There we are. There we are. >> Okay. Good evening everyone. We're going to call to order tonight's meeting of the uh Township of Bernard's Resorting Board of Adjustment. The first item on the agenda is uh the flag salute. So if
you can stand please stand to the stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. In accordance with the requirement of the open public meetings law, a notice of this meeting of the board of adjustment of the township of Bernards
was posted on the bulletin board in the reception hall of the municipal building, Kier Lane, Basking Ridge, New Jersey. It was also mailed to the Bernardsville News, Whippony, New Jersey, the Courier News in Bridgewwater, New Jersey. And it was also filed with the township clerk all on January 9th of this year and was
mailed electronically to all those who had requested individual notice. The following procedure has been adopted by the Bernard's Township Zoning Board of Adjustment. There will be no new cases heard after 10 o'clock tonight and no new testimony heard after 10:30 p.m.
>> Miss Slayman, can you do a roll call for us? Chairwoman Engineer >> here. Miss Bowman >> here. >> Mr. Krauss >> here. >> Miss Popar >> here. Miss Chap >> here. >> Mr. Soi >> here. >> Mr. Quinn >> here. >> Mr. here.
>> For the record, Miss Layman is present. Madam Chair, you have quum and may proceed. >> Terrific. Thank you. Um, at this time, uh, I'll entertain a motion for an excused, uh, because I do think there were a number of people, Miss Layman, who contacted you in advance.
>> Dr. Herrera, I'll make that motion to excuse the absences. >> We hear from >> We did not. I did not hear for her. >> Second voice. >> Favor.
>> I >> Next is the approval of minutes from the November 5th regular session meeting. I think not everyone action that one. >> I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of the meeting of November 2nd.
>> I'll second. >> Thank you. That was Miss Popar. Miss Fman. >> I think everyone except Madam Chair. >> That is correct. >> Miss Bowman. >> Yes. >> Mr. Krabs. >> Yes. >> Miss Popar. >> Yes. >> Miss Ch. >> Yes. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Um, next on the agenda is the approval of resolutions. I believe all three of these resolutions though are going to be pushed to our January meeting. Is that correct, Miss Lav? >> Yes, that's correct. >> Okay. So, anybody who's here for the approval of those resolutions, uh, they
will not be done tonight. Uh, next is the completeness hearing for Church Street Properties, which is ZB25032. Welcome back, >> members of the board. Good evening. Rob Simon from Herald Law here on behalf of the applicant Church Street Properties
uh Limited. Um we're here for completeness. Uh there's one completeness item uh based on the memo from from Dave Schlly dated November 13, 2025. uh where we're asking for um a waiver of supplying a letter of interpretation
from D. We have provided an environmental impact statement. We have provided a a report from environmental technology in Dave Krueger who I believe has appeared before you over the years wetlands consultant and expert uh who has determined that the property
contains no wetlands or wetlands transition areas. Ironically, we also actually have an old LOI that also confirmed the absence of any um wetlands or wetland transition areas. And as I mentioned to Mr. Sly, certainly once the applicantation proceeds and if it's
lucky enough to to gain an approval, we would certainly agree to condition if the board so chose to have it imposed for us to get an LOI after the fact. >> Okay. So, you are just seeking a waiver at this time. >> Yes. Just for for purposes of
completeness. Okay. >> Do you have any comments on that, Mr. >> No, it it seems appropriate. The applicants provided the uh experts report uh verifying there's no wetlands. Uh so there's really no point making
them wait and there's certainly no reason to uh based on township records that to suggest anything otherwise in the property does not contain any weapons. Yeah, there's no reason that you know of um that anything would be different since the 2005. >> Certainly not.
>> Does anybody have any questions on the board? >> Okay. So, um I guess at this time we'll look for a motion um to grant or not grant the waiver being sought by the applicant. I think there would be a motion to to
grant the waiver and do the application conditionally complete. >> Thank you. >> Can we want to make that decision during the course of the application as far as requiring or not rather than
>> Yeah, it's I don't think typically we do any completeness determinations in that way just to keep it >> if you want to do that. We can revisit the issue during the actual hearing. >> Yeah. And in fact, I said that, you know, it may turn out that you guys based on the testimony decide that you
don't need an LOI. So, who knows? >> So, is this motion then to permit them to not submit an >> for the LOI and deem the application complete? >> Okay. I will make a motion to wave the
LOI and deem the application complete. >> Thank you. I'll second. >> Just do a call. >> Miss Bon, >> yes. >> Mr. Krabs, >> yes. >> Miss Popar. >> Yes. >> M. >> Yes. >> Chair of engineers? >> Yes. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. And then in terms of scheduling, just work with Mr. Sly. >> Yes. I think Miss Slayman, I think Miss Slayman will connect with you. Is that right? tenatively February, but that's just based on what we know today.
>> Okay. I will certainly >> I will certainly reach out. >> I think on our draft it's it's in February. So, if you want to confirm that with Miss >> Absolutely. Thank you. Have a nice day. >> Happy holidays. >> You too. >> Okay. Next on the agenda is uh Dere,
you can correct me. ZB25027. Yes, >> you had it right the first time, by the way. >> Debris, >> shouldn't have second guessed it myself. >> You let me know if you want me to pull up anything. I have the files here, but if you want to get situated, I'll
display the recording backwards November 5th, 2025 meeting the notice of team submission at that point in time. The board carried it by voice announcement this evening with no further notice being required. The board still has the jurisdiction here to
decide the case. >> Gentlemen, just the two. You'll be testifying or you have anybody else? >> Just the two. >> Okay, great. You guys will introduce yourselves as we get going. Just wait for Mr. Schlly to get set up and then I'll sort of get started. Right. Okay.
So let's swear two gentlemen in as well as our two professionals. All four you can raise your right hands for me. All four of you swear or testimony about the truth. Truth is all we got. >> Thank you. >> I do. >> Thank you so much. Gentlemen, why don't you introduce yourself? Give us your give us your names, address, andor
business address. And >> great question. >> Hi everybody. My name is Michael Dere. I live at 62 Oakley Street, Basking Ridge, New Jersey. I'm the owner of the property in question. Um, with me is our architect, Jay Patrillo. Uh, my wife
could not be here tonight. We We had to push our last month's meeting because our second daughter actually came that night. So, >> congratulations. >> Yes. Thank you. I would be in the dog house if I was here while. So, um, that's one of the reasons that we are here today to ask for permission
to expand our house because we are both lifelong Bassing Ridge residents. We went through the school systems. My wife went to Found Prospect. I went to Oak Street. Uh I graduated Ridge in 2010. My wife graduated in 2011. Um after a short stint after college in um in Hoboken, we
decided to buy back in passing rage back to our roots. And then that was in 2020. And then fast forward to now, we have a one and a halfyear-old and now a one-month-old with more in planning. So we are looking to get some more space in
the the neighborhood that we love. >> Uh my name is J Petillo. I'm an architect. My address is 22 Valley View Avenue, Gladstone, New Jersey. Uh I've been licensed in the state of New Jersey since 1989.
And I've had my own private practice since 2025 years. Uh I was previously a member of this community. I lived on Hard Scrabble Road for 25 years and actually appeared before this board for a variance on my own house. So I've been
here several times. Uh I usually only that I feel are deemed worthy. Uh, and I certainly think this is one. So, I look forward to explaining the issues to you today. >> Mr. Pat, your license is still currently in good standing. >> Yes. Yes, it is.
>> Thank you. Um, I'll just give you um a very brief overview. Um, the property that uh is in question is on the corner of Beachwood Road and Oakley Street. >> Mr. what you have in front of us. Is this
the same plan set that board ahead of time or is this >> Yes. So, this is the same set of drawings. They're dated 91525 in the lower right corner in the box. Okay. >> It's four sheets of architectural drawings, two existing, two proposed. Uh
I'm also going to review additional items in your package which were existing and proposed um surveys showing the existing condition, proposed condition We put together a zoning chart. All of this was submitted in review. Um some
photos if you didn't get a chance to go by the site. Um and then I'll just go through. >> Nothing you're adding tonight as far as evidence goes. Any any >> uh I do have one exhibit. >> Okay. >> That I'd like to present. I have multiple copies, but I'll save it for the end.
>> Yeah. Yeah, sure. We'll circle back. >> It's in it's an answer to some of the professionals questions in regard to buffering. So I put some photos for you. Sounds good. >> Okay. Um, so again, the uh subject property is in the R seven zone. Um, the
way the house currently sits, it's on the corner of Beachwood Road and Oakley Street, uh, with the primary entrance facing out to Oakley. Um the house is located on the corner. It's Cat corner to Oakley and Beachwood which puts us in
a little bit of a precarious spot um in terms of setback requirements. Um but I'll get into that. So what I'd like to do quickly is just run you through the existing plans, give you an overview of what we're proposing to do. Um the existing house is a side byside split.
Um there's a lot of these in the neighborhood. Um, when you came in on the main entry, there's no covered entry. There's sort of a stoop. You come into a tight entry spot. Uh, the living room's a nice size. Kitchen and dining room across the back are very tight. Um,
probably typical of this age of the 60s style house. U, when you come down the half level, the family rooms are very nice size with access out to the backyard. There's a twocar garage facing front. U, there's a very tiny laundry space and a half bath. So, there's no
bathroom up on the primary level, just out on the lower level. Uh there is an open deck on the back, which is where our proposed addition is going to go. Up on the second floor, it is a five bedroomedroom, two bath house. All the bedrooms are tiny, as you can imagine.
Um so, the primary bedroom is a nice size, but the bathroom is four feet by 8 ft. There's a one tiny walk-in closet, four feet by 5T. The two bedrooms in the front are an okay size, but the largest or the tightest dimension being 10 feet.
There are two additional bedrooms up the half level over the living spaces. Uh there's no bathroom that services that level. So, while it's five bedrooms, four of them are smaller and there's one tight hall bath and a tiny primary
master bath. The existing elevations on sheet two sort of show the side by side split. There's some brick on the lower level. Um some interesting roof lines and peaks. It's got the old original windows. It's got the old aluminum siding. It's a house that's really in a
need of an update into this century and I got a great client that wants to bring it to life. So, what we'd like to propose to do with the additions and renovations, you could look on sheet three, um, we're proposing to add an open porch across
the front. Um, so you come up, you have a nicer approach and entry to the house. We're taking out closets in the foyer to make the foyer a little more open, opening up the walls around the living space. And then you can see sort of the dark line that comes through the middle
of the house. That's the existing to the front. And we're proposing this onestory extension out the back which comes back 14 ft. Um it's really to take the dining room and the kitchen and sort of expand them to the back. The existing deck
that's in that location extends out from the back of the house 16 ft. We're proposing our deck to come out 14 ft. U as you come down the half level you see the existing family room. Um, this is onecar garage and that's a onecar
garage. We're looking to take the first garage bay. Make it a play space for the kids with a half wall open into the family room. Add a basically a mudroom space with entry for the garage, coat closet, some cubbies, utility closet for
brooms and mops, and then a powder room bath with a dog shower. Clients have a big dog, >> two dogs, actually. What what better spot to have, you know, dog shower than in the mudroom. Um, and then another addition would be towards the end of the house. We're going to take the garage
bay that we finished and add a second garage bay. So, we still will have two garages on the upper level. We're going to take the hall bath, turn it into the laundry. Take what was the small primary and
closet and make a bigger primary bathroom bedroom and bump out over the one garage bay for a walk-in closet for the primary. In the front, we're going to take what was bedroom two, pull it out over the garage, add a Jack and Jill
or Jill and Jill for the two daughters. They have a shared bathroom between the two bedrooms. Then when you go up the half level, we'll still have the two smaller bedrooms up there, but we'll take this smaller dormer that was on the front and expand it a little bit wider
so that we can put a bathroom up on that level. So, we're going to go from five bedrooms, two baths to five bedrooms, three baths. With the half levels, it's easier to gain that extra bathroom up here. And then you can see from some of the
exterior detailing, we still have the varied roof lines. We weren't going to take off the whole roof and build a big monstrosity, but we are going to add some detail with this porch on the front, maybe some vertical siding, paint some of the brick in, some new garage doors. And you see the
addition out the back where the deck currently is. That's our 14T addition, which is shown here, which is the extension to make the kitchen and dining room a little bit bigger. Um, the height of that roof is uh 17 ft off the ground.
in the back. Um, that'll come into play because that's where the variance will be involved, replacing the deck, the one story edition. So, that's an overview of what we're proposing to do. If I can quickly just explain the zoning
on the first 11 by17 property survey in the top corner, it says existing. So, this is our existing conditions as they are today. Um, This house and lot are fully conformed. It's an oversized lot.
One issue that we have is that the house is located and placed on an angle to the roads. So, it takes this back corner, which is the area where the deck is in the kitchen and dining room, and it rotates the house to the point where that back corner is literally at the
40ft rear yard setback. So on that plan where it says wood deck, you can see the 40 foot rear setback line goes through the middle of the deck. So any extension out that back, which is logically where kitchen and dining room extension would go if that's where the kitchen and
dining room are, is going to require this variance. Uh we meet all the setbacks, we need impervious. So we're fortunate to have a large lot. It's just the placement of the existing houses causing this hardship. You look at the survey. It says proposed
up in the top corner. You'll see there we have the garage extension for the one side closer to Oakley. That's all conforming. The porch across the front that meets all the setbacks. Half of our addition, which is the lighter shade, is conforming because
it's within the 40oot setback, but the triangular part of the furthest corner is where we come into uh mis compliance with the 40 foot setback. We're proposing 27.84 feet to that corner. So that's the worst case scenario. It was that corner where
40t is required. Again, even with these additions, uh the additional macadam black top from reorienting the driveway to the new garages. We're still well under on coverage. Uh previous coverage allowed is 20%. Our existing is 10.15.
