportunity to review the plans? I was. And did you also have an opportunity to review this board professionals reports? Yes. And have you noticed the uh variances that we're requesting here tonight? Yes. Can you please walk us through why you believe we meet the
justification? Sure. So on its face really this application is substantially conforming. Uh from a use perspective we are proposing a permitted two family use in a two family zone. Um from a bulk standpoint we are requesting very minimal uh variance relief. I think as
has been walked through by our architect. Um the only variances that we're seeking here are uh number of stories, not necessarily height, the actual height and feet complies, but we are proposing three stories as opposed to two and a half stories. Um and then
the front setback variance that was testified to which just relates to the uh the front steps, not the building itself. And we did hear about how that will be compatible and will not uh stand out visually in the context of the neighborhood. I think all said uh this
application is not going to stand out as being overdeveloped. Lot coverage is substantially under. We're looking at 47% whereas we we would be allowed to go up to 70%. So really I think the crux of this application was the intent of the applicant to really to the extent that
we do have an undersized lot to keep as much open uh usable outdoor space as possible on this uh somewhat undersized property. Um, so again, we are looking at a 2500 foot lot in a 30,000 square foot zone. Um, it's an existing vacant
lot and we're proposing a three-story two family dwelling. I just went through the variance relief. Um, in addition to that, I guess the existing conditions, uh, like I said, lot area and lot frontage are both existing non-conforming conditions. Um so basically part of my analysis what I did
was I looked at the site itself, the surrounding neighborhood and tie the variances into the statutory criteria um by looking at the municipal land use law um and the purposes of zoning set forth therein. Here I think we can look to the C2 test.
The benefits of the application as a whole substantially outweigh any detriments. Again if we look to the municipal land use law um we look at purposes A, G, I, and M. Purpose A is promotion of the general welfare. Here we're providing a variety of housing
options to meet the needs of all New Jersey residents. We call this missing middle housing. Basically, not everybody can afford to live in a single family home. Not everybody wants to live in a large apartment building. So, two family options like this does provide that nice missing middle um like we call it.
Again, it's a permitted use in the zone. So, it does fulfill the purpose of the R2 zone. Um, and I think really the the purpose of the zoning ordinance in general is to not to overlook any properties. This is a somewhat isolated property in that we are, I think, three
doors down from the 11th Street park. Right beyond that, you do have Avenue E where you have Route 440 right above you. Across the street, we have uh an affordable housing development. And right next to that, there's a commercial uh a commercial facility. So, this is
sort of an isolated lot and certainly uh part of the purposes of zoning is to not neglect any areas um in the city. Purpose G, variety of uses and appropriate locations. Again, it's a permitted use. We heard a little bit about the compatibility of what we're proposing. Um in fact, like I said, this
is a somewhat isolated location. We are in a string of about five other houses on this block that face uh East 11th Street. All of which are the same exact size um visav being uh undersized just
like we're proposing um here and they're all also developed with two family dwellings. So I think that's important to note in terms of the compatibility um that we're uh proposing here. Purpose I desirable visual environment. We saw uh Mr. Fernandez's architecture. it is
going to be highly aesthetic. It's not going to stand out in the context of the neighborhood or the zone. In this case, again, we do have substantial compliance with zoning. And finally, purpose M, efficient use of land. Um, like I said, we are trying to retain as much usable
outdoor space as possible. And this, I would say, clearly does not constitute overdevelopment. All of that goes towards the positive criteria. The flip side would be the negative criteria. No substantial detriment to the public or to the zone. I keep saying substantial compliance.
What I mean by that is uh we comply with building height. In terms of feet, we're allowed to go up to 35 feet. Uh we're right under that at 34t 10 in coverage. Like I said, 47% is proposed. We're allowed to go up to 70%. I'm sorry. Can you double check that because I thought
the the plan was 80 something% and you actually need a variance for that. Oh, is that? Yes. Correct. Okay. Maybe I was looking at outdated plans. Um, so I'll circle back to that, but just again in terms of coverage, we do comply with setbacks and parking aside from
that one front setback that's relative to the uh the front steps. Um, furthermore, in terms of negative criteria, I talked about negative uh I talked about compatibility, I think, and how this is not going to stand out in the context of the uh of the neighborhood. Uh so
just to revise my additional testimony then we are requesting that one additional C variance that I uh didn't mention at the outset there for 83% whereas 70% is is permitted. Um here like I said we are talking about an
unders sized lot. So I think we can look to the C1 test which is the hardship test. um the relief relates to the unique characteristics of this particular lot um rather than an overdeveloped um overdevelopment per se.