Proposed is 13.06. So, we're still well over 2,300 ft under. So, it's really the the whole issue of house placement on the lot. Um, you can see I just put this together. If you didn't have a chance to go by the
site, there's six photos. Um, >> you take those photos. >> I did take these photos uh couple days before the last schedule hearing. Um, I did go by the site this morning to confirm nothing's changed from these photos. So, there are on the trees.
So, this was, you know, probably a month and a half ago. Um, the interesting view is the, um, top left photo, which is labeled view from corner. I'm literally standing out in the middle of the intersection of the two streets looking towards the house. And you can see how
the house is kind of placed diagonally on that lot. Maybe the developer thought it was a great idea because the house across the street is angled the opposite way and kind of like the houses are opening up their arms to come into that neighborhood. >> My theory is that they are the two sample houses of the of the neighborhood
because we have the split level and the other one is a B level which is the two most common in the neighborhood. >> That was in 1952. So what do I know? It's a good theory, but it is on an angle. The middle photo view of lot nine
left side rear you see the white house depicted in that photo. That is lot nine the neighboring property. So, as our addition comes out the back, that's the house most affected by our addition. Um, the other photos are just general photos
of the lot. Um, if I could submit into evidence as a just one sheet or multiple >> Yeah, but just one
>> just one sheet. They're all the same annotations. >> So this will be exhibit A1. >> No, you're good. But it there. You're good. You're good. >> So that's exhibit A1 and that's a compendium of not a compendium. It's
it's three colorized photographs of the property with annotations. Just give us a date when these photographs were taken. Who took them? These photographs were taken um
two or three days before the first report. So I went back out. One of the questions that I wanted to try to answer and explain to you is the issue that we are close to the neighbor on that side at 27 plus feet where 40 is required. But the
photo. You see the the side of the White House, lot number 9, 18, Beachwood, and you see the existing border landscaping. There are sixes. Maybe they're 12, 14t tall at this point. They were planted when they
bought the property. Um, you can see from the middle photo, I'm standing here on the deck looking straight towards the neighbor. So, you can see the White House behind those. So, there's a row of six existing AR. >> So, those aries are yours. Yes. >> Yeah. We planted those about four years
ago. >> And then you can see in the bottom photo view from deck to rear yard kind of looking a little further down that property line where the upper bite end. There's an existing dog fence there and keep the kids in the backyard. Um so my
client is more than willing to continue the row of arborite down along the property line to provide a little further screening for the client on that property. >> And you would stipulate to that your to that. >> Yes. >> And that that came up in a couple of the
different reports and I'll I'll just touch on these real quick. I know you have a full schedule. Um report from uh Department of Engineering, David Schlay. Um he talks about the the house being angled. Um the kitchen addition with a
setback screening between the properties, exterior lighting uh to be directed downward. Certainly we can perform with that. We all know what that's like to have flood lights coming into your kitchen window from your neighbor. Uh so that's not a problem. Um depicting
whether existing trees will be disturbed. Um there's one large tree as you see in the bottom photo view from the deck to the rear yard. Um our addition is not coming out as far as the deck. So the tree might be able to stay, but we're going to have somebody come
out and look at it to sort of determine viability of the tree to put the addition in and then have the tree die or fall on the addition. So that is something we will have looked at. Conversely, we will also have
a full lot development plan. This proposed work was under a thousand square feet. So under town ordinance, we weren't required to do site engineering at this point. that we're willing to stipulate building permit application have a full lot development plan that
shows grading trees. We'll look into storm water um to do it at this point thousands of dollars of engineering in the hope that we might get approved. So luckily we came in just under that. Uh likewise on the environmental commission
report uh they talk about the same thing. Rating plan disturbance planting, tree permits, demolition, recycling. These are all common sense things that we try to impart to our clients to participate in these things for the environment. So
we're happy to abide by those. Likewise, Mr. report covers a lot of these things with the square footages being under 1,000 square feet. We're under on impervious 13% for 20s allowed. Um screening we
talked about um we'll do the topo and tree location for uh for sight water runoff. And then number six um that plan as well will depict the new driveway and curb cuts, things like that. Um, so we're more than willing to comply with
reports. >> So I think if I'm hearing you correctly, these guys are stipulated to comply with all the conditions in those three minutes. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah, that pretty easy. Mr. um Sly or Mr. Quinn, do you have any comments on
anything that may not have been covered adequately? >> I don't. Neither do I. Mr. Quinn, everybody comes just under 1,000 ft. >> There's some magic to that, huh? >> It's amazing. >> Just make sure that magic stays.
>> Well, >> you don't lose the magic. >> No. And I think that's going to be part and parcel of um we're going to hire a site engineer. We can provide the tobo and the trees and if we need storm water, we're happy to take a look at that. >> It's you're you're close. I mean it's
don't take this personally but a lot of people when they start a project you know it looks good to add maybe another 10 feet over here. >> Not you of course some people >> right? No it see. >> Yeah. Yeah. Well and that's why we like to to do our own zoning. We know that
the town has a chart but we'd like to break out all of the zoning just so you see where the coverages are. >> We have nothing to hide alternatives besides going back to the asking what? >> Absolutely. It's a valid question. Um, yeah, we looked at lots of alternates
and certainly in the proposed survey drawing. Um, again, we need to meet the um 40 foot setback. So, we probably could have extended it further, but the reality is I I thought that the hardship of doing that and the impact of that on
the neighborhood versus just one individual. And actually, I'd like to have the client, he had a discussion, maybe it's hearsay, but he did have a discussion with the neighbor who I don't think is here, and we can ask open it to the public about the project and what
the neighbor felt about the plans. So, we did look at alternates, but this seemed to be the best way from a planning perspective for the spaces to make it work. >> Mr. Dere, did you have any conversations with any of your neighbors about this project? >> I did a couple of them. Uh, a few of them actually. So, the three
conversations, two out of three said, "Whatever you need to do with your house, you know, obviously whatever, you know, do what you got to do." But the the neighbor in question who is most affected by this, who we've been talking about, >> that's lot nine, >> correct? Um, you know, he shot me a text
and asked if we could talk about it, how it's going to impact him and his family. And, um, I've always had a good relationship with him, so it was a very cordial conversation. He was just worried about his privacy. He was under the impression that with our addition off the back we were going to then put a
deck beyond that which is not the case. So when I assured him that we weren't going to do that it was kind of like a okay great situation. And then I also assured him that we were going to be planting more rubber vites to provide more privacy and you know he was he was all good with that. >> Right. And if we understand it correctly
your addition almost almost matches the footprint of the existing deck. Little little bit shorter. It's a little bit shorter. >> Okay. >> And then also to the right of the deck. So the deck pretty much just goes out the dining room and then maybe into the
kitchen a little bit, but it would be the dining room and kitchen that's going >> Do they have um any other do they voice any other concerns uh other than screening privacy? >> Uh no. >> I guess from an expansion standpoint, do
you have any ability to create a bigger patio without any other restrictions. >> So the the deck has different requirements than the building because it's not covered. So technically you could put a deck I believe behind the
addition. I I forget what the setback is to a deck versus >> we would have seven feet. And there is an existing patio there down the road depending on hardcape and what they do. >> But the patio that's there is a As of right now, it doesn't seem that
there's >> any is it step down almost or is it >> Yeah, because it's down on the lower garage level because of the split. So, from the addition, you can come out onto that little deck off the side of the kitchen and there's four or five steps down to that level.
>> Is there any intention at this time to put a deck off your addition? >> No, not at this time. >> So, currently I mean, currently you would be able from the family room walk out onto the
existing patio. It's roughly level. Yes. >> There's a there's a slight step down from the family room out the patio. >> So, you put a deck in that area that you almost have to have steps. >> It would be at a different level. >> Yeah. So, yeah. There would be no ability to put a deck to the side of the
addition because of of the fact that it's down at the lower level. Um the deck would have to come off the back. Um, but we would only have seven feet to do that because we'd have to be 20 feet away. So, there really wouldn't be a deck. >> Um, so yeah, there's there's no intent to do that.
>> Yeah, but the split makes it very difficult. Believe me, it's >> Any other questions from the board? >> So, I just wanted to um you mentioned the tree that where the addition is going to go in the back of the house. Is
the maple that's over by the garage. >> Yes. >> I take it that's going to have to come out too because you're going >> the Japanese maple on the right side. Correct. >> Yep. Which >> that that one we're going to see if we can get it transplanted. I know there's
an expense to that and they they usually do pretty well. We have had a couple other ones transplanted. Um that's going to be a a tough call, but yes, that that is >> worst case you would lose that tree. Correct. >> Ultimately, it won't be there.
>> But yeah, all those things will be on the the lot development plan. We just timing wise, we have the ability to get that done before we submit. >> That would be a condition of approval. >> Yes. >> You increase screening with your
neighbor and they were okay with it or were they okay with the current screening? They were okay with the current screening and I assured them that there would be more and they said great. They weren't really anticipating that but when I said that they reassured them that >> it's screening is an interesting thing.
It works both ways. So our client kind of wants the screening also for their privacy. So, not that they don't like their neighbor, but >> you can either do a wall or you could stair. >> Any other questions? >> Are there any questions from the public?
Are there any comments from the public on this application? Okay. Do you have anything else for us or you want to turn it over to us? >> Uh, no. I would just say that um I hope you found our presentation informative um especially in regard to the hardship
of the placement of the existing house on the lot on the corner and the requirements that are put upon us for that. Um we feel that the design meets the intent of the municipal land use ordinances and the master plan. We don't think there's really an effect on the
neighborhood. There's a partial to the neighbor, but since he's agreed with our addition and some additional screening, we feel that that's a positive. So, we hope that you'll favor. >> Thank you.
>> Do you want to uh summarize? >> I did ask you. >> Yes, that's okay. I heard I was taking notes. >> No questions. >> Just double check. Okay. >> Sorry. Got it. All right. So, I will summarize. The applicant here seeking applicants are seeking one variance that's for the principal dwelling side
rear yard set act. They're proposing 27.84 ft where 40 ft is the minimum required. As far as conditions go, they agreed to comply with everything in Mr. Schlly's memo dated November 25th. Everything in Mr. CL's memo dated November 3rd and everything in the environmental commission review memo
dated October 27th. The only other conditions I picked up during course of the hearing were that they continue the road the arbor bing trees along the rear property line proposed petition ultimately subject to approval of the board planner and then I think you required to do this anyway but
city do it submit a full plan I think that's it something okay that's it >> that's it okay so does anybody have any comments or want to um uh voice a motion
on this application. >> All right, let's do it. >> We'll try this. >> Okay, I uh I I would like to uh make a motion uh to deem this application complete and direct the board attorney to draft a resolution memorializing the
variance request, including uh all stated stipulations and conditions to grant the requested by the applicants. Um, I see this as a C1. Um, so it's I think it's a good project.
>> Thank you. Thank you. >> I think it could also be under C2. I I I agree on C1 just on the placement of the house, but I think it could be under C2 as well for the project. just be only because like he he doesn't need to put the addition on it. He's
actually >> a larger you know it doesn't >> I guess there's an argument to be made that addition making >> and we haven't heard >> any comments.
>> I totally agree with that. >> Okay. So, I think we had a motion and a second and an explanation. We had all three of those. >> Yeah. Thank you, >> Miss Bman. Yes, Mr. Kra. >> Yes, >> Mr. Per. >> Yes, >> Mr. T.
>> Yes, >> Chairman of Engineers. >> Yes. Good luck with your project. >> Thank you very much. >> Thanks everybody. >> Thank you very That's a whole another story. Just thank you. >> Thank you everyone. Happy holiday.
>> Sorry about that. >> Okay. Next on the uh agenda is 8B Barbie uh ZB25021. Are you guys here tonight? >> Madam Chair, I just went out for the record. I did review the applicant's notice of this uh this hearing.
Everything was uh timely served and uh had all the requisite content. So u you know I said timely served. So the board has jurisdiction here inside the case. Good to go. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So we have uh three of you will be
testifying today. >> Okay. Gotcha. Okay. Anyone else? Just just Okay. So, let's swear you guys in as well as our war professionals. You raise your right hands for me. Do you swear or the testimony you're about to provide the truth? So, we got
>> and just let me know if you want to say something. I do have to swear you in at some point. So, give me a price to change your mind. I got She's trusting me. That's >> a lot of pressure. Um, can I'm just going to remind you both to speak right into the microphone.
You can use either microphone, but if you're speaking, you got to go right into it, okay? So, we can hear you. >> And if you gentlemen, just identify yourselves for the record. Names in business and or physical streets. >> Sure. So, I'm John Barbieri. Uh, we live at 8 Southern Place here in Basking
Ridge. Uh, this is my wife Jessica. Uh, we have been residents of Basking Ridge for a little over five years now. Um, both moved urban areas. Me from Patterson and her from from Elizabeth Union area. Um but Basking Ridge was our
number one uh location to look for to start our our life and our family. Uh we have a lovely two-year-old daughter uh Sienna and we're looking to expand that family, hence our expansion pro project here. Um we love the neighborhood. We
love Basking the Ridge. We we fell in love with it instantly as soon as we started looking at houses here and we hope to help build our forever home and and leave a good footprint here in the community. >> Excellent. >> Hi, I'm Nick Benley. I'm an architect
for Don and Jess since 1990 and a practice based out of Marstown since 1992. I don't think I've been in front of this board but over 30 years my memory is all that great but c worked in Basking Ridge recently. Been
in front of Madison a couple times for adjustments from the zoning board as well. >> And your license is in good standing. >> To the best of my knowledge, it >> just Okay, thank you. We'll accept you then. Thank you.
>> All right, guys. You want to go ahead and walk through? Actually, before you go, what we have in front of us, this is the plans that were submitted for the >> Yeah, let me just run through what we have here. This is basically the same set of plans process. I think the only thing that I've added photographs are included in
the package. This is 200 list just to talk a little bit about nothing that you're going to show us tonight that we haven't already received 10 days ahead. >> Um if you looked at it all you've already >> just making sure if not I have to mark it as
>> I'm not going to add anything. >> That's great. Ask >> you don't I'm going to stay true to my cheat sheet here a little bit. So we're here for variance relief to an existing conformtory ranch to add on
um a garage onetory garage kitchen and screen porch located at the rear and a second floor will be the existing first floor. to provide three bedrooms and two baths
for growing family. The property is currently nonconforming in the R6 zone with regards to the lot size 20,000 square ft. The R6 requires 32,670
square ft. The lot width is 100 ft. The R6 requires 150 ft. There's a minimum sideyard setback is 21.6. inside here we are at 30 ft requirement
and just so you the plans the dotted line indicates the setbacks we're dealing with here on property um we're dealing with the combo side of 54t where 75 ft is required
and minimum improveable lot area of 2500 square ft where 7500 ft is required uh zoning changes and I'm going I think to uh David's comments were changed in 1954. The lot is obviously way
undersized in 1954 apparently was compon everything increased as far as requirements and size. I think the majority of the neighborhood is all undersized lots with a similar hardship that we're trying to add onto this
obviously our hardship here is the undersized lot neighborhood we'll talk a little bit about that before I get into specifics of the architecture most of the houses along with Finley and place which is the access into sort of
southern place which is circular most center colonial style all everything along southern place for the most part is similar to residence a one story ranch uh the only exception to
that is the corner lot here is also part of the twotory structure it's corner lot that house is set back ways um the adjacent property here to it So every other lot in the property
along here is a one story. Barbie is one of two residences in that neighborhood that do not have a garage either detach garage space. As far as buffering, refer a little bit
to the photographs. They have but four different properties along the back corner I'll talk about in a moment. Everything here other than the adjacent twotory house to the right of the lot is wellre landscape and
evergreen. Um I talked a little bit about proximity. The house the twotory house next door you can catch a whisper right there. in the background. Second photo, first photo is just shot.
>> So that second picture, that second picture shows the two homes that would be 9 ft or the one closest to the 9 foot setback. Is that what >> we know that's on the other side of the property? That's corner lot. >> Okay. So the second picture is which I'm
just trying to match the lots. What what home do we see in that second picture? The second picture is this zone right here. >> Okay. >> Which is just a corner of that. That's the Barbie area beyond the lot you're talking about is beyond that.
>> Um back here these two properties houses have significant backyards. Um and there is a good screening here and along here there's also good natural screening to the backyard. It's a little sparer in
between the two houses of the line but certainly an opportunity to privacy. These photographs here are just looking back from the backyard towards the barbar residence. Here you can see the screening on the side here. You can see
existing landscape that's behind the house on the bar's lot. This here is an attempt to try to capture the house that's here. And I took these photographs last summer, so I had full
It was hard from any vantage point to really be able to get a good photo of that house there. So, that was the best I could come up with. But you can see that it's pretty well buffered there. And I should also mention that little angle that I drew right here is fairly
representative of that corner lot where that house is located. It's not about the side property here. in the back of the lot areas and again very
property. Um so we chat about the slope of the lot. mention about whatot lot is relatively flat slight from south to north this direction here currently I don't really have any water
issues certainly that right now we were planning on not having a lot of water management fact we're not really adding much to the property on that side of the house where it slopes mostly just the second floor
over the existing story want to just address that for a moment. Let me get a little bit into the architecture if I can. Um we've set up here the existing survey
proposed survey setbacks. We're looking to take an existing small 1200 square foot house. It's got three bedroom small master one and a half bedrooms, small kitchen, living room, small dining area, a screen
off the back. What we're looking to do is basically open up the space as much as we can here between the dining kitchen where the screen porch is now new screen porch off to the end here. A little hallway link that connects
renovate these baths into a shared bath. This is going to be a guest suite, possibly an in-law bedroom. Um, we wanted to have a lab as well as a shower to kind of work as a hybrid for a powder room as well as a full bath without taking up a lot of space. But really,
the goal is to try to open up a main primary space as possible. We're looking to the side here with the existing driveway comes in. One and a half a onetory garage with some extra storage.
and entry porch. Off the back will be a walk around a set of stairs coming back that will lead you into effectively what is the dining area great room adjacent to the kitchen. And then we're looking to
expand over the existing footprint here with a three bedroomedroom two bath second floor that will come. The existing bedroom here is going to stay as a bedroom to use as an office. But really effectively what we're doing
is we're taking a threebedroom one and a half bath house. It's appropriate for we've got a existing structure that's about,200 square ft. We're basically increasing the the little house up to about 3,000 square feet and second
floor. Elevation wise, we didn't want to just lop a big second story addition on to its scale and elevations and lines are important to me and my clients. So, what we wanted to do was you're going to see
the existing proposed adjacent to each other. We wanted to set up some tables, some dormers, some steps to kind of break the scale down, the massing down. We're going to things to improve the quality of it currently right now houses
kind of a ship pattern that's really not all that attractive minimal trim and whatnot so we're going to bring that all up to a level it's going to provide a nicer aesthetic on the back I'm always concerned with backs of houses that's where basically people
always like to keep the scale down so we want to keep stories as a onetory addition with some nice link link to kind of soften that back of the house to the outside. We're proposing
a deck out the back here that comes off the little hallway length and takes you down into the terrace space. We've got an opportunity to have a grill area that's on the primary floor level and outdoor terrace. It's the great back
couple things here. In response, I think to some of Tom's questions about lighting, uh, Barbie's currently have a couple of flood lights on the house. They'd like to try to maintain that. Um, they currently have one over on the side of the garage here.
Um, we'd like to put one in a similar location. Um, over on the garage sides walkway. have a flood off the back here for the terrorist purposes. Um I know that's not the most
appealing thing and we can certainly work with doing something that's more light oriented or pathway lights but right now that was the request was some light. So I just want to put that out there for whatever comments you might have about it.
My feeling is flood lights aren't going to be on all night. So for hours outside there is a lot of natural landscaping. It's going to be screened everything in summertime. So, I'm not super concerned about flood lights with the distance and the screening that we have, but
certainly suggestions from the board to address that. >> Uh, I not quite sure. >> Can I Can I stop you for a second? >> Where is the the flood light on the side of the house? >> Uh, right now >> side of the house is that
>> Yeah, we're looking if there's a flood lights on the plan would be over here where the comes. >> That's the one that's the 9 foot distance. >> That's correct. And that might be the one that we want to eliminate some sort of along the path or something.
>> We have another one we like to do off the back here off the porch eliminate that occasional outdoor activities. So, we'd like to try to preserve that, but certainly >> and can I ask you the steps that go off
the covered porch. >> Mhm. >> Do they have to be where they are? >> Um, as far as the setback infringement. >> Yeah, I'm just looking from, you know, you're already into the setback and this
is a further into the setback. >> And I was actually surprised most times we don't get to go to the steps, we go to the building. >> We listen to whatever Mr. Slond that is the setback. Um, I didn't really see a good opportunity to do that. We could bring the path around and come up
from the back. >> Yeah, that's what I was saying. >> If need be. Um, you know, we hesitate to bring this up, but we went through a little budget planning here once we got the design done and we've done some things that are going to get
submitted for the building permits that reduced that set back a little bit trying to cut some costs out. So, we've actually improved that 9 foot to about 12 with the way they are. But if you would like, we could certainly bring you around the backyard to come. It's not
ideal, but we could certainly do that. >> Well, I I was just asking a question. I'm not an architect, so I can't, you know, tell you where a good place to do it is. I'm just >> respond to your concern. >> Yeah, I it's already tight. We're further into it. Um, even with screening, that's that's why I was
asking. >> Yeah. If we could improve that by three feet either by moving the stairs to the back and extending that walk a little bit or pulling up side editioning couple feet which is what we're planning to do to
try to reduce some budget concerns we can alleviate that n >> yeah well I guess we have to look at it all together because there's also a coverage issue right >> yeah there is a coverage issue so we'd be having a little more walk there's >> pros and approach.
>> When you talk about flood lights, are you talking about like motion sensor lights or >> uh No, let me switch. >> I can speak. You know, uh currently the one flood light that you have on the side of the house is attached to a camera. So, it is motion activated. It's not on permanently. It does have that
function, but we do not keep it on like that. And it's literally just motion motion uh detection turns on the camera when it's actually only on when it detects an actual person. So it's only when I go out to take out the garbage or you know if you have a late night Amazon
delivery or something like that. That's pretty much the only time that the light would actually ever go on. >> But does it aim outward or down? >> No, it's more downward than than anything. It's downward more focused right on the driveway. >> Okay. >> Would it stay at the same level or because it's going to be two Actually,
>> it would actually be probably at the same height it is now because it would be on the garage part itself. So, it wouldn't be up on the second story. >> Yeah, it would be on the first first. >> Yeah, the floods are all about 12 feet off the bridge. >> And don't trigger it.
>> No, they don't. >> No, I have it I have it set up. Cameras come with a setting where it's only it only detects a face or a human. You know, some sometimes my camera will go off in the middle of the day when there's like weird shadow, but that's pretty much it.
>> With regard to some environmental notes, I had a little I'm not quite sure what we need to do as far as water management. I I'm always respectful of doing these concerns about water runoff and being over impervious limit. We're only 88 square feet over what's allowed
as far as the impervious. So, it's not a significant amount of work. I saw one report that we were if we didn't really need to worry about water management and I saw the environmental that it was a primary concern. >> Yeah, you'll get different views on that. >> So, we're happy to comply with whatever
you guys want us to do or whatever the town wants us to do to deal with whatever problems they might think we need to avoid. >> Mr. Quinn, do you want to comment on that? >> So, for the record, since you're less than a thousand square foot >> that magic number,
>> yeah, you're you're not uh you're exempt, right? Normally, we take a very hard anything that's over a purpose cover >> and typically make somebody do something. >> In this case, 88 square ft. I mean, if you put a rain barrel at the end of your
gutter, it would capture more runoff than would be generated by that 88 square feet. So, I professionally find that to be dimminimous and but I'm not trying to downplay anything the environmental commission might have to say, but I personally professionally find it to be dimminismous. But my big
concern though is that Since you are at you're over, make sure you stay with whatever coverage relief the board gives you. >> And if you start going above 88 square feet past that, I I would professionally start considering it somewhat. >> Yeah, I chatted with John and Jess about
that a little bit when we were talking about terrorists and just let's make sure this is the right size because we don't want it to grow once you change your mind and need five more places to sit or whatever. Then you're coming back here and then you're probably without question.
So >> sheds none of that is in the >> Yeah, we chatted about the shed. >> We chatted about reusing the shed they have on their property and the additional storage space we have in the garage. We're also going to get some
overhead storage up the garage that came a shed. So, no reason anymore. >> You also said something about trees in the back and I missed what you said. >> Yeah. Um there was one photo that we have here. I
don't anticipate any trees either on There are a couple trees in the middle of the yard here that you see that are nice area. They're actually located kind of off the kitchen area right about here
on this side of the shed. We leave those. They're not going to get anything right there. So, I have a question. Going back to the flood light on the garage side, can you look at the pictures that are up? Um, so
your neighbors that are in lot five. >> Okay. >> What if your flood light is on facing them, right? >> Correct. >> What rooms do they have that's sort of closest to
>> where that would be? Yeah. What's What are you shining the light into? >> Is that the garage? >> It would honestly be right on if you look in the in the photo where where that I guess my old car is. Um that would probably be the only spot that
would be directly affected by that side flood light. >> Is that because their house is set so far back the other direction? >> Yeah. >> I'm just wondering if they had any bedrooms or anything that No, on on that
side of our neighbor's house, it is more of like a decking and like a an entrance exit to the to their sidebackyard um area. So, it there's no bedrooms or any dwelling areas that are on that side.
>> Does their motion on their property service? >> No, it wouldn't be. It would be much too too out of the range and that and that range is already predetermined. >> What you have currently it doesn't >> No, it does not. It It would have to be directly on the
driveway to set the flood light off. >> Did you have conversations with your neighbors about this? >> Okay. Can you share those? >> Yes. >> With me. >> You know, as a common courtesy, we spoke to, you know, the neighbors lot, five,
and three um directly just to since they are the ones that would be impacted the most with our construction. Um they they were okay with our with our plans. Um people have actually expressed that that they think it's good for the area to kind of bring everything up to date and
kind of give a better aesthetic. So, and we're lucky that we have great neighbors that uh that are very understanding and very helpful and some actually gave us recommendations on what to do and things like that. So, >> did you hear any concerns? Were any of the recommendations corrections on on
what you were doing for any reason? >> No, no one has expressed concerns to us about anything. Is the driveway to side or back? >> So, it is it's a one drive path and then it breaks off into a two a two kind of
like I guess shape kind of >> right now all the way over there. So, three parking spots there. What we're proposing to do is simply have parking spot here and access
turn around or do >> uh you could potentially turn around there and do a little tight >> we got very good at backing back in the back and we live in a very low traffic area so it's
>> Do you have any uh water issues on your property now from storms? would. No, we do not. >> We don't have any issues. >> We have not had any issues whatsoever. >> You would have >> Do you know if your neighbors on your left or your right have any water issues? >> Um, no. No. No one has really reported any
issues about anything. >> Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks to me that like at least half of the addition that you're putting on is covering >> already. It certainly helps the impervious coverage that we're we're substituting
building as >> um so if I can just maybe summarize for a moment. Um it's certainly happy to talk about laying some more if we need to comments you might have respond to.