So with that um I think unless there's any redirect Matt that's pretty much what I got. So just a couple quick questions for you the character of the neighborhood itself right is it too family? It is. And like I said, right across the street we have
that Platty Kill Manor affordable housing development. Right next to that you have commercial. So there's a sort of a variety here. But on this side of 11th, uh, all of the houses that face the street are two families. And what about the heights of those two families? Is it consistent with what we're proposing here tonight? I would say so.
Yes. Okay. And then what about the setback, including the staircase? Would you say that that's consistent with the neighboring parcels? I would. So you would say that if you were to look at the sight lines, whether or not you look left or right, it would be in symmetry. Is that correct? Is that your testimony here tonight? Absolutely. Yes. Okay. So then essentially you would say the crux
of this application is really a product of it being an undersized lot. I would. Thank you. I have no further questions for those witness. Just one, do you have any comments on you what our planners had pointed out that if that was un if the first floor, bottom floor, ground
floor was not livable space, you would not need some of the variances you need. I believe that would be correct. Yes. Why? So then why are you looking to get the variances you need that pertain to that being living space? Well, I think per uh Mr. Fernandez's testimony, I
think architecturally, and I'll let him speak to it, I think we felt like this would be a better living arrangement as opposed to taking that living space away. Um, any other board members have questions? Um, you guys have any questions?
Does the audience have any questions for Mr. Flynn? No. Okay, go ahead. I'm just gonna go back to the parking again for a second. So, I know that that second story, which is really like the first, I guess, unit, right? They're allowed to park there in
the in the garage and directly behind that on the left hand side, that would be their second space. And to the right would be for the third floor. Correct. Correct. So, they talked about we talked about the curb cut being shorter than the actual driveway and how from the
left they would have to maybe go off the curb or circle in. If the third floor tenant is in their spot, how is the other tenant going to get out? I think that's going to be fully coming off the curb. That's one of the
questions. And then the second piece of that is the driveway itself is is more narrow than allowed right by two feet. I believe. So, if we're going to put a solid wall under the stairs and a gate for the refues, right, is that going to be on the opposite side because I'm
concerned about space for the driveway. I just don't see how the cars are going to be able to come in and out freely. If I may, could I have an architect to answer those? Yes, please. Uh, or Fernandez. Yeah, the gate for the uh refuge area would be on the opposite side. And uh as I explained earlier, the
car the car on the right, if you're looking at the property, the car on the right would be work in unison with the car inside the garage. The car on the left would be the car that uh has to maneuver and he would be able to
maneuver over the sidewalk into the curve cut and out out of the curb cut if there was a car parked beside it. Okay. So, you're what you're saying is that the right spot outside of the
garage is for that first first tenant, right? As well as inside. Yes, correct. and the one over here to the left would be for that third floor tenant. So if those two spots are occupied that in that person is going to need to become
parallel to come out. Uh there's I just concerned that there's really room for that. No, there there is room to maneuver. I mean uh it the the car can back out. he can maneuver uh around the car that's parked there and and back out
into the uh into the space into the uh curb cut. I mean, in order to make that if we were to make that more comfortable, we would have to make the driveway wider and I believe 10 feet is the uh maximum width that we can have. We would have to make
the the driveway wider and that might uh that would incur another variance. Well, I guess the question is let me ask the board. Would the board rather see the wider driveway so this way that the traffic maneuvering could be that much easier? I I'm concerned that this is going to be
problematic for the tenants. Um I would personally I'm not sure how the rest of the board feels. I can I could add something to that. Uh the house directly to the left doesn't
have its driveway there. It the the it has its front stoop and stairs there. So if you were to make this driveway wider towards that direction, it wouldn't create a problem because you you it's not like you're making a driveway onto a driveway. You
have a break. So I think uh if there's a a space to do it is here. Um, Commissioner, I have a suggestion that we ask the board engineer what his opinion is with regard to the wider driveway. Mr. Chairman, I mean, uh, the 10- foot
wide driveway is typical. We typically center it between the two parking spaces in the driveway space. I don't know of any issues that have arose from that, but that's the typical design that you see here. The 10-ft curb cut is centered on the driveway. So, in your opinion,
with this configuration, do you think the second car to the left would have any issues maneuvering? I don't think so. Okay. So, that kind of cleared it up for me. Thank you. I didn't realize the curb cut was going to be the center. In my mind, it was going to be to the right. Uh I'm
sorry. That's correct. It's And also from hearing from the board itself, it seems like there is a question of concern about whether or not that first floor would be livable. And I'd like to say on the record that as a condition of approval, we would remove the bathroom. So there would be no question about that being converted to
livable space as a third unit if that would make the board appeased. Thank you. Yep. Do we have any other questions? Mr. Chairman, can I just clarify? Are they removing the full bathroom or making a half bath or just so I know for
Well, removing the bath all together. Full bathroom. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Um, do we have any questions or comments from the audience? No, I think we're some here. If you have any uh closing Sure.