So we're really seeking zone for the side yard set back 9.25 ft 12.25 ft to the house where 30 ft is required. Combo setback relief for the sideyards 75 is required. We're 30.85
maximum coverage. We're 18.44 with our proposal. We're 18% effectively 88 over. Obviously, the hardship here to add on anything to this house is the narrow lot and the lot size.
60% it affects everything relative to trying to add on other than just growing out the back. Um if our lot was full size um you know we would not have provided that we could center a house on a 150
foot wide lot we would have a sideyard combo it would be about 86 ft where 75 is required in excess of 30 ft in compliance and as was pointed out by David previous approximately 11.3%
well below the 18% that's required We're trying to do the best we can to keep those numbers as low as possible, but we have we had to deal with some overage there just given the constraints of the lot size. Did we talk enough about the screening
between your house and lives? >> Um, David, you might be I mean, John, you might need to help me out here a little bit just because you know your landscaping better than I do. She's asking about what's going on between the story that faces you.
>> No problem. So, between uh I I guess you're meeting one adjacent to five. Uh so that is so starting from the end of our driveway um on towards the back of our property there was there's older
fencing um there was wood there's chicken wire so that that set up an actual physical um border. It appears that there was old fencing in the front part. it is no longer there, but there is natural trees
and a barrier there. So, um, truthfully, if you look over into our neighbor's side, it's pretty tough to actually see in like you'd have to walk into the actual shrubs and bushes to actually see their their house pretty clearly. >> I could get a photo of it. I mean,
obviously now in the winter time with no leaves on the trees, you can see a little clearer, but for the most part, the natural landscaping already there kind of gives like a good amount of privacy for both of us. >> I'm sorry, was your question between four and five or was it three and four?
>> Between four and five. >> Four and five. >> Four and five. Additional questions from the board. >> Mr. S, did we cover your memo well enough? Did you touch on all the points? >> Um, I think most of them I I'm not sure
all of them. If you want me to the ones I think we did not cover. >> Yes. >> Looking at my memo dated November 25, 2025. >> Um on page three, comment number 10
about the deck. Um just to make sure the applicants are aware, the deck needs to remain an open deck because it's not included in the cover. Uh number 11. Uh similarly, the the front porch which uh extends into the front yard and is an
allow an allowed exception to be there. Uh but it must remain open as it's proposed. You can't enclose that. >> It's not a porch. It's a canopy. >> Under our ordinance, it's porch. Um the uh number 12, I think we already
covered the lighting. It's going to be all down. no glare to your neighbors and agree to that. Uh 13. Is there any tree removal? >> I'm not aware of any trees that would need to be removed. >> Uh
14. Uh is just about you need to identify your limit of disturbance uh for the engineering department to um determine what type of solar sediment control measures will be required whether it be uh reviewed by the engineering department or the soil
conservation district. And uh number 15 is you have your uh utility equipment pads included in the lock coverage calculations but you don't show >> we didn't show them anyways. I realized that after we submitted everything. >> So you'll show them.
>> Yeah. >> And that's air conditioner and generator. Correct. >> That already exists, right? >> Correct. >> And that's >> and they're currently they're currently over on this side of the house here. >> Yeah. They won't be moving. So, we're
not going to >> So, they are included into the >> They're included. >> Yeah, we included them. We just did. >> And then, Mr. Quinn, uh I think we covered some of your comments >> mostly. Yeah. I just had a clarification. Item two.
>> Yeah. >> Um again, because we're over Herby's cover, I want to make sure we nail this down. But I It just looked to me, you've got the front walk in the existing proposed condition. I didn't see any change yet. We reduce the proposed walk by 20 square feet. I just want to make
sure that happens because I didn't see it on the draw. >> Yeah, that was a good pickup on your behalf because I had to scratch my head on that one as well. >> You can make the walk narrower. >> It looks the same, but what happened was when we put a roof over it, it got included with part of the building and taken away from the walk. So, the 20
foot reduction covers that quote unquote porch >> that's in that's in the building. >> That's that got transferred over the building because it's part of a roof structure, not part of a hardcape. Okay, that yeah, 20 square feet. That sounds about right. >> I looked at that and I said,
>> "How did that happen?" And then I realized it was the roof. >> Okay. Um that and uh obviously just stay we already touched stay within your impervious cover and Dave already mentioned that you're probably going to need some topography here because the
disturbance is going to get to be more than 2500 square feet. So, the township engineering department is probably >> want to get some >> You'll be working with them on that, but Dave's already covered that. That's all I have. >> Thank you, Mr. >> And did you also get a copy of the environmental commission?
>> I did. Yes. >> Did you have a chance to go through their >> I glanced at it. I have to be honest with you. It got put in the back burner because I got that last summer and then got all the planning stuff and everything else just recently. Um, I didn't see anything there other
than water management that's I had a concern about. They've talked about storm water runoff by planting native trees and shrubs. I know the Barbie want to do some nice landscaping. So certainly they're going to put effort into making sure their
landscaping works well. >> They're recommending planting native trees or shrubs absorbing the water. For sure. Um, do you have any tree permits? They asked if you had taken out any tree permits. I don't
>> No, we haven't. And don't don't anticipate a need to remove any trees. >> And then they also highlighted the potential for inground tanks, lead paint, asbestous. >> Yeah, I'd be surprised if any of that exists, but certainly that'll address it if we need to. >> Yep. We just like to make you aware of
that. and then also during the demolition consider recycling, repurposing any demo material. >> So I take it that to mean that you guys are going to comply with all the the comments in those three. >> Um there's nothing there that I have a problem with other than the water
management and the environmental defer to the town's engineer to say we don't really need to address that but we're good at design. So we need to Um, questions from the board.
>> Are there any questions from the public based on the testimony we just heard? Can you take that down for me? I can't see anybody. >> Are there any comments at this time from the public on the application for Do you have anything else for us or would you like to summarize or turn it
over to the board at this time. >> Um, no. Just want to thank you for hear us out and see you guys. >> Yeah, >> absolutely. Okay, so the applicants here
have requesting seven variances by my count. >> Yes. >> First is for lie area. Um, this is proposing 4 I'm sorry. 0.46 acres where 75 acres is required. Approvable lot area 2500 ft proposed or 7500 square
feet is required. And then lot width 100 ft proposed or 150 ft is required. I would note all those are based on existing conditions applicable to the property. Next is for the principal principal northerly sideyard setback 21.6 ft proposed for 30 is required. The next is
for the southerntherly sideyard setback 9.25 ft proposed for 30 ft is required. Next is combined principles side setback 30.85 ft proposed or 75 is required and finally lot coverage 18.44% or 18% is the maximum. As far as
conditions go applicants agree to comply with everything in Mr. Schlly's memo dated November 25th everything Mr. Quinn's memo dated November 30th and then everything in the environmental commission memo dated September 29th. The only other
potentially I don't think we really close to the flood lights. So I'm not sure whether or not they want to have those removed one of the conditions which they would be providing any lighting. This is Mr. I think all
the lighting would be down. Is that maybe not? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So I guess the that we're facing. >> Yes. >> No property.
>> We can't do that. >> Is that what you're suggesting? >> Okay. I'm just saying we can't measure. We don't The town just can't of course as far as the glare and you know that's New York already. >> Well, at least they would all be
downward facing. >> So, you can you can put a flood light, but as long as it's not projecting out, it's projecting downward. >> Yeah. I mean, what what the board um what my standard comment and the board's standard condition at this point about
uh the downward directed lighting and no glare and and shielded and and all that. That's that just restates what's already in the ordinance. That's the uh that's the kind of standard that everybody has to comply with anyway. >> So what's the difference between a
downward facing flood light and a light switch on? I don't see as long as it's downward facing. >> Well, no, but a flood light traditionally is not downward flake. >> A flood means it floods the area with light, right? >> That's not what they they just testify to them.
This is a downward facing light. >> It could be the same exact point in a different direction or it has a shield over it. >> It was classified as a flood light camera combination. So that's >> a ring camera, right?
>> The intensity can. >> Yes. And it would be the same. It would actually be the current existing one would be the one that would move. to the side of the garage, >> but it's a downward facing >> just covers our driveway and and
everything else past it is not >> water or >> Yeah. So, other than that, that was I think the only condition, but not really a condition anymore. So, I think that's uh that's everything. >> Thank you. Okay. Does anyone want to um share any additional thoughts or a move
into a motion or some thoughts? You look deep in thought. >> My thought on the lot coverage is the lot is undersized by a third. So4% over really is not that far over lot
that I I calculated the number but it was well under it. 11.3 would be what? >> So, I think the the I I I like that the
setback lines are clearly on the plan. Um because it really puts things in perspective. I mean, there's absolutely no question that there's a hardship here. Um the question for me is the 9 ft off of the property line. Um if you're
building new, can that be scaled back? is sort of where my head goes when I'm looking at this. Um I mean hold it back two or three feet. Does it really make that much of a difference if it's well screened?
>> Yeah, >> I agree. The house next door is not right next to >> right on the right and you can see how that's positioned. There's a house right next to that. or 20 plus 29
then I think I have more concern it's set back into the the backyard and it's all screen >> and also you're I think I think a lot of it is kind of the massing of Um, and when that's right up against
another big house, that's where it changes, I think, the feel of the character of the neighborhood. But in this one, it's so interesting because this that house is so far back that, you know, you end up moving over and there's still, you know, there still seems to be
a lot of space. So, I I felt like I didn't have as much of a massing issue that that I would had the houses been laid out differently >> for this one, >> right? The building the building is at 12 ft. So, >> yeah. And it's the stairs that
>> it's the stairs that go into it. The path I don't have a problem with at all. It's the It's the building like right up on the property line. But again, >> as long as it's well screened and the house on lot number five sits far back. So, so nothing that's happening in that area is going directly into the
neighbor's >> kitchen or bedroom window. >> Yes. >> So, that's where I I think that um >> it's also a onetory garage. That's really all >> that Yeah, I think there's I think there's a
I think there's a motion in here. I I think there is. >> Okay. So, so um yes, I see this as a C1 hardship. Um it would be Impossible. You could do a very skinny house there. It seems to be old age nowadays. Um, but
I I don't think that there's anything egregious here. I really think that you're you're taking something old and dilapidated. You're turning it into something that is um far more beautiful, updated, um something that is um
aesthetically pleasing for the neighborhood. Um I don't see this as impacting any of your of your neighbors. Um, in fact, I see it as as a benefit to the neighborhood. So, um, I see this as a C1
uh C2 also in that there is no detriment to the public good and does actually advance the MLUL. I'm saying MLUL because I always say multiple instead of municipal. Um um so I would uh make a motion to deem
the application complete and um grant the um variances asked for um director board attorney to draft a resolution memorializing the board's decision uh with all of the stipulations
uh stated here tonight. >> I would second that. I'm going to make a couple of comments also though. We are going to restate in uh if it passes uh the resolution the light sensitivity. You can hear I think almost every board member had questions around that light
because we don't want it to be you are very close to that property line um even if their house is set back. So, we'd like you to take extra consideration toward that. Um, to not have this light flashing, you know, all night. Um,
which, you know, would be upsetting to your neighbors and we certainly don't want that. Um, you know, I'd also say you heard from Mr. Quinn who always does his cautionary tale in terms of impervious coverage to be, you know, very careful about that. You know, I am sensitive to being an undersized lot.
Having said that, um, you know, the comparisons to a full-size lot to me are somewhat irrelevant. You don't have a full-size lot. So, um, you know, the we just can't cover every inch and just be like, well, everybody else has a fire pit and he has a pool and we just we
just went ahead and did this. Um, please be very mindful of those numbers. You're you know, if if this is indeed approved, you will be over at with the plans that you've bought to brought to us. Um, and it'll be a much more difficult conversation if you are even further
over that and you have to come back. That one won't be present. >> So, I think we have a motion and a second. >> Yes, we do. >> Miss Bman, >> yes. Mr. Kra, >> yes. >> Miss Popar, >> yes. >> Miss Trap, >> yes. >> Chair, >> yes. Good luck with your project. Thank
you so much. That's Okay, next on the agenda is 8 C which is D and E window door ZB25028 point for the record I did interview the applicant's notice of this hearing I found it was properly served all the
content was sufficient meets all the ML requirements uh so in my legal opinion the board has the jurisdiction here decide the case and simple I'll let Mr. introduction before the litigator in me compels me to say
may I approach Is this replacing the one that we have? >> Uh, it is, but I just wanted to clarify. We're going to march mark this as A1, but all we've done is uh made the corrections in the tables that uh the professionals required. >> Yeah. No actual substantive change to
the application. And just for the record, the architectural plans have not changed. It's just the first page. >> Want to make your appearance for everything? >> Waiting for the wink from the chair. >> Thank you. I'm ready.
Uh evening madam chair, members of the board, board professionals, Frederick Zeli, Post Pollock on behalf of the applicant, DNE window and door LLC. Uh this is regarding 24 Ash Street in Basking Ridge. It's block 2001, lot 22 located in your R seven zone. Uh
unfortunately, this is an example of what can go wrong in what seemed to be a very straightforward application and project. uh when you're taking down a a existing building, just wanting to put a second addition on it, second floor on it, and then you find out that the existing
building is a worse condition than you thought, and suddenly you have uh more than partial destruction. You have substantial total destruction, and you find out you need to be in front of the board of adjustment in the middle of your project. And make matters worse, you find out that you're an LLC, and you have to hire an attorney to do that, and that really is a killer.
>> At least they got you. So, >> thank you. I appreciate it. Uh so that's what we have here. Um this is as I said it was just going to be a simple uh second story addition. Uh but now that we have to go all the way back we have some existing non-conformings that have to be approved by this board.
Uh specifically lack of frontage on a public street uh also known as a plaring variance pursuant to NJSA 4055D-35. Uh you also have a corresponding uh provision in your ordinance requiring that there be street frontage. Uh I don't think we need a separate variance
for that. I think is subsumed under the planning variance, but if Mr. Schlly or the board disagrees, then we would seek that as well. Uh we do need a variance for lot area. Uh 21,780 ft is required. We have 20,000, which was the uh zoning way back when. Uh lot
width 125 is required. We have 100. And improvable lot area 5,000 is required. We have 4,800. So we're shortly under that. Uh there's also a fifth variance required. Uh it is not uh technically an existing condition. It's for the distance between the home and the
garage. Uh the garage by the way the garage is done. Uh it replaced the existing one. Did not create any uh setback issues of itself. Uh and the footprint of the home also has not changed except for squaring off a notch
in the back which also did not create any problems as far as setbacks. Uh what does happen though is we have a side stoop uh front steps uh that we want to put a cover over uh for safety and welfare purposes. That roof itself will be 7 ft from the garage instead of the
required 10 ft. So the building the the main buildings I have 10 ft between them but just that roof itself is going to be 7 feet uh from the garage. So we do need a separate variance for that. >> And that roof is over the steps. >> It's over the steps on the side. Yeah.
Okay. Uh, so usually I would save the planning discussion till the end, but I think this is a straightforward application. I'll just go over it now and then we'll have uh, Mr. Snyder uh, give you whatever information you'd like to have as far as the project itself, which by
and large isn't really in front of the board. You're really dealing with existing site conditions. Uh, as I said, the planning variance to start with uh, for not being on located on a public street. Uh what we are located on is a 15 foot private road. The ownership is a
big mystery. Uh but we do have the benefit of it. That seems to be uh undisputed. Um and it's about 15 ft wide. So we have plenty of access for emergency vehicles uh straight off the road. This is the condition that's been on this site for decades. Uh and there's
no indication of any uh issues with it. Uh and that's what the standard is for your 35 variants, your planning variants. Uh you need to make sure >> normal, Mr. saw that we have no idea who owns lot N. >> There's a few in town like that. >> There are
>> the original developer of the area who >> just didn't assign it. >> Okay. >> I don't know that but there are a few and they're similar private road type situations >> and no one buys those like I guess you
can't even buy it >> to take place for them to go for sale. >> Okay, that's not happening. either that or a quiet title action which is a full-blown lawsuit. So >> in certain situations what could happen is that municipality or a private party
could purchase the tax property >> and then for a couple >> is that a risk at all >> for the people using the >> probably exist. >> Problem with this one is it seems like
this lot's never been taxed. So So we don't even get to do that. We did look at this way back when. >> I don't know. Is it gravel? >> Is it maintained by the city or >> it's paid? I actually wouldn't. >> I'm sorry. >> I swear. >> Yes. Sorry. >> Okay. Actually, before we go further, a
couple housekeeping items. First, let me swear and sir, as well as our board professionals, all three of you just raise your right hands for me. >> Uh, no one else is testifying, right? Just Okay. All three of you swear affirm testimony verify the truth. The whole truth the truth be sir. Let me get your name and address.
>> Greg Snider. Uh I live at 26 Ash. Uh business is 24 Cook Road in Lebanon. >> And you're I'm assuming the principal of uh D. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. So you live next door to this house and you're >> and the neighbors moved out. It was an
older house. So I bought it to my business. >> I got it. >> Redo it. >> Other housekeeping. Yeah, but what happened was we would split it plowing with the next door neighbor. That's how we got. >> Okay. So, you're in the lot that shares
lot nine as the access. >> That's why I don't need another witness. >> That's it. >> And Mr. Z, the item you passed out, we're marking that as exhibit A1. >> Yes. What is this exactly? So, this is just a revised version of sheet TS1 and
the revisions are limited to making corrections in the tables that the uh that your board professionals came up with. >> And uh we have a revision date on there. That's >> today. Okay. >> Thank you. >> That's it for my housekeeper.
>> Okay. Uh so, as I said, the planning variance, there's actually two things you're looking at. One is whether there's emergency vehicle access. There clearly is in this case. Uh the other is whether allowing the type of access that's proposed would interfere with the public street scheme of the town. Uh not the
case here. We're just basically dealing with a shared driveway. So we satisfy both of those. Uh with regard to the lot area lot width and improvable lot area variances. Uh these are C1s uh based upon the hardship created by the fact that these are non-conforming conditions. They're pre-existing and and
practicably not curable. Uh so we're dealing with them. Again, this is a situation that but not for the uh condition of the existing home. Uh this would be grandfathered. We'd be able to do this as of right and not even have to be in front of the board. Uh the distance between buildings variance also
a C1 is controlled by the existing locations of the two structures as I've indicated um which are under construction and completed with regard to the garage. uh also would qualify as a C2 variance is safety and welfare benefits associated with the covered
porch would outweigh any possible detriment associated with that small roof being less than 10 ft from the garage. Negative criteria also satisfied. These variances can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantial impairment of the intent and purpose of the zone plan zoning ordinance. All the
requested variances say for the distance between the buildings variance or for conditions that have existed on the site for decades without an issue. uh and any detriment associated with that covered porch again uh being too close to the garage would certainly be insubstantial
and not substantial as would be required. Uh so that's the basis for this. Uh Mr. Snyder is sworn in. So Greg, I'm going to just ask you, you've indicated already that you own the lot next door. You purchased this as a project. Um just for the record, very
briefly, what was the project? What were you what was there and what were you doing to it? >> We were going to put second level. So when we went in and started doing the demo, opened up all the bottom the first floor walls and it was deteriorating. It was wasn't safe because we were raising
the ceilings too. So we took it down and stopped in our tracks and talk to >> and that's pretty much it. Uh there was going to be a uh just footprint in the back. There was a notch in the back and you were squaring that off.
>> Just squaring that off. Additional foundation. I think 20 by 9 maybe that big and then go up two floors >> other than that staying in the existing footprint. >> Okay. >> Uh and what was the garage like that was there originally?
>> It was it was in bad shape. Really bad shape. So that's why we put a new twocar garage in there. >> Okay. Uh and that one was that one one car the original one? >> Yes. >> Okay. So it's larger but still no setback issues or anything like that. Okay. And again, all of this had been approved until you found out about the
damage. >> Exactly. >> Okay. >> I really have nothing further for Mr. Snyder. This is about as straightforward as it can be. >> And I have no other witnesses. So, >> I ask a summary question. Are you guys going to comply with all the memos?
>> Uh, yes. I did mean to go through that. Um, we are going to comply with everything. There's only a few things actually mentioned uh in Mr. Schlly's memo. Uh items 10 and 11, uh exterior lighting, this number 10 will be
directed downward. No issues with that. Uh we're not removing any trees, so 11 uh is a non-issue. We've looked at the Environmental Commission report. Um we have no issues and we do stipulate to those suggestions and requirements. And I don't think
there's anything in Mr. Quinn's memo that hasn't already been addressed. something here real quick. All my issues my comments involve trying to sort out these cover show like less than 100 square feet.
Again, since we're all about coverage here, I want to make sure I got that. So I did have conversation with Greg and his architect followed up with me that led to the changes on the plan and the zoning chart that has clarified the first seven comments.
I just had a chance to look at a little comfortable. So with that being said, uh the only other comment I had was that again to you said you got your permit,
>> correct? >> I had Mine is a advisory commentary to know what you're going to do when you go to Since he's already started there and came here that comment is kind of superfluous now because he's already got
his permits. That's basically again most of my issues down which has been down. And one thing I would like to add just uh along kind of the same lines since we're doing this in backwards order. Uh we are under uh under construction the
best that we can be except we have a stop work order. Uh and actually Greg can you explain what's going on with the basement right now. >> So right now it's just you know we have the foundation we have joist floor joist plywood and that's it. We wrapped it with tarps and everything we can. Then
now with the weather and my fear is if I can't just get at least the up, you know, damage to the basement. >> So, we're waiting. >> So, the reason we're bringing that up is if it would be possible for the board to uh give at least your approval to uh
being able to move forward before the resolution is is passed, we'd appreciate that. Obviously, it's subject to the construction department uh agreeing that we've done everything else we need to do, but there's a legitimate reason to uh ask for us not to have to wait to the resolutions, which we typically would
have to do. So you are constructing this entirely on the original footprint. >> Correct. Except for squaring off that one corner. >> Okay. And that was you were always doing that and that was always approved to do >> that the squaring off we added to
>> but the original footprint. Yes. Bas. Okay. So now that the upper part's down here, you're asking >> Correct. >> But that squaring off was before you found out about the damage issue and the substantial demolition, that squaring off was approved, right? >> Yes. >> The squaring off doesn't create any
>> correct. Correct. >> Oh, so you're not here. >> No. >> So you're just here because you had to take the house down, >> right? the the only thing that's not an existing non-conforming that's being triggered by the uh excess demolition is just that roof being that little roof
being too close to the garage. >> And did you take the pictures that are part of your application? >> Yes, >> you did. When when did you take those? >> Uh right, I'd say two months ago. I think the first time I handed in the paper. >> Okay. And is that essentially the state
it's in now what we're looking at here? Yes. And did you speak to your neighbors and how they like this project? >> I'm teasing. I'm teasing. >> You can talk to yourself. Just don't argue. Right. Yeah.
>> Nobody in the surrounding area voiced any concerns. >> I I have a question, Mr. Being that the garage is so close to the build a reason across that's not permitted. >> It would make the connected to the house
that's why >> the lot with your essentially your driveway So that is not maintained by the town or is it maintained by >> the that's not maintained by the town? >> It's not maintained by the town. >> It's a private street. >> It's just completely private. So you
paid it >> correct? >> Me and the last neighbor we just split. Yep. >> Lot five has its own parallel driveway. And your other neighbors would be off of Spruce Street. You're in their backyard, right? >> Five.
>> Is that a separate driveway or is that >> It's It splits. >> Splits. >> So, nine is the private room. >> Yeah. That little strip. >> And then five is a flag lot and it's got its own driveway on a staff. >> Okay. Um, anything else for us at this
time? >> Does the board have additional questions at this time? >> Mr. S, is your memo covered your satisfaction? >> Yes, >> Mr. Quinn, we covered yours.
>> Mr. Elli, you covered the environmental commission. >> You stipulated to that, right? >> Do you have any questions, Mr. Does the public have any questions based upon the testimony that we've heard? Just as a reminder, this is time for questions based upon the testimony you
heard, not a comment on the application for or against. If you have a comment, you'll have an opportunity to do that, but not right this second. Do you have a question based upon what you heard here? >> Got to hear you. >> Right into the microphone. We have a couple of questions for you first.
>> We need your name and address, too, sir. >> So, um, Dennis Burinsky. I'm here with my wife Stephanie. We're from uh 19 Spruce Street. So, Greg's uh other new neighbor. U basically from their backyard. Uh just a few >> on the lot map. Can you can you tell us
what >> do you see the lot map there? Do you know what house? >> So, we'd be 23. >> 23. Okay. >> So, we were basically our backyards are >> right next door to each other. So, I had a couple questions about the storm water
management issue. Um, so we've been in our house since 2013 and we've had some, you know, water issues in our basement. So, you know, one of the reasons why we came here today was just to, you know, check out your plans, introduce ourselves. We haven't had a chance to meet, so congratulations and welcome to
the neighborhood. Um, so that was one of our big concerns was um we're downhill from from that lot and we're concerned that it it appeared that the structure is going to be larger and the lot coverage. I just was wondering what the storm
water drainage plans are because it didn't seem to be um clear list at least to me. I'm obviously not a I'm not a architect so I just wasn't sure what exactly the plan was for water management. Also, we noticed on the plans that this
the patio that's there, it's a small little cottage. Now, it's there's not going to be any kind of patio there. So, I'm assuming you're not going to barbecue or have us over on your backyard. So, is there, you know, plans for a patio or a deck or or what? Um, I'm sure there will be since there looks
to be um French doors in the back there. So, uh, I was assuming there's going to be some sort of there's got to be some sort of patio plans in the future. So, I was just was wondering if that was taken into consideration. Um, also, our backyards are quite I
mean, our bedrooms and our kitchen basically face the new house. So, we're concerned that this much taller structure is going to be, you know, a little bit of a privacy concern. Uh since we'll be >> So is your question related to screening if these going?
>> Yeah, exactly. So sorry to bey but yeah like >> No, that's okay. It just has to be a question at this point. >> Yeah. So what's the plans for the hardcaping? Is there be a fence trees? Because it's very picture. It's very open from our yard to that yard. So I was wondering if there was any concerns
or plans to, you know, maintain that privacy. >> Before they answer, sir, you made a few statements. So let me just swear in just to be safe. You swear from the testimony you provided and may continue to provide the truth. >> Yes. >> I tried to save you. >> That's okay. >> Sorry.
>> So, those are my two main questions. >> If you want me to address the water, you want to start with him or do you want me to jump in? >> Uh, so essentially we're uh we're under on coverage actually nowhere near the 20 at 18.89.
No issues with drainage that we would be creating. Again, the additional really is just that notching off that last corner. Uh and then the new garage is larger than the other one was. Uh we've removed a lot of coverage. We're still net approximately 1% over
otherwise there shouldn't be any drainage issues. And again, this is something that goes to all of these questions. This was approved and would have been approved, you know, as of right but for the uh condition of the home. So, we're
not required, as far as I can tell, Mr. Clint, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think we're required to do anything with drainage. I also don't think we're doing anything that would cause an additional problem for the neighbor >> screening. Were you thinking along? >> Do you want to stop there for a second just and let Mr. Quinn chime in?