You have something or Oh, okay. All right. I think this is exactly why you bring an application before a board because the board itself knows the neighborhood a lot better than any applicant andor their professionals and that's why it's truly a partnership and that's why we have a public hearing itself. I think the design that we
originally came with here might have had a few flaws that I think have been adequately addressed tonight. I think there should no longer be hopefully a concern when it comes to that first floor andor the garage floor if you want to call it being converted to a third unit specifically because now there's no plumbing for a bathroom. There will be
no bathroom, not even a half bathroom. So that questions out of it. In addition, whether it's owner occupied or leased, there would be either a deed restriction and or in the lease specifically stating that you couldn't do the conversion. And in the either lease or the um deed restriction, it would also lay out there what exactly is
the parking requirements itself. As far as it goes to the other commentary that we had had, whether it is the pavers or the exterior design, if this board were to finally affirmative, we would make it as a conditional approval that either or would be subject to the determination of this board's professionals just to
ensure that it is going to be consistent with what not only the vision of this board, but also the public. Uh, with that being said, we appreciate everybody's time. We hope you find in the affirmative. Thank you. Thank you. Um, we'll now go into close caucus.
Um, I like the design of this. I understand, you know, the hardships of the undersized lot is going to give a lot of challenges to get anything on this. Um, I think you've done an excellent job in trying to fit what you can fit that is
consistent with the neighborhood and within the limitations of the lot. um with the conditions we've outlined, you know, the the additional information that we have to get to the board or to our professionals with the moving of the
refues, I would be in favor of this um application. Secretary Lombardi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, thank you for clarifying the ground floor because that was a big one for me and removing the bath does make it where I will be an
approval for this agenda. Thank you. Thank you. And Commissioner D. Ross, I'd like to thank the uh architect and lawyer to listening to our concerns and working with us. Uh from an empty lot to this beautiful rendering, I think that
home will fit quite nicely on 11th Street. I will approve this application. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Sisgalvin, like my fellow commissioner said, um, I do believe that this will be an improvement to and an enhancement to uh, 11 Street for sure. Appreciate and
understand um, the complications associated with the undersized lot and the agreement to meet all the conditions that we've asked and I'd be working I'm sorry, voting in favor of the application. Uh, Commissioner Ki, I'm in favor and I wish you a lot of luck. I
think it's going to look great. Oh, I'm not building it, but thank you. Yes. Thank you so much, Commissioner. Uh, Commissioner Algari, uh, unfortunately, I don't see a need for relief for the exterior for the front yard setback. So, I feel like if you put an internal staircase, and you're just
going to give up some space, but, uh, in my opinion, I wouldn't be in favor for that because of that purpose. I think it can be easily be done just by, you know, removing a bedroom or two, just making the place a little bit smaller, uh, and putting the staircase inside. But that's just my opinion. Thank you. Thank you,
uh, Commissioner Garvey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe that you guys answered any questions that I had about this, and I'll definitely be in favor of this project. Thank you. Okay. Uh, with that, we'll come out of closed caucus. Uh, can I have a motion in the affirmative with the various
conditions outlined by the board for Z- 24-006 J&J Builders LLC? I move Z-24-006 in the affirmative. And a second. I'll
second it. And a vote, please. Commissioner D. Ross. Hi. Commissioner Sisgalvin. Hi. Commissioner Ki. Hi. Commissioner Elgari. No. Commissioner Garvey I. I vote I and Chairman Dulo. I applications approved. Thank you so much
everyone. Have a wonderful night. Thank you Mr. Chairman. We have uh a couple of resolutions on for this evening. Uh two applications that were recently approved by the board. The first is Z-24-010 L. Girazi and that was the property on
Avenue F uh where uh the uh additional apartment was approved at the last board meeting. Can I get a motion in a second to approve that resolution? I'll make a motion. Second. And for a vote, Commissioner D. Ross I. Commissioner Sisgalvin abstain.
Commissioner Ki. Commissioner Algari. I. Commissioner Garvey I. I vote I. Chairman Dulo. I. Next is Z-22-015 Gamal Gurgus. And that was the Whispering Woods hearing that we did at
the last meeting where we approved the uh application that had originally been uh filed with the board subject to some changes that they made in order to satisfy the board's concerns when they originally denied that application. Can
I get a motion and a second to approve that resolution? I'll make the motion. Second and a vote. Okay. And for a vote, Commissioner D. Ross, hi. Commissioner Cisgal, abstain. Commissioner Ki, abstain. Commissioner Algari, I. I vote
I. Vice Ch. Uh, Commissioner Garvey, I. Again, I vote I and Chairman Dulo. I think we can take a motion to adjourn at this point. If I'll make the motion. We have a second. Meeting adjourned.