>> Right. And just for this gentleman's edification, too. The township has an ordinance. Any development that exceeds a thousand square foot of new properties covered automatically gets thrown into storm water. >> Any project that does not exceed
thousand square foot >> is technically exempt. This project proposes 371 square feet of additional peries cover. So technically exempt, which means they don't have to do anything. You asked about future patios
and things in the backyard. The township will keep a running log of improvements net impervious cover created subsequent to this hearing if there's additional impervious covers that he comes in for permanence for. So they'll they'll monitor that and when he hits 1
th00and square feet per the township ordinance he's got to install some some but apart from that we also if if he's over impervious cover relative to what's permitted we don't we don't hold that thousand square foot
threshold you know we'll we'll take a hard look at requiring drainage anytime they're over the impervious cover they're not even here on the impervious cover so there's no compelling reason from the audience standpoint to make them. >> Yeah.
>> If you came here, anybody would come to a meeting and say, "We've got terrible drainage problems here. We've been fighting this and everybody acknowledges it." You know, then maybe we we seek some other solution. But short of that, there's no propulsion on the applicant
to provide >> and second question. >> Okay. So, and the other two issues I believe maybe related. One is to the height. You had concerns about the height and uh causing privacy issues with you. I'm I don't know your house that well. I remember having the
application for the big house that was just built. >> Yeah. >> Uh is yours a twotory? >> Yes. >> So, and it's just looking at the it looks to me like you're pretty distant, pretty well dist. >> No.
>> No, it's not. It's close. Yeah. >> You want me to show you a picture of our from our backyard? So, let's show. >> No, I I guess I'm just trying to follow your concerns. Are you thinking you're going to be looking into each other's windows? I mean, you're also two stories, so you're going to be >> the same issue you're raising will be
experienced by the future owners of this. >> Well, yeah. I just want I mean, listen, I you know, >> I'm sure I'm sure you would like your privacy as much as I would like mine. So, I just was wondering what if there's a plan if there's going to be any I mean there's currently a small rather broken
down fence between our properties and I don't know just I'm just here you know listening in on on you know the application and the proposals and just was curious what you know what's going on and sharing my concerns with the
board. That's all. >> That's absolutely fine. Yeah, I mean I just I just wanted to I mean I would just be happy to show you if you have a question about it otherwise you can make it as part of your comment or against this application.
>> I'm just trying we're trying to keep this as a question and answer. >> Okay. >> So I think I think his question was uh I think alluded somewhat to screening. Are were there any specific plans? >> So there there are no specific plans. I did just ask Mr. Snyder if he'd be uh
willing to say split the cost of putting a row of arrives. He said that would be fine. That's something you can certainly show us after the fact. Uh and then the other issue came up which you've already addressed to some degree. If there would be additional coverage in terms of decks and things like that, the decks might be
exempt. Um but Mr. Snder, I'll just have you testify. There's you're not planning anything like that. If those were to come about, it would be by future honors. Correct. >> Was there a third question? >> I think you I think that was three questions. Do you have any more questions at this time? Okay. You'll
still have an opportunity to make a comment, which is we won't interrupt you as much. You can say pretty much anything you want. Um >> are there any other questions for the applicant on this application? >> I just waited for you to sit down. Are
there any comments on this application? Um, this this is your opportunity to speak a little bit more freely around any of the concerns you have, anything um that you want to say that we haven't already covered.
>> You got to come back up. >> Just wait one second. raise your hand. You swear or testimony about the truth about the truth. >> Yes. >> Okay. Name and address, please. >> Stephanie Burinsky, 19 Spruce Street. >> The same location.
>> Yes. My husband. Um, I just wanted to make a comment that um, you know, our backyard looks directly into this lot and we have really good relationships with all of our neighbors and um, but unfortunately we hadn't met uh, this
gentleman or his family yet. Um, but I mean this is the picture of our backyard looking out. >> Can you bring that? >> Sorry. >> Do you want to show it to Mr. >> Mr. Objection to make that as We'll have to keep this in.
>> Yeah. I have another one. >> Um, so that's just kind of what we look at. So, >> did you take this photo? >> I did. >> And when did you take it? >> Like yesterday, actually. >> Okay. >> Walgreens. Prince quickly. >> And this is from your house.
>> From my kitchen door. >> Yeah. >> Just give us a second so that we can pass it around. >> That would be exhibit 01. photographs photograph taken by Miss Pinsky on December 2nd, 2025 from the back of her
lot looking into the rear of the subject. 23. >> Yeah. I was if you look at house 23 there, you see how it kind of goes out a little bit. That's where my kitchen is. So, I
just I simply opened our door and took a picture with my camera. >> The pad on the left side of the house looking at it. >> Yeah. So with the house constructed, you wouldn't be seeing the garage. >> No, actually I look straight at u Mr.
Snider's garage and then the white new garage which is right next to it and then his house in front of that. >> So I just wanted to show you this so you could see a perspective of the impact that any construction would have on our
home because all my bedroom, my kids' bedrooms are right there too. Our windows are right there. So probably I don't know it might have been eight years ago or so the um other garage went up back there and immediately we noticed
an impact. So that is why when we saw that there was construction happening at this house that we became quite concerned about it and why we just wanted to look at the plans and just learn more about it and that's why Dennis had those questions about lot coverage. um our lot is of similar size
and when we bought our house 10 years ago, 12 years ago, we also had to figure out um impervious surfaces at 20%. So, you know, we actually bought the house as is and then found out that we retroactively had to apply for variances that weren't that we didn't have
already. So, we went through all the process at that point. So that we we just couldn't understand why now this house wasn't having to go through the same processes as we were when it seemed like they were building a considerably larger structure in addition to a larger
garage. Um so when I looked at the plans it doesn't look like it's much bigger but when you go from a two-bedroom oneb house to a four bedroomedroom house I just don't see how it could not be a bigger house. And that's why we wanted to come tonight because we just I just I
just couldn't believe that this is not putting them over the 20% threshold. >> Mr. Slide, do do you want to um comment? So, we have several bar professionals who make sure that those numbers are very accurate and they're broken they're broken down exactly what is in
impervious coverage and there ends up being a table >> that adds up to whatever the number is and they're very careful around um those. So, Mr. S, do you want to make a comment on what the improper coverage is here? I think the applicants coverage, they're only about 200 square feet short of the
maximum. So, if they're approved for what they're proposing that you see already, if I'm doing the math right, they're a little over 1% 200 square feet more could be added to it and that's it. If they wanted to do more than that, they
would have to come here for a variance like you did. >> Yeah. >> Uh their lot is also bigger. So, if it looks like they have more they do coverage wise or at least they they're allowed to have more because they have a bigger lot. >> Um
>> and and also we we should point out that impervious coverage is not the same as how many square feet are in the house. >> So if they they have a footprint of the house and then they go up, they'll be subject to other um restrictions, but
that's not the same as how much of the ground did you cover, >> right? So on this application, I think what we're hearing is that the limit is 20%. And they were under 20% and with these
changes, they're still under 20%. >> Got it. >> Even though it may not feel like that, I I have confidence that that uh our board professionals have it down to the foot. >> Okay. I mean, so that that's just what we were concerned about because we've seen it happen with other properties and
we just wanted we hadn't seen the plans and we didn't even really know what was going on at that property. So, this was informative for us. >> Thank you. Well, I appreciate we appreciate your comment and your questions. >> Thanks. >> Are there other comments on this application?
>> Okay, seeing none, Mr. Zelli, anything else from us? >> No, I would just uh just in partial response to that, I would just not the setbacks between them and us comperning that's either from the garage or from
the exterior of the house that's going to >> Is there any lighting that could spill onto their previous window different things like that. There's nothing >> we to Mr. Schlice down
belong. >> So yeah, Mr. Um, Snder has indicated that he would work with them and to uh I mean I think sharing the cost would be appropriate. They're both twotory homes having the same issue with one another. >> Put that on the table.
>> Thank you. Any other questions from the board? >> With respect to that, I might as well >> talk. Do you want to for us? >> Yes. Okay. So, we're good. Okay. Five bulk variants is being requested
here. First is for lot area46 acres proposed or.5 acres is required minimum. Next is improvable lot area 4,800 ft proposed or 5,000 is the minimum lot width 100 ft proposed or 125 ft is the
minimum and street frontage. Uh well I think in the past we treat okay so identified as variance under the code uh the property would be required on a public street fronts on a private street um applicants also seek the planning
variance related to that and then another variance for the uh distance between buildings on the same lot that's a 7 foot separation distance proposed between the stoop of the roof of the proposed stoop to the garage for 10 ft will be required I think in the past Mr. can correct me if I'm wrong. We've
treated these um lack of street front variances as both a planning variance and the end of both variance under the code. Correct. >> I think we >> Yes, I agree. >> Yeah. So, it's two two separate variances. Um so that's it as far as the variance really being requested. As far as
conditions go, the applicant has agreed to comply with everything Mr. Schlly's memo dated November 25th, everything Mr. Clint's memo dated November 30th, everything in the environmental commission memo dated October 27th. As long as the board's okay with it, the applicant also requests that it be permitted to proceed with obtaining
permits at its own risk prior to resolution adoption. And then the uh I guess the last open item would be working with the neighboring property owner to install trees along the share property. So with respect to that though um because those uh property owners are
here and they did testify under oath are you guys okay with working together with them to install is that acceptable to you they're offering to work with you >> absolutely >> okay
yes I think there's several comments on this application so um do you want to start us off >> sure Okay. Um, so as I look at the variance list, I don't see anything on the list that
would necessarily be attributed to something that the applicant has created himself. Um, it's an undersized lot by 04 acres. Um, you know, the improvable
lot area is a little bit smaller. As a result, the minimum lot with those there's nothing that you can do about that. Um the private street um I mean maybe you could change the minimum distance between the buildings but that's on your property and it's not
going to hurt anybody um having the 7 ft versus the 10 ft. Um, if it were a situation where you were creating um, an issue and you were not compliant with the other houses in the
neighborhood, I think it would be a little bit different. Um, there are twotory houses in the neighborhood and it's just normal and part of the character of the neighborhood. So, if all of the houses were ranches, you were going up two stories, it might be
different. Um, I don't personally feel that it's my responsibility to put on the applicant to screen. Um when we look for screening, it's typically because you're putting a pool in or you're putting in um you know you're too close
to a property line and you literally are right in somebody's right in somebody's um window and backyard. That's where we look for screening. Uh the distance between the backyards here are are pretty significant. And I understand that we don't want to look into our
neighbors windows, but we can't always control that. Um what we can do is we can put up our own screening. Um and to share that screening to me would be up to you. That wouldn't be something that I feel would
be my responsibility. Um, I also see this as you haven't changed the footprint. Um, and I don't see it as a detriment. In fact, I see it as an improvement to the neighborhood. Um, certainly taking down a building that
was, you know, God forbid somebody were in the house when it was unstable. So, um I'm sorry that it happened, but it's an improvement um not just to the fact that it was unsafe. Um it's also an
improvement to the character of the neighborhood itself. So, I personally am in favor of this. I would um I don't have any problems with >> other comments from the board. I I agree
with your comments and I was also going to say the same. I mean, I' love to screening. You know, we're the zoning board. We love trees. You can put them between your backyards. That's great. But I wouldn't make it a condition of approval. I think it's a generous offer and a good plan if you want to split the
costs of screening, but I personally would not make that a condition of approval for this for this application. >> I would agree with that too. The height of this house is not excessive. 17.8
is not excessive. setbacks are all compliant. I It's just a lot with it. An area that's a little over. >> Yeah, I think there's some very special circumstances any different from the project that was going to be built. >> Got new walls versus old walls.
>> Yeah. And that's not to say that there isn't an impact on the neighbors. their view is changing, things change, but we've got pretty strict ordinances in in town and you're compliant with them. So, that that's like the extent of our job, I think.
>> Um, any other comments? >> Miss Bowman, do you want to make a motion? >> Sure. >> Um, so I would make a motion to deem the application complete. Uh, this is definitely C1 hardship um given the um
constraints on the lot. Um, I also see it as a C2. I I they I see it as an improvement um to the neighborhood. It keeps in character with the neighborhood. Um, I would ask our um board attorney to draft a resolution memorializing board's
decision to grant the uh requested relief with all of the stipulations here this evening. >> Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> Mr. Krauss. >> Miss Bman and Miss Krauss. >> Miss Bon. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes.
>> Miss >> Yes. >> M. >> Yes. >> Engineers. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> And I guess we didn't comment on whether you can continue to work. Is that something? >> I did. I did mention it. I understood that to be Nobody objected to
>> We did not object. I didn't know if we mentioned it specifically. Okay. Good luck with the project. Oh, that they would be able to proceed with permits before any resolution arrest. was the CFO pieces of property supposed to be sold
and couldn't be sold. They kind of abandoned the properties to real quick. Adverse possession. >> I forgot from law school. That's how you get that driveway. >> That's right. >> There you go. Separate case. >> Okay. Next on the agenda is 8 Dorsick
ZB25029. >> All right. We're here. You made it before 10 o'clock. Thank you. We appreciate that. >> All right, Madam Chair. The applicants are approaching. As I was trying to state, madam chair, I
review the applicant notice of this hearing I find seem to be sufficient in terms of the content and time of service was properly sent to owners of property within 200 ft of the subject property on November 19th and 20th by certified mail and the publish in the Birdsville news on November 13th, 2025. Support is the jurisdiction here to decide the case of
my legal opinion. Uh, with that, uh, let's swear in the applicants side here as well as our board professionals. If all five of you could raise your right hands when you get a chance, >> Mr. Quinn, >> hands up. >> Sorry. Do all five of you swear or friend that the testimony divided the
truth, nothing but truth be identify yourselves for the record. >> I'm Lisa Borsk. I'm at 23 Lynen Drive. Uh, been living in Basking Ridge with my husband Seth here. years >> except for same location.
>> John Booth, architect, Basking Ridge. >> Mr. Ruth, you want to give the board your uh benefit of your background, credentials, and experience, expertise? >> My credentials are the same as last time here. >> License is in good standing. It's >> still in good standing. Yeah. Mad
accepted. >> Yes, you are accepted. Welcome back. Got to do it every time. John, I understand. >> Okay. >> Okay. Do you want to tell tell us why you're here? We have your application, but why don't you tell us? >> I just Thank you for having us. >> Right into the microphone, please.
>> Sorry. Okay. Thank you for having us today. I don't usually speak in public often, so bear with me here. Um, but uh this the reason why we're here is we submitted a permit to replace a broken sun room glass. So, you know, our our kids bedrooms are pretty small and we've
had this room that we haven't used since we moved in because, you know, it's not been in the best shape and we finally were at the point where we wanted to replace it. Um the glass is leaking. We have um insect issues, we have mice issues, it's deteriorating. And so, we filed a permit to just simply replace the glass. Um John worked with us here
to um have a plan to extend the roof and replace the two pieces of glass with walls. And um that's how we've found oursel here. And then other stuff happened. >> Yes. >> And so when you were applying for the permit, you found out, what'd you find out?
>> We found out that um we were over the lattage, but um that had been the case since we bought the house. When we bought the house in 2016, one of the things we loved about it, I was pregnant with my second child and we love the backyard. I mean, we are upstanding members of the community. My husband coaches a lot of teams. Um we're
friendly with most of our neighbors. Our actually our backyard neighbor is watching our kids right now. Um, so you know, we are active members of the community and really have enjoyed living in Basking Ridge for nine years here. >> Okay. So, when our permit application to
replace the sun room was intercepted by the zoning official, he asked me to uh u evaluate the lot coverage and we found that. And so using the 2016 survey as our baseline.
Um we discovered that uh the existing lot at at that time 2016 was at 20.35%. Uh and uh 15% is the max allowed in the R4 zone.
>> What number did you just say? >> 20.35% >> in two I'm using 2016 as a baseline for reference. Um the uh
proposed project here has a net zero result. Uh contributes no additional coverage. Uh the sun room is um 8 ft by 20 and a half. That's 165 square ft. Um
and it's going to be a direct replacement and no no ground disturbance uh as well. Um but uh we're inheriting the uh transgressions of uh previous owners
going back 30 or 40 years. Um the project has uh crept past the uh allowable lot coverage. Um when uh when the coverage issue was uh
brought to our attention, um Mr. Schlly asked me to uh document what coverage changes have occurred since 2016. So I went out and identified
cover coverage elements that that have been added or and in some cases um >> Mr. If I could stop real quick. I'm sorry. The uh what you're showing us right now is the same plan set that was submitted to the board. >> Yes. >> Let's see. October 30th, 2025.
>> Yes, that's the same. >> Gotcha. Okay. Thanks. Appreciate it. So um one I want to mention first that I using the uh 2016 survey as the sort of snapshot or the record. I believe uh
when when I was evaluating some of the coverage elements that uh seem to have been added. I think actually that many of them were already in place in 2016. They just weren't captured in that in that survey. So, uh,
for example, there's a little slate walk here. There's some, uh, AC, uh, condenser pads. Uh, there's another old pad here. I think that those were in place in 2016. So, what I'm saying is the 20.35%
that we're we're using as the 2016 coverage, I think it might be more like 20.5 or 20.6%. at that time. But uh
so the loan variant, we have some existing uh nonconformities. The lot is slightly narrow and it's undersized, but the loan variance that we're seeking is for the uh previously for the previous
coverage um and to allow the existing 20.87% coverage as it exists today. >> And I think um well Mr. Quinn I think you suggested or
at least pointed to some mitigation that they are suggesting. >> Yes. >> For storm water management >> there's indication that current house
Sun however is not part of that system back. So what they're supposed to do is capture that addition that replaces the sun room connected to the runoff system that directs the water to the front.
What they're trying to do is mitate impacts to any adjacent resisting division. that and bringing whatever they can now out to the front of the storm system where not impact.
>> Do you have any water issues on your property now? >> Do your neighbors complain of any water issues? >> Did you talk to your neighbors about this >> across the street? Neighbors um >> how about the neighbors behind you tonight? They don't have any problems.
Her daughter's babies don't have any problems. >> How about to your left and right? Which way does the water flow? We can't tell. >> Yeah. >> The the lot gently slopes from the rear down to uh Lyndon,
very gradual uniform slope. So the property to the rear of the Borex is actually higher um in elevation than >> Okay. And so did you say it slopes slightly towards 12? >> It slopes parallel to the lots on each side. Is that fair to say?
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. It doesn't it doesn't slope >> left to right on the property. It slopes pretty uniformly from the back line right right to Lincoln. >> One of the things when we're looking at
two things that you're overall right away to my mind this trying to get it out front. My question
to you is I think you mentioned in the application documents that daylight was out to the curb but I didn't see that. Does it tie directly into the inlet corner property? Do you know? >> Sorry. What do you mean by >> when when your when your downspouts from
your house go into the ground? >> Yeah. >> They go to the front of the yard. The application documents indicated they daylight through the curb which we sometimes see. >> But I didn't see any daylight through the curve. >> I don't know what daylight means. where the hole's
best. >> He's right at the end of our driveway on the street. So, right here >> right there. >> There's a catch. >> There's Yeah, there's a catch. >> So, it goes directly into the right. >> Yeah. Yeah. It all ties in underground. >> I'm sorry. I thought it went out. I
thought it exited on the curb itself. >> Yeah, that's right. Right. >> It goes into the base. Yes. >> Is there anything additional other than the extra sun that this property should be doing given the amount of coverage
they have right now? >> Well, >> what would be extra mitigation? >> What they could do? I mean, you always want to provide some sort of Wherever you have whether it's on property owners or the
storm se in globally is not to inundate water off the property without some storm system. Um here they're taking the water if you
wanted to do anything at all. The only practical thing I can think of and I don't know where the system is so I don't know how practical it is but if you have a you have running from the house to storm sewer you could drop a pit in the middle of that
with the water go into that and then the overflow gets the storm and goes back out. So you provide a detention volume within the system online but that's a bit of a headache. Uh you have to put it in the front yard. I have no idea and maybe I don't think John does where this
system runs throughout the front yard. So, but globally speaking they do in line that just brings a lot of other in this house isn't the pool catching a lot of that water possibly too. So, that's
one and we always >> Yeah, I know. But that's one and a half. >> It's probably not making up the entire No, >> but to some degree the impact is already realized, right? And if there have been no nobody's
coming from nobody res coming saying, "Oh my god, we've had a problem with this. Now's our chance." We don't have anybody coming saying we have a real concern problem here. And even if they're over in Burkey's cover, they're not adding to it. We usually I usually
say the impact is already been certainly since 2016 or longer. So whether we make them do something is a question of fairness, right? >> Was this house constructed in 2016?
>> No. When was the house? >> 1964. >> So Dave, did the law coverage requirements change from 1964 to >> 1980? >> Okay. So 1980 was put in 1977. Again, that was before
there. Most of the pool and the covers looks It's a big driveway as well, right? >> That's what they get. >> And also the garage. >> Yeah, >> detach garage and the area of driveway in front of the detach garage that was
put in to the owners actually got a permit for that. >> What percentage is that? >> That had to be the thing that put them. >> Yeah, for sure. >> But that isn't caught at the permit stage like because this was caught at a permit stage.
>> Well, this is 1991 I think when that garage was done. I think the permit without it had to be that The coverage was right around 15% with that >> pool.
>> And then even the the sun room was done in the 80s and the original greenhouse at that point. Um assuming that was placed on top of surface that could have
been there for it. Um it seems to me that situation with that permit as well. >> Which part >> was the last >> the original construction of it? Because that was late
and drive extension was miscellaneous things here and there. That front portion of the driveway pool got a little bigger. Um, some of the stuff didn't require permits at the time, but there were at least two permits, garage, from what I tell my best.
>> And how about the walkways and utility pads? Should it have been caught then? Are the permits issued for utility? It wasn't back when those walks were put in they permits were not required. The block
covers requirement still there. >> Okay. >> So that >> what about for the utility? Didn't you put in the utility? >> Put in the generator. >> Yeah. >> So it wasn't It was we don't do coverage when
somebody >> wood patios and wood deck and wood walkway those are not >> I think those were >> they were they were actually patio underneath it we have pictures if you wanted to see that and yes so there there's cement patios
>> so there's patio under >> under it but when the inspection was or the survey was done it would have been obviously high but the wood rotted out It was dangerous. We had to take it out and there was patio. >> Oh, so you don't have the wood anymore? >> No. >> Yeah, that's
>> So what percentage of lock coverage is attributed just to this little sub? >> Yeah. 165. >> Yeah, it's like a quarter%. >> It's really the driveway. Is there anything that could be done with the driveway?
And the driveways are one of those things that grow. >> Are you planning on doing anything with the old concrete that were under the patio? >> It's a patio there. It's in good condition.
>> I thought we actually I mean there's part of it that's we reduced already to put things in there. >> So is looking to minimize impact, right? Seems like two choices.
necessary consider I know you guys didn't achieve this but again we're looking to do now is try to minimize the effect >> yeah we have to look at the application that's in front of us now um and I
appreciate that's not where you were going with this with this project but um looking this application, if this application was in front of us now that you were you didn't have a house, you were looking to build it, this is what we're looking to put in, there's zero chance, zero% chance that we this
application the way it is now. So, we're looking for ways to minimize it. We are mindful of storm water management. It doesn't feel like you have and we're concerned with just coverage in general. It looks to me based upon
the pictures that you know your backyard while it's I wouldn't necessarily call it characterh. >> Yeah. But I'm still struggling with the fact that, you know, as a township, we had multiple
opportunities to review their current coverage and their situation. And at this not adding anything additional to it. >> That's an argument. I mean, the application is in front of us now.
>> I I understand, but I guess >> there's a hardship argument. >> That's exactly this is too much of a hardship on these people and we're not going to ask them to do anything. That's an argument. >> I mean, if they're looking to increase, I could say, okay, yeah, but if you're just and it it's not something that,
like I said, the township didn't already have multiple opportunities to review >> and didn't out then >> if we approve the money if they remove the pool or subsequently another person
can we say if you go down in coverage it now revers yeah you've approved a few times that the coverage is allowed for say gener >> I think we on the stone house road
application we had they were providing a bigger driveway for a safer turn for cars may not have to back out into the street and the coverage was they were allowed an extra x% only for that specific purpose. You
could say that the coverage is approved as is here, but unlike if there's other people who can rearrange their coverage if they want to put in a bigger pool back on the driveway or vice versa, >> right? >> The coverage exists as it is right here
>> with these elements. >> You can't change anything unless you're anything else down. You remove anything that's existing down >> or they would have to come back. And that's that's that's your new level is if you remove something that's your new level, >> right?
>> Yeah. Exactly. >> I would agree with that. Down 2% or 1% 17 versus 20. >> 20.87 doesn't strike me as honestly that high% but that that neighborhood was given
15%. Other neighborhoods are given 18%. Others are given 20%. I don't know why >> I think it's more approval. We never gave approval for this. So right >> if we would have given approval and said okay we see how the structures were built everything was built that's
different than someone just building it and then it's not these people that built it >> it is a slightly undersized lot >> right >> what would the percent be if
I did know without the pool and patio be >> like the current is the current I'm more worried about the subsequent they sell their house next year and someone says I'm going to remove the pool and build a big patio back, right? Keep it at the 20. >> We are never going down. We're always
going at that level. So, that's Can I ask Can I ask the is there anything you'd be willing to part with as far as coverage goes? I'm looking at the the woodwalk and the slate walk to the pools. kind of like, you know, I
might not get it too far, but it might could sway the board in one way or another. >> The um this right here That means shaded in there. >> The woodwalk to the left side of the pool. >> Yes, it's a gravel. >> It's actually gravel. We just sprinkled.
It's like it's loose gravel. There's weeds and grass that grow up through it. So, I know it technically speaking with David that it was considered impervious. We didn't know that that was at the time. We literally just it's loose gravel path just for aesthetics to walk
to the shed. Um, so that's counting against like 200. >> It doesn't shed water, >> right? Exactly. It's it's so I mean that's I know it's technically counting against it but it's loose gravel and that's
>> there's also this this blue stone path that there I think those are just >> that could come out >> and maybe that could come that >> two stones two stones. >> Can I ask what about the walkways
between trying to speak direction. We have the walkway projected from this walkway from the driveway and the path project like these sections.
Is that something I think that might get you a little bit further at least? >> I mean, if we have an option, we probably rather use >> the the 232 that I've just described. Again, And that's counting against
cities. >> I mean, I'm I'm just throwing out things for >> Yeah. No, I appreciate that. I I appreciate that. Um, it's kind of the stone. It's It's, you know, a walkway to go around since that way. So, it does serve a functional purpose.
>> I understand. >> Okay. So, say that again. 232. What? 200 Is that 232 square feet you're saying? >> Yeah. It's this gravel >> that gray shaded area. um
is 232 ft. That is not shown on the 2016 survey. So we show it in that. >> So what does that get you like half%? >> So um >> that gets you back. >> Right.
>> Right. But again, I don't know. It's we didn't know when we put it down that it was impervious because we just thought it's gravel that there's grass that grows up through it. So, you know, we didn't realize that at that time we did that. >> Yeah.
>> And then how much is the paper in front? >> 28 square ft. >> It's your application. Whatever you're willing to part with, you should look for >> I'm sorry. >> I said it's your application. Whatever you're willing to part with, you should look for. >> Yeah. >> What kind of relief you need?
>> I I appreciate that. I mean, when we did before we bought the house, we did go to the town to do our due diligence to make sure there weren't any open permits. Um, you know, like I said, what we love most about the house was the property. Um, and you know, we're surprised that we're here, but we understand why we're here. Um, I mean, I think the gravel is the
thing. I mean, it's if that is counting against us, it's probably the easiest. We'll just shovel out, you know. Um, that's the easiest thing for us to do without hardship. >> So, I think you're at 250 square feet.
the blue path and the gravel >> move the right direction. >> Yeah, I I really >> I like Carl's suggestion. >> I I I would agree with that. >> That just >> take it as it is right now and then just
say you can't >> you can't you can't move it around. It is what it is right now. Are there additional questions for the board at this time for the applicants? We're kind of slipping into deliberations. So, I just want to make
sure we have all our questions answered. Is there any additional questions from the board this time? Mr. Sly, is everything covered on your memo that uh you're comfortable with? I just said other than my
25, >> right? >> Yeah. Okay. And your comment number six also >> six. Well, >> yeah. >> Part of Did anyone ever give an answer on what
the coverage would be if this was a full size? >> Yeah. >> 19. >> Okay. Mr. Quinn, I think we almost started with you, I guess. >> Nothing else.
And then were you also um given a copy of the environmental commission letter? >> Yes. >> Do you have any um concerns with their comments? Let me just go through them quickly. Best management practices, extra
consideration during your site work. They're noting that your lot coverage is over. So site drainage is a concern. I think we talked about that. They talked about planting some native shrubs or trees. So when we worry about storm water management, they're always
going to suggest that for consideration. And then also just to consider recycling, repurposing and gifting of any demo materials you're doing your work. >> You guys will comply with all the comments in those three. >> Yes. >> Anything else? Yes. Go ahead.
>> Can I point it out? >> You can say anything you want. I was just going to ask the public if there's any questions >> before you open it to the public. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Um so the the paver walk that you were talking about that's 200 square feet. So then you also have a slate walk goes to
the woodwalk. Now that that paver walk that you were talking about is not potentially not be there. Would it make sense to also reduce the slate wall and then just You have a
So, you're talking about getting rid of this, I think. Then you have this other walk that goes down. So, then you would just have the patio that has the walk to the pool. >> Oh, no. They were talking about this one. This >> also small.
>> Yeah, that's what I brought up before. You sure you don't want to offer to cut cut off the slate neighbors? >> Okay. I mean, they're disconnected stones. >> Yes. >> They're just stepping stones. How much you say that was? >> That's about That's about 60 square
feet. There's 2 by two square foot four square foot. >> So that's about >> hate to say but >> 94 that holds all the supplies during the
winter. So much um >> two on the propert problem. They were not >> going to take get rid of the sun room and put on an equally size addition. >> They would have the same lock coverage
and >> yeah, >> no one would know and they wouldn't have to do anything about it. >> Any other questions? Are there any other questions for the applicant? I guess may I where this removal
possible removal of coverage is concerned I don't >> I'm going to speak for I'm not their attorney >> but if I may my opinion would be I wouldn't want to uh take this to a vote their preference I think would be to leave everything as it is right
>> um I wouldn't want that to go to a vote if I knew it was not going to succeed so would would the board possibly take a straw vote on the application as presented >> for us for this course of Frederick. >> Yes, that's it. Um Mr.
>> Yes, we will do that for you. But before we do that, um I just want to see if the board has any more questions. I want to see if the public has any questions. I want to hear if there's any comments from the public on this application and then we'll talk about that. Okay. Any more questions from the board at this time?
>> I'm good. They agree to comply with all the memos. I don't think there >> are there any questions from the public at this time. Are there any comments on this application? Now I don't see any. Now you have a request for the board. >> You want to >> if the board were to make a straw vote
on on the application as presented? >> Yes. >> Yeah. I think I think we should do that to to help them facilitate their decision on whether they wanted their application or not. I'm okay with that. Everybody else is. >> What's on the table right now? the 200.
>> No, this I think it's as presented. >> This is as presented. I haven't heard it amended. >> No. >> Okay. >> So, it's as presented with everything that we say. >> Okay. So, um Miss Layman, um do you mind doing a straw poll on >> Well, can we just can we just add the
I'm sorry, the the one condition that we did talk about, which was >> that we put the restriction that you can't modify the use of the So, with that condition, >> Mr. Crust, do you want to They can't modify the use anyway without having to go to the to the board.
>> No, just saying they want they can't take whatever lock is permitted by this approval. >> They can't they can't exchange. They can't take down the shed and put up something else. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, I think we're taking a short
poll on the application as we see it in front of us right now, which is a request for 20.87 uh maximum lot coverage and the maximum area with side yard even though there's no change in this pre-existing
>> um 17 calling. >> I guess we'll just say yes or no. >> No, Mr. Crabs. >> Um Yes. >> Yes. >> My restriction. >> Yeah, you can say. >> Well, I think this one's just to
>> I I I want to hear a yes. Let's just save some time because otherwise we're going to do another one right after. So, just >> you're a yes with what? You're no as is. And you're gravel removal and the >> shed and gravel. >> No, just the gravel shed.
>> Okay. Not the shed. Just the gravel path. >> And we said the gravel path got you what? >> The gravel alone was Yeah. 232. >> Okay. Half a%. >> I think they also offered the blue stone in the front. >> It was 28. >> Okay. I think we're just talking the
stone. Okay. So, that's the gravel and the blue slate which is going to be lower by about a half%. >> Okay. >> I would say yes. >> As is. >> As is. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. with again the
stipulation of the we hold to the configurations as they are. >> But you're a yes to the 20. >> Yes, >> Mr. Chairman. >> I'm a no. So, what was that? Was that three? That was uh It sounds like you have two and a half. It sounds like you
would have three yeses if you uh took away the gravel and the blue stone. If no one changes their mind quickly, >> I I assume you for >> Okay. Sounds like Miss Bowman would also
be a yes if you possibly >> Yeah, let's hear about That would be a question for you both. >> That's up to you. >> We're saying yes, we're still stipulating that if anybody ever comes back to change anything. I think everybody
>> as long as we're talking about it, let's just >> I recognize that it's not you bought it this way, but you did add some things too, right? You bought it this way. I don't it so so so that's not your fault.
I'm just looking how can we just make it a little bit better. It's not a lot. The 250 square feet isn't a lot, but it's something. It's a give. It's a recognizing that you have more on your property than I see anybody else around
you. So if if we as a board have to decide and and and chairwoman of engineers is correct. If you had come to us with this application, I would have been a flatout no, right? So we would have been
negotiating 3% down, not half a percent down. So for me it's about what can you do? Help us out. That's where I am. >> Okay. So back to the question of Mr. SL
suggestion in terms of 250 instead of pointing to two things. If it's still the same reduction, would you leave it up to the applicants? >> Okay, that was a yes. Okay. So, anything else you want to say to us? Do you want to amend your
application at this time? >> I just want to make sure I understand again. What are we? >> Yes. So, Mr. Booth, not your lawyer, but he suggested we do a straw poll such that we're not really voting, but you're hearing what the what where the board is
leaning right now. And if I heard everyone correctly, it sounded like you would get a yes vote for the variances you are requesting if you agreed to reduce your your impervious coverage by 200 square square feet and it's 250. And
instead of pointing to exactly where you're going to do it, the board would leave it to you. If if the board did approve this application, they'd say, "Yep, you're good to go, but you got to go lower by 250. Figure it out." Okay. >> Also, but you would need to amend your
application so that we know what we're looking at and what we're voting on. So that would be something you would want to consider now. So we do that to try to facilitate a positive vote for you because otherwise you you don't know where
you're going to get and you know you basically just got a view into the future. It also sounded that the board if they approve the application regardless of the amount number that we ultimately agreed on would make you stipulate such that whatever that number
you're approved for, you cannot add anything to it. And if anything comes down, you can't replace it. You can't, you know, it's just coming down. We're just going to leave it down. >> For example, you couldn't chop off a section of the driveway and then >> put in a bigger shed.
>> That like that would that make sense. >> Okay. So, just so that you understand. So the question to you at this time is do you want to amend your application such that you're asking for the first three variances your pre-existing ones but your maximum lot coverage you're
asking for was your application minus 20050 square feet >> that would get you to by my calculations 20.25% long. >> Okay. And the equivalent of that would be this gravel path. And >> it would be whatever you want but
not >> not exactly. So what we're saying is 20 and a quart. >> Yeah. >> So instead of asking for 20.87 approval, you're asking for 20.25 and that's what you would have to comply for. >> Okay. >> That's 200. >> I just want to make
>> approximately. >> Can I just make sure the math is right on that because I'm a lawyer. >> I just want to I just want to say 20 and a quarter. So I don't want to worry about the square feet. I just want to say 20 and a quart%. >> Because then >> I 20.25. >> I got 206.
>> Okay. So it might even be a little higher. >> Just give it a little bit. >> Hold on. So they're proposing 8507, right? And if you minus 250 from that, you get 8257. Then divide it by 40768. That's the
square footage. Can I get 22536 >> I was using 8297 >> that was that was in >> I'm just I'm subtracting uh 40 from that they're taking they're holding that coverage >> no their coverage now is 85
20.25. That's the consensus of the three board professionals. >> So 20.25, which our best guess represents a little less than 250 square feet, but we're not tied to that. We're tied to the, >> you know, we would recommend 20.25 But it's up to you. It's your
application. Do whatever you want. >> Stay away from smart man. >> Okay. Yes. >> All right. But just just to be clear, we're not telling you to do it. We're just saying that you might want to consider doing that. >> Okay. >> Maybe if you're interested.
>> Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. So, I think that's summarize. >> Yeah, I think I already >> Yeah. One one more time to the public. >> Anything anything from the public questions or comments? >> Anybody?
>> There's no Okay. Do you want to turn it over to the board at this time? Do you have any any other comments to make? >> Thank you for your time and considering our amended application. >> You got it. You're formally requesting the 20.25%. Correct.
>> Just want to make sure. Yes. You want to summarize what we have? >> Absolutely mad chair. So the one uh bulk variance being requested here is the lock coverage ratio proposing 20.25% or 15% is the maximum permitted. As far as conditions go, the applicants stipulated
to comply with everything in Mr. Schlly's memo dated November 25th. Everything Mr. Clint's memo dated November 30th and then everything in the environmental commissioner memo dated October 27th. Additionally, um any the lot coverage approved by this approval
should there be approval would not be interchangeable with any other new improvements and any further any required to get further relief from the board if the applicants seek to swap coverage with some other sort of improvements as I chron
it as far as conditions. >> Thank you. Oh yeah yeah yeah good good. >> Okay thank you very much. So um >> any uh additional deliberations or does someone want to make a motion on this application? I move to the application
and direct our board attorney to draft resolution memorizing board's decision. The application for relief requested with all the identified under2.
>> Okay. Mr. Krauss and Miss Bman. Yes, Mr. Crafts. >> Yes, >> Miss Bart. >> Yes, >> Mr. Ch. >> Yes, >> Chair of Engineers. >> I'm a No. I'm going to be the bad guy, but the rest of your your application passes and um good luck with your
project. Thank you very much. >> I just think some more changes should have been made. It's so far beyond. It's not your fault. I appreciate that you didn't do it. Definitely a hardship associated with it. But if I was the only person up there, which I'm not for good reason,
I would Arguably, it's a self-created hardship though, not by this applicant, by the prior. >> For sure. For sure. It's unfortunate, but it's I think it's a good uh not a good outcome. >> And that's the reason we try and have that debate and that's why Mr. Like we
said, why don't you do a stroke call so that we figure out who we really appreciate all your time here. >> All right. Good luck and everything. >> Thank you very much. to you. >> Um, okay. Are there any comments from
members? Any comments from members? I have one comment. This is actually my last meeting. >> Yes, it is. No, it's not your last meeting, Mr. Cra. You're staying with it. It is uh No, I've really uh enjoyed my time here. I've learned a lot from,
you know, all of my fellow board members and all of the board professionals which, you know, always guide us in the right um in the right direction. So, I appreciate all of that and I hope um you know, I'll continue to see you around town or maybe I'll make comments on every application coming forward.
>> We'll see. >> We'll see. But it's been a pleasure. It's been a pleasure. >> I'll also say it's been a pleasure working. I've learned a lot from you. >> Yeah, we learned together on the fly. >> I've learned a lot.
>> Well, actually, you took over as chair, but >> yeah. No, you guys are great to come, but you guys did a wonderful job and you've been a a wonderful guide. I wish I had known I would have prepared something. >> Nope, we're good. We're good. >> So, you really are. >> No, I I'm busy. I'm busy. I'm telling
you, I'm plenty busy. >> Retirement, >> It is. I recommend it for everybody. Um, >> is there comments from staff? I think we're cancelling our second meeting in December. >> There's actually not one. >> Oh, we don't even put it on the calendar. Thank God. Um, any other
comments from staff? >> I just say again, pleasure working with you. You choose to fill it. >> No, no, we're good. You're all set. You You'll be great. >> And also, merry Christmas to all. >> Yeah. Merry Christmas. Happy holidays, everybody. >> All right. Motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second.
>> All in favor?